Website of the President of Russia: Videos: Meetings and Conferences

Meeting of Russian Geographical Society Board of Trustees

2021-04-15T10:27:46+04:00

Vladimir Putin attended a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society (RGO) via videoconference.

The participants reviewed the RGO’s performance in 2020, mapped out the main areas of activity for the short term, and presented the most significant and outstanding expedition and research projects for 2021.

* * *

Excerpts from transcript of Russian Geographical Society (RGS) Board of Trustees meeting

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends, good afternoon.

I listened to your discussion; it was interesting. Let me join you now.

Last year, for obvious reasons, we could not hold the traditional meeting of the RGO Board of Trustees.

Unfortunately, the pandemic and the indispensable restrictions and sanitary precautions it necessitated coincided with the 175th anniversary of the Russian Geographical Society, marked in 2020. Still, I would like to emphasise that against all odds the geographical society tried to do as much as possible and fulfil its extensive programme planned for that important and significant year, and on the whole, continued its work without interruption.

Members of the Russian Geographical Society have been part of the volunteer movement and joined mutual assistance events, which are of special importance now that we are all facing a common threat. At the same time, in this difficult period for our entire country, the Russian Geographical Society is continuing to implement its plans and ideas. You have not postponed any expeditions, any field research; you have continued to publish books and make films. Very interesting books and films, in fact. I would also like to note the educational initiatives implemented by the RGO, including online projects.

The last meeting of the Russian Geographical Society was also held online. Its participants discussed and adopted all the decisions that were necessary for further development. In particular, they elected leaders to manage specific areas of RGO work for the next five years.

I congratulate all our colleagues who have received the support of the congress, and of course, Mr Shoigu on his re-election as president of the RGO. Wishing you all good luck and success.

The Russian Geographical Society has everything it needs to implement its ambitious plans. It has tens of thousands of well-educated and energetic researchers, travellers and scientists. It has a very good reputation in Russia and the rest of the world. And it also has actual and quite considerable assistance from the Board of Trustees and the Media Council.

Colleagues, I would like to mention your invariably partial attitude to the Russian Geographical Society and your involvement in its activities. A great number of scientific achievements and brilliant initiatives, which have become a reality over a period of the past few years, were implemented thanks to you and your backing. The support you are providing is sincere and heartfelt. It is based on a thorough understanding of the importance of the activities of the RGO and its enthusiastic members for the country and society.

I believe that it is also important that the RGO continues providing venues for our meetings, festivals and onsite events, which are always interesting and educational.

I do hope that today your agenda will be ambitious as well. Our colleagues will speak about their nature protection and research programmes and their implementation. And they will also present their new projects.

I have no doubt that the reports about many of the programmes that have already been implemented will be published in Vokrug Sveta, an iconic magazine, one of the oldest in Russia, which will mark its 160th anniversary this year. I would like to congratulate the magazine’s staff and faithful readers on this occasion.

A member of the Board of Trustees also has his birthday today, although he is not as old as the magazine. It is Viktor Vekselberg. Mr Vekselberg, I would like to wish you a happy birthday and all the very best, personally and on behalf of our colleagues.

Viktor Vekselberg: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Before the COVID shutdown, we had a good tradition of meeting during the holidays, usually in summer, in places where the RGO held events with your assistance. Of course, this would be difficult or even impossible to do at present, during the pandemic. But I hope that the pandemic will recede soon, partly due to the vaccination that we are conducting energetically throughout the country. I would like to reveal to you that I received my second jab just a little while ago, before entering this very room. I hope everything goes well. No, it is more than hope – I am sure that this is how it will be. I wish the same to all of you. I expect you to do the same, to follow my example if you care for yourselves and your dear ones.

Let us get down to work.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on the speech by Deputy Director of the Museum and Exhibition Centre for the Technical and Technological Exploration of the Arctic Pavel Filin on the study of historical sites along the entire Northern Sea Route and his proposal to organise state protection of underwater objects, including sunken ships) Indeed, this is a problem requiring a solution. It is of a historical, scholarly (in the broadest sense of the word) and memorial nature because during the Great Patriotic War the Soviet fleet lost many ships in the hostilities. I believe we lost about 900 warships and 1,700–1,800 support, marine and fishing vessels. Many ships and submarines sank with their crews and in line with the marine tradition, these are their final resting places, the graves of the sailors. The majority of these vessels have not been found at all. Nobody knows where they sank. This involves a great deal of meticulous work. It is necessary to determine the location of these areas, establish procedures for surveys, and research and draft rules and regulations for underwater tourism at sea, and so on.

Thank you for paying attention to this. We will deal with this; it will be necessary to take a closer look at it. I would like to ask the Government and State Duma deputies to work on this issue and adopt relevant legally executed regulations as soon as possible.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on the remarks by Frederik Dag Arfst Paulsen, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ferring Pharmaceuticals LLC, founder of Paulsen Publishing House, and member of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society, who put forward several proposals regarding Arctic research) I certainly support what was just said. Indeed, Russia will chair the Arctic Council this year, starting in May, I believe. By the way, I spoke about the Arctic Council’s activities with my Finnish colleague, the President of Finland, yesterday. Despite all the challenges facing us in the international arena, the study of the Arctic and our attention to the Arctic remain unchanged.

The six countries on the Arctic Council are cooperating closely. The proposals that we have just heard are, without a doubt, interesting. The year 2022 will mark an anniversary of the first Soviet Arctic station that operated there. Of course, the Arctic is of interest not only to the Arctic Council countries, because planetary climate change is particularly salient there. Therefore, Arctic research is of interest to all humankind, without any doubt. This is my first point.

Secondly, we have embarked on a path of extensive economic development of the Arctic, including the Northern Sea Route and related traffic. I discussed this matter with some of our colleagues yesterday as well. Russia is building the world's most powerful icebreaker fleet, including giants such as the Leader Project series icebreakers, which are unparalleled. To reiterate, yesterday we said that traffic along the Northern Sea Route may become year-round in the near future, within the next few years, and this will most likely be the case.

All of this, including climate change, the consequences of which no one can fully understand and which are impossible to predict with any level of accuracy, is important for the entire planet and for our country, because whole cities were built north of the Arctic Circle during Soviet times, and people live there. If permafrost continues to melt, we need to understand what we should do about it.

In general, from very many points of view, the study of the Arctic is of great importance for both Russia and the entire world. Of course, we will continue to work on it. I will ask my colleagues from the Government to work through your proposals and to make appropriate decisions. I invite you and your colleagues to attend a forum on Arctic research, which will be held as part of our Arctic Council chairmanship. I look forward to you taking part in its work.

<..>

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on remarks by Bernard LOONEY, CEO of the BP Group and member of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society, who spoke about RGO’s educational project – the Floating University of the Volga Basin expedition of the Volga State University of Water Transport – which is related, in particular, to the climate and environmental agenda) Thank you for your remarks and for being part of the Russian Geographical Society’s activities.

Of course, striving for carbon neutrality is an excellent and noble goal, and I know that your company is paying a lot of attention to it and is investing much in related research. I am also aware that your cooperation with Rosneft is very successful, and your company’s capitalisation, considering the reserves that continue to grow, including in Russia, has positive values.

For my part, I can say that we are satisfied with our cooperation, and the fact that you consider it possible to take part in environmental projects, such as doing research on the Volga River and maintaining its environmental condition, is very important to us. It is a rather sensitive matter, because the Volga is not just a river and it is not just about shipping or economic activity, which is also important, and we have been doing more in this department lately than before, but the Volga is special for Russia, since it is a state-forming element for our country.

Therefore, we strongly hope that your contribution to our joint efforts to preserve the Volga, in the broadest sense of the word, will be tangible, and I want to thank you for that, the more so as you are doing this in conjunction with a Russian university and helping to involve young people, young researchers in this work. This is very important. Thank you very much.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on the remarks by Sergei Katkov, head of research and field projects at the Modern History Research Centre, regarding an expedition scheduled for next summer to explore airfields of the legendary Alsib Trace, the Soviet portion of the air route used to deliver Lend-Lease aircraft from the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition). I can and must quote the opinion of those who forged the Soviet Union’s victory in the Great Patriotic War. Marshal Zhukov was one of the key figures. If memory serves, he did say that if it had not been for the lend-lease supplies, we would have had to fight for another year or two. This would have meant more casualties, more loss of life, more destruction and so on.

Indeed, even during World War II our soldiers, as we know from Soviet literature and films, called American canned meat “the Second Front.” Speaking of canned meat, lend-lease supplies met 80 percent of our needs. We must give credit where credit is due, it was quite a bit.

However, it was not just about food. Do you know what mattered most? Metal. Metal supplies were very important for our defence industry. Other supplies also played a big role for us, such as combat hardware sent directly, automobiles, train carriages and aircraft.

The route you mentioned was certainly unique because the pilots had to fly the aircraft over in very hard conditions. American pilots used to say that only suicidal people and Russians could fly in such conditions. This was heroic work and a heroic page in the history of the Great Patriotic War. To be honest, few people know about it.

The fact that you are working on it is very important. I would like to thank you for this. In general, these lend-lease supplies and the opening of the Second Front later on obviously played a major role in defeating our common adversary, our common enemy – Nazism. True, these supplies were not free: in 1990, after a meeting of the Soviet and US presidents, we signed an agreement under which the USSR had to pay the remainder of the money due for land-lease supplies by 2030. Russia paid everything due to the United States in 2006. The matter is closed. These were interstate relations and they were both strategic and commercial in nature.

However, there is one aspect I would like to draw special attention to. I am referring to the people who did this. You said now you are exploring this air route for combat aircraft flown over from Alaska. However, there were also other routes, such as northern sea routes and some other directions. What do I think should be emphasised? We treat these people as heroes because they are heroes without any exaggeration. They risked their lives and many of them perished, and so we treat them just like our own veterans of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union and Russia. I would like to say again that we consider them heroes and they will remain heroes in our hearts forever.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: I would like to thank Mr Shoigu and all our colleagues, friends, comrades-in-arms, and like-minded people for what you are doing. You are doing a very important and interesting job. And if it is not interesting in some way, it is up to you and me to make it not only a highly sought-after, but also an exciting and captivating job. I really count on this, and I know that you are enthusiasts and top performers who have already achieved or are in the process of achieving outstanding results in the areas that you engage in professionally. And if you engage in tackling the challenges facing the Russian Geographical Society, you are also enthusiasts. I strongly hope that this enthusiasm – which is very useful and, I will say it again, exciting – will be the kind of guiding light that will lead us all to our common goal, which is to preserve nature and to encourage millions of people to connect with nature.

I think that achievements in this area will bring you satisfaction and a sense of self-realisation and self-fulfillment. This is an area in which self-fulfilment and self-empowerment will project onto tens of thousands, and perhaps, given the size of our projects, millions of people.

Once again, I would like to thank you and wish you all the best. Hopefully, I will see you in the summer. Please get ready for that meeting, too, so that we will not only sit down and have lunch, but also be able to tell each other about what has been done, and the goals and objectives that we must achieve and fulfil in the near future.

Thank you very much.

Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club

2020-11-25T00:48:30+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part, via videoconference, in the final plenary session of the 17^th Annual Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

This year’s theme is The Lessons of the Pandemic and the New Agenda: How to Turn the World Crisis Into an Opportunity for the World. The meeting was traditionally attended by politicians, experts, journalists and public figures from Russia and other countries. The plenary session’s moderator was Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

* * *

Fyodor Lukyanov: Friends,

Guests of the Valdai Club,

I am delighted to welcome you to the final session of the 17^th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It is my special honour and pleasure to welcome our traditional guest for our final meetings, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues, friends,

Participants of the 17^th plenary meeting of the Valdai Club,

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to welcome you all to our traditional annual meeting. We are meeting in an unusual format this time; we are videoconferencing. But I can see there are also people in the room. Not as many as usual of course, but nevertheless there are people present, and, apparently, you have had an in-person discussion, and I am delighted that you have.

We are certainly aware, we can see that the coronavirus epidemic has seriously affected public, business, and international affairs. More than that – it has affected everyone’s routine rhythm of life.

Almost all countries had to impose various restrictions, and large public gatherings have been largely cancelled. This year has been challenging for your Club as well. Most importantly, though, you continue to work. With the help of remote technology, you conduct heated and meaningful debates, discuss things, and bring in new experts who share their opinions and present interesting outside-the-box, sometimes even opposing, views on current developments. Such an exchange is, of course, very important and useful now that the world is facing so many challenges that need to be resolved.

Thus, we still have to understand how the epidemic affected and will continue to affect the present and future of humanity. As it confronts this dangerous threat, the international community is trying to take certain actions and to mobilize itself. Some things are already being done as collaborative efforts, but I want to note straight away that this is only a fraction of what needs to be done in the face of this formidable common challenge. These missed opportunities are also a subject for a candid international discussion.

From the onset of the pandemic in Russia, we have focused on preserving lives and ensuring safety of our people as our key values. This was an informed choice dictated by our culture and spiritual traditions, and our complex, sometimes dramatic, history. If we think back to the great demographic losses we suffered in the 20^th century, we had no other choice but to fight for every person and the future of every Russian family.

So, we did our best to preserve the health and the lives of our people, to help parents and children, as well as senior citizens and those who lost their jobs, to maintain employment as much as possible, to minimise damage to the economy, to support millions of entrepreneurs who run small or family businesses.

Perhaps, like everyone else, you are closely following daily updates on the pandemic around the world. Unfortunately, the coronavirus has not retreated and still poses a major threat. Probably, this unsettling background intensifies the sense, like many people feel, that a whole new era is about to begin and that we are not just on the verge of dramatic changes, but an era of tectonic shifts in all areas of life.

We see the rapidly, exponential development of the processes that we have repeatedly discussed at the Valdai Club before. Thus, six years ago, in 2014, we spoke about this issue when we discussed the theme The World Order: New Rules or a Game Without Rules. So, what is happening now? Regrettably, the game without rules is becoming increasingly horrifying and sometimes seems to be a fait accompli.

The pandemic has reminded us of how fragile human life is. It was hard to imagine that in our technologically advanced 21^st century, even in the most prosperous and wealthy countries people could find themselves defenceless in front of what would seem to be not such a fatal infection, and not such a horrible threat. But life has shown that not everything boils down to the level of medical science with some of its fantastic achievements. It transpired that the organisation and accessibility of the public healthcare system are no less, and probably much more important in this situation.

The values of mutual assistance, service and self-sacrifice proved to be most important. This also applies to the responsibility, composure and honesty of the authorities, their readiness to meet the demand of society and at the same time provide a clear-cut and well-substantiated explanation of the logic and consistency of the adopted measures so as not to allow fear to subdue and divide society but, on the contrary, to imbue it with confidence that together we will overcome all trials no matter how difficult they may be.

The struggle against the coronavirus threat has shown that only a viable state can act effectively in a crisis – contrary to the reasoning of those who claim that the role of the state in the global world is decreasing and that in the future it will be altogether replaced with some other forms of social organisation. Yes, this is possible. Everything may change in the distant future. Change is all around us, but today the role and importance of the state do matter.

We have always considered a strong state a basic condition for Russia’s development. And we have seen again that we were right by meticulously restoring and strengthening state institutions after their decline, and sometimes complete destruction in the 1990s.

Then, the question is: what is a strong state? What are its strengths? Definitely, not total control or harsh law enforcement. Not thwarted private initiative or civic engagement. Not even the might of its armed forces or its high defence potential. Although, I think you realise how important this particular component is for Russia, given its geography and the range of geopolitical challenges. And there is also our historical responsibility as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to ensure global stability.

Nevertheless, I am confident that what makes a state strong, primarily, is the confidence its citizens have in it. That is the strength of a state. People are the source of power, we all know that. And this recipe doesn’t just involve going to the polling station and voting, it implies people’s willingness to delegate broad authority to their elected government, to see the state, its bodies, civil servants, as their representatives – those who are entrusted to make decisions, but who also bear full responsibility for the performance of their duties.

This kind of state can be set up any way you like. When I say “any way,” I mean that what you call your political system is immaterial. Each country has its own political culture, traditions, and its own vision of their development. Trying to blindly imitate someone else’s agenda is pointless and harmful. The main thing is for the state and society to be in harmony.

And of course, confidence is the most solid foundation for the creative work of the state and society. Only together will they be able to find an optimal balance of freedom and security guarantees.

Once again, in the most difficult moments of the pandemic, I felt pride and, to be honest, I am proud of Russia, of our citizens, of their willingness to have each other’s backs. And of course, first of all, I am proud of our doctors, nurses, and ambulance workers – everyone, without exception, on whom the national healthcare system relies.

I believe that civil society will play a key role in Russia’s future. So, we want the voice of our citizens to be decisive and to see constructive proposals and requests from different social forces get implemented.

This begs the question: how is this request for action being formed? Whose voice should the state be heeding? How does it know if it is really the voice of the people and not some behind-the-scenes messages or even someone's vocal yelling that has nothing to do whatsoever with our people and that at times becomes hysterical?

Occasionally, someone is trying to substitute self-serving interests of a small social group or even external forces for a genuine public request.

Genuine democracy and civil society cannot be “imported.” I have said so many times. They cannot be a product of the activities of foreign “well-wishers,” even if they “want the best for us.” In theory, this is probably possible. But, frankly, I have not yet seen such a thing and do not believe much in it. We see how such imported democracy models function. They are nothing more than a shell or a front with nothing behind them, even a semblance of sovereignty. People in the countries where such schemes have been implemented were never asked for their opinion, and their respective leaders are mere vassals. As is known, the overlord decides everything for the vassal. To reiterate, only the citizens of a particular country can determine their public interest.

We, in Russia, went through a fairly long period where foreign funds were very much the main source for creating and financing non-governmental organisations. Of course, not all of them pursued self-serving or bad goals, or wanted to destabilise the situation in our country, interfere in our domestic affairs, or influence Russia’s domestic and, sometimes, foreign policy in their own interests. Of course not.

There were sincere enthusiasts among independent civic organisations (they do exist), to whom we are undoubtedly grateful. But even so, they mostly remained strangers and ultimately reflected the views and interests of their foreign trustees rather than the Russian citizens. In a word, they were a tool with all the ensuing consequences.

A strong, free and independent civil society is nationally oriented and sovereign by definition. It grows from the depth of people’s lives and can take different forms and directions. But it is a cultural phenomenon, a tradition of a particular country, not the product of some abstract “transnational mind” with other people's interests behind it.

The duty of the state is to support public initiatives and open up new opportunities for them. This is exactly what we do. I consider this matter to be the most important for the government's agenda in the coming decades – regardless of who exactly will hold positions in that government. This is the guarantee of Russia's sovereign, progressive development, of genuine continuity in its forward movement, and of our ability to respond to global challenges.

Colleagues, you are well aware of the many acute problems and controversies that have accumulated in modern international affairs, even too many. Ever since the Cold War model of international relations, which was stable and predictable in its own way, began to change (I am not saying I miss it, I most certainly do not), the world has changed several times. Things in fact happened so quickly that those usually referred to as political elites simply did not have the time, or maybe a strong interest or ability to analyse what was really going on.

Some countries hastily ran to divide the cake, mostly to grab a bigger piece, to take advantage of the benefits the end of the cold confrontation brought. Others were frantically looking for ways to adapt to the changes at any cost. And some countries – recall our own sad experience, frankly – just fought for survival, to survive as a single country, and as a subject of global politics, too.

Meanwhile, time increasingly and insistently makes us question what lies ahead for humanity, what the new world order should be like, or at least a semblance of one, and whether we will take informed steps forward, coordinating our moves, or we will stumble blindly, each of us just relying on ourselves.

The recent report of the Valdai Club, your club, reads: “…in a fundamentally changed international setting, the institutions themselves have become an obstacle to building a system of relations corresponding to the new era rather than a guarantee of global stability and manageability.” The authors believe that we are in for a world where individual states or groups of states will act much more independently while traditional international organisations will lose their importance.

This is what I would like to say in this respect. Of course, it is clear what underlies this position. In effect, the post-war world order was established by three victorious countries: the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain. The role of Britain has changed since then; the Soviet Union no longer exists, while some try to dismiss Russia altogether.

Let me assure you, dear friends, that we are objectively assessing our potentialities: our intellectual, territorial, economic and military potential. I am referring to our current options, our overall potential. Consolidating this country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other countries I would like to tell those who are still waiting for Russia’s strength to gradually wane, the only thing we are worried about is catching a cold at your funeral.

As a head of state who works directly in an environment that you and your colleagues describe from a position of expertise, I cannot agree with the assumption that existing international structures must be completely rebuilt, if not dismissed as obsolete and altogether dismantled. On the contrary, it is important to preserve the basic mechanisms of maintaining international security, which have proved to be effective. This is the UN, the Security Council and the permanent members’ right to veto. I recently spoke about this at the anniversary UN General Assembly. As far as I know, this position – the preservation of the fundamentals of the international order established after World War II – enjoys broad support in the world.

However, I believe that the idea of adjusting the institutional arrangement of world politics is at least worthy of discussion, if only because the correlation of forces, potentialities and positions of states has seriously changed, as I said, especially in the past 30 to 40 years.

Indeed, like I said, the Soviet Union is no longer there. But there is Russia. In terms of its economic weight and political influence, China is moving quickly towards superpower status. Germany is moving in the same direction, and the Federal Republic of Germany has become an important player in international cooperation. At the same time, the roles of Great Britain and France in international affairs has undergone significant changes. The United States, which at some point absolutely dominated the international stage, can hardly claim exceptionality any longer. Generally speaking, does the United States need this exceptionalism? Of course, powerhouses such as Brazil, South Africa and some other countries have become much more influential.

Indeed, by far not all international organisations are effectively carrying out their missions and tasks. Called to be impartial arbiters, they often act based on ideological prejudices, fall under the strong influence of other states, and become tools in their hands. Juggling procedures, manipulating prerogatives and authority, biased approaches, especially when it comes to conflicts involving rival powers or groups of states, have unfortunately become common practice.

The fact that authoritative international organisations following in the wake of someone’s selfish interests are drawn into politicised campaigns against specific leaders and countries is saddening. This approach does nothing but discredit these institutions, and leads them towards decline and exacerbates the world order crisis.

On the other hand, there are positive developments when a group of interested states joins forces to resolve specific issues, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which for almost 20 years now has been contributing to the settlement of territorial disputes and strengthening stability in Central Eurasia, and is shaping a unique spirit of partnership in this part of the world.

Or, for example, the Astana format, which was instrumental in taking the political and diplomatic process regarding Syria out of a deep impasse. The same goes for OPEC Plus which is an effective, albeit very complex, tool for stabilising global oil markets.

In a fragmented world, this approach is often more productive. But what matters here is that, along with resolving specific problems, this approach can also breathe new life into multilateral diplomacy. This is important. But it is also obvious that we cannot do without a common, universal framework for international affairs. Whatever interest groups, associations, or ad-hoc alliances we form now or in the future – we cannot do without a common framework.

Multilateralism should be understood not as total inclusivity, but as the need to involve the parties that are truly interested in solving a problem. And of course, when outside forces crudely and shamelessly intervene in a process that affects a group of actors perfectly capable of agreeing among themselves – nothing good can come of that. And they do this solely for the purpose of flaunting their ambition, power and influence. They do it to put a stake in the ground, to outplay everyone, but not to make a positive contribution or help resolve the situation.

Again, even amid the current fragmentation of international affairs, there are challenges that require more than just the combined capacity of a few states, even very influential ones. Problems of this magnitude, which do exist, require global attention.

International stability, security, fighting terrorism and solving urgent regional conflicts are certainly among them; as are promoting global economic development, combatting poverty, and expanding cooperation in healthcare. That last one is especially relevant today.

I spoke in detail about these challenges at the UN General Assembly last month. Meeting them will require working together in a long-term, systematic way.

However, there are considerations of a more general nature that affect literally everyone, and I would like to discuss them in more detail.

Many of us read The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry when we were children and remember what the main character said: “It’s a question of discipline. When you’ve finished washing and dressing each morning, you must tend your planet. … It’s very tedious work, but very easy.”

I am sure that we must keep doing this “tedious work” if we want to preserve our common home for future generations. We must tend our planet.

The subject of environmental protection has long become a fixture on the global agenda. But I would address it more broadly to discuss also an important task of abandoning the practice of unrestrained and unlimited consumption – overconsumption – in favour of judicious and reasonable sufficiency, when you do not live just for today but also think about tomorrow.

We often say that nature is extremely vulnerable to human activity. Especially when the use of natural resources is growing to a global dimension. However, humanity is not safe from natural disasters, many of which are the result of anthropogenic interference. By the way, some scientists believe that the recent outbreaks of dangerous diseases are a response to this interference. This is why it is so important to develop harmonious relations between Man and Nature.

Tensions have reached a critical point. We can see this in climate change. This problem calls for practical action and much more attention on our part. It has long stopped being the domain of abstract scientific interests but now concerns nearly every inhabitant of the planet Earth. The polar ice caps and permafrost are melting because of global warming. According to expert estimates, the speed and scale of this process will be increasing in the next few decades.

It is a huge challenge to the world, to the whole of humanity, including to us, to Russia, where permafrost occupies 65 percent of our national territory. Such changes can do irreparable damage to biological diversity, have an extremely adverse effect on the economy and infrastructure and pose a direct threat to people.

You may be aware that this is very important to us. It affects pipeline systems, residential districts built on permafrost, and so on. If as much as 25 percent of the near-surface layers of permafrost, which is about three or four metres, melt by 2100, we will feel the effect very strongly. Moreover, the problem could snowball into a crisis very quickly. A kind of chain reaction is possible, because permafrost melting will stimulate methane emissions, which can produce a greenhouse effect that will be 28 times (sic!) larger than in the case of carbon dioxide. In other words, the temperature will continue rising on the planet, permafrost will continue melting, and methane emissions will further increase. The situation will spiral. Do we want the Earth to become like Venus, a hot, dry and lifeless planet? I would like to remind you that the Earth has an average surface temperature of 14°C while on Venus it’s 462°C.

Another subject, completely different. I would like to say a few words on a different subject. Let us not forget that there are no longer just geographical continents on Earth. An almost endless digital space is taking shape on the planet, and people are mastering it with increasing speed every year.

The restrictions forced by the coronavirus have only encouraged the development of remote e-technology. Today, communications based on the internet have become a universal asset. It is necessary to see that this infrastructure and all cyberspace operates without fail and securely.

Thus, remote, distance work is not just a forced precaution during a pandemic. This will become a new form of organising labour, employment, social cooperation and simply human communication. These changes are inevitable with the development of technological progress. This recent turn of events has merely precipitated these processes. Everyone appreciates the opportunities and conveniences provided by new technology.

But, of course, there is a reverse side as well – a growing threat to all digital systems. Yes, cyberspace is a fundamentally new environment where, basically, universally recognised rules have never existed. Technology has simply moved ahead of legislation and thus, judicial oversight. At the same time, this is a very specific area where the issue of trust is particularly urgent.

I think that at this point we must return to our historical experience. What do I mean? Let me recall that the established notion of “confidence-building measures” existed during the Cold War. It applied to relations between the USSR and the US, and between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, that is, military-political relations.

That said, let me emphasise that now, competition is usually “hybrid” in character. It concerns all areas, including those that are just taking shape. This is why it is necessary to build confidence in many areas.

In this sense, cyberspace can serve as a venue for testing these measures, like at one time, arms control paved the way for higher trust in the world as a whole.

Obviously, it is very difficult to draft a required “package of measures” in this area, cyberspace. However, it is necessary to start on it. This must be done now.

As you may be aware, Russia is actively promoting bilateral and multilateral cyber security agreements. We submitted two draft conventions on this subject at the UN and established a corresponding open-ended working group.

Recently, I proposed starting a comprehensive discussion of international cybersecurity issues with the United States. We are aware that politicians in the United States have other things to focus on now because of the election campaign. However, we hope that the next administration, whatever it may be, will respond to our invitation to start a discussion of this subject just like other items on the Russia-US agenda such as global security, the future of the strategic arms reduction treaty and a number of other issues.

As you are aware, many important matters have reached the point that they require candid talks, and we are ready for a constructive discussion on an equal footing.

Of course, the times when all important international matters were discussed and resolved by essentially just Moscow and Washington are long gone, lost to the ages. However, we see the establishment of a bilateral dialogue, in this case on cyber security, as an important step towards a much broader discussion involving many other countries and organisations. Should the United States choose not to take part in this work, which would be regrettable, we will still be willing to work with all interested partners, which I hope will not be lacking.

I would like to point out another important aspect. We live in an era of palpable international shocks and crises. Of course, we are used to them, especially the generations which lived during the Cold War, let alone World War II, for whom it is not just a memory, but a part of their lives.

It is interesting that humanity has reached a very high level of technological and socioeconomic development, while at the same time facing the loss or erosion of moral values and reference points, a sense that existence no longer has meaning and, if you will, that the mission of humankind on planet Earth has been lost.

This crisis cannot be settled through diplomatic negotiations or even a large international conference. It calls for revising our priorities and rethinking our goals. And everyone must begin at home, every individual, community and state, and only then work toward a global configuration.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which we have all been dealing with this year, can serve as a point of departure for such a transformation. We will have to reassess our priorities anyway. Trust me, we really will have to do it, sooner or later. All of us are aware of this. Therefore, I fully agree with those who say that it would be better to start this process now.

I mentioned history and the older generations who went through all the trials of last century for a reason. Everything we are discussing today will soon become the responsibility of young people. Young people will have to deal with all of the problems which I mentioned and you discussed today. Speaking about Russia, its young citizens, who are still growing up and gaining experience, will have to do this as soon as in the 21^st century. They are the ones who will have to confront new and probably even more difficult challenges.

They have their own views on the past, present and future. But I believe that our people will always retain their best qualities: patriotism, fortitude, creativity, hard work, team spirit and the capacity to surprise the world by finding solutions to the most difficult and even seemingly insoluble problems.

Friends, colleagues,

I touched on a wide range of different issues today. Of course, I would like to believe that despite all the current difficulties the international community will be able to join forces to combat not imaginary but very real problems, and that we will eventually succeed. After all, it is within our power to stop being egoistical, greedy, mindless and wasteful consumers. Some may wonder if this is utopia, a pipe dream.

To be sure, it is easy to wonder if this is even possible considering what some individuals are doing and saying. However, I believe in reason and mutual understanding, or at least I strongly hope that they will prevail. We just need to open our eyes, look around us and see that the land, air and water are our common inheritance from above, and we must learn to cherish them, just as we must cherish every human life, which is precious. This is the only way forward in this complicated and beautiful world. I do not want to see the mistakes of the past repeated.

Thank you very much.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, thank you for this detailed statement. You have said that COVID-19 can serve as a point of departure for a reassessment. I can see that you are indeed reassessing things, because it is not everyone who speaks now about trust, harmony, the meaning of life and our mission on the planet Earth, and it was rarely so in the past as well.

I would like to say a few things in follow-up to what you have said. Of course, such a rethinking is ongoing, and we are trying to contribute to this process at the Valdai Club. However, the shocking spring developments, when we thought that the world would never be the same again, were followed by a degree of stabilisation. When global politics awoke from the mental torpor, it turned out that the agenda has hardly changed at all: we are facing the same problems, the conflicts are back and their number has even increased. But you continue with your active work despite the strained situation in global politics. Do you think that this shock had any effect on us? Do you feel any change in the sentiments of your counterparts at the top level?

Vladimir Putin: You said that the conflicts resumed when the situation improved a bit. In fact, they never abated. There is much talk about a second wave, and that the situation is back to where we were in the spring. But just look at what is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh: the conflict is still with us. And it is not just the conflicts that matter. I believe that no matter how the necessity to combat the pandemic can rally the international community, we still need to take systemic measures to settle recurring problems. This concerns the Middle East, the Syrian crisis, Libya and a great number of other problems, including terrorism and the environment. In other words, the pandemic will not help us to deal with them.

However, the pandemic is playing into our hands when it comes to raising our awareness of the importance of joining forces against severe global crises. Unfortunately, it has not yet taught humanity to come together completely, as we must do in such situations. Just look at the crises I have mentioned. We have already proposed, at the UN, among other places, that all economic and cultural restrictions be lifted for humanitarian reasons, at least temporarily.

I am not referring now to all these sanctions against Russia; forget about that, we will get over it. But many other countries that have suffered and are still suffering from the coronavirus do not even need any help that may come from outside, they just need the restrictions lifted, at least in the humanitarian sphere, I repeat, concerning the supply of medicines, equipment, credit resources, and the exchange of technologies. These are humanitarian things in their purest form. But no, they have not abolished any restrictions, citing some considerations that have nothing to do with the humanitarian component – but at the same time, everyone is talking about humanism.

I would say we need to be more honest with each other and abandon double standards. I am sure that if people hear me now on the media, they are probably finding it difficult to disagree with what I have just said, difficult to deny it. Deep down in their hearts, in their minds, everyone is probably thinking, “Yes, right, of course.” However, for political reasons, publicly, they will still say, “No, we must keep restrictions on Iran, Venezuela, against Assad.” What does Assad even have to do with this when it is ordinary people who suffer? At least, give them medicines, give them technology, at least a small, targeted loan for medicine. No.

Therefore, on the one hand, it seems like there is a tendency to unite, but, frankly speaking, by and large, I do not see any practical steps to bring it to reality. Although this trend does exist.

As for technology, it is another side of the matter. As for technology, of course, online education, telemedicine and other advanced solutions – all the modern digital technologies that had been increasingly penetrating all spheres, of course, with the pandemic have made a breach in the existing regulatory systems. They are forcing politicians, legal professionals, and administrative regulators, to move towards decision-making at a faster pace than they used to. And this is certainly, definitely changing the world.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Here is one more question related to what you have said.

Speaking about the strategy of combating the epidemic, you clearly and unequivocally stated that people’s life and safety are the main values. This strategy is understandable, but tactics differ. Last spring, the countries that chose a different path were sharply criticised.

For example, Sweden and Belarus did not introduce an economic lockdown or a tight quarantine. There were many pro and contra arguments. Six months later, we can see that the world is largely following in the footsteps of these countries instead of doing what we did in spring. I believe that you also said yesterday that there would not be any economic lockdown.

Does this mean that the balance is changing and that the balance should sometimes change in favour of the economy?

Vladimir Putin: I would say that nothing is changing in our country. I do not know about Sweden. On the other hand, I do know some things, and I will say a few words about them. The same is true about Belarus and other countries, where the decisions are made by their leadership. As for us, nothing has changed: people’s lives and health remain our priorities, without a doubt.

On the other hand, life and health are directly connected to healthcare, which must receive serious support from the federal and other budgets. For these budgets to be replenished, we need a working economy. Everything is closely interconnected. One needs to find a balance. I believe that we found this balance at the very beginning. We took a number of serious steps to support the economy. This support amounted to 4.5 percent of the GDP. Some other countries allocated even more funds for this purpose.

The point is actually not so much the amount of allocated funds but their effective use. I believe (we discussed several related issues with the Government today) that we disposed of these funds quite effectively, in a selective way and using the considerable resources we accumulated in the past years, as well as relying on the macroeconomic health of our economy, macroeconomic indicators and all the other positive achievements of the past years, to support our people, families with children, small and medium-sized businesses, and even large companies and whole industries.

Overall, there is no need in the current situation, at least in Russia, to reintroduce such restrictions as we had in spring, when we sent our people on paid leave and closed down whole enterprises. There is no need for this also because our healthcare system performed quite efficiently. We have also built up reserves, including a reserve of hospital beds, created new medicines and developed treatment guidelines. Our medics have learned how to deal with this disease, they know what and when needs to be done. In other words, we have become confident that we can deal with these problems. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

The second thing. We said from the beginning – I would just like to remind you, keeping in mind the vastness of our territory – that we were handing down a considerable part of authority for decision-making to the level of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Incidentally, all major countries, have, in fact, followed this path somewhat later. This has proven to be the right approach.

There is no such need today. The economy is recovering. The processing industry is recovering, the agro-industrial sector is performing quite well and is even growing, exports are recovering… Yes, we have issues that we should target. But look, we have basically acceptable macroeconomic indicators. Russia’s second-quarter economic contraction was 8 percent, and, say, the US economy, declined by 9 [percent], and the Euro zone, if I am not mistaken, by 14.5 – 14.7 [percent].

You have mentioned Sweden that imposed no restrictions, but they also happened to face an economic downturn. At first, they went public with the figure of 8.3 [percent], which was later adjusted to less than 8 [percent] – 7.7 [percent], if my memory serves me correctly. Here we go: they have introduced no restrictions, nor have they done what we have in supporting people and the economy, but their result is the same as ours. The modern world is extremely interconnected. But an economic decline is inevitable, the first thing to do is to take care of the people. This logic is immaculate. I am certain that you will agree on this point.

Now, regarding Belarus. President Lukashenko – I had many conversations with him – is fully aware of the COVID-19 threat. But Belarus has no comparable gold and currency reserves, nor such a diverse economic landscape, and he, as he says, simply had to keep the economy viable. But on the whole, the situation there is not worse, in fact, than in many other countries.

Therefore we face – and faced – no choice of this sort; our priorities are people, health, and life. We are not going to impose tough restrictions, there is no such need. There is no need to close businesses. What is needed is to adjust support for certain sectors, for example, for small and medium-sized businesses. Certain parts of this work require additional support, maybe the extension of tax benefits and some other measures that are due to expire shortly. It is necessary to take a closer look at transportation, the transport sector, and the services. We are aware of all this, we see this, and we will continue to work in these areas, no matter how difficult this might be. As I have repeatedly said, we will get through this difficult period together, with the people’s support and trust.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Colleagues, we are moving on to our traditional conversation. This time the setup of this discussion will be quite complex, since we have people sitting in the audience here, and I am also receiving questions from those who are watching online, and some of our colleagues will be able to ask their questions in person. Therefore, I will try to act as an impartial moderator and manage this conversation, and I apologise for any possible hiccups.

Let us begin. Timofei Bordachev, our colleague from the Valdai Club.

Timofei Bordachev: Good evening, and thank you for this unique opportunity.

Mr President, there has been much talk and debate, in the context of the global economic upheavals, about the fact that the liberal market economy has ceased to be a reliable tool for the survival of states, their preservation, and for their people.

Pope Francis said recently that capitalism has run its course. Russia has been living under capitalism for 30 years. Is it time to search for an alternative? Is there an alternative? Could it be the revival of the left-wing idea or something radically new? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Lenin spoke about the birthmarks of capitalism, and so on. It cannot be said that we have lived these past 30 years in a full-fledged market economy. In fact, we are only gradually building it, and its institutions. Russia had to do it from the ground up, starting from a clean slate. Of course, we are doing this taking into consideration developments around the world. After all, after almost one hundred years of a state-planned economy, transitioning to a market economy is not easy.

You know, capitalism, the way you have described it, existed in a more or less pure form at the beginning of the previous century. But everything changed after what happened in the global economy and in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s, after World War I. We have already discussed this on a number of occasions. I do not remember if I have mentioned this at Valdai Club meetings, but experts who know this subject better than I do and with whom I regularly communicate, they are saying obvious and well-known things.

When everything is fine, and the macro economic indicators are stable, various funds are building up their assets, consumption is on the rise and so on. In such times, you hear more and more that the state only stands in the way, and that a pure market economy would be more effective. But as soon as crises and challenges arise, everyone turns to the state, calling for the reinforcement of its supervisory functions. This goes on and on, like a sinusoidal curve. This is what happened during the preceding crises, including the recent ones, like in 2008.

I remember very well how the key shareholders of Russia’s largest corporations that are also major European and global players came to me proposing that the state buy their assets for one dollar or one ruble. They were afraid of assuming responsibility for their employees, pressured by margin calls, and the like. This time, our businesses have acted differently. No one is seeking to evade responsibility. On the contrary, they are even using their own funds, and are quite generous in doing so. The responses may differ, but overall, businesses have been really committed to social responsibility, for which I am grateful to these people, and I want them to know this.

Therefore, at present, we cannot really find a fully planned economy, can we? Take China. Is it a purely planned economy? No. And there is not a single purely market economy either. Nevertheless, the government’s regulatory functions are certainly important. For example, consider major industries such as aircraft construction. Without some regulatory function from the top – or from the left, right, bottom, for that matter, whether this regulatory function is visible or not – without it, it is impossible to operate in this market. And we can see that all the countries that claim respect as aircraft-building powers (contextually, I would say), their governments provide assistance to their aircraft manufacturers, all of them. And there are plenty of support methods.

By the way, the situation is much the same in the automotive industry, and in other industries. We just need to determine for ourselves the reasonable level of the state's involvement in the economy; how quickly that involvement needs to be reduced, if at all, and where exactly. I often hear that Russia’s economy is overregulated. But during crises like this current pandemic, when we are forced to restrict business activity, and cargo traffic shrinks, and not only cargo traffic, but passenger traffic as well, we have to ask ourselves – what do we do with aviation now that passengers avoid flying or fly rarely, what do we do? Well, the state is a necessary fixture, there is no way they could do without state support.

So, again, no model is pure or rigid, neither the market economy nor the command economy today, but we simply have to determine the level of the state's involvement in the economy. What do we use as a baseline for this decision? Expediency. We need to avoid using any templates, and so far, we have successfully avoided that. As I have said, the so-called developed economies, in Europe, have seen their GDP plummet by more than 14 percent. How high has unemployment grown in the eurozone? As far as I know, by over 10 percent. Ours has grown, too, but only by 6.3 percent. This is the result of government regulation. Or take inflation. We have been fighting it desperately. Is this not a regulatory function of the state?

Of course, the Central Bank and the Government are among the most important state institutions. Therefore, it was in fact through the joint efforts of the Central Bank and the Government that inflation was reduced to 4 percent, because the Government invests substantial resources through its social programmes and national projects and has an impact on our monetary policy. It went down to 3.9 percent, and the Governor of the Central Bank has told me that we will most likely keep it around the estimated target of around 4 percent. This is the regulating function of the state; there is no way around it. However, stifling development through an excessive presence of the state in the economy or through excessive regulation would be fatal as well. You know, this is a form of art, which the Government has been applying skilfully, at least for now.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, since you mentioned greed, I have to ask you the following. A lively discussion began the other day on the Finance Ministry’s proposal to reduce the staff at security-related agencies and to adjust their salaries and pensions. Is this a good time for this proposal? Or is it that the crisis is forcing us to cut expenses?

Vladimir Putin: The Finance Ministry regularly makes such proposals, crisis or no crisis. It is always in favour of reducing expenditure. In general, nearly all finance ministries in other countries do this as well. There is nothing unique in the proposal of the Russian Finance Ministry.

We do not envisage making any decisions yet. We have no term reduction or extension plans. It was just one of the Finance Ministry’s proposals. It has not even been reported to me yet. It is still at the level of discussion among Government agencies. When we need to make a final decision, I will take into account the economic realities and the real situation regarding people’s incomes, including in the security and military spheres, and a comparison of the levels of income in the country’s military and civilian sectors. There are many factors we need to take into account to prevent an imbalance on the labour market, and so on. I would like to repeat that these issues have not been discussed on the practical level. These discussions are ongoing within the framework of the Government.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Great. Our meeting has produced at least one result: the military can breathe out.

I would like to give the floor to our long-time friend who has been helping the Valdai Club a lot. Please meet Sam Charap from Washington, D.C. Usually, we had him here, but now he is at his workplace. We can get him on air now.

Sam, please.

Sam Charap: Hello, Mr. President,

I would like to return to your initiative to restore trust in cyberspace, which you mentioned in your remarks. Many argue whether there is trust in the outcome of the talks or the premises for holding them. It is not only about the election campaign, but the firm belief of many in Washington (and outside of it) that Russia is actively interfering in this area, and so on.

Can we ponder some kind of truce in this sphere in order to create proper grounds for talks and a minimum level of trust as a prerequisite for achieving more during ensuing talks? How do you think such a digital truce, so to say, may look like?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, as far as cybercrime is concerned, it always went hand in hand with digital technology and will probably always be there just like other offences. However, when we talk about relations between states, it is no coincidence that in my opening remarks I mentioned the dialogue on limiting offensive arms between the Soviet Union and the United States.

We agreed among ourselves to keep these weapons at a certain level. We propose reaching agreements in the sphere that is taking shape now right before our eyes and which is extremely important for the entire world and our countries. We need to discuss these matters in a broad context and come up with solutions.

I am not quite sure what kind of truce you are talking about. I believe it is already in place. You said that Russia is actively interfering. But I say: “We are not interfering in anything.” Moreover, the official probes conducted in the United States, including with the involvement of a special counsel, did not bring any results. They led to admitting the fact that there was no evidence of Russia’s interference. Therefore, I believe there is no need to set any preliminary conditions for us to start this dialogue. We must immediately sit down and talk. What is wrong with that approach? We are not proposing anything that does not meet our partners’ interests. If someone thinks that someone else is interfering in their affairs, well, let us come up with some general rules and develop verification tools to monitor compliance. Frankly, I do not understand where this persistence is coming from.

During the last months of President Obama's presidency, his administration sent us a message to the effect that, indeed, it had taken them a while to review this matter, but they are now ready for a dialogue. Unfortunately, this ended quickly, and another president came to office. We started from centre-field with the new administration. Again, almost four years later now, we have not accomplished much.

I strongly hope that when the elections are over, our partners will return to this issue and respond positively to our proposals.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Fyodor Voitolovsky, Director of IMEMO, our flagship institute of international relations. Please.

Fyodor Voitolovsky: Mr President, in your statement today you mentioned one of the most burning issues of global politics, arms control. During the Cold War and especially at its final stage, the Soviet Union and the United States both applied a huge amount of efforts to create a network of treaties and a system of confidence-building measures, which limited the quantitative growth of their arsenals and reduced the risk of a conflict. Over the past 20 years, our American partners have consistently and very easily dismantled this system: first the ABM Treaty, and then the INF and Open Skies treaties. As of now, there are problems with extending the New START Treaty. Hence my question. Do you think the arms control system has a future? What new moves can be taken in this sphere?

Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I would like to add that we have a great number of questions about strategic offensive arms and especially the latest initiative advanced two days ago, and also a great deal of bewilderment over what this may mean and whether Russia has made excessive concessions.

Vladimir Putin: You asked if such arms control treaties have a future. I think that the world will have no future unless limits are put on the arms race. This is what all of us should think about, and this is what we are urging all of our partners to think about.

All of us are well aware of the problem, and you have mentioned this just now: withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty (the United States has not officially pulled out of it yet, but it has stated that it had launched the withdrawal process). Why? What is the reason for this decision? They do not even try to explain. They simply do not explain. Our European colleagues tell us, “Let them withdraw, but you should not do the same.” I reply, “All of you are NATO members, and so you will make flights and forward the data you collect to the Americans, while we will be unable to do this because we will remain committed to the Treaty. Let us not play dumb. Let us be honest with each other.” In fact, as far as I am aware, the United States’ European partners would like it to remain a member of the Open Skies Treaty, to keep it intact.

With regard to the INF Treaty, we have spoken about it many times, and I do not want to go over it again. When withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, the United States acted openly, directly and bluntly, but honestly. Here, though, they came up with an excuse and accused Russia of some violations, and then withdrew from the Treaty. If this were the case, if everything were just like our American partners are saying, they could also go ahead and violate it without much ado. Who was stopping them? Instead, they took this step publicly for everyone to see.

Just do not tell me that they are white and fluffy goody two-shoes who are not into underhand dealings. We are aware of what is happening with verification, in the sphere of nuclear weapons among other thing, where they weld the lids or tamper with the aircraft. They get away with it and do not let us in there. Okay, we keep quiet, but the experts know what I am talking about. They just made it a point to take these steps, and to do so publicly, with broad coverage. Clearly, they are pursuing a political goal. I just do not see any military purpose here. But the best solution is for the verification and monitoring to be implemented by all contracting parties, so that our agreements are reliably protected by these monitoring systems.

Now, START-3.We took account of all the problems when we were negotiating these issues. Only one thing was left out. It is what Russia acquired in response to the United States withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. Precisely in response to the withdrawal. I am referring to our innovative high-precision hypersonic weapons. Indeed, neither the United States nor other countries have access to such weapons, although they are working on it, and someday they will have them as well. They are telling us, “You have it, we do not, so we must take this into account.” Well, we do not mind, let us take it into account. Both regarding the number of carriers and the number of warheads. We do not mind.

There are other issues that we can discuss. But what choice do we have? The treaty expires in February. After all, my proposal is very straightforward. It lies on the surface. Nothing will happen if we extend this agreement, without any preconditions, for one year and persistently work on all the issues of concern both to us and the Americans. We will work on it together and look for solutions.

After all, the trick is that we have had hardly any constructive discussions about this so far. Our partners, to put it bluntly, shied away from a direct and substantive professional discussion. The treaty will expire in February 2020, and that is all we have left now.

Question: What is better: to preserve the current treaty as it is, to start discussing it in detail and try to find some compromise during the year or to lose it altogether and leave us, the US and Russia, and the entire world practically without any legal foundation that limits the arms race? I believe the second option is much worse than the first.

I think it is simply unacceptable but I have said, and I want to emphasise it once again, that we are not holding on to this treaty. If our partners decide it is not necessary – all right, let it be, there is nothing we can do to prevent them. Our security, Russia’s security will not be damaged by this, especially because we have the latest weapons systems. This is the first part.

The second part boils down to making these agreements multilateral by including our Chinese friends in them. But are we against this? Russia is not against this but just do not shift on us the responsibility of making this treaty multilateral. If someone wants to do this, it is fine to try to achieve this. We do not object to this. Are we an obstacle on this road? No.

But the arguments quoted by our Chinese friends are very simple. China is an enormous country, a great power with an enormous economy and 1.5 billion people. But the level of its nuclear potential is almost twice, if not more lower than that of Russia and the US. They are asking a lawful question, “What will we limit? Or will we freeze our inequality in this area?” What can you reply to this? It is the sovereign right of a 1.5 billion strong nation to decide on the best way of building its policy on ensuring its own security.

Of course, it is possible to turn this into a subject of an argument or discussion and simply block any agreement. But may I ask why would only China be pressed to be involved in this process and in signing this treaty? Where are the other nuclear powers? Where is France that, as the press reports, has just tested another submarine-launched cruise missile? Great Britain is also a nuclear power. There are other nuclear states that are not officially recognised as such, as it were, but the whole world knows that they have nuclear arms. So, are we going to behave like ostriches? Hide our heads in the sand and pretend that we do not understand what is going on? What we need is not a checkerboard pattern on our car. We need to drive it, therefore we need to ensure security. So, let us get them involved as well. Let us do it. We are not against this. The only question is whether there is any reason for this, a goal to strive for, whether there is any positive example to follow such as the agreements between the US and Russia? Or is there nothing at all?

We are ready to work from scratch, from centre-field, fine. If you ask about our position, I believe it is better not to lose what was achieved before, to move forward from the positions that have already been reached by previous generations, by the leaders of our countries. However, if our partners decide on something different, we are willing to work in any format and on any of these tracks.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Anatol Lieven, another one of our veterans, who could not come to this meeting but is taking part in it via videoconference. Please.

Anatol Lieven: Thank you very much, Mr President, for speaking to us. And I would also like to thank you personally for your very strong statement on climate change and the environment.

My question, however, relates to the new outbreak of conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia, like other members of the international community, has been trying very hard to bring about a peaceful solution to this conflict, but so far these efforts have failed. If they continue to fail, given Russia’s old historic links and given Russia’s military alliance with Armenia, will it be necessary in the end for Russia to take sides against Azerbaijan and Turkey?

On the other hand, could this perhaps provide a positive opportunity for Russia, given the increasing confrontation which we see between France and Turkey over Turkey’s claims in the Eastern Mediterranean? Could this perhaps be an opportunity for a rapprochement between Russia and France and other West European countries? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I did not quite understand the last part of the question. What does the [Nagorno-Karabakh] conflict have to do with this?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Maybe he meant the possibility of rapprochement with France and Europe, since Turkey is now opposed to both them and, to a degree, to us?

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Let us begin at the beginning, with Nagorno-Karabakh and who to support in this conflict. You said that Russia has always had special relations with Armenia. But we have also always had special ties with Azerbaijan as well. There are over 2 million Armenians and some 2 million Azerbaijanis living in Russia, both those who have come to Russia in search of jobs and those who live here permanently. They send billions of dollars to their families back home. All these people have stable and close ties with Russia at the humanitarian level, person-to-person, business, humanitarian and family ties. Therefore, Armenia and Azerbaijan are both equal partners for us. And it is a great tragedy for us when people die there. We would like to develop full-scale relations with both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Yes, there are some individual elements in each case, and some things in our relations with one partner differ from our relations with the other partner. In the case of Armenia, it is Christianity. But we also have very close ties with Azerbaijan in other spheres.

Speaking about religion, I would like to point out that nearly 15 percent of Russian citizens are Muslims. Therefore, Azerbaijan is not an alien country to us in this sense either.

But what we certainly cannot forget is what happened in the destiny of the Armenian people, the Armenian nation during World War I. This is an enormous tragedy for the Armenian people, This is the second part.

The third part is based on the fact that this conflict broke out not just as an interstate conflict or struggle for territories. It started with ethnic confrontation. Regrettably, it is also a fact that violent crimes against the Armenian people were also committed in Sumgait and later in Nagorno-Karabakh. We must consider all this in a package.

At the same time, we understand that a situation where Azerbaijan has lost a substantial part of its territory cannot continue. Over the years, we have suggested many diverse options for settling this crisis with a view to stabilising the situation in the long-term historical perspective.

I will not go into detail at this point but believe me, this was intensive work on bringing the positions of the parties closer. Sometimes it seemed like a bit more effort, another small step and we would find the solution. Regrettably, it did not happen, and today we are seeing the worst-case scenario in this conflict. The death of people is a tragedy. There are heavy losses on both sides. According to our information, there are over 2,000 dead on either side. The total number of victims is already approaching 5,000.

Let me emphasise that the Soviet Union, the Soviet army lost 13,000 people during the ten years of war in Afghanistan. Now the toll is almost 5,000 in such a short span of time. And how many are wounded? How many people, how many children are suffering? This is why it is a special situation for us.

Yes, the Minsk Group was established, I believe, in 1992. As its co-chairs, Russia, France and the US are responsible for organising the negotiating process. It is clear, and I am 100 percent confident of this, that all participants in the process are sincerely striving to settle the situation. That said, nobody is interested in this as much as Russia is, because this is a very sensitive issue for us. This is not just happening before our eyes, but in a broad sense, it is happening with our people, our friends and our relatives. This is why we are in a position that allows us to be trusted by both sides and play a substantial role as a mediator on the rapprochement of positions in settling this conflict. I would very much like to find a compromise here.

As you may be aware, I maintain close contacts with both President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan. I speak to them on the phone several times a day. Our respective foreign ministers, defence ministers and heads of special services are constantly in contact. Foreign ministers of both countries came to us again. Today, or rather on October 23, they will have a meeting in Washington. I strongly hope that our American partners will act in unison with us and promote a settlement. Let us hope for the best. This covers the first part.

The second part concerns disputes within NATO between Turkey and France. We never take advantage of frictions between other states. We have good and stable relations with France. I would not say they are full-fledged, but they hold a lot of promise and, in any case, have a good track record.

Our cooperation with Turkey is expanding. Turkey is our neighbour, and I can tell you in more detail how important interaction between our states is for both Turkey and Russia.

I do not think anyone needs our mediation. Turkey and France are perfectly capable of regulating relations between themselves. No matter how tough President Erdogan’s stance may look, I know that he is a flexible person, and finding a common language with him is possible. Therefore, I hope the situation will get back to normal here as well.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, a follow-up if I may, since it is a hot topic.

Still, Turkey’s much more active role than ever before is what makes the current crisis in the South Caucasus different. You said President Erdogan is flexible. That may well be the case as you spent a lot of time with him. However, many experts believe that Erdogan’s policy is actually about expanding his zone of influence to the borders of the former Ottoman Empire. These borders stretched far and wide, as we know, and they enclosed a lot of territory, including Crimea, which was part of it at some point. It was a long time ago, but nonetheless.

Should we not fear that if this becomes a consistent policy, we would have certain differences with Ankara?

Vladimir Putin: Russia is not afraid of anything. Thank goodness, we are not in a position where we should be afraid of anything.

I do not know about President Erdogan’s plans or his attitude towards the Ottoman legacy. You should ask him about it. But I know that our bilateral trade exceeds $20 billion. I know that Turkey is really interested in continuing this cooperation. I know that President Erdogan is pursuing an independent foreign policy. Despite a lot of pressure, we implemented the TurkStream project together rather quickly. We cannot do the same with Europe; we have been discussing this issue for years, but Europe seems unable to show enough basic independence or sovereignty to implement the Nord Stream 2 project, which would be advantageous to it in every respect.

As for Turkey, we implemented our project quite quickly, despite any threats. Erdogan, who was aware of his national interests, said that we would do it, and we did it. The same is true of our ties in other areas, for example, our military-technical cooperation. Turkey decided it needed a modern air defence system, and the world’s best is the S-400, a triumph of Russian industry. He said he would do it, and he bought it. Working with such a partner is not only pleasant but also safe.

As for aspirations, regarding Crimea or anything else, I know nothing about them, and I do not care about them because the interests of Russia are reliably protected, take my word for it. I am sure that our other partners are fully aware of this.

Regarding Turkey’s refusal to recognise Crimea as part of Russia, well, we do not see eye to eye on all subjects. For example, we are not always on the same page regarding the situation in the South Caucasus. But we also know about the positions of Europe and the United States. They claim to be true dyed-in-the-wool democrats, but they do not even want to hear about the people of Crimea voting for their future in a referendum, which is the highest form of direct democracy.

As I said, they adopted sanctions against the Crimean people. If Crimea was annexed, then they are the victims. Why are sanctions adopted against the victims? But if they voted freely, it was democracy in action, so why are they being punished for democracy? This is all rubbish and nonsense, but it is also a fact of life. So why point the finger at Erdogan? Just take a look at what is happening in other countries.

This is a consistent stand: he does not recognise Crimea, and he does not recognise Nagorno-Karabakh. What should we do? We must continue working with everyone and remain calm. This is exactly what we have been doing: trying to prove that our position is correct, and we will continue to uphold it, and when positions diverge, we look for compromise.

For example, as far as I know, our views on the developments in the South Caucasus do not coincide, because we believe that conflicts should be settled diplomatically at the negotiating table rather than with the use of armed force. Of course, one could say that talks have been ongoing there for 30 years, but to no avail. Well, I do not see this as a reason to start shooting.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

Of course, Mr Erdogan has been consistent. For example, he recognises Northern Cyprus. But this is perhaps part of the flexibility that you were talking about.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you are right. I agree. I was supposed to say this but it slipped my mind. But you are correct. Northern Cyprus, yes. However, as far as I know, Turkey does not object to the country finally being unified. The principles of this unification are the problem. But, overall, you are right.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Anatoly Torkunov, President of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations.

Anatoly Torkunov: Mr President,

Although there are still more than two months left in 2020, I think all of us see this year as one of very dramatic and unpredictable events. So of course, there is a joke that goes, if by the end of the year we encounter aliens, nobody will be surprised.

Never mind the aliens, we will see how it goes. My question is, of course, not about them. It is related to the developments around our borders. Thank you for such a detailed and interesting account. As an expert, I was very curious to hear your remarks on the South Caucasus.

But in general, developments around our borders seem to be rather dramatic. Let us take the events in Kyrgyzstan. The elections in that country have always prompted some kind of turbulence, although this year the civil disturbances have been particularly rough. The situation in Belarus is somewhat complicated. There is also the problem of Donbass. I understand that you must be tired of talking about this. We know your firm and consistent stance on this issue.

My question is what are Russia’s current fundamental foreign policy goals in the post-Soviet space, considering that it directly concerns our security and humanitarian links? Today you have stressed several times that these people are not foreigners to us – meaning the Caucasus but also our friends in Central Asia and our friends in Belarus and Ukraine.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know this better than anyone else, you are a very experienced person and a professional with a capital “P”. Our policy in the post-Soviet space within the CIS framework is the main component of our overall foreign policy. This is obvious because all the countries you listed and every other country with which we have good, very good multilateral relations, as well as those with whom our ties seem to be in a stalemate in some cases – they are not foreign countries to us all the same. These are not remote countries somewhere overseas about which we know little.

It is obvious that we lived in a single country, and not just for many years but for centuries, We have strong ties and very deep cooperation in the economy, humanitarian ties. We all speak a common language. In a sense, to a greater or lesser degree, we are essentially people of the same cultural space, not to mention our history. We have a common history and a common victory over Nazism. Our predecessors – our fathers and grandfathers – validated our special relations with their blood.

Regardless of the current events and today’s political environment, I am sure that this community of interests will eventually pave the way to the restoration of our ties with all these countries, no matter how difficult our ties with them are.

At the same time, and this is also an obvious fact, when our common state, the USSR began disintegrating, the people who dealt with this did not think about the consequences this would lead to, something they should have thought about. But it was clear that our neighbours did not always have identical interests. Sometimes their interests diverged and rope pulling was always possible. I believe we must and will find solutions to complicated issues in any way we can, but we need to avoid fueling or exaggerating anything or emphasising disputed issues. On the contrary, we must look at what can and must unite us and what does unite us. What is this? Our common interests.

Look, with respect to economic integration, who is not interested in this? Only our competitors. And the post-Soviet countries are bound to understand, at least smart people are bound to understand that a concerted effort, considering we have a common infrastructure, common transport and energy system and a common language that unites rather than divides us, etc., is our distinct competitive advantage in achieving the things for which some economic associations and structures have been fighting for decades, while we have received all this from our predecessors. We must use this, and this brings benefits to all of us. It is absolutely obvious that this is simply beneficial.

Look, Ukraine saw a revolution in 2004, and then in 2014 another revolution, a state coup. What happened as a result? Read the statistics published by the Ukrainian statistical services: shrinking production, as if they had more than one pandemic. Some of the local industries, ones the entire Soviet Union and Ukraine itself were proud of – the aircraft industry, shipbuilding, rocket building – developed by generations of Soviet people, from all Soviet republics, a legacy Ukraine, too, could and should be proud of – are almost gone. Ukraine is being de-industrialised. It was perhaps the most industrialised Soviet republic, not just one of them. There was of course the Russian Federation, Moscow, St Petersburg, Siberia, the Urals – all right, but Ukraine still was one of the most industrialised republics. Where is all this now and why is it lost?

It was just the stupidity of those who did it, just stupidity, that is all. But I hope that these common interests will still pave the way for common sense.

You just mentioned Belarus – indeed, we have witnessed these turbulent processes there. But there is something I would like to highlight As you may have noticed, Russia did not interfere in what was happening there. And we expect no one else to interfere either. No one should be stirring up this conflict to promote their own interests and impose any decisions on the Belarusian people. I already said in my opening remarks that nothing introduced from the outside without taking into account the peculiarities, culture and history of the people will ever work for that culture, those people.

The Belarusians themselves should be given the opportunity to calmly handle their situation and make appropriate decisions. The decisions they will make could pave the way for amending the country’s Constitution or adopting a new Constitution. President Lukashenko said this publicly. True, people can say, well, he will just write something for his own benefit, this kind of constitution will have nothing to do with democracy. But, you know, it is possible to slander just about anything, and there are always sceptics. But I already said this, so I will not go into more detail.

But what happened in Belarus compares favourably with what happened on the streets of some big cities in developed democracies, do you see that? There has been some harsh action indeed, I give you that, and maybe even unjustified, but then, those who allowed it should be made responsible. But in general, if you compare and look at the pictures – in Belarus, no one shot an unarmed person in the back, that is what I mean. So let us just calmly deal with this.

The same goes for Kyrgyzstan. I think current developments there are a disaster for Kyrgyzstan and its people. Every time they have an election, they practically have a coup. What does this mean? This is not funny. It means that many of these countries are taking the first steps towards their own statehood and the culture of state development.

I have told my colleagues many times that the post-Soviet countries should be treated with special attention, and we must carefully support these new sprouts of statehood. In no case should we be pressing advice or recommendations on them, and even more so, avoid any interference, because this will destroy the fragile, nascent institutions of sovereignty and statehood in those countries. It is necessary to give these nations the opportunity to carefully build these relations within society leading by example, but not acting like an elephant in a china shop with advice and piles of money to support one or the other side.

I strongly hope that we have helped Kyrgyzstan, as a member of the CSTO and the EAEU, to get on its feet, invested hundreds of millions of dollars to support the Kyrgyz economy and various industries and to help Kyrgyzstan adapt so it can join the EAEU. This also goes for phytosanitary services, customs systems, individual sectors of the economy and enterprises. We have recently implemented projects valued at up to $500 million. I am not even talking about grants that we provide annually in the amount of tens of millions of dollars.

Of course, we cannot look at what is happening there without pity and concern. Please note that we are not pressing our advice or instructions on them. We are not supporting any particular political forces there. I strongly hope that things in Kyrgyzstan will get back to normal, and that Kyrgyzstan will get on the path to progress and we will maintain excellent relations with them.

The same goes for Moldova. We can see the developments related to Moldova, and we know the Moldovan people’s needs for promoting democracy and economy. But who is buying Moldovan wine? Will France buy Moldovan wine? Who needs it in the European markets? They have more than enough of their own. When they ship wine from country to country, even within the European Union, the farmers dump it into ditches just to get rid of the cargo.

This is not just about wine. Other sectors of the economy are so closely tied to Russia that they simply cannot exist without it, at least for now. They can only sell their products in Russia. This is exactly what happened to Ukraine. Therefore, we hope that during the next election in Moldova, the Moldovan people will appreciate the efforts that the current President of the republic is undertaking to build good relations with Russia.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

Hans-Joachim Spanger has joined us from Frankfurt.

Hans-Joachim Spanger: Mr President,

Allow me to turn to an issue which is connected with a person whose name reportedly is not really used in the Kremlin, at least not in public – Alexei Navalny.

A renowned Russian scholar, Dmitry Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, recently stated, let me quote: “The poisoning of the opposition activist Alexei Navalny has become a turning point in Russo-German relations.” And this, according to him, essentially means that, another quote, “this special role performed by Germany and its Chancellor in recent years is now a thing of the past. From now on, Germany will have the same attitude to Russia as all the other countries in Western Europe.”

My question is whether you share this view that a) there was such a special role of Germany in bilateral German-Russian relations, and b) whether you also detect such a turning point now, and if so, what Russia can do to avoid it happening, or, conversely, to turn the turning point around again? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will start with the first part of your question, about the poisonings. First, we have heard about poisonings here and there many times. It is not the first time.

Second, if the authorities had wanted to poison the person you mentioned or to poison anybody, it is very unlikely they would have sent him for medical treatment to Germany. Don’t you think so? As soon as this person's wife contacted me, I immediately instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to see if it was possible to allow him to travel abroad for medical treatment. They could have prohibited it because he was under restrictions due to an investigation and a criminal case. He was under travel restrictions. I immediately asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to allow that. And he was taken to Germany.

Then we were told that they found traces of this infamous Novichok that is known around the world. I said, “Please give us the materials.” Primarily, the biological material and the official report so that we can do more research that can give us official and formal legal grounds for initiating criminal proceedings. What was unusual about this request? Our Prosecutor General’s Office, in keeping with the agreements we have with Germany, has repeatedly forwarded official requests for these materials. Is this unusual? In addition, in a conversation with a European leader, I suggested that our specialists go to Germany and together with French, German and Swedish experts work on site to obtain the necessary materials, which we could use to initiate criminal proceedings and, should this incident prove to be a crime, investigate it. But they would not give us anything. How can you explain why? There is no explanation, there is just no explanation. This all looks strange.

Well, they said that they had found traces of Novichok. Later they passed whatever they had on to the OPCW – the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Then quite unexpectedly, they said, it is not Novichok – it is something else. So, is it Novichok or not? This has cast doubt on what was said before. Well, let us investigate the incident together. I say, as I have said several times, that if this is really true, we will definitely conduct an investigation. Unfortunately, there have been attempts on the lives of public figures and businessmen in our country. These cases were investigated in Russia, the culprits were found and punished and, what is important, all of them were punished. We are prepared to spare no effort in this case as well.

As for specific individuals, we have quite a few people like Saakashvili, but I do not think that currently these people have influence to speak of… They may also change, why not? They may undergo some transformation – which, in principle, is not bad – and will also get involved in realpolitik instead of making noise in the street. Take Occupy Wall Street – where is it? Where? Where is all the informal opposition in many European countries or the United States, for that matter? There are many parties there. Where are they? Two parties dominate the political stage and that is it. However, look what is going on in the streets.

This is why we are developing the Russian political system and will continue to do so, offering all political forces – seriously-minded, sincere and patriotic ones – the opportunity to work in compliance with the law.

Now, regarding Germany’s role. We have had very good relations with Germany in the post-war years. I think this was largely due to the German Democratic Republic, the GDR, which was the Soviet Union’s key and main ally in Europe, at least during the time that state existed. We have developed very good relations at the personal and political levels, and in the economic sphere. I know there are still a lot of people there now who sympathise with Russia. And we appreciate that.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union did play a decisive role in the reunification of Germany. It was indeed a decisive role. Some of your current allies, allies of Germany, in fact, objected to the unification of Germany, no matter what they said. We know this; we still have it in our archives. While the Soviet Union played this role. I personally believe that it was the right thing to do, because it was wrong to break a single whole into parts, and if the people there really want something, in Germany’s case they wanted unity, reunification, their pursuit should not be contained by force, as it will not do anyone any good. As for building relations between East and West Germany – this should be up to the Germans, of course. Has Germany played any special role, say, as a mediator between Russia and the rest of the world or Russia and the rest of Europe? I do not think so. Russia is a country that does not need intermediaries.

At the same time, we have always had very special economic, and even humanitarian ties with Germany. Why? Because Germany wanted to play a special role? Well, no, I think it had more to do with Germany’s own interests. Even now, Germany is Russia’s second largest trade partner, in gross volume. It used to be the first, by the way, but it is second to China now, as our trade with China is twice the volume it is with Germany. Nevertheless, there are more than 2,000 companies with German capital in our market. We have a fairly large volume of German investment and German businesses are interested in working in Russia. We are happy about this, because we know these are sincere people interested in expanding ties with our country. I regularly meet with representatives of German business; they are all our friends, or I would like to think so, anyway. This cooperation provides millions of jobs in the Federal Republic of Germany as well, because goods produced by German enterprises go to the Russian market; they enjoy demand here, which means jobs there.

Incidentally, many industries have been seeing a high level of cooperation in recent years. All the above are manifestations of the special nature of our relations, of a mutual interest, I would say. Mutual interest is at the heart of this relationship – not an ambition to play some special role. And this mutual interest will not go away, regardless of the current political situation, and we will maintain such relations, no matter what anyone does.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

We will stay in Europe for now.

Nathalie Tocci from Rome has joined us. Nathalie, please go ahead.

Nathalie Tocci: Thank you, Mr President, for your extremely candid remarks.

You spoke very eloquently about the importance and centrality of the state, but at the same time the importance of international cooperation, and, in particular, highlighted areas like security as well as climate, which I would associate also with energy transition.

Now, when it comes to security, perhaps a follow-up question on the Caucasus and the resumption of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. At some point, hopefully very soon, there will be a new ceasefire. At the same time, the conflict itself won’t be resolved. Given that the current configuration of the three Minsk Group co-chairs has been unable to deliver a settlement in all these 26 years, does Russia think that this is the setup that should be reconsidered?

And then, perhaps, if I may, a question on climate change and, in particular, energy transition. Now, energy transition requires funding. The European Union, for instance, will dedicate approximately 40 percent of its next-generation new fund to the Green Deal. Now, when it comes to Russia, it is clear that, being a country that has depended quite importantly on its fossil fuel exports, stabilising energy markets is obviously going to be key for Russia in order to obtain the funds to move forward.

In your speech you highlighted the importance OPEC Plus had in that stabilisation of the market, and I think Russia itself played an extremely important role in ensuring that supplies were cut so as to stabilise prices. But at the same time, we are now in a second wave of the pandemic, and we are likely to see demand continuing to be rather sluggish. Would you expect, or would you like to see in 2021, a further cut in supplies to ensure a further stabilisation of prices?

Vladimir Putin: I will start with the first part of your question regarding the Minsk Group negotiation format and whether it should be changed. Unfortunately, Nathalie, I cannot answer your question. This is for a number of objective reasons, not because I want to emphasise Russia’s role, we all understand that Russia is where it is, nearby. These are our neighbours, and we have special relations with these countries and these peoples. The influences are very strong. I have already said that 2.4 million Armenians and about 2 million Azerbaijanis live in Russia. They wire tens of billions of dollars to support their families. But this is just one factor. I am not even mentioning many others, including the use of markets, cultural ties, and so on. That is, in our case, the situation is very different from relations between the United States and Armenia, or the United States and Azerbaijan, or even Turkey and Azerbaijan. Therefore, of course, we bear special responsibility and must be very careful in what we do.

In this context, the support of the United States, France and other members of the Minsk Group – 10 or 12 countries – matters a lot to us. There are European countries there, and Turkey as well. Do we need to change anything in this regard? I am not sure. Maybe the format could be tweaked a little, but it is imperative to find constructive and acceptable compromises for both sides.

To reiterate, for many years we have been looking for these compromises. We have proposed, believe me, very persistently, a variety of compromises, down to minute details and kilometres, to tell you the truth. All sorts of “corridors” were suggested, as well as an exchange of territories. All the things that were suggested… Unfortunately, we were unable to identify a solution, which eventually led to this tragedy. I hope these hostilities will come to an end soon. I agree with those who believe, including you, that the first thing is to immediately stop the hostilities. We, in fact, agreed to this during the meeting in Moscow. Unfortunately, we were unable to avoid this situation. We will continue to strive for this.

Now I would like to say a few words about oil and everything connected with it, the demand for oil and so on. We are working on alternative energy sources ourselves. We are one of the richest countries in hydrocarbons, oil and gas, but this does not mean at all that we should not think about the future. We are thinking about it and about solar energy and hydrogen energy. We are working on this. Moreover, we are working on this with a view to improving the current situation.

You know for sure that we have adopted a decision in line with which in 2022 we must make our 300 largest contaminators, that is, 300 major companies that are the biggest emitters of these gases, switch to the most accessible, latest technology that would minimise emissions into the atmosphere and into the environment in general of any pollutants, and reduce these emissions by 20 percent by 2024. But we understand that by dealing with these 300 companies and 12 cities where most of them are located, we will not drastically improve the situation. Our strategy in this respect is aimed at halving all anthropogenic emissions by 2030. We must move towards this goal. We have set it for ourselves and will pursue it consistently. We will work on it.

That said, I do not think it will be realistic, provided every country wants to be competitive, to abandon hydrocarbons in the near future. I believe the near future embraces several decades: 30, 40 and 50 years from now. This is simply unrealistic.

Therefore, when we hear about European novelties on hydrocarbons and relevant restrictions, I do not know on what basis these proposals, conclusions and decisions are made. Are they explained by domestic political struggle? Later they are followed by restrictions in international trade and cooperation, right? I do not think this will lead to anything good. It is necessary to achieve a result in this respect not through restrictions but through cooperation and a striving to reach common goals.

We have done what we ought to do under the Kyoto agreement. We have fulfilled everything we did. We are active participants in the Paris agreement and intend to do all this. We are not shutting down from it. On the contrary, we think this is the way to go.

I spoke in my opening remarks about the speed at which permafrost is disappearing and the consequences this may have for all humankind. And what about us? We have a lot of transport systems in this zone: oil and gas pipelines and railways. Our residential districts and whole cities are located on this territory. This is a huge problem for us, and that is why we are willing to work and will work, both ourselves and at the international level, for a clean environment and a reduction in anthropogenic emissions. That said, it is impossible to do without hydrocarbons.

But there is also natural gas as a hydrocarbon source. It is actually the cleanest of hydrocarbons. And what about nuclear energy? Despite what anyone says or the scare tactics around nuclear power and nuclear power stations, it is one of the cleanest kinds of energy. So what are we talking about? Take automobiles, what is the primary energy source there? Even now, Europe and the entire world still use coal to produce electricity. Yes, coal’s share is falling but it is still used.

Why should any fiscal constraints be placed on using natural gas and even diesel fuel? By the way, it can be made to be extremely clean with modern purification and usage standards. So what is the point? To give competitive advantages to certain sectors of the economy in this or that country, with politicians standing behind it. That is the only way I can explain it, not as a simple desire to improve the environment. Nevertheless, I hope sound decisions will be taken here and we will be able to find a proper balance between environmental and economic interests.

As for the demand for oil and work within OPEC Plus, we maintain contacts with all our partners – both the Americans and the Saudis. We do so regularly at the ministerial level. Literally just the other day I spoke to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, we consult with one another. We believe there is no need to change anything in our agreements as of yet. We will be closely tracking the recovery of the market. You said it was sluggish. It was but is recovering, I will note, it is growing.

The world economy did indeed contract due to the pandemic but consumption is on the rise. That has something to do with our decisions as part of OPEC Plus. We are of the opinion that nothing needs to change right now. However, we are not ruling out either maintaining existing production limits or not lifting them as soon as we had intended earlier. And if necessary, we will make further reductions. But currently we do not see the need. We have agreed with all our partners that we will closely monitor the situation.

Russia is not interested in higher or lower prices necessarily. Here, our interests overlap with those of our US partners, perhaps primarily with them, because if oil prices drop significantly, shale production will experience great difficulties, to put it mildly. However, although it did not join the OPEC Plus deal in a meaningful way, the United States has, in fact, reduced output.

So, almost all market participants, all players have close or overlapping interests, as diplomats say. We will proceed based on the actual situation so as not to make a negative impact on the market. As you are aware, it is important not to impact geological exploration and the preparation of new wells. If we treat the energy sector like a stepchild and keep saying it is not good enough and does nothing but pollute, investment will dry up, and prices will skyrocket.

That is why it is necessary to act responsibly and not politicise this issue or chatter idly, especially for those who know nothing about it, but to act based on the interests of the global economy and their own countries’ interests and find a compromise between protecting nature and growing the economy, so our people can earn enough to support themselves and their families. We will succeed only if we manage to balance these interests. Anything less will lead to ruin.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, we at the Valdai Club have the pleasure to meet with you regularly and so we have a basis for comparison. If I may say so, I think you have learned something from the pandemic. You sound at peace when you talk about it. I have to ask. You speak so well of Europe, but does it bother you that you are considered almost a murderer there, that those closest to you in government are sanctioned and you are always called on to justify something? And yet I can hear absolution in what you say.

Vladimir Putin: You know, there is little that bothers me, because to a certain extent, when I carry out my official duties, I become the function of protecting the interests of the Russian people and the Russian state. Everything else I try to shut out, so that it does not interfere with the performance of this function. I have had a long time to get used to these attacks, since 2000, when we fought international terrorists in the Caucasus. I heard and saw everything. They portrayed me with fangs and in every other way imaginable. So, it has no effect on me.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Let us jump to the other side. Zhao Huasheng, Shanghai.

Zhao Huasheng: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Zhao Huasheng: Thank you very much for this great opportunity.

This year’s theme at this Valdai Club session is The Lessons of the Pandemic and the New Agenda: How to Turn a World Crisis into an Opportunity for the World. I will paraphrase this: how can we turn a world crisis into an opportunity for Sino-Russian relations?

The world is rapidly changing now. Given these conditions, how do you think Sino-Russian relations should develop? I am referring to political and economic ties and regional and international cooperation. What new approaches can be expected? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I would give a very brief answer to the question on how to further develop Sino-Russian relations: the same way we have been doing it and are doing it now. Russian-Chinese relations have reached an unprecedented level.

I am not even mentioning the term “specially privileged” relations, etc. What matters is not the name but the quality of these ties. As for the quality, we treat each other with deep trust; we have established durable, stable, and most importantly, effective ties across the board.

My friend – and I have every reason to call him a friend –President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping and I continuously consult each other on what and how things need to be done based on what has already been achieved, but we always find a way to move forward.

You know that we are working together in aviation and nuclear power engineering, as I have just mentioned, and further developing trade ties. Last year, our trade was over 111 billion. This is far from the highest figure that we can achieve. We will certainly achieve more.

We are developing infrastructure, building bridges that unite us in the literal meaning of the word. We are developing humanitarian ties and seeking implementation rather than simply planning large projects in the areas where we supplement each other effectively, including energy.

China is a big shareholder in a number of large Russian projects on gas production, and later, on liquefaction (LNG). Where are these projects carried out? Not on the border with China but in the north of the Russian Federation. We work together in a variety of other areas. And, as we have said many times, there is no doubt that international cooperation is a very important factor in stabilising world affairs; this is absolutely obvious.

To say nothing of our military and defence industry cooperation. We have traditionally maintained relations in this area on a significant scale. I am not only talking about buying and selling, I also mean the sharing of technologies. We hope to maintain this working relationship with our Chinese friends – a friendly relationship based on mutual respect, oriented toward achieving the best results for the people of both China and Russia.

As for Shanghai, it happens to be a sister city of St Petersburg, where I am from. I have been to Shanghai on more than one occasion. It is a magnificent and beautiful city, and I wish the people of Shanghai all the best.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Here is a follow-up question from China to clarify a bit what you just said. Professor Yan Xuetong wants to ask you a very simple and straightforward question: Is it possible to conceive of a military alliance between China and Russia?

Vladimir Putin: It is possible to imagine anything. We have always believed that our relations have reached such a level of cooperation and trust that it is not necessary, but it is certainly imaginable, in theory.

We hold regular joint military exercises – at sea and on land in both China and the Russian Federation – and we share best practices in the build-up of the armed forces. We have achieved a high level of cooperation in the defence industry – I am not only talking about the exchange or the purchase and sale of military products, but the sharing of technologies, which is perhaps most important.

There are also very sensitive issues here. I will not speak publicly about them now, but our Chinese friends are aware of them. Undoubtedly, cooperation between Russia and China is boosting the defence potential of the Chinese People’s Army, which is in the interests of Russia as well as China. Time will tell how it will progress from here. So far, we have not set that goal for ourselves. But, in principle, we are not going to rule it out, either. So, we will see.

Anyway, we are satisfied with the current state of relations between Russia and China in this area. Unfortunately, we have to confront new threats. For example, the intention stated by our American partners to possibly deploy medium- and short-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific Region, of course, raises alarm, and we undoubtedly will have to take reciprocal steps – this fact is self-evident.

Of course, before it comes to that, we have to see what if anything is going to happen, what threats it will pose to us, and, depending on that, we will take reciprocal measures to ensure our security.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Piotr Dutkiewicz from Canada, please.

Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr President, thank you so much for this unique opportunity to talk to you.

You mentioned in your speech that the youth will have to push the future of Russia, the development of Russia forward. But young people are very unhappy with the world. Look at what is happening in the US, France and Israel. They are saying we have shut the door to a good future for them. According to international opinion polls, over half of young people think they will live worse than their parents do. But they are not impressed by any of this. So, I would like to ask you as the President of the Russian Federation, what you can advise and offer to Russian youth?

Vladimir Putin: I touched on this in my opening remarks, but I can say it again. Of course, the future belongs to the youth, This is the first thing.

Second, young people are usually discontent not with what is happening but with what they have achieved for today, and they want more. And this is right, this is what underlies progress. This is a foundation for the young people to create a better future than the one we have built. And there is nothing surprising or new in this idea. We can understand this from classic Russian literature. Read Fathers and Sons, it is all there.

But what can we offer? We believe we will give young people more opportunities for professional growth and create more social lifts for them. We are building up these instruments and creating conditions for people to receive a good education, make a career, start a family and receive enough income for a young family.

We are drafting an increasing number of measures to support young families. Let me emphasise that even during the pandemic, most of our support measures were designed for families with children. What are these families? They are young people for the most part.

We will continue doing this in the hope that young people will use their best traits – their daring striving to move ahead without looking back at formalities that probably make older generations more reserved – for positive, creative endeavours. Eventually, the younger generation will take the baton from the older generation and continue this relay race, and make Russia stronger.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

We have an unusual connection with Australia today. I do not remember anything like this before.

Anton Roux, Please, go ahead.

Anton Roux: Thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to ask you a question. I really appreciated your insightful, heartfelt and considered remarks during your speech; and I come to you from our second state lockdown in Melbourne, Australia, which is also a sister city to St Petersburg. I embrace also your urging to cast aside silo mentalities.

My question is the following: How do you want to be remembered? What do you want your legacy to be as a world leader and the President of the Russian Federation during the first half of the 21^st century? How would you like international historians across the world to write about you and your legacy as a leader, a man and a human being at the end of the 21^st century? And how might you shape this any differently during the next phase of your leadership as President of the Russian Federation?

Vladimir Putin: If the translation is correct, you said “who lived in the 21^st century.” But, thank God, we are alive and keep living in the 21^st century. To be honest, I never think in terms of the areas you mentioned. I do not think about my role in history; those who are interested can decide. I never read a single book about myself.

I just keep working day in, day out, trying to resolve current issues and looking into the future so that these current issues do not stand in the way of achieving our strategic goals. It is, in fact, routine work. I proceed from what I must accomplish today, tomorrow, this year, or in three years given that we plan the budget of the Russian Federation three years in advance.

Of course, as I have said, we do consider strategic goals; this is why we have drafted and continue pursuing national development plans and national projects. But this totally unrelated to any desire to mark my place in history in some way. It is related to something completely different – ensuring the interests of the Russian people, the Russian state, strengthening Russia.

How I will be seen by future generations, I would rather leave to them and their judgment. But then, I do not think I would be interested in these judgments when they are made. In this sense I am a pragmatic person, and I am trying to work not for my image as a world leader, and I do not think I am one (I do not think I am any different from my colleagues – the heads of other states), I work to strengthen my country. This my priority and the meaning of my life.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you. I remember your interview a few months ago, ahead of the constitution referendum, when you openly said that an opportunity to remain in office after 24 years is a guarantee against bureaucratic intrigue, the people around you, so they would not look around in search of a successor.

But if this is true, it is an endless circle; they will always be searching, even while you remain in office.

Vladimir Putin: No, it must definitely end one day, I am perfectly aware of that. And the changes in the Constitution you mentioned are aimed not only at granting the incumbent head of state the right to be elected in 2024 and later, but these amendments are basically aimed at reinforcing the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, outlining our development prospects and building up the fundamental constitutional foundation for progress in the economy, the social sphere and enhancing our sovereignty.

I expect it will all work.

As to what will happen in 2024 or later – we will see when the times comes. Now we all just have to work hard like St Francis, everyone at his or her place.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Alexander Rahr, please.

Alexander Rahr: Mr President, my question is about nostalgia as well. I remember your historical speech at the German Bundestag 20 years ago, where you actually proposed building a common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Do you regret that?

Here is my point. The French and the Germans supported the idea. The Eastern Europeans did not. America will not, either. Actually, that keeps us from building our relations with Russia, which, I think, many Europeans would like.

If you had the opportunity to address the Bundestag again, would you also propose working together in the digital sphere or, perhaps, the environment, which would unite Europe and Russia in terms of energy? I think this is a promising idea for the future.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding what I would say if I were speaking there now, here is what happened back then.

At that time (it was 2007, correct?), many of my colleagues told me it was a bit harsh and it was not very good.

What did I actually say? I will refresh your memory. I said it is unacceptable for one country to extend its law beyond its national borders and try to subject other states to its regulations. Something along these lines.

What is happening now? Is it not Western European leaders who are saying that secondary sanctions and extending US jurisdiction to European companies are unacceptable?

If only they had enough guts to listen to what I said back then and to try to at least change the situation, do it carefully, without destroying Atlantic solidarity or the structural arrangement in NATO or elsewhere. I was not talking about that, but about the fact that it is unacceptable and bad for everyone, including those who do this.

Back then, our European partners seemed not to care and everyone looked the other way. Here again, what happened then is happening now. I am saying that this is still bad for everyone, including those who are pursuing or trying to pursue a policy of exceptionalism, because this actually destroys relations and interaction between Europe and the United States, and ultimately causes damage to the United States itself. Why do this?

This fleeting tactical gain that the United States is seeking may lead to negative strategic consequences and the destruction of trust. This is not my business, but since we are having an exchange at the discussion club, I will go ahead and philosophise. This is an absolutely obvious thing.

So, I did not say anything unusual, harmful or aggressive in Munich in 2007. But if I were to speak there now, I would not, of course, say I told you so. I would not do that just out of respect for my colleagues. I am fully aware of the realities back then and today. We do not live in a vacuum, but in real life conditions, our relationships are real and our interdependence is strong.

We understand everything perfectly well, but we need to change things. We are talking about a new world order, so these realities must be taken into account when building modern international relations, which must, of course, be based on consideration for each other's interests and mutual respect, and respect for sovereignty.

I hope we can build our relations carefully and calmly, without destroying what has been created over previous decades, but while taking into account today’s needs. These relations will meet present requirements and the interests of all participants in international communication.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Alexei Yekaikin. Since we have talked a lot about ecology today, we cannot go without this.

Vladimir Putin: What time is it?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, we are finishing up, Mr President. We feel we have already exceeded our time, but we cannot do without ecology in the end.

Vladimir Putin: No, we cannot. I agree.

Alexei Yekaikin: Thank you, Fyodor.

Good evening, Mr President.

Maybe, this question will seem a bit surprising to you although we have met several times over the years and talked about this. I would like to raise it again. It is about the Antarctic. We spoke about this at the climate session and, in general, this is an anniversary year for us – 200 years since the discovery of the Antarctic.

This is what my question is about. Russia has adopted or is adopting a strategy for developing activities in the Antarctic. A new Vostok station is under construction in the Central Antarctic as part of this strategy. You know this.

It would seem that everything is fine, investment in the infrastructure and the like. So, you may get the impression that we are doing well in the Antarctic. Alas, this is not the case, because the policy is about infrastructure but does not say a word about science. This is a fairly paradoxical situation. I would call it strange because we invest in the infrastructure whereas the main goal for which we need it, that is, science, remains somewhere backstage.

At our Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, we have prepared a draft federal programme for studying the area around the Vostok station for the next 15 years. It has been drafted in detail. It consists of two main themes. The first is the study of the past climate based on ice core data, and this study is very closely connected with the climate theme. Yes, this is drilling the ice, that is right.

The second theme concerns the subglacial lake Vostok. You also know about this. It is one of the most unique phenomena on the planet.

These are two subjects in which we, Russian scientists, are generally strong; we are not trying catch up with anyone in this respect. We are at the proper level and even ahead of some of our colleagues. Nonetheless, there is no government support for research in the Antarctic. I find this strange.

We sent this draft programme to the Ministry of Natural Resources, our relevant ministry. I do not know where exactly it is now. We do not know what happened to it. My question is very simple: does the Russian Government have the opportunity to support our efforts to study the Antarctic or will this topic go down the drain?

After all, it would be a pity to lose our priority in this area.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Alexei, first of all, the fact that your colleagues and you made it to Lake Vostok and made this discovery, got to this water that is thousands of years old and that was not connected in any way with the world, remaining under the ice, this, of course, is of great interest to people like you, researchers, who study what eventually became the Earth and how the climate was changing.

I saw this; they brought me the core samples and the water. It is exciting. However, the fact that the infrastructure is being created means that preparations for research are underway. I do not know the plans regarding the allocation of funds for these purposes. You said that money was allocated for the infrastructure, but not scientific research. I doubt this is a lot of money. If the Ministry of Natural Resources …unfortunately, budget cuts are underway, which are caused by certain economic difficulties.

I am not sure if it was necessary to cut the already small expenses associated with Antarctic research. I promise I will look into it. We will punish anyone who made a mistake.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you mentioned in your speech that you do not miss the Cold War. Do you miss anything at all?

Vladimir Putin: My children, I rarely see them.

Fyodor Lukyanov: We at the Valdai Club miss the opportunity to get together in person. With all the great advances in technology that allow us to hold almost complete meetings, we would still very much like to talk in person to you and each other next year.

We have not broken the record; there was a forum where the President spent more time with us, but we are close. We talked with the President of the Russian Federation for almost three hours, for which we are sincerely grateful.

Thank you very much. We will try to quickly get back to our normal schedule, and we look forward to seeing you next year.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for hosting this.

I want to address all members of the Valdai Club, the analysts, politicians and journalists who work with this entity. It is an entity, because it has been operational for many years now. I hope you find it interesting and useful.

I am grateful to you for showing interest in Russia, in our development plans, in us today and in our history. This means that you are engaged, and it is important for us to know your opinion.

I am saying this sincerely, because by comparing what we are doing, by comparing our own assessments of our progress and our economic and political plans, comparing them with your ideas about what is good and what is bad, we find the best solutions and can adjust our plans.

I want to thank you for this and to wish you every success. I also hope for a personal meeting next time.

Good luck to you. Thank you very much.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very much. Good-bye.

Vladimir Putin: Good-bye.

Russia-Africa Summit

2023-11-02T13:26:10+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the Russia-Africa Summit. The heads of delegations attended the Russia-Africa Summit posed for photographs before the event.

At the Russia-Africa Summit, a final declaration was adopted, which sets goals and objectives for the further development of Russian-African cooperation in politics, security and the economy, as well as in the scientific, technical, cultural and humanitarian fields.

A Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Russian Federation and the African Union on basc principles of relations and cooperation and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the African Union on economic cooperation were adopted at the summit in the presence of Vladimir Putin and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

The leaders of Russia and Egypt made statements for the press.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, dear friends, welcome again.

I would like to once again wholeheartedly welcome you to Russia. I hope you enjoyed yesterday evening. The performance we prepared for you was designed to demonstrate the soul of Russia and the Russian people. I believe that our performers have staged a talented and impressive demonstration of our respect for African culture and traditions.

Today we will hold several sessions. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to proceed, if I may.

First of all, I would like to address the President of Egypt and all the other heads of state and government and the leaders of executive bodies of regional organisations.

We welcome all of you to the summit in Sochi devoted to interaction between Russia and Africa. Gathered here are representatives from all 54 African states and the leading regional organisations. It is the first meeting of this scale, which is evidence of our mutual desire to promote ties in all spheres and to strengthen our multifaceted partnership.

I would like to point out straight away that the President of Egypt has played an important role in organising the Russia-Africa Summit, which is why I addressed him first. He, as the current Chairperson of the African Union, has been with us all though the preparatory work.

Our Egyptian partners have assisted us in resolving content issues as well as the organisation of our meetings. And today it is a great honour for me to host this meeting with President el-Sisi.

Friends,

Russia and Africa are bound by traditionally friendly ties. Our country has consistently supported the national liberation movements of the peoples of Africa, we have made a significant contribution to the formation of young states and the development of their economies, as well as building up combat-ready armed forces.

Our cooperation, rooted in the period of the joint fight against colonialism, is strategic and long-standing. Of course, there are significant opportunities for intensifying Russian-African cooperation in various fields.

I would like to emphasise that the development of relations with African countries and regional organisations is among our Russian foreign policy priorities.

African states are confidently gaining political and economic weight, affirming themselves as one of the important pillars of the multipolar world order, and are taking an increasingly important part in working out international community’s decisions on key issues related to the regional and global agenda.

Our positions are close or coincide on many of those matters, which creates favourable conditions for constructive interaction at the UN and other international platforms.

We will certainly continue the practice of regular consultations at the UN General Assembly, we will strengthen contacts between our countries’ representatives with this organisation, and coordination with non-permanent members of the Security Council from among African countries.

This will allow us to boost our efforts towards ensuring common and indivisible security, and the formation of a fairer model of the modern world.

We are grateful to our African partners for supporting the resolutions that are of priority for us, namely, to combat the glorification of Nazism, the non-deployment of weapons first in outer space, confidence-building measures in outer space, and international information security.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia is determined to continue taking an active part in charting the strategic line of the international community and practical measures as regards strengthening peace and stability in Africa and maintaining regional security.

We call for increasing the role of African states in the resolution of local conflicts. At the same time, we invariably advocate the principle stipulating African solutions for African problems, and we discussed this at length with our African colleagues yesterday.

We consider it correct that African countries are raising the issue of financial support for their peacekeeping efforts from the accrued contributions to the UN budget.

We are concerned that, unfortunately for all of us, the situation in many African regions remains unstable. Interstate and ethnic conflicts remain unresolved, and acute political and socio-economic crises persist.

Terrorism, the spread of extremist ideology, transnational crime and piracy hamper the development of the African continent. Many countries face the consequences of the so-called Arab Spring, which has destabilised the situation in the whole of North Africa.

Numerous terrorist organisations, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab, operate in this region, as well as in the Sahara-Sahel area, in the vicinity of Lake Chad and in the Horn of Africa.

In this connection, we consider it important to expand joint efforts for combating terrorism and extremism. We are planning to invigorate contacts between law enforcement agencies and security services of the Russian Federation and African countries, to coordinate efforts and exchange relevant information.

We are determined to continue training military personnel and law enforcement officers for African countries at specialised Russian institutions. Today, military personnel from 20 African countries are studying at higher education institutions of the Russian Defence Ministry.

Our military and military technical cooperation is aimed at strengthening African armed forces’ combat capability. Russia has MTC agreements with over 30 countries, which we supply with a wide range of armaments and equipment. Part of these supplies are provided free of charge.

Our African partners participate actively in Russia’s military forums and exercises, where they can see samples of up-to-date weapons and military equipment, and learn how it is used. Last year, 11 African countries took part in the 2019 International Army Games. The number of those who want to join is growing.

We believe that trade, economic and investment cooperation is an important element in Russia’s relations with African countries. Last year, Russia’s trade with Africa amounted to over $20 billion. Moreover, it doubled over the past five years.

Russian exports are gradually becoming diversified, and their structure is changing towards non-resource deliveries. Russian companies have worked successfully in the region for a long time, mostly, of course, in such areas as geological exploration, mineral extraction, energy, oil and gas

At the same time, steps are taken to establish cooperation in high technology. Many of those present here took part in the Russia-Africa Economic Forum yesterday, where a lot of innovative ideas on the development of Russian-African trade and investment cooperation were voiced.

Let me repeat that education and training are also an important area of cooperation. At present, over 17,000 Africans are studying in Russia. The annual quota for state-financed openings at Russian universities is almost 2,000. We will think on how we can increase this number.

Prospects for interaction in medicine and healthcare are also good. The Republic of Guinea, for instance, has a successful research centre for epidemiology and the prevention of dangerous infectious diseases. We believe the creation of another such centre in Africa should be considered.

We also thought that it is beneficial to complement our bilateral interaction with the expansion of contacts with the leading African organisations. Yesterday, at a meeting with the heads of African regional associations and the chair of the Eurasian Economic Commission board, we discussed the prospects of mutually beneficial cooperation between Africa’s integration structures and the Eurasian Economic Union. A memorandum of understanding between the Eurasian Economic Commission and the African Union Commission will be signed today.

Colleagues,

We all are interested in giving Russia-Africa interaction a true system-wide and complex nature. We have already discussed the idea of creating the Russia-Africa partnership forum, within which, as we spoke about with some of our colleagues during dinner, regular meetings at the level of heads of state could be held, say, once in three years.

I think this is a good idea and we will support it. In between the summits, we could plan annual political consultations between foreign ministers. I think you will support this initiative. We will continue to develop Russia-Africa relations in this format.

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank all of you. It is now my pleasure to give the floor to the President of Egypt, current Chairman of the African Union and Co-chairman of our Summit, Mr el-Sisi.

President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, African Union Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Russia–Africa Summit Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (retranslated): Thank you very much, Your Excellency,

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Mr Putin, President of the Russian Federation,

Your Excellences, presidents and heads of government of African countries, Chairman of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank President Vladimir Putin and the friendly people of Russia for their warm welcome in Sochi and hospitality shown to all African delegations since the moment they arrived in Russia.

I would also like to thank the Organising Committee for their excellent preparation of the first Russia-Africa Summit, which starts today.

I am happy to speak at this important forum held in Russia, which is one of the main actors on the global stage and a sincere friend of the African nations.

Russian-African cooperation has come a long way since the middle of last century, when Russia stood by the African countries fighting against colonialism and made a significant material, logistic and spiritual contribution supporting the national freedom fight of the African people.

Russian-African relations continued to develop in the difficult international and regional situation in the 1990s, thus reaffirming that the African and Russian people were united by their cooperation and common interests in the fight against the challenges they face.

This only reaffirms the effectiveness of Russian-African cooperation, which reflects people’s hopes in the conditions of our dynamically developing world.

Today we are holding the first Russia-Africa Summit, which is themed “For peace, security and development.” We are meeting nearly three months after the [12th] Extraordinary Summit of the African Union (AU), which convened in Niamey on July 7 to discuss mechanisms for the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement.

The agreement is one of the pillars of the Agenda 2063 development concept aimed at promoting regional integration, enhancing the African countries’ international competitiveness and attracting foreign investments in the spheres of priority significance for Africa, such as the industry, energy, agriculture and ICT.

Over a period of the past decade, the AU countries formulated the goal of sustainable economic development and integration. African countries are doing their utmost to strengthen the role of the state in economic development.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We are aware of the problems that are hindering stabilisation in Africa. Our ambitious plans to end all the conflicts in Africa by 2020 could be one of our most important decisions. This will also be an operating priority for the African leaders next year.

In this context, I would like to note the importance of supporting the AU’s framework policy for the economic reconstruction and development of the conflict-affected countries, as well as for supporting the Cairo-based Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Centre and its plans to strengthen the economy of the countries that are not involved in conflicts and to strengthen the role of government agencies in ensuring stability and peace.

We reaffirm our commitment to contributing to conflict mediation efforts. Our activities are based on the principles of international law and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. We call for a peaceful settlement of all the current conflicts.

We would like to note once again that the fight against terrorism as an evil that is spreading into our countries, which has affected both African nations and the friendly Russian people, is the main priority of our efforts to strengthen peace and security at the regional and international level.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The African continent is open to cooperation with all its partners. We hope that at this summit we will able to lay a solid foundation for the future Russian-African cooperation for the next few years, while reaffirming the importance of expanding its scale in all areas, including politics, the economy, trade, culture and education, under the long-term partnership principle and while retaining the national sovereignty of African countries over their resources.

Ladies and gentlemen,

As our summit focuses on the issues of peace, security and development, I would like to note that Egypt has decided to hold a forum on peace and sustainable development in Aswan on December 11–12, 2019.

This forum is called on to become a regional and continental venue that would bring together political leaders, representatives of civil society and partners in initiatives aiming to enhance peace and development.

Indicatively, Aswan, the symbol of Egypt’s African identity, will host this forum. We will also discuss matters of enhancing peace and sustainable development on the continent.

I would like to use this opportunity to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and my brothers, heads of African states, to take part in the work of this forum.

In conclusion, I would like to express hope and to reaffirm that our summit will pass decisions meeting the interests of the people in Africa and Russia and facilitating the future development of Russian-African cooperation.

Thank you for your attention. May the peace, mercy and blessing of Allah be upon you.

Vladimir Putin: Mr President,

Thank you very much for your speech and for preparing this forum, for your active participation and for your contribution to addressing the region’s problems and to the entire international agenda.

And it is a very good idea to hold the forum that you have just mentioned. It goes without saying that we will support this important event.

<…>

Valdai Discussion Club session

2019-10-05T13:35:33+04:00

Vladimir Putin spoke at the final plenary session of the 16^th meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

The session was attended by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, King of Jordan Abdullah II, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte.

* * *

Excerpts from the transcript of the Valdai International Discussion Club session

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Your Majesty King Abdullah, Mr Aliyev, Mr Tokaev, Mr Duterte, friends, ladies and gentlemen,

I am pleased to welcome you all in Sochi at the annual meeting of the Valdai Club. According to tradition, on this platform, we try to put aside current political problems, even diplomatic discussions, and strive to discuss the long-term perspective in a historical, cultural and philosophical context and to look into the future and outline it.

This time, the hosts have come up with a truly inexhaustible and, I would say, fascinating topic which is the East and the role of Asia as the world’s largest and most populated region. Relations between Russia and the Asian states, which have always been of particular importance to us, I believe, are of interest to everyone. The nature of Russia’s relations with Asia is dictated not only by today's realities, but by history as well.

India and China, Egypt and Iran, Turkey and Japan, the countries of Central and Southeast Asia are heirs to great ancient civilisations, which gave humankind unique knowledge and technology, as well as discoveries in medicine, mathematics, culture and the arts.

Asia has always aroused special feelings among intellectuals and creative people, it seemed a little mysterious and mystical, and was considered a source of spiritual strength and wisdom, perhaps not always fully understood, but invariably interesting.

In Russia, the bright colours of the East inspired many of our writers, poets, artists and musicians, specifically Pushkin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Arsenyev, Vereshchagin, Kandinsky and Roerich. The Russian people, and not only Russians, know these names.

Today, Asia, throughout its vast reach from the Maghreb and the Middle East all the way to East and Southeast Asia, is regaining its natural place in international affairs, which is commensurate with its great heritage and today's undoubtedly vast and growing potential.

The positions of the Asian states are becoming stronger in all areas, but mainly in the economy. The region already accounts for over a third of the gross world product. Living standards are improving at a higher pace than the global average. The most advanced technology is being introduced. The unprecedented scale of integration processes and globalisation are drawing both individual countries and entire adjacent sub-regions to Asia.

While demonstrating impressive examples of progress, the Asian nations still preserve their unique features and traditions. They remember their roots and prove in their forward progress that the principles of state sovereignty do not contradict openness and globalisation, that sustainable development can be based on independence and self-sufficiency rather than their mandatory renunciation, and that growing national economic and humanitarian potential requires political identity.

Naturally, having effectively and wisely used the opportunities of globalisation and having become economic leaders, the Asian states are striving to play a bigger role in world politics. This is an absolutely natural process. They uphold their own opinions on key international issues, treasure their independence and hope that their objectively increasing influence will be recognised. We believe this is only fair and meets the realities of today and tomorrow.

Incidentally, at one time Asia’s awakening, as it is called, and the national and cultural revival of its states, played an enormous role in the democratisation of international ties. Today, it is obvious that global problems cannot be resolved without Asia. Of course, it is possible to try to do this with momentum and based on past experience, but the legitimacy, and most importantly, the practical value of such approaches, which are presented as global and universal, will be questionable.

The world has become multi-polar and, hence more complicated largely owing to the Asian countries. But, as I have said, multi-polarity as such is not a cure-all. Nor does it mean that urgent problems will disappear by themselves.

The authors of the annual Valdai Club report insist, and we have just heard this, that we have entered an era with no world order whatsoever. This has been practically voiced right now. Yes, such a scenario is indeed possible. But it is fraught with many threats, we are all aware of that. I would like to hope that however complicated the relations between countries, however dangerous the legal lacunae might be, such as in nuclear and missile weapons areas, the world order, based on the key role of international law, will be transformed, but it will remain. We will all be working to protect it. A different way is obviously fraught with global calamities for practically all of humanity.

The world system is undoubtedly multi-faceted and complicated and unprecedentedly interconnected at that. Everyone has their own objective interests that do not always coincide with those of others, this is also evident. But there is a feeling of common responsibility. Ultimately, I hope, no, actually, I do not doubt that there is also common sense, a striving for security.

This is why we cannot do without a systemic world order. But we also need both flexibility and, let me add, non-linearity, which would not mean a rejection of the system but the capability to arrange a complex process rooted in realities, which presupposes the ability to consider various cultural and value systems, the need to act together, dismissing stereotypes and geopolitical clichés. This is the only way to effectively solve the challenges on the global, regional, and national levels.

We have such examples before our eyes. Those of you who attended the 2015 Valdai Club meeting will apparently remember that at virtually the very same time the decision was taken on Russia’s operation in Syria. Let me be straightforward, not everyone, including the experts in the audience back then, believed it could bring a positive result. On the contrary, they were very sceptical about it, and many of them asked questions about why it was necessary. They asked if we understood what sort of a hornets’ nest we would get into ,whereas some foreign partners, I do not mean those experts present here, I mean just foreign partners with whom we collaborate in the global arena, were also trying to interfere, to resist.

But I would like to draw your attention to the essence of what has been done, and above all, of course, I mean what has been done for our country, as I represent its interests. We defeated the terrorist international that was actually winning on Syrian territory, and we prevented the return, the infiltration of hundreds and later, perhaps, thousands of armed cut-throats into our country and neighbouring countries with whom we have a visa-free regime, our borders are transparent.

Most of Syria was freed from terrorists within several years, and the level of violence has drastically decreased. In conjunction with our Astana format partners and with the support of the UN, we managed to launch an intra-Syrian political process and to establish close working contacts with Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries of the Middle East, as well as the United States. Colleagues, you will agree that it was difficult to even imagine such a complicated diplomatic alignment with the participation of very different states with very different emotions towards each other even a few years ago. But now this is a fait accompli, and we managed to do it.

We think the Syrian settlement can become a model for resolving regional crises where diplomatic mechanisms will be used in the vast majority of cases. The use of force is an extreme and forced exception. Indeed, in Syria, we were faced with an attempt to create a terrorist quasi-state with an actual – I am saying this without any exaggeration – an actual terrorist army.

Occasionally, many new and chronic problems and crises look too tangled and even approaching them is a problem. But, I repeat, now is the time for outside-the-box steps and actions. In Syria, Russia and its partners (of course, we could never have done this alone) managed to do a lot while adhering to and following norms of international law, respecting sovereignty and thinking primarily about the life, safety and interests of the people.

I am convinced that these approaches can be used to resolve other existing problems in the world, including in Asia, such as for example, the situation on the Korean Peninsula, which has long been in a clinch.

In this regard, notably, as soon as the United States decided to have a direct conversation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, without preliminary formalities and conventions, abandoning the usual, sometimes very rude, even insulting, rhetoric, the hope for a peaceful settlement immediately appeared.

Of course, we understand and see that there are still many unresolved problems and a long way to go. But there is movement in the right direction. We must give credit to President Trump’s courage and ability to take outside-the-box steps. Indeed, for many decades, US presidents ignored the DPRK and saw it as an outcast. Mr Trump was able to take a historic step, overcome the “demarcation line” of misunderstanding and alienation, meet with Kim Jong-un and begin the negotiating process.

Let me repeat: the most complicated conflicts, such as the Palestinian-Israeli and Afghani or the situation around the Iran nuclear deal, can and must be resolved on the principles of mutual cooperation, respect, recognition of all the parties’ interests and rejection of any kind of blinkers or philosophy of blocs.

In this context, let me remind you that this was Russia’s logic this July, when it presented the concept of providing collective security in the Persian Gulf area. I believe the idea is still important considering the tense and unpredictable situation there.

We suggest that the accumulated prejudices and mutual pretences must be pushed aside, and a security and cooperation organisation be created in the region almost from scratch. In addition to Western countries, Russia, China, the US, the EU, India and other interested countries could join as observers.

Ladies and gentlemen, of course, economic cooperation, which opens real prospects for sustainable long-term development for everyone, is the basis of equal political relations aimed at the future, including between Asian countries.

Let me use transport interconnection as an example. It is impossible to develop trade and industrial cooperation and establish mutual exchanges in any other sphere without an up-to-date road, sea and railway infrastructure. We should think together how to speed up the establishment of such a Eurasian transportation framework, a real network of latitudinal and longitudinal trading routes.

Of course, Russia is open to this joint work and is already implementing several joint projects, such as the North – South trading route from Europe via Russia to the Caspian Region, Central Asia, Iran and India. Another route, Europe – West China, will connect Russian Baltic ports with Yellow Sea ports.

There is one more prospective route, the Arctic – Siberia – Asia. The idea is to connect ports along the Northern Sea Route with ports of the Pacific and Indian oceans via roads in East Siberia and central Eurasia. In order to implement this and add the missing links, we intend to speed up the construction of railways around the port in Sabetta (it is located in the north of Russia, on the Yamal Peninsula), to accelerate and complete the construction of the entire Northern Latitudinal Railway project complex as well as the construction of the Kuragino – Kyzyl railway (Kyzyl is located in the Republic of Tyva in eastern Russia) to later connect it to the railway network of Mongolia, China and other countries in the region. We are ready to work with all interested parties on this initiative, which is significant for the whole of Eurasia.

It is obvious to us that diversity within a nation is normal. It teaches both patience and tolerance in the true meaning of these words, and the ability to understand and accept different opinions, traditions and ways of life rather than impose our model as an axiom. We believe our experience can be useful for many of our partners

With regard to the world in general, since all nations are obviously different, uniformity and universalisation are impossible by default. A system is required whereby different values, ideas and traditions can co-exist, interact and mutually enrich one another while retaining and highlighting their peculiarities and differences

There was a vision in 19^th century diplomacy… My colleagues here are good diplomats, we are in a way celebrating MGIMO today, as our Foreign Minister has prompted, because there are two MGIMO graduates among my colleagues – the President of Kazakhstan and the President of Azerbaijan, whereas two more colleagues – President Duterte and the King of Jordan are professors emeriti of the university [MGIMO], which has from the outset been the leading university for training diplomatic staff in our country.

So, in the 19^th century they used to refer to a “Concert of Powers.” The time has come to talk in terms of a global “concert” of development models, interests, cultures and traditions where the sound of each instrument is crucial, inextricable and valuable, and for the music to be played harmoniously rather than performed with discordant notes, a cacophony. It is crucial to consider the opinions and interests of all the participants in international life. Let me reiterate: truly mutually respectful, pragmatic and consequently solid relations can only built between independent and sovereign states

Russia is sincerely committed to this approach and pursues a positive agenda. We stand for strict compliance with international law and enhancing mutual confidence and respect. We are building interstate relations and communication on fair and democratic foundations with an emphasis on the UN Charter.

Our country is focused on stepping up security and stability, on fighting international terrorism and other threats and challenges. We act for the sake of establishing – including in Asia – a system of equal and indivisible security resting on far-ranging and collective work.

Incidentally, the Russia-Africa Summit will be held here, in Sochi, in three-weeks. We are prepared to propose to our African colleagues and friends a broad agenda of equal interaction covering many different areas – the economy, energy, transport, education and the environment.

In conclusion, I would like to divert from the main topic and tell you something, which, just the same, is related to it. I would like to say that almost 20 years ago – shortly before the year 2000 – my article, Russia at the Turn of the Millennium, was published. The analysis of global affairs and development prospects it then offered seems to me to have generally matched reality.

Indeed, in the 1990s, Russia lived through one of the hardest periods in its history. In addition to the deep political, economic and social crisis in the country, we found ourselves exposed to aggression by international terrorism. At the time, Russia drew close to a very dangerous line and if it had crossed it, it would have faced the worst thing for any nation and country, which is the break-up and disintegration of the state. The threat was in the air and the majority of people were aware of it.

Of course, back then we could – the threat was absolutely real – plunge into the abyss of a large-scale civil war and be stripped of national unity and sovereignty, ending up on the periphery of global politics. It was only thanks to patriotism, bravery and the rare ability of the Russian and other peoples living in the country to bear the hardships and work hard so that Russia could move back from this dangerous line.

Of course, there are things that could have been done differently and better during these 20 years. But we have gained unique experience, and I believe there is demand for it around the world. Before we came into this room, my colleagues and I discussed one of the most important issues today – terrorism.

Indeed, we in Russia still have to address plenty of issues. At the same time, due to political stability and the efforts of the whole nation, Russia has not only recovered and continues to grow stronger economically and socially, it confidently ranks among the leading, authoritative and responsible countries. Our country complies in full with its obligations as one of the guardians of the existing world order. I am sure this will continue in the future. This will be even more effective if we work together.

Thank you very much for your attention.

<…>

Moderator of the plenary session and member of the Valdai International Discussion Club Academic Council Vitaly Naumkin: Mr President, you spoke very vividly about Russia’s success in countering terrorism in Syria. Now the war is almost over and the situation is stabilising. But what is to be done next about the Syrian issue?

Vladimir Putin: We have replied many times to this and similar questions.

Large-scale military operations are over. I am saying large-scale military operations because local hotbeds of terrorism still exist. However, regardless of the result military operations cannot achieve a final settlement.

Therefore, for the time being, it is necessary to deal with issues of political settlement and this is what we are persistently doing. At any rate, we are creating the conditions that will make it possible to resolve deep-rooted political issues by political means.

We have done a great deal for the formation of the Constitutional Committee. Incidentally, the idea to establish it was voiced here in Sochi, during a large-scale event that was attended both by representatives of the Government and practically all opposition forces.

At that event Syrians themselves agreed to set up the Constitutional Committee in order to adopt a new Constitution or introduce amendments to the existing one. This was followed by a rather long period of the committee’s formation.

I must say that we worked very hard (in cooperation with our Iranian and Turkish partners) to ensure the committee’s formation. Now we are looking forward to the beginning of this constitutional process, to the work of this committee in Geneva under the UN aegis.

<…>

Nandan Unnikrishnan: I am from India.

Mr President, the world is facing major challenges following the end of unipolarity. Various new concepts arise during this transition to a new world order, such as Eurasia, Greater Eurasia, and so on.

There is a concept that spans the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and it is called Indo-Pacific. Many say that it was developed by the United States to contain China, although Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently said that this is not so and the Indian Indo-Pacific concept is completely different. It is a completely open system, and any country can join.

What do you think about this concept?

Vladimir Putin: You see, there are already different interpretations of this concept. May I say a few words about our concept? Our concept is not meant to create new blocs such as Europe or North Atlantic after World War II.

Today in Asia, I think, ASEAN is the central organisation and there is a structure for various organisations and platforms around this central ASEAN organisation. There is ASEAN +1 and so on, such as the meeting of ASEAN defence ministers.

If such a network structure of various organisations is created and they interact with each other, it can be called anything. If an attempt is made to create some kind of a bloc-based organisation, I believe, first, this is un-Asian to begin with and is at odds with the current state of affairs in Asia.

Second, it’s unlikely to be feasible, because I know the sentiment of many of our friends in Asia, and they do not want to join any blocs against anyone. They want to create a network of cooperation in various areas, as I said today, in order to, move forward together taking into account each other's interests and seeking and finding compromises. They do not want to be involved in confrontation between any states, and even more so they do not want to be part of any blocs. This is the first part.

The second part is about trying to contain China. I think this is impossible by definition. Anyone trying to do so will realise it’s impossible, and will certainly only hurt himself in the course of such an attempt.

In any case, I consider this possible scenario to be destructive and harmful. We should focus on joining efforts to create an environment of friendly cooperation and to search for common security systems. This is something we should work on together, including, of course, India, which is one of the countries closest to us in the world and especially in Asia.

Galip Dalay: Hello, this is Galip Dalay. I would like to address my question to Mr President Putin.

In your speech the Gulf security and the Syrian settlement feature prominently, and recently Russia also advanced a framework for the collective security in the Gulf.

Bearing in mind that one of the major root causes of the Gulf insecurity is the Iran-Saudi rivalry, how is Russia planning to address this question, particularly, given the fact that recently many of such attempts and the second track have failed.

And related to this, are you imagining and envisioning any interconnection between the reduction of tension in the Gulf and the Syrian settlement? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s start with the second part of your question. I think there is this link because confrontation between the largest and most influential countries in the region is bound to affect the entire situation there, including Syria.

I know that the leaders of Saudi Arabia, which I am going to visit soon, and the leaders of Iran (we are in constant contact with our Iranian partners, and I met with the President of Iran just a few days ago) wish peace and all the best for the Syrian people.

We urge them to be guided by this noble motive and do everything they can to avoid using Syrian territory as an arena for confrontation. I am hoping that if and when our partners realise this they will act under this approach. They will see that apart from confrontation there is also an opportunity to cooperate for the same common goals.

However, I believe there are also other motives for changing relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran and going from confrontation to cooperation because in both the first and second cases these countries face common threats: radicalism, separatism and terrorism. And they have common goals, and these are primarily development goals.

You asked how Russia could overcome these differences. Russia cannot overcome them. This can only be done by our friends both in Saudi Arabia and Iran. We can only support this and offer different proposals for resolving the problems. But it must be resolved by Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Lang Jing: Thank you very much, Professor Dunkley.

And I have one question for President Putin.

I came from the East, and my question is related to what my Indian colleague mentioned. Premier Shinzo Abe has been presenting the Japanese concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific strategy, and the essence of the strategy is the idea of connectivity. That is why I am very glad to hear that, President Putin, you mentioned about connectivity in your speech. So the Japanese approach is much more focused on economic connectivity, slightly different from the American approach. And Russia has been a major player in the Pacific, and Russia has been enhancing its ties with India. So it is natural that we are welcoming and waiting for Russia in the Pacific strategy. Already France and the United States, you have already presented their own version of Indo-Pacific strategy. So, can you share you vision of Russian Indo-Pacific strategy? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You said, even France has already done this. I don’t understand this remark. Why “even”? France is a great country and a permanent member of the Security Council. It thinks in global terms and offers global solutions to global issues. There is nothing surprising about this.

As for Russia, I will explain our position again. Look, Japan has presented the Indo-Pacific development strategy. Russia and other states actively develop contacts in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which has earned a very good reputation.

It started with simple goals like border delimitation with China after the Soviet Union. Everything went very well, and so we went further. Now it has new members, and many countries in the region want to join it.

China’s One Belt One Road initiative has already been mentioned here. We also talked about the Eurasian Economic Union. They are very close to each other in spirit and in objectives and we see that all this is compatible and can be carried out.

I think if we pool the efforts of the already established agencies, organisations and even concepts and create an integrated network, we can arrive at what I have repeatedly said – a large Eurasian partnership.

Can all this be instituted any time soon? Hardly. But it is quite possible to create favourable conditions for cooperation. Later it will be possible to draft organisational formats and mechanisms for common actions and cooperation.

But if we strive for this democratic cooperation with consideration for each other’s interests and respect for each other’s peculiarities, I believe we will achieve the development result we all want.

Sergei Luzyanin: Sergei Luzyanin, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Mr President,

We are all aware that this year marks anniversaries for China and for us. It is 70 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and 70 years of diplomatic relations between our countries. We have already congratulated our Chinese friends and partners at the Valdai Club.

Our partnership has reached a very high level. So, a question. What opportunities that are already being successfully implemented as part of the partnership can benefit our two countries? What are the areas for partnership?

Perhaps, not all these issues have been sorted out and cooperation has not yet reached its full potential for objective reasons. I am talking about successes and future potential. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Successes are there for everyone to see. First, we enjoy an unprecedentedly high level of trust and cooperation. This is an allied relationship in the full sense of a multifaceted strategic partnership. This is reflected in the economy.

We are increasing our trade at a fast pace. As you may be aware, last year it reached $108 billion, although we had only planned to reach this number two years from now. Now, we will start moving to the $200 billion mark.

The trade structure is diversifying. Of course, energy accounts for over 70 percent of our exports, but this is natural. We have the product, and China needs it. This does not mean that we do not engage in other industries or other areas of economic cooperation.

We have already built four units of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant (which is part of our high-tech cooperation) and are working on four more units. This involves a major, simply huge amount of work.

We are working on a wide-body long-range aircraft and a heavy-duty helicopter. This project will be completed, I have no doubt about it. We are actively cooperating in outer space, and expanding our ties in agriculture. We cannot even cover the needs of China in soybeans. They are ready to buy from us as much as we can produce, but we are not ready for it.

Here is a partial answer to your question: what else needs to be done? We could have met their demand and, I am sorry for putting it bluntly, our farmers could have made some money on this. But we cannot supply soybeans in such quantity. There are not enough proper agricultural areas and related investment has not been made.

We will continue to work together in outer space exploration and cooperate in the military-technical sphere. I am probably not revealing a big secret here, but it will transpire sooner or later anyway: we are now helping our Chinese partners create a missile attack warning system. This is very important and will drastically increase China’s defence capability. Only the United States and Russia have such a system now.

We are very closely and deeply involved in cultural cooperation. I will not list everything that goes with this now.

Region-to-region cooperation is at a very high level as well. I am not talking about joint infrastructure which is expanding, but the border provinces of China and the adjacent Russian regions in the Far East interact very well with each other. This is an entire complex, a set of interaction projects.

At the same time, and I want to emphasise this specifically, our friendship or joint work have never been used to oppose anyone. We always work in a positive manner and in each other’s interests.

Valdai Discussion Club Research Director Fyodor Lukyanov: We realised while we were preparing for this event that, clearly, there would be more questions than it would be possible to field, so we at the Valdai Club arranged some questions into groups of the same category in advance. I will only ask some of them to save time.

You have talked many times about this subject, but nonetheless, it looks like it remains a major concern. This year a number of events that impact nuclear stability occurred, sending mixed signals. On the one hand, the United States has withdrawn from the INF Treaty, having sparked debate on this issue. The United States has accused Russia.

On the other hand, after that, Mr Bolton, who was the main advocate of withdrawing from this Treaty, lost his job. Probably, in so doing, President Trump meant something else. Discussion on the START Treaty continues, and, so far, it is unclear where it will lead.

A year ago, you and I sat on this stage and you used a very emotionally-charged expression that in the event of a nuclear war, perish the thought, the aggressors would perish and we would go to paradise. Have we moved closer to paradise during this year?

Vladimir Putin: All of us are always close to God to the same extent and He will decide where we deserve to be at the end of our lives on Earth. But, of course, the situation has not improved. It has worsened after the United States’ withdrawal from the INF Treaty. This is clear to everyone. Now we are waiting for the next move.

Moreover, I believe that the United States tested a ground-based intermediate-range missile that was covered by this Treaty shortly after it announced its decision to withdraw from it, indicating that the United States had long since been working on it. Technology like this can’t be developed in a couple of months.

This means they had been working at least several years on this missile. As for the rest, they just looked for a pretext to pull out and they found it. I don’t believe it was a credible pretext because there were no grounds whatsoever to accuse Russia of violating anything.

On the contrary, we were repeatedly told that the Aegis system could not be used for launching land-based intermediate range missiles. The Aegis system that is already deployed in Europe: in Romania and soon to be deployed in Poland.

We were told no, it is not possible to use it for this purpose. And then – Bang!, they declared that Aegis launchers were used to launch intermediate range missiles. They could at least have waited a while longer. It’s clear that we were being conned, or they were trying to con us. And then they owned up to it.

Well, so be it, that’s not the point. The point is that the situation has not changed for the better. In view of this escalation we said, I said immediately, that we would be doing the same but we declare from the outset that we would not deploy land-based intermediate range missiles, if we have them, unless US-made systems appear first in those regions.

I said this about five times and there was no response – nether the US has responded so far nor has Europe, like they lost their hearing, can’t hear! There are many specialists here, I don’t think you need to be told something many times – I said this once, twice, five times. How many more times should I say it? There is only silence, no reaction.

Then, suddenly, we heard from the US military that the first step in this direction would be made in Asia. But this step concerns us too, because we need to understand where in Asia? Will it reach Russian territory or not?

By the way, you can tell what the underlying cause for their withdrawal was – it was neither Russia nor our mythical violations of the treaty. If they are set to deploy this in Asia, it’s Asia that is the main reason for withdrawing from the Treaty. I think the analysts see this, and this is an obvious fact no matter how much it is played down in the media.

We are discussing Asian problems today. We will carefully watch the next steps: where in Asia will they appear, who will be threatened? Is this good or not? It’s very bad, because corresponding response measures are sure to follow.

Will this improve the situation in Asia? No, it won’t. It will only aggravate the situation, and create new threats. But I am really counting on certain possibilities for settling this situation as well before the final decisions have been taken.

Mikhail Pogrebinsky: I am from Ukraine, and our country is going through troubled times. I have a question for President Putin.

This year was marked by a big electoral cycle, we have had a “reset” of both legislative and executive powers. The elections and polls reveal that public opinion favours stability and a peaceful settlement in the east of the country.

The new authorities are trying to take the first steps, somewhat cautiously, towards a search for peace. But they are so timid that they raise doubts about their resolve and ability to arrive at the logical completion of the process.

Do you see any political forces in Ukraine – perhaps you can name them – that can act as drivers of this process of political settlement?

And a brief one, a half-question. People watch Russian TV channels in Ukraine, with various political talk shows enjoying special popularity in the past. And viewers complain that on some channels Ukraine is presented disparagingly. Apparently, Vladimir Solovyov’s popular show has also been tempted by this. Do you think it is time to change the editorial policy or line?

Vladimir Putin: If you believe that our television channels – it may sound odd but even the state-run channels have an independent editorial policy – present Ukraine in a disparaging way, I agree with you. If that’s how it is, then it is wrong, we shouldn’t present our neighbour, our closest neighbour, and without exaggeration a brotherly people, in a disparaging way.

This may concern the policies of the incumbent authorities, not the country or its people. If you see it this way, there is something wrong with our programmes, they should highlight that.

And now regarding the new leader’s efforts for a settlement in the southeast of the country. I do not know how strong are those who are against a settlement, especially based on the Minsk agreements. Thus the public’s interest in a settlement is obvious.

I think Mr Zelensky won the election so convincingly primarily because of that interest. People in Ukraine are waiting for this issue to be resolved. And if he has enough political courage and strength to complete it, I think he will assert himself as an honest politician, brave and capable of pursuing the decisions made.

I think he is sincerely willing to do that, it is his sincere conviction, at least his striving. It is hard for me to say if he is able to stand up to those who oppose the process, but we do see some hesitation.

It seems inevitable that he will need to look for compromise, come to terms with the whole nation, with all members of society regardless of their point of view. However, he still has to follow up on election promises he gave to the majority of the Ukrainian people.

Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean: Good afternoon, my name is Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean, I am an analyst at the French Institute of International Relations in Paris.

Mr President, I have a question for you. At the beginning of your speech, you proposed outlining the shape of the future and talking about it. One serious subject, of course, is global warming, climate change.

Russia recently ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, and you know that this topic is very important for President Emmanuel Macron. This is a priority topic for him.

By the way, I think you and President Macron are starting a new phase in our relations; it would also be interesting to talk about this.

But I will return to my question. In France and in Europe in general, there is some basic consensus on climate change, although recently this young girl Greta Thunberg added a lot of polarisation even to this issue, where there was consensus on, in general.

Vladimir Putin: What did she do?

Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean: She created further division to the debate. As for Russia, it seems to me that there has always been such a duality in relations, even in the doctrines, because Russian Environmental Security Doctrine says the right things, while the Economic Security Doctrine through 2025 says that green economic development is a threat and has risks for the Russian economy, and it is clear why: because oil and gas represent a very high percent of exports.

It’s the same thing, the same duality in the reasons for explaining climate change. Is it the result of human activity, or is it part of the Earth’s global cycles?

We see the same duality in corporate relations. Is this a chance for the future? We spoke today in the morning session about how Russia could occupy a very interesting place in the new global green economy. Or is this a risk, the loss of margins, the loss of corporate profits?

And the same thing at the level of global rivalry (we also talked about this at the Valdai Club session) that an environmental instrument can also become an instrument for economic, commercial, and financial war in the hands of strong players?

Do you think that Russia put an end to these doubts, hesitations and questions by ratifying this agreement? Will a new socioeconomic development paradigm emerge now at the domestic and external global levels? Will this topic be a unifying measure, or the cause of further division?

Vladimir Putin: As for the uniformity of approaches and evaluations, we will probably never reach this. Indeed, experts in various fields who somehow try to answer the question about the causes of climate change do not give unambiguous answers to the causes of climate change.

There are different opinions, I have heard them. Some say there is some global change in space that affects the Earth, so from time to time huge changes like this take place on our planet. I sailed along the Lena River in our country and saw high banks with deposits containing the remains of obviously ancient tropical mammals, which lived in tropical seas. I am talking about the Lena River, its stretch north of the Arctic Circle. It means back then the climate there was like this. Well, were there any anthropogenic emissions at the time? Of course, not. You see, there is no answer.

Just the same, my position is that if the human race is responsible for climate change, even in the slightest degree, and this climate change has grave implications, and if we can do something to, at least, slow down this process and avoid its negative consequences, we must spare no effort. This is our position. Despite all disagreements, we will support the international efforts to combat climate change.

Indeed, we have practically ratified the Paris Agreement and are committed to implementing it. You said we hesitated or argued about it. There will always be room for doubt or disputes. But look at the obligations that we undertook and those undertaken by our partners. We are committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 70 or 75 percent by 2050.

By the way, the European Union has undertaken to cut the same type of gas emissions by 60 percent. We have approved a national environmental programme. It sets forth in detail what we must do and how we must do it complete with the deadlines. We have approved 12 federal programmes under the national project to work to change the situation regarding the environment. Gas emissions in 12 of the largest metropolises in our country, where they affect people’s lives and have a negative impact on the environment, must be reduced by 20 percent.

We have adopted a programme to deal with waste dumps – not only with primitive rubbish dumps but with hazardous waste as well. We have adopted a programme to extend protected nature areas by five million square kilometres. We have a whole set of measures that we are not just intending to carry out but we have already started to implement and they have already been made law in our country. So, we are determined to move, together with our partners, along this path that is laid down in the Paris Agreement.

As for the hydrocarbons, I think it was yesterday that I said the structure of the Russian energy sector is one of the world’s greenest. The nuclear power and hydropower industries in our country account for a third of the energy sector and gas accounts for 50 percent of the remaining two-thirds.

We have one of the greenest energy sectors in the world plus the capacity of our forests to absorb [waste carbon dioxide]. So, we understand the threats that everyone, including us, are exposed to. The warming rate in Russia exceeds that in the rest of the world by 2.5 percent. We are aware of this.

And one more thing: there are forests ablaze in one part of our country while close to it there is flooding and there is also drought and so on. We are well aware of this and we will do, jointly with the whole world, with the humankind, whatever it takes to preserve nature and the environment.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a group of similar questions: Angela Stent and Jill Dougherty would like to ask the President about this, and actually this question can be addressed to all participants as well. The situation in the United States is rather complicated at the moment, and has become particularly so in the past week.

It is hard to understand what is happening there, with domestic policy issues clearly dominating. Is it possible to build relations in such condition at all? Or maybe we should wait?

Another similar question is from Professor Wang Wei from China. He asks you to share experience with Chinese authorities as they do not understand how they should act. Maybe you know some sort of secret – you, Mr President, and all those present?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think that Chinese need our advice. If they are saying they do not understand something, this means they do not want you to know they actually do. Maybe it is an advantage for them to make you think they do not understand certain things.

In fact, I have very close and friendly relations with them, without exaggeration; we have always said this, both in public and behind the scenes. We have friendly relations with the Chinese leader, Mr Xi Jinping. China pursues a global-level policy. They understand everything, they know everything and are ready to respond to any scenario.

As regards the developments in the United States – how can we cooperate with them when they are so engaged in their domestic political affairs? Obviously, this is always the case during an election campaign, and the United States is no exception. But this domestic political race has got a little over the top. I do not think this has ever occurred in the history of the United States before.

But life goes on, and we should factor in the current domestic situation there. But it is simply not possible to steer clear of such a global power as the United States. We intend to do as much as the US itself is ready for.

<…>

Fyodor Lukyanov: Here is a question from Professor Pascal Boniface from France (I do not see him here but he has sent the question). When recently addressing diplomats, President Emmanuel Macron said that the so-called deep state, or some hidden powers in the administration, prevent the development of relations with Russia. He would like to accelerate this process but they hinder it.

The question is why these hidden structures in France – and maybe somewhere else – impede the development of these relations? And why Russia, after all?

Vladimir Putin: What administration – the US or French?

Fyodor Lukyanov: The French one.

Vladimir Putin: The French administration?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: But who is the President of France – me or Mr Macron? He is the person to put things right. Why ask me about this at all? First, I have not heard what he said and I know nothing about it. If some subordinate officials interfere with his work, he should just cut them down to size, or replace them. Bring your supporters and associates into your administration, and you will work as a team and achieve efficient results.

Fyodor Lukyanov: We have Professor Mohan here. He has a very good question on your favourite topic, Mr President. Please pass the microphone to Professor Mohan.

C. Raja Mohan: President Putin,

Two years ago, you said something about artificial intelligence, what it’s going to do to world politics. You said the country that is going to have the lead has the opportunity to become the new hegemon. How do you look at it two years on the road? There’s one part.

The second part is – Where is Russia in this? If the US and China are racing ahead, does Russia have a national policy where it can contribute to these true partnerships with other countries? And then, looking at the longer-term picture, is there a way Russia can contribute to the regulation creating new norms in relation to the AI both in the civil and military domains. After all, Russia did in the 20^th century in relation to nuclear technologies, so your views on AI now, both in the civil and military sense.

Vladimir Putin: First about what I said two years ago. You know, I have to admit I was only plagiarising. Those were not my own words because experts around the world are saying that Artificial Intelligence will completely reshape the world and our approaches to solving pressing issues and problems of the future.

Entire industries will change; some will become obsolete and new ones will emerge. New jobs will be required. Old professions will die out and we need to understand how to address resulting social problems such as the redundant workforce, etc.

Healthcare will change completely. Artificial Intelligence will affect countries’ defence capability because those who have this technology will have an advantage that is perhaps incomparable to nuclear weapons.

What has changed? The pace of change becoming faster. Can Russia make any kind of contribution to the global efforts in developing Artificial Intelligence or, for example, genetics? Of course, it can.

Our software developers are working everywhere in the world and working successfully. Historically, we have always had strong mathematics education – and the discipline at the root of Artificial Intelligence is first and foremost mathematics. There is technology but mathematics is still at the core.

So what are we doing? We have an entire state programme aimed at developing AI, just like in China, the United States and some other countries. We are building up our efforts. We believe that we must certainly not be slow or lag behind, and we have every chance to excel in this area.

It would still be the best thing if efforts of the humankind are consolidated; if there are common rules for handling new technologies. Common rules of communication in this area are extremely important for the world to be stable.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Another good question. Mr Alexander Rahr, could you please ask it?

Alexander Rahr: Mr President, there is an odd question here, but let us get over to Europe. The European Parliament adopted a decision which I think is not quite adequate – a resolution where Nazi Germany would be set side by side with Communist Russia. And they insist that both Stalin and Hitler started World War II together.

I think it will legitimise further NATO expansion, lead to a new schism, and, most crucially, to misunderstanding among the youth and among the people in Europe. What can be done to stop this?

Vladimir Putin: I do not want to characterise the Stalin regime now. You know, we all know about the repressions, camps, losses among our people, our citizens during those repressions. This is a black page in the history of our country.

But saying that Stalin started the war is utter cynicism. As if it was the Soviet Union that attacked Germany at 4 am on June 22, and not the German troops crossed the Soviet border, violating the existing non-aggression treaty, attacked the Soviet Union unilaterally without declaring war.

Let us not forget the sad outcome, the tragic outcome, tragic for the people of the Soviet Union: 25–27 million dead (no one has been able to make a final count to this day), and about ten million dead in Germany. This is a tragedy.

Do not forget that it was the Soviet troops that stormed Berlin. This is regarding the speculations about certain countries’ contribution to the fight against Nazism.

I just said – the Soviet Union losses stand at 25–27 million, the US losses amount to half a million, while the UK lost 350,000–400,000 altogether.

All major German troops (not all but the most combatant forces, both in the number and quality) were accumulated in the eastern front. For some reason there are attempts to confuse, play down and misinterpret all that.

I think the threat is that the key thing may be lost in the process of all these manipulations: people may begin to stop fearing the recurrence of such tragedies. That is the point. And in my view all of us, all sane people, – must stand up to it.

Vitaly Naumkin: Colleagues,

The President has a very busy schedule, and I think that other leaders present here do so too. I apologise for not giving everyone who raised their hand an opportunity to ask a question.

In conclusion, I would like to ask the last one.

During these four days, we have discussed various issues related to the current state of the world order, and made a firm conclusion that it is undergoing a crisis and the future global order will be established with an increasing role of Asian countries.

How do you see this future global order?

Vladimir Putin: The existing system of international relations, international institutions and structures took shape following WWII as its result. The situation around the globe is changing drastically, both in Europe and on the American continent, with new rapidly growing and developing players, as well as in Africa, and, of course, Asia.

For the existing system and its institutions to last, it has to correspond to the realities of the ever-changing world. I believe that we must not destroy what has been created in the past decades, but should gradually transform it and adapt it to these realities, with due consideration of the growing power and prospects of Asia's development in general and certain Asian countries in particular. They certainly have the right to and must take the place they deserve in global politics and international affairs.

Meeting with heads of relevant agencies and international energy organisations

2019-10-02T20:01:41+04:00

At the Russian Energy Week Forum, Vladimir Putin met with heads of relevant agencies from other countries and international energy organisations. Attending the meeting was Energy Minister of Russia Alexander Novak.

Earlier, the President sent a message of greetings to the participants of the forum.

* * *

Opening remarks at the meeting with the heads of relevant agencies and international energy organisations

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends and colleagues,

I would like to sincerely welcome all of you in Moscow.

This is a good place for all who are interested in the development of global energy to meet and talk to one another in a friendly manner about common problems and ways of forward development.

This is a chance to talk not only with the heads of relevant agencies and international organisations but also with those who are directly employed in the industry. This is an opportunity to exchange views, best practices and information and to use it in practical work.

As you know, Russia has always been a highly responsible player on the global market. We are doing everything we can to balance out demand and supply in cooperation with you, and to create favourable conditions for the development of the global economy and for consumers, as well as for the advance of the industry as such.

We are responsible people and we think about the development of the world and the global energy industry, including renewable energy sources.

In addition to this, I strongly hope that you will also learn more about Russia and Moscow and will be able to spend at least a few hours enjoying this pleasant and favourable as well as friendly environment.

Thank you for being here.

Plenary session of St Petersburg International Economic Forum

2019-06-17T13:18:44+04:00

Vladimir Putin made a speech at the plenary session of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Also took part in the SPIEF session are President of China Xi Jinping, President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Slovakia Peter Pellegrini and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The discussion is moderated by journalist, RT TV Channel presenter Sophie Shevardnadze.

* * *

Sophie Shevardnadze (retranslated): Hello, everyone,

I am Sophie Shevardnadze. I am very glad to be able to moderate today’s plenary session, because the St Petersburg Forum is a unique platform that brings together businessmen, officials and leaders whose paths would never otherwise have crossed, anywhere in the world. We meet each year to figure out how to move the world forward.

I had the opportunity to talk with our speakers shortly before the start. I think they are committed to having a candid conversation. In any case, I very much hope that we will have one today.

And now, the traditional speeches by heads of state. Mr President, you are first.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends and colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.

I am happy to welcome to Russia all heads of state and government, all participants in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. We are grateful to our guests for their attention and friendly attitude to Russia and their willingness for joint work and business cooperation that always rests, as business leaders know well, on pragmatism, understanding of mutual interests and, of course, trust in each other, frankness and clear-cut positions.

I would like to take advantage of the SPIEF venue to tell you not only about the goals and tasks that we in Russia have set for ourselves but also about our views on the state of the global economic system. For us this is not an abstract conversation, nor an academic discussion. Russia’s development, simply by virtue of its size, history, culture, the human potential and economic opportunities cannot take place outside the global context, without the correlation of the domestic, national and global agendas.

So, what is the state of affairs today or at least how do we in Russia see it?

Technically, global economic growth, and I hope we will mostly talk about that since this is an economic forum, has been positive in the recent period. In 2011–2017, the global economy grew by an annual average of 2.8 percent. In recent years, the relevant figure was a bit over three percent. However, we believe, and countries’ leaders and all of us must frankly admit that regrettably, despite this growth, the existing model of economic relations is still in crisis and this crisis is of a comprehensive nature. Problems in this respect have been piling up throughout the past few decades. They are more serious and larger than it seemed before.

The architecture of the global economy has changed dramatically since the Cold War as new markets were becoming part of the globalisation process. The dominant model of development based on the Western “liberal” tradition, let us call it Euro-Atlantic for the sake of argument, began to claim not just a global, but also a universal role.

International trade was the main driver behind the current globalisation model. From 1991 to 2007, it grew more than twice as fast as global GDP. This can be accounted for by the newly opened markets of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and goods pouring into these markets. However, this period turned out to be relatively short-lived by historical standards.

The global crisis of 2008–2009 ensued. It not only exacerbated and revealed imbalances and disproportions, but also showed that global growth mechanisms were beginning to fail. Of course, the international community learned its lesson. However, truth be told, there was not enough will or, perhaps, courage, to sort things out and draw the corresponding conclusions. A simplified approach prevailed whereby the global development model was allegedly quite good and, essentially, nothing needed to be changed since it was enough to eliminate the symptoms and coordinate some rules and institutions in the global economy and finance, and then everything would turn out just fine. There were many hopes and positive expectations back then, but they quickly vanished. Quantitative easing and other measures failed to resolve the problems and only pushed them into the future. I am aware that quantitative easing was discussed at this and other forums. We at the Government and the Presidential Executive Office never stop discussing and debating these matters.

I will now cite data from the World Bank and the IMF. Before the crisis of 2008–2009, the global trade in goods and services to global GDP ratio was constantly growing, but then the trend reversed. It is a fact, there is no such growth anymore. The global trade to global GDP ratio of 2008 has never been recovered. In fact, global trade ceased to be the unconditional driver behind the global economy. The new engine represented by state-of-the-art technology is still being fine-tuned and not operating at full capacity. Moreover, the global economy has entered a period of trade wars and mounting direct or covert protectionism.

What are the sources of the crisis in international economic relations? What undermines trust between the world economic players? I think the main reason is that the model of globalisation offered in the late 20^th century is increasingly at odds with the rapidly emerging new economic reality.

In the past three decades, the share of advanced countries in the global GDP in purchasing power parity decreased from 58 to 40 percent. In the G7 it dropped from 46 to 30 percent, whereas the weight of the countries with developing markets is growing. Such rapid development of new economies that, apart from their interests, have their own development platforms and views on globalisation and regional integration processes does not correlate well with the ideas that seemed immutable relatively recently.

The previous patterns essentially put the Western countries into an exclusive position and we should be straight about this. These patterns gave them an advantage and an enormous rent, thereby predetermining their leadership. Other countries simply had to follow in their wake. Of course, much happened and is still happening to the accompaniment of talk about equality. I will speak about this as well. And when this comfortable, familiar system began to grow rickety and competition grew, ambitions and a striving to preserve one’s domination at all costs surged. Under the circumstances, the states that previously preached the principles of free trade and honest and open competition began to talk in terms of trade wars and sanctions, and resorted to undisguised economic raids with arms twisting, intimidation and the removal of rivals by so-called non-market methods.

Look, there are many examples of this. I will only mention those that concern us directly and that are common knowledge. Take, for example, the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. I saw in the hall our partners who work with it professionally, not only Russians but also our friends from Europe. This project is designed to enhance energy security in Europe and create new jobs. It fully meets the national interests of all participants, both European and Russian. If it did not meet these interests, we would have never seen our European partners in it. Who could force them into this project? They came because they were interested in it.

But this does not match the logic and interests of those who became used to exclusiveness and anything-goes behavior in the framework of the existing universalist model. They are used to letting others pay their bills; therefore, endless attempts to torpedo this project are made. It is alarming that this destructive practice has not only affected traditional energy, raw materials and commodity markets but it has also leaked into new industries that are now taking shape. Take the situation with Huawei. Attempts are being made not just to challenge it on the global market but to actually restrict it in an off-handed manner. Some circles already call this “the first technological war” to break out in the digital era.

It would appear that rapid digital transformation and technologies that are quickly changing industries, markets and professions, are designed to expand the horizons for anyone who is willing and open to change. Unfortunately, here too barriers are being built and direct bans on high-tech asset purchases are being imposed. It has come to the point where even the number of foreign students for certain specialties is limited. Frankly, I find it hard to wrap my mind around this fact. Nevertheless, this is all happening in reality. Surprising, but true.

Monopoly is invariably about concentrating revenue in the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else. In this sense, attempts to monopolise an innovation-driven technology wave and to limit access to its fruits take the problems of global inequality between countries and regions and within states to a whole new level. This, as we all know, is the main source of instability. It is not just about the level of income or financial inequality, but fundamental differences in opportunities for people.

In essence, an attempt is being made to build two worlds, the gap between which is constantly widening. In this situation, certain people have access to the most advanced systems of education and healthcare and modern technology, while others have few prospects or even chances to break out of poverty, with some people balancing on the verge of survival.

Today, more than 800 million people around the world do not have basic access to drinking water, and about 11 percent of the world's population is undernourished. A system based on ever-increasing injustice will never be stable or balanced.

Exacerbating environmental and climatic challenges that represent a direct threat to the socioeconomic well-being of all humankind are making the crisis even worse. Climate and the environment have become an objective factor in global development and a problem fraught with large-scale shocks, including another uncontrolled surge in migration, more instability and undermined security in key regions of the planet. At the same time, there is a high risk that instead of joint efforts to address environmental and climate issues, we will run into attempts to use this issue for unfair competition.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today we are facing two extremes, two possible scenarios for further development. The first is the degeneration of the universalist globalisation model and its turning into a parody, a caricature of itself, where common international rules are replaced with the laws, administrative and judicial mechanisms of one country or a group of influential states. I state with regret that this is what the US is doing today when it extends its jurisdiction to the entire world. Incidentally, I spoke about this 12 years ago. Such a model not only contradicts the logic of normal interstate communication and the shaping realities of a complicated multipolar world but, most importantly, it does not meet the goals of the future.

The second scenario is a fragmentation of the global economic space by a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism and a forced breakdown. But this is the road to endless conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.

So what is the solution? I am referring to a real solution rather than utopian or ephemeral one. Obviously, new agreements will be needed for drafting a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly but should also be observed by all participants. However, I am convinced that talk about an economic world order like this will remain wishful thinking unless we return to the centre of the discussion, that is, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of every country to its own development road and, let me add, responsibility for universal sustainable development, not just for one’s own development.

What should be the subject of discussion in terms of regulating such agreements and such a common legal environment? Certainly not the imposition of a single and the only correct canon for all countries, but above all, the harmonisation of national economic interests, principles of teamwork, competition and cooperation between countries with their own individual development models, peculiarities and interests. The drafting of such principles should be carried out with maximum openness and in the most democratic manner.

It is on this foundation that the system of world trade should be adapted to current realities and the efficiency of the World Trade Organisation enhanced. Other international institutions should be filled with new meaning and content rather than broken. It is necessary to sincerely consider, rather than just talk about the requirements and interests of the developing nations, including those that are upgrading their industry, agriculture and social services. This is what equal conditions for development is all about.

Incidentally, we suggest considering the creation of an open, accessible data bank with the best practices and development projects. Russia is ready to publish its successful case studies in the social, demographic and economic areas on an information platform, and invites other countries and international organisations to join this initiative.

With regard to finance, the main global institutions were created as part of the Bretton Woods system 75 years ago. The Jamaican currency system that replaced it in the 1970s confirmed the preference of the US dollar but, in fact, failed to resolve the key problems, primarily, the balance of currency relations and trade exchanges. New economic centres have appeared since then, the role of regional currencies has increased, and the balance of forces and interests has changed. Clearly, in the wake of these profound changes, international financial organisations need to adapt and reconsider the role of the dollar, which, as a global reserve currency, has now become an instrument of pressure exerted by the issuing country on the rest of the world.

Incidentally, I believe the US financial authorities and political centres are making a big mistake as they are undermining their own competitive edge that appeared after the creation of the Bretton Woods system. Confidence in the dollar is simply plummeting.

The technological development agenda must unite countries and people, not divide them. For this, we need fair parameters for interaction in key areas such as high-tech services, education, technology transfer, innovative digital economy branches and the global information space. Yes, building such a harmonious system is certainly challenging, but this is the best recipe for restoring mutual trust, as we have no alternative.

We need to join our efforts, being fully cognizant of the scale of the new era’s global challenges and our responsibility for the future. To do so, we need to use the potential of the UN, which is a unique organisation in terms of representation. We should strengthen its economic institutions and use new associations like the Group of 20 more effectively. Pending the creation of a set of rules like this, we need to act in accordance with the current situation and actual problems and have a realistic understanding of what is happening in the world.

As a first step, we propose, speaking diplomatically, to conduct a kind of demilitarisation of the key areas of the global economy and trade, namely, to make the distribution of essential items such as medicines and medical equipment immune to trade and sanctions wars. (Applause.) Thank you very much for your understanding. That also includes utilities and energy, which help reduce the impact on the environment and climate. This, as you understand, concerns areas that are crucial for the life and health of millions, one might even say, billions of people, our entire planet.

Colleagues,

The current global trends show that a country’s role, its sovereignty and place in the modern system of reference are determined by several key factors. They are undoubtedly the ability to ensure the safety of its citizens, to preserve its national identity and also to contribute to the progress of world culture. And there are at least three more factors that, in our opinion, are of key significance. Let me expand on that.

The first factor is a person’s wellbeing and prosperity, opportunities to discover their talents.

The second factor is the society’s and state’s receptiveness to sweeping technological change.

And the third factor is freedom of entrepreneurial initiative. Let me start with the first item.

Russia’s GDP per capita at purchasing power parity is about $30,000. South and Eastern European countries are at the same level today. Our priority for the coming years is not only to become one of the world’s top five economies. It is ultimately not a goal in itself but a vehicle; we have to reach and stay at the average European level in all major parameters reflecting the quality of life and people’s wellbeing. Given this, we have identified national goals on the growth of the economy and people’s incomes, decreasing poverty, increasing life expectancy, improving education and healthcare, and preserving the environment. The national projects we are implementing are designed to address these tasks.

The second field is accelerated technological development. It offers truly colossal opportunities. Our priority is to be among the front-runners, those who use these technologies and convert them into a real breakthrough. Thus, according to experts, the introduction of artificial intelligence will add 1.2 percent annual growth to the global GDP. It is twice as much as the impact from the global IT growth in the early 21^st century. The world market of goods with AI will increase almost 17-fold by 2024 to total around half a trillion dollars.

Just like other leading nations, Russia has drafted a national strategy for developing AI technologies. It was designed by the Government along with domestic hi-tech companies. An executive order launching this strategy will be signed shortly. A detailed, step-by-step road map is incorporated in the Digital Economy national programme.

Russia has capable research potential, and a good starting point for designing the most advanced technological solutions. And this refers not only to AI, but also to other groups of the so called end-to-end technologies. In this connection, I propose to our state companies and the leading Russian private companies to partner with the state in promoting end-to-end research and technologies. These include, as I said, artificial intelligence and other digital technologies. These are, of course, new materials, genome technologies for medicine, agriculture and industry, as well as portable sources of energy, technologies for energy transfer and storage.

The practical results of such a partnership should be the production and promotion of successful breakthrough products and services both in the domestic and foreign markets. This is an opportunity for the state to build its powerful sovereign potential, and for companies – a chance to enter a new technological era. We discussed all these issues at a special meeting in Moscow just a week ago. Following the meeting, respective agreements will be signed shortly with Sberbank, Rostec, Rosatom, Russian Railways and Rostelecom. A package of corresponding documents has already been prepared. I ask our leading fuel and energy companies – Gazprom, Rosneft, Rosseti, Transneft – to join this work, this large-scale project. I give the Government a directive to manage this effort.

How will the state and large companies cooperate? Under the partnership agreement, the companies invest in research and development, they invest in competence centres, start-up support, training personnel in research, management and engineering and in attracting foreign specialists. The state, in turn, will provide financial and tax incentives, generate demand for domestic hi-tech products, including through government procurement, that is, it will guarantee a market. We will keep working on this. Our Chinese friends may also buy a bit more of our new products.

We need to fine-tune the system of technical standards, and even introduce a sort of experimental legal framework. An adequate and flexible legal environment is a key issue for new industries, and establishing it around the world brings new problems; there are many sensitive issues both for state security and for the interests of society and its people. But in order to achieve results, it is critically important to speed up the decision-making process, so I ask our colleagues from the Government, experts, and the business community to offer an effective mechanism for this.

New industries will require specialists with new skills. We are moving quickly to upgrade programmes and education content for this. As you may know, in August, Kazan will host the WorldSkills Championships, during which, at Russia’s initiative, the first ever competition in the competences of the future will take place, including machine learning and big data, composite materials technology and quantum technologies. I wish every success to our team and the participants in the competition.

I would like to mention that we have created a new platform, Russia – An Ocean of Opportunity, to encourage personal and professional growth. It holds competitions, in which schoolchildren, young people and people of different ages from Russia and abroad can take part. A human resources project like this is unprecedented in scale. It drew over 1.6 million people in 2018 and 2019 alone. We are committed to promoting this system, to making it more effective and transparent, because the more daring and talented people engage in business, science and public and social administration, the greater success we will achieve in handling development issues and the more globally competitive our country will be.

The third factor in the country’s competitiveness, which was mentioned earlier, is a favourable business environment. We are working on this consistently and will continue to work on it. Today, if we look at a number of services for businesses and the quality of the most in-demand administrative procedures, we are similar to, and in some cases even outperform, countries with strong and deep-rooted traditions of entrepreneurship.

Healthy competition between regions to attract entrepreneurs, investment and projects has been gaining momentum. The efficiency of management teams has increased a lot. A serious incentive for this change was the development of the National Investment Climate Rankings for the constituent regions of the Russian Federation. In keeping with an established tradition at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, I would like to announce and congratulate the winners of the 2019 National Rankings. They are Moscow, Tatarstan, Tyumen and Kaluga regions and St Petersburg. (Applause.) I also applaud them.

As for the pace at which the investment climate is improving, the leaders are Yakutia, Primorye Territory, Samara Region, Crimea and North Ossetia, Perm Territory, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Udmurtia and Ivanovo and Novgorod regions. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the heads of the regions and the presidential envoys to these federal districts to step up their work to attract private capital to the national programmes and our other development projects, including through the Russian Direct Investment Fund and other modern and effective mechanisms.

As I mentioned, there are some positive changes in the business climate, notably, administrative procedures, but there are still urgent problems that worry business. First, we still have to deal with the archaic nature and obvious excesses of the oversight bodies, as well as the unjustified and sometimes simply illegal interference of law enforcement in the business environment, in the operation of companies.

This year we launched a deep and comprehensive reform of monitoring and oversight. It is the largest reform in the post-Soviet era. Starting January 1, 2021 the entire old, largely obsolete legal framework will cease to operate. It will be replaced by a clear-cut system of requirements: any duplication of government body authority should be eliminated, grounds for random inspections or audits restricted and a risk-based approach established.

The information service that is to be launched this year will make it possible to objectively compare information from oversight bodies on the one hand and entrepreneurs on the other. Any incongruities must result in a timely response.

As regards the relationship between business and law enforcement, the logic of our actions includes the further liberalisation of legislation, the strengthening of the guarantees and rights of ownership, the removal of even formal opportunities for abusing the law to exert pressure on business, and the constant cleansing of authority agencies and the judicial system of unscrupulous personnel. More transparency in the business environment is a major condition for the effectiveness of this work. This is also very important, colleagues. This year there will be a digital platform, a kind of a digital ombudsman that entrepreneurs will be able to use to report any illegal actions by representatives of law-enforcement agencies. I think such openness can become a guarantee of trust between the public, business and the state.

Overall, we must ensure the transformation of the government management system based on digital technology as soon as possible. The goal is to comprehensively upgrade the effectiveness of the performance of all government bodies, reduce the speed and improve the quality of decision-making. I would like to ask the Government to present a specific plan of action in this regard in cooperation with the regional governors. We have spoken about this many times.

Colleagues, Russia has repeatedly carried out large-scale projects of spatial development in its history. They have become symbols of deep and dynamic change in the country, in its forward progress. Such comprehensive projects are being implemented now in the South of Russia, the Far East and in the Arctic. Today we must think about the upsurge of the vast territories of central and eastern Siberia. We must draft, accurately calculate and coordinate a development plan. This macro region contains very rich natural resources, about a quarter of all forest reserves, over half of the coal reserves, substantial deposits of copper and nickel, and tremendous energy reserves, many of which have already been developed.

In addition, there are unique opportunities for agricultural development. There are over 300 sunny days in the Minusinsk Hollow area. This makes it possible to establish a new powerful agro-industrial complex there as well. Russian and foreign experts believe that up to several trillion rubles of investment can be attracted to this macro region, up to 3 trillion, provided, of course, that the government also invests in the development of infrastructure, the social sphere and housing. The development of areas in central and eastern Siberia, not as a raw materials base, but as a scientific and industrial centre should turn this region into a link between the European part of Russia and the Far East, between the markets of China, the Asia Pacific Region and Europe, including Eastern Europe, and attract a fresh, well-trained workforce.

I would like to ask the Government to draft the necessary programmes in cooperation with the expert community and the Russian Academy of Sciences and to report back to me in autumn.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

Today in Russia, we have embarked on implementing truly strategic long-term programmes, many of which are global in nature, without exaggeration. The speed and scale of today’s changes in the world are unprecedented in history, and in the coming era, it is important for us to hear each other and pool our efforts for resolving common goals.

Friends,

Russia is ready for these challenges and changes. We invite all of you to take part in this large-scale and equitable cooperation. I am grateful for your attention. Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Mr President. You have identified very important issues, including the fact that the existing rules do not suit anyone in today's world. We will consider this at length during our discussions.

President Xi, your turn, please go ahead.

President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping (retranslated): President Putin, colleagues, guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am very pleased to attend the St Petersburg International Economic Forum at the invitation of President Putin. I want to sincerely thank President Putin and our Russian friends for the warm welcome and hospitality.

St Petersburg is Russia’s sea capital and the internationally renowned crown jewel of the Baltic Sea. Thanks to three centuries of tradition and its rapid development, the city radiates the charm of classicism and the elegance of modernity. We have a lot of admiration for this.

Yesterday after lunch, President Putin and I had a boat trip along the Neva River. I was delighted by the interesting story he told me about the history and the culture of your country and this city.

“The city on the free Neva, the city of our labour glory…” the song that President Putin once played on the piano clearly demonstrates the special place that St Petersburg has in the heart of the Russian people.

Since its foundation in 1997, the St Petersburg International Economic Forum has never stopped expanding and strengthening and has become a unique platform for extensive discussions in the name of cooperation.

This year, the St Petersburg Forum is being held under the following banner: we are setting the agenda for sustainable development which meets the general concerns of the international community and is of great importance.

The modern world is undergoing profound change, unparalleled in centuries. The growth rates in emerging and developing economies are unprecedentedly high.

The unprecedented growth rates and the intense competition are unfolding amid a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation. The global governance systems and processes have become disproportionate and dysfunctional as never before.

In a changing world, joint efforts and mutually beneficial cooperation is the correct path to follow for all countries without exception.

Globally, sustainable development is, perhaps, the best common denominator of global cooperation. The UN agenda for sustainable development to 2030, in the spirit of harmonious coexistence between people and nature, which takes into account the needs of the current and future generations, provides a new vision for global development. It focuses on three main interrelated areas: economic growth, social development and the environment.

This year marks the 70^th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. As the world's largest developing economy and a responsible global power, China is firmly adhering to its commitments in sustainable development and has won widespread recognition and respect for its successes.

China attaches particular importance to promoting international cooperation in sustainable development. This is corroborated by the Belt and Road initiative that I launched in 2013, which is designed to provide mutual benefits and universal development. This initiative is largely consonant with the UN agenda in the area of sustainable development to 2030 in terms of goals, principles and methodologies, and enjoys the support of the international community.

The Second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation was held successfully in Beijing in April. The participants agreed on the high-quality implementation of the Belt and Road initiative based on the principle of joint discussion, joint implementation and shared use. According to the concept of openness, environmental friendliness and integrity, cooperation will be carried out with high quality and for the benefit of the people and sustainable development.

As we form the global network of interconnectedness and partnership, we will effectively couple the Belt and Road initiative with the sustainable development agenda, ensure harmony between the economy, society and the environment in the interest of green, low-carbon and sustainable development.

Of course, we cannot do without sincere, trustworthy and likeminded partners in international cooperation. Russia is not only our largest neighbour and a comprehensive strategic partner, but also one of the most important and most prioritised partners in all areas of cooperation.

In the spirit of sustainable development, our countries are actively cooperating in renewable energy, and consider scientific and technical innovation, the digital economy and electronic commerce as drivers in new cooperation. They also enjoy fruitful cooperation in the protection of cross-border resources and in managing cross-border nature reserves.

Mr Putin and I agreed on certain aspects of integration in the Belt and Road initiative and the EAEU. At the same time, the initiative to jointly implement the Belt and Road project is compliant with Mr Putin’s idea of a major Eurasia-wide partnership. They can complement each other, which, in my opinion, will boost regional economic integration in the interests of common sustainable development.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

Sustainable development is not just a natural but also the inevitable result of the development of production capacity and technological progress.

Most of the world’s countries strive to achieve this. As people say, where there is a will, there is a way. It is impossible to stop people from striving for a better life. We are ready, together with all of our partners, to turn statements into practical steps and to jointly turn a new page in sustainable development.

First, it is important, through joint efforts, to form an open and diversified global economy in the spirit of joint implementation and common use. China will gradually expand its openness, in particular, access to our market, and create a favourable business environment for fair competition. We will promote economic globalisation, as well as a multilateral trade system, and will make efforts to overcome irregularity and inequality in the development of the global economy.

We are determined to create mutually beneficial trade cooperation based on equality and mutual trust. We will strive to achieve synergy between the Belt and Road initiative and the UN agenda on sustainable development until 2030, as well as reveal the potential of the South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund, and the UN-China Peace and Development Fund, and to provide more opportunities for the developing countries. China is ready to share with all our partners its technological development and experience, in particular 5G technology, as well as to create additional key advantages and change the model of economic growth.

My second point is that we need to step up efforts to build a tolerant society of universal prosperity that puts the interests of a common person at the forefront. Improving people’s wellbeing is the top priority of any state. China is continuing to work hard to eliminate poverty this year to completely move the rural population out of poverty by 2020. More than 11 million new jobs will have been created by the end of this year. Enormous efforts go into vocational training, volunteering and charity, as well as protecting the rights and interests of socially vulnerable groups.

We are willing to step up cooperation and exchange experience with all our partners in cutting poverty and improving social security so that the peoples in different countries live in prosperity and feel happy and protected.

My third point is that we need to adhere to the course of green development in the name of building a beautiful home where people and nature live in harmony. As the famous Russian writer Dostoevsky said, beauty will save the world. Preserving the beauty of nature for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren is the glorious mission of our generation.

China is by no means pursuing development at the expense of the environment. For us, green mountains and emerald waters are untold treasures for the sake of which we will conduct an uncompromising struggle, including the development of green industry, renewable energy sources, resource-saving technologies and circular economy.

In international cooperation, we will focus more on the environment and environmental activities. We are willing to jointly address current challenges in global climate change and biodiversity conservation, in particular, by way of proper implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

Peace and development remain the top priorities of our time. The fates of different nations are now closely interrelated as never before. The interests of all countries are unprecedentedly integrated, and the trend towards peace, development, cooperation and a win-win approach is irreversible.

At the same time, new problems and challenges are arising amid increasing anti-globalisation, hegemonism and power-based politics. Once again, humanity is at a crossroads. Sustainable development as the best way out of the current situation overlaps with the initiative to form humanity’s single destiny community in terms of goals and values. They will serve as the common good for all of humankind and the world in general.

In conjunction with all other countries and guided by the sustainable development concept, China will work for the benefit of the common future of humankind, advance multilateralism, improve global governance systems, promote sustainable peace on the planet and open a bright and prosperous future hand in hand with other nations.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, President Xi.

President Radev, please.

President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev (retranslated): Ms Shevardnadze, Messieurs Presidents and Prime Ministers, Mr UN Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank the organisers, primarily President Putin for his invitation and this opportunity to take part in this prestigious forum. It is a great honour for me to be next to President Xi Jinping. I am happy that as a committed advocate of multilateral diplomacy I will be able to discuss issues of sustainable development with UN Secretary-General Guterres and with the prime ministers of Slovakia and Armenia.

The St Petersburg forum has asserted itself as a venue for meetings on large economies with big politics, a platform for discussing key issues of global development today. The participation of the President of a 7-million strong Bulgaria, the prime ministers of Slovakia and Armenia next to the two global leaders is a very powerful message about the importance of one of the strongest ideas in sustainable development, notably, that this kind of development is made possible only through the contribution of all states.

For me, participation is an indication of the recognition of Bulgaria’s ability to build bridges between different regions and cultures.

In the new millennium, sustainable development has moved to the top of the international agenda. In our time, some countries took advantage of globalisation whereas others lost. Our planet is being stifled by the super-exploitation of its riches and enormous trade traffic.

We are seeing an increase in population and a decrease in resources. In the digital era, free movement of capital without clear-cut rules generates risks for the most vulnerable societies, while overconsumption, which has turned into a symbol of personal economic success, has already become a threat to our common future.

The undermining of the international legal order and the transition to a polycentric world generate instability. The annual growth of defence spending is a clear sign that the security environment is not improving and that mistrust is increasing.

The pursuit of technological supremacy designed to achieve political supremacy isolates science in a narrow geographical framework, triggers scientific migration and widens the gap between states, which President Putin described in detail.

Uneven growth has turned many beliefs inside out and has given birth to a new world. Who could have imagined 20 years ago that China would be the primary champion of free trade while the US would push protectionism? Who could have claimed that Europe, which had been promoting a model of tolerance, would see neo-Nazi and nationalist movements rise up due to the pressures of social disparities and migration?

This is the reason I believe that sustainable development cannot be fulfilled solely by reaching a set of economic, social and environmental goals explicitly designed in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and enshrined in the European Union’s major policies and programmes.

Coping with existing challenges requires a comprehensive approach with a wide range of tools – from political to cultural. A new supra-national outlook should be bred in the planet’s residents, and while the young already possess it, we, the politicians, still cannot afford it since the world remains an arena of competition and conflicts between nations.

Nevertheless, nature is sending an imperative call to overcome the limitations of our own egotism. Our predecessors overcame their differences and established the post-war global order for the sake of peace. The UN was a key to this, and they displayed this wisdom at the onset of the Cold War.

We must do the same now; however, this time, it should be done for the survival of the planet and humankind. A new economic paradigm should offset the scarcity or lack of resources with human capability and genius. This paradigm should rely on knowledge, technology and innovation. I am confident that it should be a green economy rooted in the concept of open science, in a new consumer culture, in new manufacturing ethics that should be included in education curricula and economic strategies.

Sustainable development necessitates more effective global security mechanisms. They should help limit the use of unilateral actions and force and create privileged conditions for dialogue and multilateral diplomacy, which is under pressure, as well as prevent polarisation and radicalisation.

Sustainable development includes the prevention of financial crises, which implies a more accurate regulation of financial markets. Global consensus is needed to fight corruption, which has emerged as a cross-border phenomenon, money laundering and tax evasion, as well as on limiting the operation of offshore jurisdictions. I am confident that all political leaders are well aware of these problems, and in this regard, they must show one single will.

Sustainable development is impossible without security and social peace. Eliminating a massive famine is not enough for true stability. That is why migration waves are not subsiding, and the number of refugees is increasing. It is insecurity and poverty that lead people to emigrate and that fuel xenophobia and nationalist movements in their host countries. So we need an effective model that can provide for security and stability, investment in the economy, in education and healthcare in the countries of origin of these migration waves.

Sustainable development is impossible without sustainable trust. I will give this example. Seventy years ago, Bulgaria was the second country to recognise the People’s Republic of China and establish diplomatic relations with it. Since then, relations between our peoples have been developing in a spirit of trust and friendship, despite the political environment. We could even say that because the first state that recognised China no longer exists, we could say Bulgaria was the first.

And that is why sustainable development is not only a political and economic challenge; it is a stage in the cultural maturation of humankind. It is based on mutual recognition and acceptance of national culture codes. Cultural differences have a major effect on the security environment. When they are not identified, recognised or accepted as something the other has a right to, they create distrust, risks to security, and consequently, to sustainable development. It is the lack of cultural communication that underlies the other’s perception as an enemy.

I would like to quote an outstanding Bulgarian revolutionary Gotse Delchev, who said more than 120 years ago: “I understand the world solely as a field for cultural competition among the peoples.”

I am quoting this for a reason, because my country is proud of its contribution to the treasury of world culture. A prominent citizen of St Petersburg, Professor Dmitry Likhachov, called my homeland a country of spirit, because Russia inherited its writing script from Bulgaria. Both Christian religion and Old Bulgarian Slavonic language spread to Russia from our land. Many millennia later, in 1878, Bulgaria gained its freedom through Russia, for which thousands of Russian soldiers gave their lives. We Bulgarians never forget this. It is an example of how strong cultural ties can withstand historical trials and tribulations.

I remember another world-famous citizen of St Petersburg – maestro Valery Gergiev, whom I have the privilege to know personally. From Beijing through Brussels to Washington, he asserts the power of culture, which sweeps away borders, proving that the eternal power of art is above any divisiveness.

During his last concert in Sofia, the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra gradually softened its sound to pianissimo. Quieter and quieter, until the sounds in the crowded room had completely subsided, and the audience not only listened, but absorbed every sound, as if for the first time we heard the quiet but distinct voice of each of the 150 instruments, all at the same time. After the concert, I asked the maestro: “How is this possible? How could we hear and understand the quiet part of the performance better than the louder parts?” He answered: “Force is important. But melody and harmony are far more important.”

It may be time for us politicians to cut the decibels, because we are still far from the harmony that the citizens of the world expect from us; but this is a good time for us to start listening to each other. I think the number of people aspiring to act like the conductor of the world orchestra is constantly growing, but each of them comes with their own music score, often without even having greeted the orchestra.

If we want to achieve the sustainable development of mankind, we need to write and establish clear rules for a five-line staff and the notes themselves, and should write the music together, taking into account the specifics of each individual instrument in the orchestra. I think the platform for such work is the United Nations. Until we begin to respect this organisation, use its powerful potential, strengthen its means and mechanisms, we will not be able to produce a melody – only fragmentation, tension and conflicts.

I wish this forum success, more harmony and the achievement of the goals set forth in the UN 2030 Agenda.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you very much, President Radev.

Rumen Radev: May I take a minute, please?

I am tempted to take advantage of this great forum and to address the world business at the forum. I highly encourage you to come and invest in Bulgaria. I will use just one single example, and this example is the German-Bulgarian economic cooperation. Twenty years ago we started from ground zero. There was nothing. Now we have thousands of German companies operating in Bulgaria and growing and expanding in Bulgaria. Last year we scored 8.3 billion euro trade turnover. We exported products for 4.3 billion euro to Germany. However, this is not food and wine, as many could expect. We produce in Bulgaria and export to Germany high added value products: electronics, machinery, sophisticated and complex systems and components for all types of German cars. Our capital Sofia is in top ten worldwide for start-up companies and IT development. So, take your chance. Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you very much. During our discussion you will be able to speak more on why business should invest in Bulgaria. Thank you for your wonderful speech.

Mr Pashinyan, you are next, please.

Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan (retranslated): President Putin, President Xi Jinping, President Radev, Prime Minister Pellegrini, Secretary-General Guterres, Ms Shevardnadze,

I will start with traditional words of gratitude for holding this meeting, for a chance to share ideas on the paths of development for our country and the challenges our government faces in reaching these goals.

Today, Armenia is going through a vital period in its contemporary history. Radical changes are taking place in the country in terms of political stability and unprecedented levels of the legitimacy of the authorities. The ultimate goal is creating a competitive and technologically advanced economy and a modern society based on the universal principles of equality, justice and rule of law.

What is the essence of the changes? Briefly, they are aimed at raising the efficiency of our political, state and economic institutions.

Armenia is a land-locked country with limited economic and natural resources, and a difficult geographical situation from the point of view of logistics corridors and the geopolitical peculiarities of the region.

All these issues are in a way pushing us to constant activities to increase competitiveness and efficiency. What does that mean to us?

First, it means increasing the efficiency of the public administration system. I can say with confidence that we have already managed to achieve tangible results. The country has done away with systemic corruption and the activities of artificial monopolies and oligopolies have been brought to a minimum.

However, in the course of our efforts to improve the economic and political environment in our country, we faced a fundamental problem. The country’s judicial authority, unlike the executive and legislative branches, where we see major progress and the optimisation of institutions, has not undergone any tangible transformation. As a result, there was a huge gap in public trust in the judiciary, and this in turn creates serious obstacles to the country’s development as a whole.

All our efforts to protect capital and create equal conditions for economic activity and a favourable environment for attracting foreign investment will not bring about the desired result if the judiciary does not undergo a major transformation. Therefore, creating a truly independent judiciary, free from corruption and political influence, is a pressing problem for our society and a priority in the Armenian government’s reform strategy.

The second point is making full use of the potential of foreign economic ties and participating in international integration projects. For countries such as Armenia, the institutionalisation of access to the centres of the global economy and activity is very important. This primarily concerns our cooperation with the Russian Federation and participation in the Eurasian Economic Union.

We are committed to further improvement of our strategic partnership with Russia and the most productive participation in the Union. For this purpose, we will make every effort to improve cooperation mechanisms and maximise the integration between the members of our association. This also applies to our CSTO membership.

I would like to emphasise our interest in expanding the geography of the EAEU’s foreign economic relations. China is of particular importance in this sense. I am pleased to note that over the past month, our bilateral relations have been rapidly advancing with that country, which plays a key role in the global economy.

As a Eurasian Economic Union member we think it important to establish institutional interaction between different integration associations and projects. I believe the idea of aligning the EAEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt is a priority. The idea is quite logical and rational.

I also consider the policy of enhancing cooperation between the EAEU and the European Union promising. I think this cooperation is quite possible and even inevitable in the mid-term, if not in the immediate future.

Armenia has a treaty with the EU on comprehensive and enhanced partnership which we are set to make the best use of for designing and implementing our reforms. The EU partnership is in no way at variance with our Eurasian Economic Union membership; it supplements the enriching of our opportunities with new and comparable advantages.

Third is the maximum efficiency of the human resource potential of the country. Our major asset is people, and government activities pursue the creation of conditions for the free fulfilment of the creative, intellectual and business potential of our citizens. We are in fact determined to turn Armenia into a paradise for talented people.

We see Armenia’s future in developing an innovation economy. There is no alternative for a country like Armenia.

The technology sector is among our priorities. In this context education gains special significance for us. Armenia inherited a good school of physics and mathematics from the Soviet era. Today we are doing everything we can to consolidate and apply this potential.

The IT sector has grown five-fold in Armenia in the past seven years. It has become a driver of the country’s economic growth and its most promising industry. Education and innovation, cooperation and integration, the established rule of law and effective management – this is where we see our potential advantages that will allow us to fully utilise our resources and build conditions for sustainable economic development.

Honestly, I think we have already embarked on that road because the first quarter showed 7.1 percent GDP growth in Armenia. Economic activity increased by 9.2 percent in April. So, we also invite international business to invest in Armenia. We even have a slogan for potential investors – we invite them to Armenia to become richer and to make our country more prosperous.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Prime Minister Pashinyan.

Prime Minister Pellegrini, please go ahead.

Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic Peter Pellegrini: Dear Mr President Putin, dear Mr President Xi Jinping, dear Mr President Radev, dear Mr Prime Minister Pashinyan, dear Secretary-General, excellences, ladies and gentlemen.

It is a privilege for me to join you today, in this discussion devoted to sustainable development goals. And I am very pleased that organisers opted for this topic, and my special thanks goes to President Putin for opening the gates of St Petersburg to world leaders and thinkers from all around the world. Thank you very much.

Three and a half years ago, the international community came together in even wider setting, and we committed to work together for humanity. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda and its 17 sustainable development goals was a remarkable success. We are here to understand it is a global reference framework for development worldwide, with a clear vision and benchmarks, taking into account the 4^th Industrial Revolution, climate change, security threats. Never before we had a universal strategy ensuring coherence among economic, social and environmental policies, and this is the 2030 Agenda. We need everyone onboard. Sustainable development is our duty towards future generations.

Recent UN reports show urgent need for more progress. We have to understand that each one of us deals with the issues of sustainability on a daily basis. But the time is running out, and the chances of achieving some of our goals are already at risk.

So where are the leaks? From my perspective, there are two main issues. First, on financing. The 2030 Agenda draws our attention to a number of elements which are crucial for sustainability but tend to be overlooked. We need five to seven trillion US dollars of global investment annually, and that’s between seven to ten percent of the global GDP. A year ago, at this place, Christine Lagarde said that we are seeing storms in the forecast. And she warned against the level and the burden of national and corporate debt, financial fragility which will result in significant capital outflows from emerging and low-income countries and the determination of some to rock the system that has presided over the trade relationships.

60% of global GDP is created in the private sector. So we cannot no more rely on public funding only, and make forecasts on financial fragility. I see public figures here, sitting next to business leaders, so let’s talk on how to combine public and private resources in a meaningful way. The good news is that many businesses are willing to help out. But the bad news is, only 17% of the businesses have actually introduced any relevant plans or policies to materialise this support. So clearly, we really need to make some effort here.

Sustainability requires a framework for business planning and decision-making, too. There is a lack of experience of Slovak companies in the development business when compared to traditional donors, but we try. The 72^ndUNGA presidency under Slovakia called for a better implementation; it was our idea to host a high level event dedicated to the topics of the FD SDG financing. Representatives of businesses, think tanks, investment banks and non-traditional donors came together to take stock of various initiatives and best practices in removing barriers to investment and development. You can find them assembled in the toolbox, an online repository of lessons learned on the website hosted by UNCTAD. It already contains more than 40 examples to learn from, and is constantly updated.

Which brings me directly to the second issue, to which I would like to draw your attention – namely, on communicating and networking. Unlike the millennium development goals, sustainable development goals apply to all, not only to developing countries. But it is not for the UN alone to deliver on them. We have to change our rhetoric when communicating SDGs. We have to find a common language that enables us to communicate across cultural and geographical boundaries. We need shared responsibility for the world, stressed Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Global Solution Summit in March this year. Also emphasised by President Macron: at a time when our collective system is falling apart, sadly, it is most in demand. And I could not agree more. Interdependence has to become a driver and not an obstacle. And we need to infuse this agenda and its spirit into all areas of our work. In Slovakia, we have taken the necessary steps to integrate the 2030 Agenda into our long-term national development framework. We are going even further by linking the SDGs to our national investment plan until 2030 which should boost the financing for sustainable development. But we need a vision of where we want to have our country and the whole European Union in eleven, in the next eleven, in the next ten, in the next twenty, thirty years. And we cannot implement all SDGs in all their height, width and length. We have therefore decided to define our national priorities for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. And this was done in a broad stakeholder participation process, respecting the principles and values of an open government.

My country is indeed aiming at using our role, weight and leadership in international organisations to push the SDG agenda forward. As a current chair in office of the OSCE, we are determined to help foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence in line with SDG 16. And I would like to say very clear and very loud: there can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development. And we support meaningful and comprehensive dialogue among states as well as with other partners at the national, regional and international levels.

Dear President Putin,

Last year, you called for a technological breakthrough and mentioned very importantly that we must be receptive to innovative ideas and technologies that make a difference in people’s life and determine the future of the country and the world. These are your words, Mr President. In May 2019, Slovakia chaired the OECD Ministerial Council under the theme, Harnessing Digital Transition For Sustainable Development Opportunities and Challenges. And the mission is to use the potential of the new digitalisation era and to ensure it is for the benefit of all.

In my keynote speech to the OECD ministerial, I suggested that digital humanism needs to become the decisive philosophical orientation of the 21^st century. Digital humanism means that human beings remain the central focus of the digital transformation, while digitalisation should be approached in its entirety and complexity for the improvement of people’s life and the preservation of our planet. Digital humanism that seeks to enable people to achieve things they never believed possible, empowered by the use of technologies. And it is our job as policymakers that they do so while representing the law, ethics, fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and human rights.

Slovakia as an industrial country also has to cope with the situation of producing in a more and more virtual world. A decade ago – a utopia, in ten years – a reality. Just as companies have to learn how to do sustainable business, young people have to gain skills for living sustainable lifestyles. We have to bear in mind that more than 50 percent of the world population is under 30. Youth play the central role in development. They are actors of changes; youth is at the same time actors of environmental changes.

Ladies and gentlemen, the chances of achieving some of our goals are already at risk. We need action, and we need it now. And we need to stay united.

Thank you very much.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Mr Pellegrini.

Mr Secretary-General, please go ahead.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: President Putin, heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, all protocol observed.

I am very pleased to be making my second visit to this prestigious forum as Secretary-General of the United Nations. And I thank President Putin and the people of the Russian Federation for hosting this dynamic gathering.

St Petersburg was home to many of the seminal events that marked the 20^th century. And today, the St Petersburg Forum embodies the 21^st century truth: global challenges require global solutions. No country and no organisation can do it alone. And we need political leaders, the business world, scientists, scholars, philanthropists and civil society to join hands in addressing shared threats and pursuing common opportunities. And that is why we are here.

For nearly 75 years, the arrangements established after the Second World War have saved lives, advanced economic progress, upheld human rights and prevented a third descent into global conflict and catastrophe. Yet, today international cooperation is under immense pressure, and the values of the United Nations Charter are being challenged and undercut.

Today I would like to highlight several imperatives on which the spirit of St Petersburg, the spirit of international cooperation, can help us prevail. First, building a fair globalisation that works for all. No one can doubt the many benefits of globalisation. More people have risen out of extreme poverty than ever before; more people are living longer and healthier lives. But the waves of prosperity and growth have not reached all, and there remains a vast backlog of despair. Hunger is again on the rise. Inequalities are stark, especially within countries. And levels of youth unemployment are in some parts of the world simply alarming. Discrimination against women remains pervasive, and signs of unease are everywhere we look. Growth is slowing down, and trade tensions are heating up. And financial markets become uncertain. Debt is rising, limiting what countries can do to achieve their goals and undermining their ability to act when the crises strike. We need a global economy that works for all and creates opportunities for all. And the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development points the way. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are the world’s agreed blueprint for building a safer, more equitable world and leaving no one behind. But we are not yet on track. And we know what works, and we have important gains to build on. And so I continue to call for more robust commitment to the world’s agreed blueprint for a better future. Political support is crucial, but the business community has an absolutely vital role to play.

Second, we must address the global climate emergency. We are in a race against time, and we are losing the race. In fact, the reality is proving to be worse than scientists had foreseen. We are also coming to recognise how climate impacts are accelerating the drivers of conflict, for instance, in the Sahel, and even paving the way for expansion of terrorism and extremism in that region. Yet, as global warming speeds up, political will has sometimes slowed down. At the time when we know that technology is on our side, and when businesses and civil society are more and more engaged, this lack of political will could be tragic. We need a green economy, not a grey economy. We need a rapid and deep change in how to do business, how to generate power, how to build cities and how to feed the world. That means putting a price on carbon, ending subsidies to fossil fuels. And we need to recognise that this is a race we can win, but we have the tools to tackle the climate crisis. Climate action could also yield a direct economic gain in $26 trillion compared to business as usual through 2030, according to a recent economic analysis. And that is why I’m convening a Climate Action Summit at the United Nations in September to mobilise the ambition that can reap these gains. And I’m asking leaders to come not just with speeches, but with concrete plans and commitment, including on financing. And I’m asking that they do this not out of generosity, but out of enlightened self-interest. Climate change is the most important systemic risk the world faces at this time.

Ladies and gentlemen,

One of the primary roles of the United Nations is to look to the horizon and to identify emerging challenges and opportunities and bring people together to advance our collective well-being. It is in that spirit that next Monday, a high-level panel that I established last year, and this is co-chaired by Jack Ma of Ali Baba and Melinda Gates of the Gates Foundation, will issue its report on recommendations on the future of digital cooperation.

Technology continues to transform our world. From bioengineering to artificial intelligence to data analytics, and from education, health to e-governments and the green economy, digital technologies can turbocharge our work for the sustainable development goals. Yet, as much as technology is a vector of hope, it is also a source of fear.

We know there will be a massive disruption in the labour market – with an enormous amount of jobs both created and destroyed with artificial intelligence. And that is why we need a massive investment in education, but also a different sort of education, not just learning things, but learning how to learn and learning across the lifetime. And we also need a new generation of safety nets for effective social protection for the people negatively impacted.

Obviously, the risks go well beyond the labour market. We already see the crippling impact of cyberattacks as well as the threats to privacy and violations of human rights. And the internet is simultaneously a remarkable vehicle for connecting people and a weapon for dividing them through the spread of hate speech. And while the digital age is taking ever deeper root, nearly half of the world’s population is still not online. Our shared challenge is to reduce digital inequality, to build digital capacity and ensure that new technologies are on our side and are a force for good.

Ladies and gentlemen,

A new global landscape is taking shape, even as age-old challenges remain. In today’s world we live with a strange paradox: the challenges we face are global and can only be addressed globally. No country alone, no organisation alone can provide the solutions we need. But at the same time, multilateralism is under attack. Agreed norms are being eroded, and tensions are rising. We are threatened by global warming, but also by global political warming. They are both dangerous, but they are both avoidable.

It is true that we are slowly moving towards a multipolar world, and that is in itself a very positive evolution. But as history tells us, multipolarity alone does not guarantee peace. Europe was multipolar 100 years ago, but the multilateral framework for cooperation and problem-solving was not there, and the result was a catastrophic world war. It is vital that the world has multilateral institutions and architecture, and that international relations are based on international law.

At the same time, we need new forms of cooperation with other international and regional organisations, a networked multilateralism, and closer links with businesses, civil society and other stakeholders with an inclusive multilateralism. And this is the kind of international system we need in the 21^st century. Our shared duty for the United Nations and all of you in this room is to show that we care and that international cooperation can deliver. And that is why I’m pursuing fundamental reforms of the UN, so that it can better serve the world and the people. It is why we have also launched the disarmament agenda, strengthened our response to terrorism and extremism, and will soon be launching a plan of action to combat hate speech. It is why we are fortifying peacekeeping, emphasising conflict prevention and pursuing a surge in diplomacy to resolve protracted conflicts that are causing enormous suffering and unsettling the world. And it is why I appeal to all of you to join with the United Nations and with each other to address the very dynamic problems we face at this time, and to build a better world we know can be ours.

We can also reflect more deeply on our direction as a human family when we mark next year the 75^th anniversary of the United Nations and post-war cooperation at large. As a committed multilateralist, but also as an engineer fond of evidence and facts, I see no other way for our world than to address all the challenges together, with all those who can contribute working for the benefit of all.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you very much, Mr Secretary- General.

Dear participants, I will try to arrange things in a way that will allow us to discuss the important issues that you have identified in your speeches. Some, such as climate change, even overlap.

Since this is an economic forum, with your permission, I would like to start with what I believe is the most important economic news, specifically, the tariff war between China and America.

President Xi, the first question is for you. The world’s two largest economies, China and America, stand in opposition. At the same time, they are so intertwined and influence so much the global economy that it is completely unclear how to defend your own interests and not burn your own house down in the heat of the moment. We are aware of what kind of a negotiator and a “terrific” businessman Mr Trump is. The first thing he does is break off the existing treaty, then stop playing by those rules. Then, the necessary talks begin, and eventually he gets a treaty that is good for him. Anyway, this was the case with NAFTA and Japan. How will this play out with you?

Xi Jinping: Thank you.

Perhaps I have an answer to this question in my files, I am not sure. (Applause.)

In fact, you have raised the issue of the relationship between globalisation and anti-globalisation and the waves around these matters. I outlined our position on globalisation in my speech saying that we are strong supporters of globalisation. An alleged change in China’s position was just announced. China has already become the largest proponent of globalisation. This is an objective trend. This is the way it is, because globalisation is a historical trend which will continue unabated. Anti-globalisation is also a development today. I think it is similar to a small section in a big wave, which can cause certain fluctuations, but is unable to stop the general trend of globalisation.

Globalisation is a double-edged sword, it cuts both ways. Typically, one benefits and the other suffers. This is a matter of sharing benefits and interests. But we should not cut off our noses to spite our faces. We should not maintain a one-sided and protectionist approach.

Of course, fundamental values do not always correspond to the wishes of each interested party: sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. If you are talking about global benefit, then we must adhere to this principle, and the world will be harmonious. We should not be self-serving.

We can see that today the issues and problems of economic globalisation require immediate solutions. Some ideas arise from the process of globalisation management, technical malfunctions can appear in this machine for globalisation management, but we should adhere to the trend and defend the existing multilateral trade system. We are not suggesting that we need to start all over again and turn everything upside down. We should consider how to improve the existing system and mechanisms.

President Putin just said in his speech that the most important thing is that there are many countries in the world, and that all of us are brothers; there are big and small countries, but everyone is equal. It is necessary to proceed from mutual respect in resolving disputes.

I believe that social systems and the development path of all countries should be respected. For example, new economies are developing and the role of developing countries is growing based on the existing world order with consideration for the latest changes. Therefore, new countries with emerging markets and developing countries — their right to vote and their participation in international organisations must be respected. Only this will allow us to reach more rational processes.

We always adhere to peaceful coexistence. Despite the existing difference of opinions, it is still necessary to find points of contact and properly resolve disputes that arise. I hope for such mutual respect in building relations with all countries.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, President Xi.

President Putin, President Xi has defined the tariff war as a fight between globalisation and anti-globalisation. I do not know whether you see it like that, but my main question is: where is Russia's place in this fight for economic supremacy, and should Russia choose one economic paradigm?

Vladimir Putin: There is a good Chinese proverb that says “when tigers fight in the valley, the smart monkey sits aside and waits to see who wins.”

But things change. And this picture is also changing. What is changing exactly? The fact is that today, we adhere to the same principles that the world was guided by only recently, and the United States, the world’s leading economy by a number of indicators, remains exactly as it was, a high-tech economy that has always promoted the ideas of free trade and democracy in the international economic arena. But today we see what is happening – they are introducing a different practice – I said as much in my remarks. As strong competitors emerge and gain strength, such tools suddenly become unacceptable to them, and various restrictions come into play like tariff wars and tariff restrictions. This, by the way, causes great damage.

Yesterday I met with the leaders of large investment companies, and cited these figures to them – these are not our figures, these are international figures, from international institutions, the World Bank in particular – if by 2022 these restrictions are still growing at the same rate as today, it will lead to a 2 percent decline in global GDP growth and will cut global trade by 17 percent. We are certainly not happy about this scenario.

Allow me to remind you that during the global economic and financial crisis of 2008–2009, global GDP growth slowed by exactly 2 percent, while trade growth slowed by 10 percent. If today’s trend continues, everyone here, including your colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, will face big problems and tremendous losses. Business will incur losses. Who will they shift their losses to? To our citizens. New jobs will not be created; on the contrary, jobs will be cut. Money will not flow to budgets at all levels, and so on. This will have very serious negative consequences. We do not want this to happen, of course.

Where is our place? It is in the fight for fair, democratic principles in the development of international economic relations. As you know, our relations with China are expanding, and with other countries, too; despite all the attempts to hamper certain projects, trade is growing, thank God. But if trends like today’s persist, it will be bad for everyone. We will certainly try to build relations based on equality and on the principles that I spoke of in my speech.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr Guterres, nevertheless, the confrontation between the US and China in a way extends to the UN as well. The US does not hide, for example, that it does not support China’s Belt and Road initiative, fearing that it would give China a geopolitical advantage in the world in addition to an economic advantage.

I know that you repeatedly spoke in favour of this initiative because, as you believe, it is very good for third-world countries. China invests a lot of money in infrastructure. What will come of the differences between your opinions and the policy of such an important UN donor as the US? Or can we say that informal leadership in the UN is going to China?

Antonio Guterres: A Spanish politician once said that politicians are the only animals that stumble twice at the same stone. And the world has stumbled into a cold war, and we all know what a cold war means. I think our duty is to avoid the world to fall into another cold war. And another cold war of two blocs that probably will then be completely separated in a monetary, in a military, but also in a trade and technology perspective. This would be extremely dangerous for us all, and we need to do everything to avoid it.

And we can only avoid it by rebuilding trust, and to rebuild trust, there is a first thing that is essential – to respect international law. And another thing that is essential is to contribute to multipolarity in our world. I do not see the world only as the United States and China, with all due respect for President Xi Jinping. I think it’s the United States, it’s China, it’s the Russian Federation, it’s the European Union, it’s India, it’s many other countries. And it is the capacity for all these countries on an equal basis to have a relationship based on equality, on trust and on respect of international law that we can build a world that avoids this trade war, this cold war. And I think the United Nations must be the platform that helps to make this possible, and we need to learn from the mistakes made in the past. There is no solution that one country alone can promote. There is no solution that one institution alone can promote. If we want to address the enormous challenges we face we need serious international cooperation. And so, it is my true belief that the present situation needs to be overcome and that this sleepwalking into a cold war needs to be stopped.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Yes, of course, we should overcome this together.

We have two representatives of the European Union here. Perhaps we should come to you, Mr Pellegrini? I would like to know the EU’s opinion of what is going on because a tariff war of your own is taking shape between you and the US. The US still intends to put tariffs on European cars. This could hit Europe quite hard.

In the case of China, we can say that this conflict has been brewing, it has deep roots, it did not begin today, but in the case of Europe, which is a US ally, I’ve got the feeling that it is strictly Trump’s story. Does the EU share this opinion?

Peter Pellegrini: Thank you for this question.

It is very difficult, because not only the European Union, but also Slovakia as a member of the European Union would have been very strong, it would have a very strong impact on our economy also. You mentioned, for example, the automotive sector. During my visit one month ago with President Trump, I explained to him that an action against the European Union in tariffs on cars and industrial products would impact not just Germany, but also Slovakia, the Czech Republic and, as you mentioned, it means they are allies, and they are friends. And we also do not understand if friends are doing each other such things. So now the side of the offer from the European Union in this moment is not to increase tariffs, but to put tariffs on zero. It would even increase the business between the United States and the European Union, on average maybe eight or nine billion euros from both sides, so it would be a nice win-win situation. So we are lucky in this moment that Mr President postponed his decision for another six months, but we do not know what will be when these six months are over. And we hope we will not start a trade war, because it will not help, even not the United States. It will not just make something wrong towards the European Union; it is also bad for them. I believe that we will be able, in a normal dialogue, to finish this situation in a positive way because otherwise we will lose jobs, as President Putin mentioned, we will lose jobs. We will not have any more such economic growth that we have now, and it will really create not a pleasant situation within the countries of the European Union. So I believe in a healthy brain of all who are involved, that it will be a positive decision at the end. I hope so. But you never know.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you very much.

President Putin, we are talking about allies now. Today China is considered to be Russia’s most important ally. You have met with President Xi more than with other leaders. The same is true of President Xi. He even called you his closest friend. Two days ago you signed many important agreements. Trade between China and Russia has reached $108 billion, which is a record. But if we subtract raw materials from this figure, other economic indicators, even concerning military cooperation, in fact show that Chinese-Russian friendship and cooperation are not that close after all. Why?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to add a few words to what our guest from Slovakia has said. This analysis is absolutely correct. I would like to add just one point: this uncertainty in global affairs and the world economy is now the main factor hampering development. The number of uncertainty factors is increasing very quickly, and this is the main problem today. Mr Pellegrini has made a certain sign, and this sign has different meanings; I hope that common sense will prevail – indeed, I agree with you on this score.

Speaking of our relations with China, this is politics, rather than words. Indeed, President Xi Jinping and I have established very positive personal relations. Yesterday, we spent a lot of time together and discussed a wide variety of matters. We parted at midnight Moscow Time or 4 am Beijing Time. We had a lot to discuss. Later, I said: “I have to apologise to you, I should let you go. Hosts should not treat their guests this way.” But this indicates that our agenda is very extensive.

Yes, 108 billion. We strove to achieve 100 billion last year, and we reached 108 billion. We have exceeded this target figure, and our trade continues to grow. Thanks to our joint efforts and to the positions of our Chinese friends, including President Xi Jinping, our trade patterns continued to change and to improve all the time. The share of engineering goods began to increase. True, this share decreased slightly last year, but that was due to a number of objective factors. However, we have no misgivings about this because on the whole we are posting positive trends.

First, the energy sector is a major component of our collaboration, and it also includes a lot of technologies. We have built an oil pipeline system all the way to the Pacific Ocean, with an offshoot to China. It encompasses many modern technologies. By the way, our Chinese partners have teamed up with France and joined the Arctic LNG-2 project with NOVATEK in northern Russia, which will now be implemented. This involves all kinds of cutting-edge technology. Adjacent sectors facilitating these projects are also involved.

We have very good prospects in space exploration and the aviation industry. We are now moving to implement an ambitious joint project to develop a large transport helicopter. There are very good prospects in the nuclear engineering sector and the nuclear power industry, which also involves all sorts of state-of-the-art technologies. The Russian side has designed and built several nuclear units in China, and we have agreed to build two more; two are currently under construction. We have a lot of venues in the engineering sector and the power industry. I was happy to hear our colleagues’ reports in Moscow the other day. To the best of my knowledge, there are 11 various groups in various fields. Today, we maintain very deep and wide-ranging relations with China; in fact, we don’t have such relations with any other country. Indeed, we are strategic partners in the full sense of this word. We can say this without any exaggeration.

What is especially important is that both parties show intent to provide an equitable approach to resolving problems. That is why our colleagues supported the special relationship with China within the EAEU. We have a very good joint action programme. Yes, there are some difficult issues related to commodity groups and they need to be discussed at the professional level. I can assure you, our experts and Chinese partners debate almost each and every issue, but we always find a solution. We strive to look for these solutions and we find them. In this sense, I am sure we have excellent prospects.

As for global issues in general, cooperation between Russia and China on the global stage is undoubtedly a very important factor of global stability.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Can Russia-China trade relations replace economic relations with the West for Russia?

Vladimir Putin: Russia can what?

Sophie Shevardnadze: Can trade relations between Russia and China take the place of economic relations with the West for Russia?

Vladimir Putin: You see, we are not creating military alliances with China. Yes, we are strategic allies. We are not working against anyone; we are working in our interests and in the interests of our partners. We are not going to replace anything with anything. Our relations with the European Union, for instance, have always been multifaceted. Mutual trade was over $400 billion, then it fell to half of that figure, but that was absolutely not though any fault of ours: it was not us who imposed all these restrictions. Now trade is approaching $300 billion, which means that common sense is prevailing.

So these two things are not mutually exclusive. We are ready to work with everyone, including the United States. Mutual trade there is minimal, though: it was $30 billion, then it fell to $20 billion when Obama was in office, now under Donald Trump it grew by $5 billion, in spite of some 30 sanctions packages he imposed against us. By the way, the Trump administration imposed more sanctions than anyone, but mutual trade still has grown somewhat. We do not set anything against anyone and we are ready to work with everyone.

Sophie Shevardnadze: President Xi, I began my greetings by saying that the St Petersburg Forum unites leaders who would not meet anywhere else in the world, but all of you are united by your dream of the Belt and Road infrastructure. The trade route from China to Europe cannot be imagined without Russia, and at the same time Russia is not directly involved in this project, it is connected with the Belt and Road initiative. What does this mean in terms of China’s investment in Russia? Will you invest as much in Russia and our infrastructure as the other member countries?

Xi Jinping: It is true, the Belt and Road initiative is developing more dynamically now. At first, it was very simple: six years ago, I came up with an initiative of the Silk Road Economic Belt in Kazakhstan, in Astana. Then in Indonesia I suggested the idea of the Maritime Silk Road. It was very simple at first: we wanted to rekindle the historical memory of dynamic exchanges between all peoples of the world and to resume these exchanges in the modern world. That is why I proposed this initiative. It was well received.

In ancient times, the Silk Road comprised a limited number of routes, whereas now most countries expressed their interest in taking part in this initiative. We signed relevant agreements with some 130 countries and 30 international organisations. The result exceeded the achievements of the original Silk Road. This initiative is now being developed all over the world, even in Latin America and the Pacific.

This year, we held the second Belt and Road forum. During the first summit, only heads of state and government of 29 countries, and, of course, heads of international organisations, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, were invited. This year, in response to the great interest in the forum, we invited some 30 heads of state, heads of government, as well as Mr Guterres and the head of the International Monetary Fund. The hall was full, so we were not able to invite more people, like here, at this forum.

What I am saying is that we have this mutual attraction. We adhere to the principles of joint discussion, joint implementation and sharing. This is not just China’s idea – it will benefit everyone. Those countries that did not want to participate at first, said maybe that was a Marshall Plan Chinese-style. But we do not want that. We do not want to dominate. We have no such plans.

Perhaps, at first, some participants alleged it was a Chinese canonisation plan. We have never done canonisation all over the world, never since ancient times. We are ready to adhere to the principles of joint benefit only, while at the same time building our own solutions. According to this principle, we have long collaborated with our good neighbour, Russia. We have signed a $20 billion agreement and held restricted and expanded format meetings with President Putin. We never have enough time. We talk about more and more problems, and our contacts are deepening. So we want to streamline our own affairs through the promotion of the Belt and Road initiative, first of all, and then we will work towards a community of shared future for humankind.

I am sure that this dream will come true.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, President Xi.

Vladimir Putin: May I add something?

Sophie Shevardnadze: Of course.

Vladimir Putin: You know, Mr Guterres and I attended the last Belt and Road event in Beijing; I think he will confirm this. Do you know what I noticed?

First, all the important global players came. The European Union was represented at various levels, by various countries, but there were practically all the leading countries in the European Union.

And the second thing I noticed, and I think the Secretary-General will confirm this, I would like to emphasise it again. I don’t know if it is my good friend Xi Jinping’s manner, or the Chinese philosophy – they never impose anything on anyone. They propose. They propose, in fact – I might get it wrong – at the first stage, an investment of over $120 billion in various spheres, and $70 billion I think has already been invested.

As for Russia, we have established almost 100 companies with our Chinese partners, created 13,000 jobs – good, high-tech companies – in the Far East alone, in the priority development areas there.

As for the integration of the EAEU and President Xi Jinping’s idea, the Belt and Road initiative, we have specific projects together. There is a road from China to Kazakhstan, which means large infrastructure projects, and we have to build our road all the way to Kazakhstan. We are actually behind schedule, because Kazakhstan has already done their part. There are other projects of this kind. We have very specific plans for joint work, and we are completely satisfied with them. And I am sure that we will move forward very successfully.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.

I will certainly return to the Belt and Road initiative.

Mr Radev, let me ask you too: should Europe be integrated, the EAEU?

But, Mr Putin, first a question for you. We are speaking now about Chinese investment, but here in this hall there are not only Chinese investors, but investors from all over the world who have invested in Russia or would like to invest in Russia. There was this recent case with American investor Michael Calvey and his partner Philippe Delpal, who were detained.

You always say at all platforms that the law enforcement agencies and security services should not interfere in economic issues too much. You also constantly emphasise that the rule of law is above all. But here it is a bit selective, because Michael Calvey was put under house arrest, while Philippe Delpal was remanded in custody. This shocked investors because it looks like you say one thing and then do the opposite. Who should they listen to? To you, your guarantees, guarantees of President Vladimir Putin, or should they be guided by what the security agencies are doing?

Vladimir Putin: In all cases they must be guided by Russia’s current legislation. This relates both to the government and Russian and foreign businesses. I understand what you are talking about. I am concerned about this too, otherwise I would not be speaking about it today, but everyone must respect the law. When we say that law enforcement agencies should not unjustifiably interfere in the life and activity of business entities, this is our position. But this also means that all participants in this process, including businesspeople, must abide by the law.

What about this case? There was a violation; as you know, he has been accused of embezzling 2.5 billion rubles. Some people, including many of those present here, his Russian partners, claim he did not do it. Maybe. But it is the law enforcement agencies’ job to find out. We have a judicial system for this purpose.

I very much hope that everything will be done in a transparent and clear way, with the participation of those who defend the position of our American partner, and that just and lawful decisions will be made. On my part, my colleagues from the Government will monitor the situation. The Prosecutor General, I see he is here, Mr Chaika, will carefully watch and manage this process.

As for the fact that someone was put under house arrest and someone was remanded in custody. This also relates to what our French friends told me, that someone has a place to stay in Moscow and someone does not. How can someone be put under house arrest if he has no house or no apartment? But we will consider this issue.

I spoke about the humanisation of these procedures and we will move in this direction. If there is a possibility to avoid keeping someone in jail while investigating a case, we need to strive to use this possibility. Our actions in the near future will be aimed at humanising such processes.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Agreed. I am not trying to defend anyone in this case, this is not my competence. It is true, your partners, very reputable people, vouched for Mr Calvey. I am talking of something else now. Investors were scared by the Calvey case. This is what they see: Mr Calvey has worked in Russia for 15 years, and if he failed and did not understand the rules of the game, what would happen to them if they come to this country tomorrow? The rules are obscure, and this is the problem.

Vladimir Putin: Listen, take the Bible and read: “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not covet your neighbour's wife,” et cetera, you can find everything there. Mr Calvey has been accused of embezzling 2.5 billion rubles. This must be proved by the law enforcement agencies or the charges must be dropped. That is it, nothing special.

Look at what happens in other countries. Businesspeople in the US can be sentenced to 100–150 years in prison, and everyone is fine with it. Do not steal, behave and you will be fine.

But, I repeat, we will monitor the situation carefully. And I want to say, there are generally accepted legal regulations. Until there is a guilty verdict, everyone is considered innocent, including Mr Calvey. He is considered innocent and I hope that all the procedures will be conducted in accordance with Russia’s legislation, in a transparent and open manner, and that the Prosecutor General’s Office will monitor the situation.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.

Mr Radev, I would like to ask you the same question as I asked Prime Minister Pellegrini, this time as a representative of the European Union, and get back to the Belt and Road initiative. The EU believes that it is better to present a united front. What do you think? Perhaps, Bulgaria is better off discussing participation in this project directly with President Xi?

Rumen Radev: It is a vitally important initiative for us, for all the 17 countries, we have already 17 countries on board. We also support the One Belt One Road initiative, but we need to be more effective and more efficient when we work together. We need to know more about each other. Last year, the Prime Minister of China Li Keqiang visited Bulgaria. When he was in my office, we started discussing all the untapped opportunity and potential behind this initiative. I told him, okay, you are going to invest in Europe, we are going to work together, but let’s open a centre for global partnership for this initiative in Sofia. Why? Because we need feasibility studies for all the projects, we need to optimise them, we need to establish clear criteria on how to have better efficiency, how not to waste money, which is not worth to do, but to allocate the money for some other activities. Also we need more information about our legislation. We need to project information to China about EU procedures and rules and tenders, everything. So this idea was taken into consideration; it was proposed at the summit of all the prime ministers participating in Sofia in July last year. And very soon we are going to open this centre in Sofia. It is a clear example that we are going forward, and we have great expectations behind this initiative. Of course, there are some concerns in some countries, Western, from the members of the initiative, but if we compare the volume of China investment in the UK, in Germany – they are huge, there is a huge investment in those countries. So we should not be concerned. Of course, we should debate all the clear rules for transparency and competition, and we are going to help.

Sophie Shevardnadze: But still, would you prefer to discuss your participation in this initiative directly with President Xi or while presenting a united front together with the EU?

Rumen Radev: If I have a chance to discuss those problems, of course, Bulgaria has its national interest, we are highly interested in China initiatives, in China investment, in mutual projects, so, of course, we are ready.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.

Mr Pashinyan, this year, Armenia chairs the Eurasian Economic Union. A relatively small, but I must add, an absolutely wonderful country is now, so to speak, coordinating all these huge economies on an immense territory.

You mentioned that your country has recently signed a cooperation agreement with the EU and that this act does not conflict with the EAEU. So far. But if your country continues moving towards the EU, wouldn’t you expect Brussels to ask you to leave the EAEU?

Nikol Pashinyan: Thank you for the question.

First of all, I would like to say that there is no movement towards the EU because Armenia is staying exactly where it is. It is very important to make this clear, since, as I have already said, we cooperate with the European Union on matters that have to do with our internal reforms.

But there is something I would like to emphasise. The EU is very interested in improving relations with Russia. I do, of course, talk to European leaders; all of them support Armenia’s intentions to develop relations with the Russian Federation. This is a very important point. What I am saying is that we are open with our Russian partners about our relations with the EU before, and we are also open with our European partners regarding our relations with the Russian Federation. The only exception is certain defence matters.

Indeed, very many European leaders are interested in settling relations with the Russian Federation. I think the presence of two European leaders here speaks for itself. And I believe a lot of people in the world have now realised that geopolitical games do not benefit anyone, and certainly not those countries that become drawn into them. In this context, Armenia’s position is clear: we are not going to take part in any geopolitical games and we are going to develop relations with the Russian Federation. Yes, we take part in the Eurasian Economic Union, in which we now hold the Presidency. During my recent visit to China I said we are very glad to have a good relationship with China.

Why are we interested in these relations? China, the EU and the Russian Federation pursue global stability, and in these relations we are primarily interested in global stability and security. Needless to say, we are aware of our role as an EAEU member state. We will facilitate the improvement of relations between our partners. Of course, our opportunities in this respect are not so broad but we will make our contribution to global security, stability and cooperation.

Sophie Shevardnadze: I would still like to specify something. Is it correct to say that in this case Armenia has unequivocally made its choice in favour of the EAEU?

Nikol Pashinyan: We are members of the Eurasian Economic Union.

Sophie Shevardnadze: I know.

Nikol Pashinyan: In other words, this is the only economic integration process in which we are taking part. We will continue our participation in it and we will continue developing relations in this process. But this does not mean that we will not have any relations with China. We will maintain bilateral relations with China and contribute to the development of ties between China and the EAEU.

Sophie Shevardnadze: And what about the EU?

Nikol Pashinyan: We cooperate with the EU. I spoke about judicial reforms in our country. It is very important for us to create a judicial system that would match European standards. I think this is a very good goal because when we talk about European standards we mean a truly independent judiciary that is free of corruption and political pressure.

As for the rest, we are very happy to have an opportunity to facilitate the improvement and development of ties between the EU and Russia. I think in some cases Armenia can even become a bridge between the EU, Russia, China and Iran. You know that the EAEU signed a free trade agreement with Iran. We believe Armenia can also play and will play a key role in this issue.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr Putin, the Prime Minister of Armenia believes that Armenia can play an important role in the rapprochement of the EU, Russia and the EAEU. But so far, we see that when all post-Soviet countries drift towards the West, it always happens against the backdrop of heightened tensions with Russia. So far, it has been impossible to achieve a compromise. You often say that the rules of the game are violated. This also happens because the world is changing and the current rules cannot keep up with it. As far as I can see, it is impossible to integrate into both the EAEU and the EU. You write these rules to a large extent, at least regarding the EAEU. Can you influence the situation so that it is not always a matter of making a forced choice but of mutual cooperation?

Vladimir Putin: Look, Charles de Gaulle once spoke about a united space from Portugal to the Urals. I later added, “to Vladivostok.” There are no serious tensions. There are concrete things that we need to take into account during these integration processes. First, integration processes are inevitable, we are witnessing them all over the world, and we are part of this global process. Naturally, we join our efforts with the republics of the former Soviet Union. We share a common language, common infrastructure; there are many things that unite us and create natural competitive advantages. This is all very natural.

But there are certain issues we need to overcome to be part of the integration process, to interact with the European Union. What issues, for instance? Technical regulations: they differ in Russia and the EU. Do you see what I mean? These are absolutely concrete issues. The issue of whether to put a screw in this way or that way, or the matter of how snow loads on buildings differ here and there, because we have more snow in Russia. This is a very natural thing, you see? And we cannot adopt their technical regulations in industry tomorrow, it is not possible. I admit that in some areas European standards are better. Some regulations, like phytosanitary supervision, are tougher in Russia. Therefore, when we speak about allowing their products into our market, we say, please take into account our phytosanitary regulations. Some countries are fine with it, some are not. We need to explain to our partners that such issues cannot be dealt with unilaterally.

Or take technical standards. We say: yes, we will be ready to take your rules and standards, but it will require time and money because we will have to buy new equipment and introduce these standards. This will take time, years, and it will require hundreds of billions in investment. It can’t be done overnight. Our partners should understand this. They should show understanding for this.

When we held corresponding talks with them on this issue, which were linked to our neighbours, we told them that to even out everything we would need about 15 years with 20 industries. But it was reduced to one industry over two years. In effect, these talks actually became prohibitive. You understand how difficult it will be to come to terms. Further, the European Commission was ready to talk to every EAEU country but not with the EAEU as a whole because it would be more difficult to talk to us in Russia’s presence. But eventually, as we see, our partners are now willing to talk with the EAEU as well.

Incidentally, note that in Nur-Sultan, formerly Astana, we said trade in the EAEU was growing. I do not want to quote the figures for fear of making a mistake. But trade between our countries with third countries has increased even more. What does this indicate? It shows that when we follow common rules based on WTO principles, it is easier to cooperate with all of us. This cooperation is more reliable and transparent and gives additional impetus to cooperation between the EAEU and third countries. We only welcome this, and there are no disagreements. All we need is goodwill to overcome the natural obstacles. We are ready for this and will do it with pleasure.

Nikol Pashinyan: I would like to add to this, with your permission. When we talk about the Belt and Road, project this is not a matter of choosing between this project and the EAEU. Armenia faces this issue in other cases because if infrastructure is built in Armenia, in our region, under the Belt and Road project, there will be integration between Iran, Armenia and Georgia. I think this will facilitate the EAEU’s development as well.

If Armenia, part of the EAEU, becomes a more progressive state with well-developed economic, political and judicial systems, this will benefit the EAEU and add new nuances to its image. I would like to recall that, as President Putin said, it is very important to take into account the peculiarities of every country. What is possible in Russia may be impossible in Armenia, what is possible in Armenia may be impossible in China and what is possible in China may be impossible, for instance, in Bulgaria. However, we should focus on the values that unite us. I believe there are many values that unite Armenia and Russia, and I believe these values are immutable.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Mr Pashinyan.

Mr Putin, we say there are no serious conflicts between the EU and the EAEU, that time and will are needed. However, Ukraine is a graphic example of how a country can be literally split between these two poles of attraction. In this context I am curious why you have not congratulated Vladimir Zelensky on becoming President?

Vladimir Putin: Well, he has been clinging to the same rhetoric so far, calling us enemies and aggressors. He must somehow make up his mind on what he wants to achieve and what he wants to do. We are not renouncing all contact with him. We will work with him.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Yes, because you are the President of an enormous power. As of today, he is very popular in his country and has a high rating.

Vladimir Putin: Very good.

Sophie Shevardnadze: You do not have a history of relationships. One small gesture can completely change the course of events. You know this, Mr President. Why not meet him without preconditions?

Vladimir Putin: Have I ever refused to do this? Nobody has made such an offer to me.

Sophie Shevardnadze: But are you ready to meet him?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, I do not know this man. I hope we will get acquainted someday. Judging by everything I’ve seen, he is a good specialist in the area he has worked in until now. He is a good actor. (Laughter.) I am serious and you are laughing. But it is one thing to play someone and another to be someone. Obviously, acting requires talent. Many talents. You can change your role every ten minutes. The prince and the pauper – every ten minutes, and you have to be convincing in every role. This is really a talent.

In order to deal with the affairs of the state, one needs different kinds of qualities. One needs certain experience, knowledge, the ability to identify the main problems, see them, find the instruments to solve them, the ability to form a team of capable people, establish good relations with them, believe in them, give them a chance to think freely and come up with their own solutions, choose these solutions – which is very important – and be able to explain to millions of people the motives behind choosing these solutions, and, most importantly, have the bravery and strength of character to take responsibility for their consequences.

I am not saying that Mr Zelensky lacks these qualities; he very well may possess them. There may be a lack of experience, but experience, as people say, can be gained, it comes quickly. Does he have all the other qualities that I mentioned? He very well may have, but I do not know as he has not shown them in any way so far. But what we see is contradictory statements: he says one thing during the election campaign, and another thing afterward. Time will tell. We will see.

I am not saying that he ruined everything with his statements without having done anything yet, no. We will see.

Sophie Shevardnadze: I would like to ask you about Belarus. This year Armenia chairs the Eurasian Economic Union, and Belarus will chair it next year. You often meet with not only the Chair, but also the President of Belarus – in Sochi, in Nur-Sultan. There has been much talk about Russia and Belarus uniting: in terms of both economies and political structures.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Pardon, bad talk?

Sophie Shevardnadze: Much talk.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ah, much.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Much talk, yes.People also say that the unification of the two countries has something to do with the year 2024. Is there some truth is this?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: No, and there cannot be. I will tell you why: because it just so happened historically that we are a single people – and I believe that Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are one people, I have said this many times before, many times, and that is my opinion, I am convinced of this.

At one time, Ukraine did not exist at all. The Zaporozhian Sich actually joined the Russian Empire but not as Ukrainians or Russians. What mattered then? History, language and religion, and they all considered themselves Russian. Later, Ukraine was formed as “U Kraya,” that is, on the edge of the empire. Proximity to European culture and partial inclusion in Catholic Poland created a desire to be closer to Europe in this part of the population – this is a completely legitimate desire and there is nothing wrong with it.

Prior to World War I, the countries that were preparing to fight Russia began forming the idea of Ukrainian identity. This is natural. By destabilizing its potential enemy, they tried to split it up and take part of it. This idea was embraced and developed. Part of the population really acquired its own identity, and there is nothing terrible about this. It is a natural process. So, we treat this with understanding and respect.

The same is true of Belarus. Again, I am deeply convinced that there is only one nation. But it so happens that we live in different countries. Different states were formed. I have expressed my view on this many times. There are no grounds today for a state association. We do not have plans or goals like this. We plan to develop our Union. I am sure our people are interested in this.

Incidentally, much has already been done in this respect, including in the social area. I am referring to labour rights, free movement and so on. In some respects, the EAEU has already left behind our Union State. Much of what was written in the Treaty on the Union State has not been fulfilled. Mr Lukashenko and I have discussed whether we can fulfil some of what we did not fulfil before in the present context, or add something more current. In effect, our whole discussion revolved around these issues. It was constructive and comradely. Apparently, it is our fault that we provide too little information for the media and the public. If we did it properly, there would be no rumours.

Sophie Shevardnadze: So it is good that I asked this question.

Vladimir Putin: It is good that you are here at all and ask these questions.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr Radev, I would like to go back to international investment and projects.

Back in the day, Bulgaria wanted to implement the South Stream project on its territory, but was then forced to halt it under Brussels’ pressure. I know you were not the president back then, but you surely know more about this than I do. What was Bulgaria’s motivation in killing the project?

Because today, there is TurkStream that runs from Russia to Turkey; we are talking about a line that could potentially run through your territory as well. Will you be able to defend your interests this time and overcome your European partners’ scepticism? Basically I ended up asking you two questions.

President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev: President Putin has just mentioned something very important: to be able to take responsibility for your own decisions, so I can take responsibility for my own decisions. At that time, I was not at that position. So I will not go back to history, but not to forget, Bulgaria is part of the EU, and Bulgaria develops its energy policy based on the energy policy of the European Union, which means diversification of roots, sources and suppliers, security of supply and competitiveness.

Of course, Bulgaria and Russia, we have been strong strategic partners in the field of energy for decades. Bulgaria is 100% dependent on Russian gas, on Russian nuclear technologies and fuel for our nuclear power plant, and we had a very fruitful discussion with President Putin and his team yesterday about how to continue our strategic cooperation for the future. Because there are some changes in Bulgaria. There are changes on the European gas market, on the European map for gas supply. Bulgaria has been modernising and expanding its gas transitioning network; we are building reverse capabilities. Also we have initiated an interconnector between Greece and Bulgaria for LNG gas supply, and all this means that Bulgaria is developing the capability for a gas distribution centre and establishing its own gas exchange capabilities. This provides more opportunity for Russia to deliver more gas to Bulgaria and to change the direction, so this gas could flow to Central Europe through Bulgaria, which is a good opportunity for Russia.

Of course, we also need to – this is my opinion, we discussed this yesterday – we need to transform also our relations in how to contract, how to deal with the price of gas deliveries, because there are new changes, I said, on the market. We have two approaches: one is fixed, long-term prices for pipeline gas, and the other approach is more flexible prices coming from LNG capabilities, yet they are very limited. For today, they are limited, but they are already on the market, so I hope we will find the best approach to meet our interest and to continue being strategic partners in energy.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I will only add a couple of words. President Radev mentioned the issue of pricing – let us go back at least a little to discussing economic issues. He said that there is a long-term fixed price and a more flexible one. Allow me to make a small comment here. The price indeed is long-term, but not fixed. It is linked to a whole range of energy products, first and foremost, to crude oil. Oil price fluctuations lead to gas price fluctuations. The price is absolutely fair and market-oriented. This is the pricing formula. This does not mean, of course, that such a formula must continue unabated for eternity. We are ready for discussion. But this has to be done, of course, at the level of economic entities.

Speaking of South Stream, many people in Bulgaria regret it falling through – I say this mildly, many of them. What did Bulgaria lose? $3 billion of investment, a thousand new high-paid jobs and $400 million worth of transit fees annually. That is it. These are the direct losses for the Bulgarian economy. And they are worth regretting. And I think it is quite clear why this happened. Let us be frank: there are certain costs to the Western integration system, which you talked about. This has to do with sovereignty limitations. By the way, we never face such issues at the EAEU; we can disagree and argue till we are blue in the face, but every decision is made unanimously, unanimously or not at all. Problems occur, too, but it is not always the same in the European Union.

I have said many times, and I will repeat it again: today, the European Parliament makes more binding decisions for the EU countries than the USSR Supreme Soviet once did with respect to the Soviet republics. This leads to some difficulties, hence the complicated processes within the EU. But that’s beside the point now, as we are talking about building new routes that will diversify our commodities supply to Europe. How many years have we been working on the second leg of Nord Stream? South Stream even had to be postponed.

We agreed with Turkey to build the TurkStream, thanks to the political will of President Erdogan, who showed the best qualities of his character and underscored his country’s sovereignty, and we will complete it in the next few months. The offshore section has already been laid, fully completed, and now the project is progressing on land; we will finish it soon. So now our European partners will receive gas via a different route, if they want to, of course. I believe southern Europe is interested in this, because, once again I’ll repeat, pipeline gas from Russia, considering the distance and volume of deliveries, will always be cheaper, by definition, than liquefied gas from overseas. Always.

Mr Miller hides this, thinks it’s a big secret, but in fact, I think the analysts know the profitability of production – it is one-tenth of the cost of liquefaction plus delivery to another continent plus re-gasification. Just cross off a zero, do you understand? He has a good reserve margin in which he can work with the price, but the price must still be fair for both the seller and the buyer.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.

Rumen Radev: Just a moment. Talking about sovereignty limitations – of course, President Putin has his point of view, but I cannot agree that Bulgaria does not have sovereignty. Because South Stream was not a project just for Bulgaria. It is a pipeline going through Bulgaria to other EU countries, so cancelling South Stream was a collective European decision; it was not a sole Bulgarian decision. This should be clear.

And, of course, I fully agree as well that there is a fixed formula, a very complex formula of calculating the price of the gas; it is called the Netherlands formula. I don’t know why, but the name is that. What I’m talking is to be more flexible and to look beyond today, because there is a huge change, and we need to find again the best solution for our two countries.

Vladimir Putin: We will continue to do so, Mr President. You are right, I agree. Thank you very much.

Sophie Shevardnadze: President Putin used the word ‘unanimously.’ You also said ‘unanimously.’ In this regard, a short question to you, President Radev, and to you, Prime Minister Pellegrini, regarding the sanctions.

Many European leaders speak out saying the sanctions should be lifted because it hurts everyone, not just Russia. The leaders talk, and the sanctions are extended. Can you venture to not support the extension of the sanctions? The sanctions are only extended unanimously, right? Yes or no?

Peter Pellegrini: There is a position of the European Union, and Slovakia is a part of the European Union; so, in general, we support. But there is also a position of the Slovak Republic. And to be honest, we do not think that sanctions are helping somebody, even not the European Union and even not the Russian Federation. It is the opposite. The exchange between our two countries, or groups, went down, as President Putin mentioned, and now we are happy that it is slowly going up again, and Slovakia will always be first in dialogue, in communication, and not sanctions at the first point. But in general, that is the position of the European Union. There is now a negotiation, a discussion on how long they should still continue, but I will again repeat as the Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, it is better to sit around the table and to find solutions than to fight against each other with sanctions.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Everyone thinks so, but the sanctions are extended. Can you vote against an extension?

Rumen Radev: I personally do not vote because the Prime Minister represents Bulgaria in the European Council, but anyway.

Sophie Shevardnadze: And if they voted?

Rumen Radev: This question goes a little far beyond sustainable development, but it is an interesting one. Being an EU member, Bulgaria is a part of the EU, understanding the position that sanctions are policy-changing, too, trying to deescalate the tension when there is a conflict. However, everyone who plans to impose sanctions should think about the pros and cons and consequences. Sanctions, they are like a coin with two sides, and the business here knows very well that businesses can suffer from sanctions, in some areas heavily. Sanctions are not fair because they do not hit the politicians, but they affect ordinary people. And sanctions could be circumvented, and I will tell you from our experience that sanctions could lead to black marketing, illegal trafficking, organised crime. We know this from experience during the sanctions upon the former Yugoslavia. And one who plans and contemplates sanctions should calculate very well the outcomes, because sometimes, the real outcomes are different from the planned effect, and they could hit back to those who planned and impose sanctions.

Peter Pellegrini: Sorry, but I always like to say what I am thinking, and this moment, and really, I have to say. It looks sometimes very, very funny, when the biggest supporters of sanctions and those who were fighting for sanctions against the Russian Federation the other day are looking at how they can sell their goods in Russia and how they can invest in Russia and to grow their own business. So for me it is sometimes very, very funny how some people are behaving.

Vladimir Putin: And I don’t see anything wrong with that. At least we can work with it.

Sophie Shevardnadze: We have drifted far away from the theme of our forum: Sustainable Economic Development. I would like to have a short Q&A session. You all said in your speeches that the existing rules of interaction, of the existing system of world trade, is not agreeable to anybody in principle; everyone is unhappy here – China is displeased, so is America, as are the EU and Russia. Mr Guterres, you say that something is bound to change.

I would like to hear concrete proposals as to what needs to change, from each of you. Everyone is unhappy but does not want to engage in changing anything; nobody is willing. Let’s start with you, Mr Pashinyan. You might want to see integration between the EAEU and the EU, right?

Nikol Pashinyan: Thank you. The situation is such that if everyone is displeased, we must do something to make everyone more content. There is only one way to do this: compromise. We have to work out a compromise. To achieve this, mutual respect is needed, as Mr Putin said, we need to show understanding for each other’s interests and respect for them. If all global players see the situation this way and are ready to take responsibility for such compromises – this is clearly not an easy thing to do, but it is in fact the only way, because any other solution will result in big problems.

Sophie Shevardnadze: President Xi, what would you change? You say an anti-globalisation wave is surging, and it hurts free trade among other things. What would you change in the existing trade system to protect free trade, to prevent sliding into protectionism and isolation?

Xi Jinping: I would rather be a creator than a destroyer. We must respect what exists. And we must improve it ourselves rather than upset it or cancel it. I do not want to cause problems for others. Whatever I did, I did it for the sake of being friends with all nations and expanding the circle of friends for China. I see friends around the world, only friends. For example, Russia is our great neighbour. And we are cooperating with the EAEU. We are also strategic partners with the EU, now also in the 17+1 format. We continue developing relations with the ASEAN nations, and we have established a cooperation mechanism with Africa, with most African countries. Our relations are good with Latin America and with the South Pacific countries.

As for the United States… even though we have some trade friction, China and the US are already closely knitted together. We have large investors and the biggest trade between us. You know, every day about 10,000 people fly back and forth from the US to China, so it is hard to imagine a complete separation between the US and China. We are not interested in that, nor are our US partners. President Trump is my friend, and I am sure that he is not interested in this either.

Thank you.

Sophie Shevardnadze: President Putin, what would you change? Maybe you could suggest something specific?

Vladimir Putin: Almost everything has been said here. With a reliance on compromise, we need to seek common solutions, draft common rules and adhere to the norms of international law – what was mentioned and suggested by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. I fully agree with this.

Sophie Shevardnadze: President Radev.

Rumen Radev: I think it is not about the economy, it is not about a trade war, it is about global security. Because trade wars, they touch the deepest layers of our security architecture. I can understand a trade war between the United States and China. I can understand a trade war between the United States and Russia. But I cannot understand a trade war between the United States and Europe. When last year, in May, trade war lasted, some of the European leaders were so frustrated that they started talking that Europe must take its security into its own hands. For a short time period, you can put in one basket, because the economy and defence, they are in one basket. Trade war and being allies – but it is impossible to be in the same basket, an ally in defence and a rival in the economy. In the long run, you will split. If we split, that will have a devastating effect on the transatlantic bond and the whole European and world security architecture. I hope that we will find very soon a feasible solution to fix that problem.

Peter Pellegrini: I think there is a crisis of multilateralism in this moment in the world, so I think we should come back and act again according to the international rules to support international organisations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation. I think that is the best we can do to come back and to respect the international rules, and not to fight against each other.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr Secretary-General, please allow me to formulate the question a bit differently, in the context of the UN. You said in your speech that now many important political processes are taking place outside the UN. Can all these changes that we are discussing today be more successful under the UN aegis? If you had the freedom to take radical decisions, how would you reform the organisation you head?

Antonio Guterres: Well, first of all, we are reforming the UN in what we can do to reform the UN, and it is essentially to make the Secretariat and the coordination of our agencies more transparent, more better coordinated and more accountable. But of course, there are central questions, and UN-related, about the way this policy works, the General Assembly works. But looking at the UN, looking at the World Trade Organisation, any other organisation – everything can be reformed, and I am very much in favour of reform, of improvement. By the way, the World Trade Organisation has a reform process taking place. The central question for me is related to the behaviour of the actors. And that is where the major change is needed. And the first change is to re-establish trust in international relations. And to establish trust, there are things that are absolutely essential. First, behaviours need to be rational, and need to be predictable, and need to be in line with international law. If you are able to do these things, we can reform the institutions, we can make them better. If you are not able to do these things, there is no way we will be able to reform the institutions, because we will never agree on the way to do it. So, let us re-establish trust, let us make sure that key actors in the world act in a way that is rational, that is predictable. And if that happens, we will be able to improve the way our organisations work in a fantastic way. But let us never forget: everything is important, but the most important is people, the people that are assuming responsibilities in the way they are able to shape international relations based on trust.

Sophie Shevardnadze: I promise you that we are almost finished. I literally have one last question for my President and for President Xi. This is a geopolitical question because after all I am a foreign affairs journalist and I would not be forgiven by my colleagues if I don’t ask. Before the forum I discussed this with my chief, Margarita Simonyan, who cannot be here because she was taken to the hospital for the reasons that you know, President Putin. This is a question about the Korean Peninsula.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Simonyan is pregnant and she says: for the reasons that you know. What do I have to do with this? (Laughter.)

Sophie Shevardnadze: Yes, Kim Jong-un met with Mr Trump, but the talks did not go well. Then he went to Russia. It all comes down to this: who or what guarantees a happy and calm life for the North Korean leader if not an atomic bomb? You, President Xi, and you, President Putin, said in Vladivostok that in general, international guarantees could make a big difference. If everyone agrees with this why not give him these guarantees? Maybe it makes sense to agree here in St Petersburg: two big nuclear powers, we are willing to give guarantees. Mr Trump, are you with us or not? Go ahead please.

Xi Jinping: Indeed, denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula is already the subject of international agreements. This issue holds the attention of the whole world, in particular, the dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington. I think it is necessary to become convinced of the prospects for this dialogue. The interested parties maintain close coordination. This includes President Putin and me – we are very interested in the problem of the Korean Peninsula. We are working together in a constructive way to advance the process of a political settlement.

It should be said that we need to make sure, keep our confidence in it and further promote this process towards the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. We are sure that there is the potential and good chances for this. The key is to work together in this direction.

Of course, various mechanisms need to be established to remove the mistrust between the key countries – this is what we are striving for, and we need to discuss their decisions.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The issue of the North Korean nuclear programme is definitely a serious and important one not only for the region but also for the whole world. I totally agree, and we pay a lot of attention to this with our Chinese friends. Of course, I would like to reaffirm what President Xi said – the key role should belong to the countries who are the principal rivals – the United States and North Korea.

Nevertheless, we have to say that North Korea abides by its obligations. First it cancelled its nuclear tests and is decommissioning one of the test sites. We hear our US partners say “No, this is not enough.” Maybe it is not enough but this is what they agreed to.

On the other hand, we need to consider a mechanism to provide security for North Korea. Of course, they see the example of Iraq and Libya, and they do not want this. We must bear this in mind and take it very seriously. The nature of any guarantees can be a very complicated matter.

I will not hide and I will not reveal too big a secret – this problem was also among those discussed yesterday. I do not have a complete answer now. I think, nobody has such a proposal. By the way, we also talked about this with the Americans, when Mr Pompeo visited. We, and China, are definitely interested in denuclearisation. We want it, we are pursuing it, because the spread of WMDs around the world adds up the risks and threats that we normally forget about in our everyday lives. But they are present, and they are growing, and this of course worries us.

What sort of guarantees do we need? This is the key question. It must be a matter for consideration by everyone. In this case what the UN Secretary-General said is of utmost importance here – trust. Of course, we must propose some sort of a plan. Currently the process is moving along the road map worked out by Russia and China. On the whole, we are satisfied with the way the process is unfolding. We are looking forward to President Trump and the North Korean leader making an arrangement shortly, to re-establish contact and to carry the process further. We will work towards this in every way we can.

Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you very much.

Thank you all for the interesting discussion.

I wish you good luck in all your endeavours. That’s all for today. Have a nice evening!

Vladimir Putin: We all wish Margarita Simonyan the very best. Give her our best wishes.

Meeting with participants of Second Russian-Chinese Energy Business Forum

2019-06-17T13:18:03+04:00

Vladimir Putin and the President of China Xi Jinping met with participants of the Second Russian-Chinese Energy Business Forum on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,

I am delighted to welcome you. Allow me to remind you that we agreed to establish this forum during my state visit to Beijing last June. The first meeting was held in October 2018 in Beijing. And now we can see that this forum is gaining momentum.

The second Forum has been timed to coincide with Mr Xi Jinping’s state visit to Russia. And we are pleased that it has brought together representatives of more than 100 leading energy companies and financial institutions from two countries operating in this sector. The discussions are also attended by politicians and experts, which is important in terms of developing comprehensive solutions.

The business forum’s rich programme offers an opportunity to substantively discuss the prospects for expanding bilateral cooperation in this most important area, to coordinate plans for the development of cooperation in digital technology and an innovative upgrade of the fuel and energy sector.

I would like to emphasise, though you know this anyway, that energy is one of the key, most dynamically developing areas of Russian-Chinese cooperation. My colleague and friend Xi Jinping and I have given a lot of attention to issues of energy cooperation and support for joint initiatives and projects.

The most important projects are the development of deposits in Eastern Siberia by Rosneft with the participation of our Chinese partners and the construction of the Eastern Siberia – Pacific Ocean pipeline system with a branch to Daqing.

In addition, Gazprom is successfully carrying out the Power of Siberia [Sila Sibiri] project with its Chinese partners, while Novatek has attracted investors from China to join the Yamal LNG project.

Russia is one of China’s biggest energy suppliers. Russian oil exports exceeded 67 million tonnes last year. Talks are underway on distributing natural gas from the Russian Far East along the so-called western route. The demand for Russian coal and electricity is consistently high in China. As you may know, the eastern corridor project is already underway, while the Power of Siberia project is under construction and even ahead of schedule.

Bilateral cooperation in the nuclear power industry is making steady progress, as my colleagues mentioned. Four energy units at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant have been built in China with Russian participation. There are also agreements on the construction of several nuclear reactor units of Russian design, and on increasing scientific research cooperation, which is no less important.

We in Russia highly value the willingness of Chinese businesses to work with us and we are interested in the expanded presence of Chinese companies in the Russian market. To create the most comfortable conditions for Chinese and other foreign investors in Russia, we continue improving the business climate and upgrading legislative and law enforcement practices by removing excessive bureaucratic barriers.

We presume that anyone involved in foreign economic activity will benefit from joint business projects. These projects create demand for investment, technology, talent and expertise, and open up new markets and new opportunities. Therefore, we will continue creating a special environment, including special economic zones that allow investors to save up to 30 percent in capital expenditures based on a number of benefits in many Russian regions, including the regions bordering on China.

Extensive incentives are granted to investors in the priority development areas in the Russian Far East. To date, over 130 new companies have opened there and 13,000 new and modern jobs have been created. This is an indicator of the results of our cooperation. At the same time, the total investment, excluding investment from the budget, has exceeded $3.5 billion.

Foreign investors can also qualify for major incentives through special investment contracts that guarantee steady taxation terms.

I consider regular sessions of the Russian-Chinese Energy Forum to be a productive and important asset for promoting bilateral partnership, and not just in the energy sector, but other sectors of the economy as well. After all, the energy industry is serviced by many related industries. The next forum, as was already mentioned, will be held in China in 2020. President Xi Jinping and I will certainly support any constructive proposals.

I would like to thank you for your cooperation.

President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping (retranslated): Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I am very pleased to see you in the picturesque city of St Petersburg. First of all, I would like to sincerely congratulate you on the successful opening of the Second Chinese-Russian Energy Business Forum. China and Russia are partners in comprehensive strategic interaction. The continuous deepening of multifaceted cooperation in recent years has significantly promoted the overall development and prosperity of the two states.

Energy is one of the most significant, productive and extensive components of bilateral cooperation. Last year, energy trade between China and Russia exceeded $40 billion and thus represented a significant portion of the all-time high volume of trade that totaled $100 billion. Such strategically important projects as the eastern section of the Yamal SPG gas pipeline are being successfully implemented.

The close interaction of the two sides plays a positive role in maintaining an equal, fair, rational and civilised international energy order.

Energy is an important resource for sustainable socio-economic development, helping to satisfy people's desire for a good life. Strengthening and deepening energy cooperation is a common interest of China and Russia. In this regard, I would like to make the following four proposals.

The first is to support the role of companies as parties to cooperation and adhere to commercial principles when searching for opportunities and cooperation. Leading energy companies from China and Russia are represented at this forum. I hope that companies on both sides, guided by mutual benefit and commercial viability, will step up consultations and contacts to find the right approaches, cooperation, interested partners and the best joint projects.

It is important to strengthen mutual support and assistance in the financial, insurance and energy spheres so that financial and insurance institutions become more deeply involved in the full cycle of energy projects, and can update their models of financial and insurance support to establish solid financial support for energy cooperation between our countries.

The second proposal is to tap the potential for improving the quality and level of cooperation in the energy sector. It is important to launch a series of model projects in power generating and new energy sources, to deepen cooperation on technical standardisation in the context of mutual recognition and coordination of energy standards. It is necessary to intensify scientific and technological innovations as a stimulating factor and driving force in energy cooperation development, to promote the in-depth integration of information technologies such as big data, artificial intelligence and the internet with the energy industry. Research cooperation should be strengthened in the energy sector, to jointly achieve the breakthrough development of current experience, the production of state-of-the-art equipment, and other advanced areas. We need to enhance the exchange of experience, capacity building and contacts between think tanks to enrich and strengthen the two countries’ soft power in the field of energy.

The third. We need to promote the integration of interests, and increase comprehensive cooperation in exploration, production, processing and marketing. Our bilateral energy cooperation is long-standing, comprehensive and strategic, and is impossible without long-term planning based on current circumstances.

In this regard, the two countries’ government bodies and companies should have confidence in the future of our cooperation in this area, should constantly complement each other with their own advantages, each working toward mutual benefit, not just in energy trade or individual projects. It is important to expand and increase collaboration for the sake of building a supportive and interconnected cooperation architecture.

The fourth proposal is to increase cooperation in global energy management, and to promote its sustainable development.

In a situation where the modern-day world is facing severe challenges such as geopolitical issues, environmental pollution and climate change, there is a need to achieve the goal of providing everyone with access to sustainable energy sources. We have a long and difficult path ahead to ensure energy security and promote the transformation of the energy system.

As global energy powers, China and Russia need to jointly defend a multilateral approach, vigorously develop multilateral cooperation, play a constructive role in the global energy management system and make a greater contribution to global energy development.

Mr President Putin, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

Chinese-Russian energy cooperation has huge scope and great potential. The two governments are a reliable source of support for cooperation among businesses. Both President Putin and I are ready to direct and promote the two governments’ work to create a favourable business environment for expanding cooperation among our business communities and give them comprehensive political support.

I am confident that the development of Chinese-Russian relations and our comprehensive strategic partnership in the new era is an important guarantee that Chinese and Russian business leaders will be able to raise bilateral cooperation to new heights in the spirit of sincerity and solidarity for the benefit of the peoples of the two countries.

Thank you.

Meeting with RDIF International Advisory Board and international investment community leaders

2019-06-17T13:17:20+04:00

Vladimir Putin met with members of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) International Advisory Board and representatives of the international investment community. The meeting was held in a working lunch format.

This year the meeting was attended by representatives from investment funds from Germany, France, Japan, China, South Korea, India, Italy, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. A total of more than 40 international investors were invited to a conversation with the Russian leader, who, generally speaking, manage over $15 trillion.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

Let me sincerely welcome you to our traditional meeting that is held annually within the framework of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

There are a great number of people here whom we have known for quite a long time, people we meet with and regularly discuss plans with. Some of our colleagues have probably come here for the first time.

I would like to express the hope that you will like it here – in Russia, in St Petersburg at the economic forum – and that these meetings will be useful and substantive and will create conditions for developing your business in Russia.

You know that we have set ourselves fairly large and ambitious development goals that are expressed in national programmes.

Basically, these are our plans and they do not come from thin air but are backed by resources, and what I consider no less important, by our real economic policy.

I would like to express the modest hope that you will agree with me that this policy produces results and creates the conditions for your active and efficient operations.

I am referring to the macroeconomic indicators that we have achieved recently – a budget surplus, the current account surplus of payment transactions and a considerable amount of international reserves.

As for inflation, let me recall that last year it was a very good figure for the Russian economy – 4.3 percent (the Minister of Economic Development agrees, so I am not mistaken). It increased a little at the beginning of this year, but now we are expecting a lower rate.

According to Rosstat, from May 28, 2019 to June 3, 2019 the inflation was only 0.01 percent, or 2.4 percent since the start of the year and 5.08 percent in annual terms. As I said, I think there is a downward trend, all the more so since low growth is predictable and we have considered this. We thought this would happen because of the VAT increase.

We thought a lot about what we should do regarding the search for sources to fund the state’s liabilities in our national programmes that I spoke about. These are large-scale projects in infrastructure development, cutting-edge manufacturing, digitalisation, healthcare and education development, and other key areas that will ensure, and must ensure high growth rates and structural changes in the economy throughout the world.

So we took it upon ourselves to increase VAT by 2 percent. We were aware that it would affect, to a certain extent, economic growth and inflation, yet we proceeded from the assumption that as the projects started unfolding, as the state invested in infrastructure and other areas which are directly dependent on the state, including those areas that create conditions for your investments, that inflation would settle down, and growth rates would go up.

This is what is happening so far. We are seeing exactly what we expected; we have not found mistakes in our forecasts yet. The 2019 January through May federal budget surplus reached 683 billion rubles. As of April 1, 2019, the trade surplus, according to the Bank of Russia, was $45.5 billion, whereas international reserves reached almost $500 billion – 492.2 billion; I have the exact figures.

Economic growth last year was 2.3 percent, the highest since 2012. I can say without exaggeration that we have overcome the hardships and have embarked on a road of sustainable development and increased growth rates.

We did not simply set the goal of becoming one of the top five economies in the world – there was a fluctuation between fifth and sixth places, there was a time when we came in fifth, but this is not the only goal.

The goal is to ensure the technological and spatial development of the country through sustainable growth, and to progress to a higher standard of living for our citizens in key parameters.

This is why the national projects and programmes I spoke about are being launched. Total funding over six years should be around $400 billion, which includes not only state funds but also private investment.

Colleagues, we would definitely welcome foreign capital in these massive plans, we offer good, reliable conditions and modern tools for cooperation. That conditions in Russia are changing has been reported by independent analysts. Specifically – I have already given these numbers today, they are well known – according to the World Bank’s Doing Business rankings, Russia has climbed from 121 to 31 in just two or three years.

This is clear progress, but we understand that it is still not enough; we will keep working on it. For this to be evident we have adopted a programme to improve the business environment and to support business and attract investment.

We have a number of instruments, and one of them is the Russian Direct Investment Fund. It was set up back in 2011, and since that time, we have used it to invest over a trillion and a half rubles in ongoing projects in almost every Russian region.

I would like to draw you attention to the fact that investment yields are higher than world indices. Is this information open or classified?

CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev: About 15 percent.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I just was not sure if I could say it or not. This is about a 15 percent annual return on all projects with the RDIF participation.

A number of companies and investment funds together with the RDIF have already invested in the development of medical centres, the reconstruction of major highways, and so on.

I should stress that these projects have been carefully evaluated, and the main beneficiaries are the state, society and the investors. I have already told you about the return on investment.

We are ready to further expand interaction in areas like education, healthcare, transport, infrastructure, creating a modern urban environment, increasing corporate efficiency and labour productivity.

It requires both large investment and the considerable experience of launching large-scale development programmes that you possess.

Another promising area I mentioned is investing in the design and introduction of digital and other so called end-to-end technologies in promoting advanced and unique products. We see a lot of room for cooperation here, all the more so now that the high-tech markets are growing so rapidly, exponentially, as they say.

I would like to note one of the RDIF digital economy projects – establishing in cooperation with Moscow State University an AI Centre that will have competitive, comfortable conditions for scientists, engineers and programmers.

It is designed to become a crucial element in the implementation of the National Strategy for technology development in the field of artificial intelligence. I know that our Chinese friends are also showing interest in this.

This is what I wanted to say at the beginning.

There is something I would like to ask – please be understanding of the fact that, unfortunately, I do not have much time today, and my colleagues are waiting for me to take part in various events, so could we maybe change the format a little?

Usually I immediately responded to each of your comments and proposals. Maybe this time our colleagues here will say what they have to say, and then I will just try to summarise in one comment the matters that are of the biggest interest.

Thank you for your understanding.

Kirill Dmitriev: Mr President, colleagues,

On behalf of all those present I would like to thank you for your support of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and our partners present here. Very briefly, we wanted to say that interest in such meetings is growing from year to year. The investors present here manage capital of $15 trillion, which is $1.5 trillion more than last year.

Many of our partners are interested in investing in Russian national projects, and, accordingly, we will discuss in which projects or exactly how they would like to participate.

The RDIF is successfully developing, and our companies’ profits have increased by 18 percent over the past year. Many investors seem to like the RDIF model very much, because the government does not just spend money, but invests it with profitability, so that for every ruble we attract nine rubles from our partners. Moreover, we attract not only funds, but also expertise and help our companies to enter foreign markets. At present, seven other countries are creating their own funds that use the Russian Direct Investment Fund model.

Let me briefly outline our work with China. As you may know, the Russian-Chinese investment fund has invested in more than 30 projects. We are working with yuan funds in China and are creating a $10 billion fund with China Development Bank, also in yuan.

Technology cooperation with China is especially important. I am referring to our deal with Alibaba, Mail.ru and Megafon, which is being finalised, the creation of a Russian-Chinese innovation fund with a target size of $1 billion and the first venture investment by the Russian-Chinese venture capital fund.

In conclusion, I would like to say that investors are extremely interested in financing national projects in Russia. At this forum, we will announce 10 new investments of the Russian Direct Investment Fund: investment in NefteTransServis; a cattle breeding project with Inalko; joint investment with Baring Vostok in the development of ivi – a huge online cinema; partnership with DP World [major global port operator]; with Rosatom and Norilsk Nickel in the development of the Northern Sea Route and the modernisation of the Baikonur space centre – its Site 1 nicknamed Gagarinskiy Start [Gagarin's launch pad]. Investors have confirmed interest in these and many other projects.

Today we will hear about their experience, expertise and the projects in which they would like to take part.

<…>

Meeting with heads of international news agencies

2019-06-17T13:16:28+04:00

Vladimir Putin met with heads of the world's leading news agencies. The meeting took place on the sidelines of the 2019 St Petersburg International Economic Forum for the sixth time.

The conversation with Vladimir Putin involved representatives of news agencies from Great Britain, Germany, Iran, Spain, Italy, China, the United States, France, and Japan; Russia was represented by TASS Director General Sergei Mikhailov.

Traditionally the main topics of the meeting were current issues of Russian domestic and foreign policy.

***

Transcript of meeting with heads of leading international news agencies

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I am very glad to see you all.

It is our tradition to meet regularly, at almost every St Petersburg forum. I would like to welcome you once again, to wish you a pleasant, successful and rewarding time in St Petersburg.

This year, my meetings with forum guests start with you. And this is a good thing because we will do a little warm-up today, will have a short discussion, which will give me an opportunity, perhaps, to sense what might be of interest to our other partners who have come to the forum this year.

I give the floor to Mr Mikhailov now, and then I will be happy to listen to each of you and, as far as possible, I will try to answer your questions.

Go ahead, please.

TASS Director General Sergei Mikhailov: Thank you.

Mr President,

We appreciate that you found the time in the packed schedule of the forum, as usual, for your annual meeting with the heads of the world's leading news agencies, which account for almost 90 percent of the global news landscape.

Colleagues, I am very grateful to you for your continued interest in the forum, and the city of St Petersburg. I am sure that our conversation today will be as memorable and fulfilling as all the previous ones – and we are meeting for the sixth time.

The St Petersburg International Economic Forum, which has had 21 years of glorious history, has kicked off once again. In the morning, we held a panel discussion, Mr President, where we talked about the role of the media in global conflicts.

As I said, we are now in our sixth meeting. Every year, the participants change a little. You can see our new colleagues attending this meeting for the first time – there are four of them, and I will introduce each of them as we go along. New blood in this circle always organically merges with the experience of old-timers, making our dialogue ever more fruitful.

Undoubtedly, our reporters appreciate the fact that you are meeting with them earlier in the day this time, not when it’s nearly dark, as you used to say, but before you give your speech tomorrow at the main plenary session of the forum. Special thanks for this.

I cannot fail to note that today, on June 6, we celebrate the 220^th birth anniversary of Alexander Pushkin. It is Russian Language Day, so the day is special for us and for the forum as well.

TASS, as usual, has studied the main topics that our foreign colleagues raised in writing or in conversations before their visit to Russia. There are many different and very interesting topics, and you will hear about them, as our colleagues will ask you questions.

But there is one thing that interests everyone without exception, so with your permission, I would like to ask a general question on behalf of TASS.

We always started our recent meetings by agreeing that our planet is going through the most dangerous period of confrontation: countries flare up, entire regions blaze, there are sanctions, trade wars, fake news – this is the content of nearly all news feeds from all world agencies. They are talking about a new cold war. Every country is certain that it knows who is to blame for that.

Why do we have to start our conversation in 2019 with the same question: why is the world not becoming any safer? Where is our civilisation going? Do you see the light at the end of the tunnel? What can the countries that are the main players in the political process do about it? This is a generalised question, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: If we look around at the murals, at the frescoes, look up – there is war everywhere. Unfortunately, this has been the case for ages. Human history is full of stories of conflict. It is true that all conflicts were followed by periods of peace. But it would be better to avoid the conflicts altogether.

After the invention and creation of nuclear weapons, humanity has maintained a state of relative global peace for almost 75 years – relative, of course, with the exception of regional conflicts.

Let’s recall Winston Churchill, who first hated the Soviet Union, then called Stalin a great revolutionary when they had to fight Nazism, and then, after the Americans developed nuclear weapons, he practically called for the Soviet Union to be destroyed. Remember his speech at Fulton that kick-started the Cold War?

But as soon as the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons, Churchill initiated the coexistence of the two system concept. I do not think he was such an opportunist, but he worked with reality. He accepted reality. A clever man and a pragmatic politician.

Little has changed since that time. We should just keep in mind, should understand what kind of world we live in, and what threats and dangers might await us. If we do not keep this “fiery serpent” under control, if we let it out of the bottle, God forbid, this could lead to a global catastrophe.

Look, today everyone is addressing environmental issues, and they are right to do so, because there are global threats such as climate change, anthropogenic emissions, and so on. All this is correct. Even children are engaged in this, girls and boys all over the world.

But they do not realize, these young people, especially teenagers and children, they are not aware of the global threat and serious challenge posed by possible global conflicts. This is something adult men and women should think about.

However, I get the impression that these issues have somehow become commonplace, and have kind of been shifted to the background. This raises natural concerns.

Our US partners upped and withdrew from the ABM Treaty. So, ladies and gentlemen, I want to ask you: Did any one of you go out with a poster and protest?

No one, silence. As if this is the way it’s supposed to be. Incidentally, this was the first step towards a fundamental destabilisation of the global security framework, and a major step at that.

Now, we are talking about our American partners terminating, also unilaterally, their INF Treaty membership.

In the first case, they at least acted honestly and withdrew from the treaty unilaterally. However, in the second, apparently fully aware that they will bear responsibility for it, they try to blame Russia.

Listen: you and your readers, your audience should open the INF Treaty and read it. Its articles clearly stipulate that short- and medium-range missile launchers cannot be deployed on land. The treaty says so outright. However, they went ahead and deployed them in Romania and Poland which is a direct violation.

Check out what short-range and medium-range missiles are, and then compare them to UAVs. They are the same thing. Now, look at the specifications of the targets for the antimissiles. They are exactly medium- and short-range missiles.

Everyone is pretending to be deaf, blind or dyslexic. We have to react to this somehow, don’t we? Clearly, so. They immediately start looking for perpetrators in Russia. Of course, the threat is serious.

Renewing the START-3 Treaty is on our agenda. However, we can choose not to. Our latest systems guarantee Russia’s security for a fairly long period into the future, I mean we have made significant strides.

And, I must put it bluntly, we have outrun our competitors in terms of creating hyper-weapon systems. If no one is interested in renewing the START-3 Treaty, we will not renew it. We have already said a hundred times that we are ready to do so, but no one is willing to talk about it with us.

Please note that there is no formal negotiating process, and everything will expire in 2021. Mind you, there will be no more instruments to limit an arms race.

Or, for example, deploying weapons in outer space. Do we understand what this means or not? Ask the experts. It means that each of us will have to live at all times, say, under a nuclear weapon. Permanently! But we are doing this, and doing it quickly. Will anyone ever think about it, talk about it, or show any concern? No, complete silence.

Or, take low-yield nuclear weapons, or non-nuclear strategic missiles. What if a global-range strategic missile is launched from a submarine in the middle of the ocean? How do we know if it carries a nuclear charge or not? Do you realise how serious and dangerous this is?

What if the other side responds right away? What will happen then? I am deeply convinced that this should be the subject of an open and absolutely transparent professional discussion, and the international community should be involved in this process as much as is possible in matters of this kind. In any case, people have the right to know what is happening in this sphere.

To reiterate, we are ready to do this. Once again, we are confident in our security, but there is, of course, a concern about the complete dismantling of the entire mechanism of control over strategic armaments and non-proliferation.

What’s the solution? It is in cooperation, period. The most recent conversation I had with President Trump, I must say, inspires certain optimism, because Donald told me that he, too, was concerned about this. He is fully cognizant of the amount of arms-related expenses incurred by the United States and other countries. This money could be used for other purposes. I completely agree with him.

The US Secretary of State came here. We met in Sochi, and he spoke along the same lines. If they think so, we should take some practical steps towards making a joint effort.

Again, today, talks between the countries with the most powerful nuclear potential are the most important ones. However, on a personal note, I think that all nuclear countries should be involved, including official and unofficial.

Talking only with the officially recognised nuclear powers and leaving out the unofficial countries means they will continue to develop nuclear weapons. In the end, this process will grind to a halt even between the official nuclear states. So, by and large, we need to create a broad platform for discussion and decision-making.

In this sense, of course, this could be the light at the end of the tunnel.

Sergei Mikhailov: Thank you, Mr President.

Tradition is important and we in Russia always treat women with respect. Out of a dozen people here, Bloomberg's Executive Editor Rosalind Mathieson is again with us. Your question is the first.

Ms Mathieson is a prominent journalist and political scientist. She lived in Singapore for a long time and recently moved to London with her family. She became Bloomberg's Executive Editor in 2018 and is taking part in our meeting for the second time.

I will tell you a secret. Rosalind is fond of Muay Thai, refuting the joke by Faina Rayevskaya that women are like rotten boards. I hope we’re not wrong and that this is true.

Vladimir Putin: You are scaring me with boxing right away.

Sergei Mikhailov: Just a warning.

Rosalind, go ahead please.

Bloomberg News Executive Editor for International Government Rosalind Mathieson: Thank you, Mr President.

Muay Thai, I believe, has taught me the value and appreciation of fear and to confront and control fear, but I don’t believe I’d be brave enough to get in the ring with you.

I have a question about oil – two questions, actually. Russia’s deal with OPEC is up for renewal this month. Do you favour keeping production at current levels or is your preference – for Russia and for OPEC – to increase output as we go into the second half of the year? And given the importance of oil to your economy and to Russia more broadly, I wanted to ask you about the comments this week by US President Donald Trump, who said that he had been told that Russia is pulling its people out of Venezuela. Moscow has said that this is inaccurate. Is Donald Trump just getting bad information or are you still concerned that the ultimate goal of the US is regime change in Venezuela, and perhaps the ultimate goal beyond that is to have control of Venezuela’s oil assets? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to say that I would not enter the ring with you myself. Not because you're a woman, but because everyone should paddle one's own canoe. I have never boxed. I can meet you on the tatami for some sparring, but there I'd have a solid advantage, I assure you.

As for your questions, let’s begin with the final one on whether we withdrew our people from Venezuela or not and if we are afraid of a regime change. We are generally against interference in the internal political affairs of other countries. We believe it leads to grievous if not tragic consequences. And the example of such countries as Libya and Iraq is the best proof here.

As you know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is a well-known phrase and it’s obvious. So, it is necessary to be patient. It is possible to work with anyone, whether it is the opposition or the current authorities, but you cannot interfere in internal affairs.

It is all the more improper to use sanctions and so on because usually they hurt millions of common people who have nothing to do with the authorities. The global economy suffers.

Take, for example, the fact that Venezuela has cut its oil production in half over the past several years (in half!). If we look at the lives of the millions of people in Venezuela, who are they fighting: Maduro or the people?

This is why we do not approve but, on the contrary, condemn such actions. And more than that, military interventions are invariably a disaster. According to my information, even the US’ allies do not support military intervention, none of them. I do not know anyone who does among Venezuela’s neighbours and even those who condemn Maduro for his domestic political processes. God forbid anyone supports this idea or does anything like that.

About our people in Venezuela. We absolutely, officially sold weapons to Venezuela. We have not been doing so for quite a while now. You represent a publication and a television channel which deals with the economy.

Under the contracts, we are required to service these weapons, and we must fulfil our contractual obligations. Our technicians are doing this and have always done this in recent years.

Truth be told, not everything was technically clean there based on Venezuela’s priorities. There were things they wanted us to fix, and other things they did not want us to do. But we were obliged to do it under the contracts; otherwise we would face sanctions. That is all there is to it, nothing more.

It is quite likely that our specialists did some work there, not only defence specialists, but our people from the manufacturing industry as well. Some of them left, some, maybe, returned. We are not creating anything specific there, no core military bases. Nor are we sending troops there, this has never happened. However, we have always fulfilled and will continue to fulfil our contractual obligations as regards military technical cooperation. This is my second point.

The third point is about our relations with Venezuela and other oil producing countries. As I said, Venezuela cut production. This is due not only (you are probably aware of this) to the sanctions, but to the state of the oil and gas industry in Venezuela.

Venezuela’s credit exposure to Russia is about $3.5 billion, but there is no debt. Venezuela pays regularly and in full and is servicing its loan obligations properly.

Now let us move on to our relations with OPEC. We will continue maintaining these relations. We have no intention of joining OPEC, but we have developed a certain mechanism for cooperation and we will consolidate our positions to take a decision. Yes, indeed, there are some disagreements between us that stem from a different understanding of what can be called fair price. It is also natural, and there is no need either to speak about things you do not know.

Look at the price per barrel of oil that is used to calculate, say, the budget of Saudi Arabia. It is much higher than what we use. Ours is $40 per barrel, and their price is higher. That is why, of course, they want to keep the price higher. We do not need to do this, given, among other things, that our economy is more diversified.

Yes, we still heavily depend on oil and gas, but, of course, [our economy] is much more diversified than, say, the economy of the Persian Gulf countries. For this reason, our manufacturing sector is not interested in the oil price climbing too high.

The average price of $60-$65 per barrel suits us, and we do not need to drive it higher. We have quite a decent margin, budget-wise, given that our budget calculations are based on $40 per barrel, which allows us to replenish our gold and foreign currency reserves and, in general, the government’s and the Central Bank’s reserves.

So we have to consider all circumstances: the decline in oil production in Iran – by a million [barrels] – and Venezuela, as well as problems in Libya and Nigeria. We have to take all these factors into account, including the growth in consumption throughout summer.

We have reached certain agreements. I will not get ahead of myself and will not tell you now what we think we should do in the second half of the year. But our colleagues in OPEC and we will take a decision based on a consolidated position.

Sergei Mikhailov: Thank you, Mr President. Thank you, Rosalind.

Mr President, yesterday you and President Xi opened a concert at the Bolshoi Theatre marking the 70^th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and China, and unveiled an exhibition prepared jointly by TASS and Xinhua for the anniversary. This year we will give our best wishes to our Chinese friends on the important date – the 70^th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China.

I want to introduce our reliable partners and old friends – TASS and Xinhua have had relations for 60 years – this is my friend, Xinhua President Cai Mingzhao. This is the second time Mr Cai has attended the meeting.

You will remember that he had a big interview with you in 2016 which was widely and well quoted by the world’s media outlets. Xinhua takes part in annual St Petersburg meetings and the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

I will tell you Mr Cai’s secret – he has a dream to create an evaluation system for Chinese restaurants around the globe by awarding them stars similar to Michelin’s. Nobody doubts the reputation of China’s chefs, the more so that in my opinion the best Chinese chef in Moscow is the one at the Xinhua cafeteria.

Please, Mr Cai, go ahead with your question.

President of Xinhua News Agency Cai Mingzhao (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

In June 2016, I interviewed you, and I still remember that time. Let me thank you again for visiting – together with President Xi – the photo exhibition dedicated to the 70^th anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations.

We know that this year’s main slogan at the St Petersburg forum is Creating a Sustainable Development Agenda. We know that you were involved in helping the Russian economy overcome the challenges it was facing, and it is beginning to recover.

I would like to know about your specific plans and measures for the further recovery of the Russian economy, plans for stepping up economic cooperation with China. Which key areas could you single out?

Vladimir Putin: As for our plans on Russia’s economic recovery, you said yourself that we have already overcome the difficulties that began several years ago for many reasons. The sanctions also played a role but there was more to it.

In fact, they did not play such a substantial role. Primarily, it was due to lower prices on our traditional export commodities, such as, of course, hydrocarbons, some metals and hence, on chemical products linked with this resource. Plus, of course, there was pressure of sanctions.

But we not only overcame the recession but also entered a path of sustainable growth. This was linked to the foreign economic environment but there was more to it. It was also linked with domestic economic factors and factors related to Russia’s economic policy, primarily the steady macroeconomic situation. Last year we had inflation of a little over 4 percent, this year (on an annual basis) we have a bit over 5 percent, and this was after the VAT increase. This is better than we expected.

Now I will explain why this is happening and what we hope for. You know that we decided to implement national programmes in key development areas. The main goal is to diversify the economy, move it towards an innovation track, make it more innovative.

There is a package of goals, measures and means of achieving these goals: improving the system of managing the economy and the country as a whole; digitalisation in economic management; introducing artificial intelligence in all areas of production and life in the country; improving the performance of medicine and biology, improving living standards, increasing life expectancy and birth rate, and so on – there is a whole package of measures. It is enough to just glance at the goals that we have set for ourselves to understand what we are counting on in the next few years.

As for gathering the resources… To begin with, these approaches can be estimated. The development of the infrastructure certainly includes the construction of roads, railways and port facilities.

Obviously, we primarily count on attracting both domestic and foreign investment. I am going to say something about capital flight now as such a question is sure to arise. But to secure the investment the state should contribute its own resources, mainly to infrastructure development, to improving business environment

I am going to start telling you, this is all we are going to talk about. I have a lot to tell you.

There are advances in every field. According to the World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking, Russia stood in 120^th place for business environment, and now it is in 31^st place. So there is apparent progress.

We have now made a decision on major changes to the rules concerning inspection and oversight organisations. We want to shut down, to eliminate completely all obsolete and archaic requirements and rules that impede progress. Generally speaking, we will move on in this field to improve business climate conditions.

Regarding attracting capital and capital flight. Yes, indeed, last year we saw significant, though not the biggest in Russia’s contemporary history, capital flight of 66 billion, I think.

Yet the trade surplus is 131 billion. It more than covers the flight. And that disinvested capital is coming back, we also see that.

This is why we do not see any tragedy here, we take it as a natural process. Of course, business participants need only one thing – predictability and stability of the situation. This is obvious. We regularly meet with our partners, both Russian and European businesspeople, and I hope we are going to meet with our US colleagues soon.

By the way, our trade fell from $30 to $20 billion as far back as under President Obama. And even though President Trump broke all records on introducing various restrictions against Russia, under this president US-Russia trade grew by five billion. And it is also growing with European countries.

We meet regularly. I will repeat it again that I met with businesspeople from Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy recently. I will have many meetings here. Why am I telling you this? We try to listen to them and respond appropriately to changes in their working conditions here. We also expect our potential partners to continue to energetically work in this country.

As for the package of measures and the range of objectives that we set before ourselves, please look at our national projects. Let me repeat it again that these projects are about infrastructure, artificial intelligence, biology and, of course, agriculture and so on – there are plenty of them – and this allows us to believe and state that things will move forward. It is hard to say now how much we will be able to deliver.

When I said that the government would have to contribute to the implementation of these large-scale projects, primarily, to the upgrading of infrastructure, I meant we would have to see where the money could come from.

That is why after the protracted (really protracted as we argued, I mean different ministries and experts, for a year, making these calculations) discussion of the funding sources and the government’s obligations, we arrived at a decision that the least damage would be caused if one – not the only one but one – of the measures would be increasing VAT.

In so doing, we realised that at the initial stage this would be detrimental to the country’s economic growth, we understood this well. VAT increased, [economic] activity is scaling down and so on. But we expected the short-term effect to last for approximately six months, not longer, and then investment in the economy, including in infrastructure, would trigger economic growth. So far, our preliminary calculations have proved correct.

<…>

Russia–India–China meeting

2019-01-29T19:16:24+04:00

On the sidelines of the G20 summit, Vladimir Putin took part in the Russia–India–China (RIC) meeting with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and President of China Xi Jinping.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to express my gratitude to our Indian and Chinese partners for supporting the initiative of a trilateral meeting.

I would like to note that Russia, India and China are bound by a centuries-long history of friendly relations, which we are building on the principles of neighbourliness, equality and mutual respect.

The last time when the RIC leaders held talks was 12 years ago, in 2006 in St Petersburg. They were indeed productive, with one of the results being the establishment of BRICS.

Since then, our foreign ministers have held regular consultations. We have maintained links between our security councils, youth and academic communities.

We believe that RIC has great prospects and cooperation within this trilateral format may efficiently complement the cooperation between our countries on a bilateral basis and within BRICS.

We proposed organising this meeting today because the situation in the world and the processes in our common region, Eurasia, require closer coordination of the three countries’ approaches. Mainly, with respect to ensuring security and building constructive inter-state relations, considering an extensive contribution of our three countries to the global development, which is around 30 percent of the world’s GDP at purchasing power parity.

It is important to adjust cooperation on the key issues of the economic agenda, including within the G20, to jointly protect the principles of just and honest competition in world trade and finance, and to assist in shaping the most open system of international economic relations that would be free of protectionism and politically motivated restrictions.

We could also get more actively involved in aligning large integration projects currently carried out with our countries’ involvement such as the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road initiative. New prospects arise for strengthening contacts between the ten ASEAN states and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Friends, I expect that this meeting will be productive and we can further establish a regular schedule for such meetings. Specifically, they could happen on the sidelines of major summits and international events.

Of course, it is important to continue trilateral coordination at other levels, and, when necessary, create additional mechanisms of cooperation. Thank you.

Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi (retranslated): Colleagues,

Your Excellencies,

I am glad to have this opportunity to have an informal top-level meeting here in Buenos Aires. It is the first summit in this format since the RIC summit in 2006 in St Petersburg.

I want to thank President Putin for initiating this informal meeting at the top level, which gives us an opportunity to freely and openly discuss some key matters that cause concern on the global level.

Your Excellencies, without a doubt, the world today is going through a period of serious change, instability and growing geopolitical tensions. There is serious pressure being exerted on the global leadership.

Multilateral relations and the world order based on common rules are being increasingly rejected by various unilateral, transnational and local groups, and different nations around the world. We can see this happening as sanctions are imposed outside the UN mandate and protectionist policies are gaining strength.

The Doha Development Agenda within the WTO has failed. Since the Paris Agreement, we have not seen the expected level of financial commitment on behalf of the developed countries in favour of the developing states. Therefore, when it comes to climate, justice is currently at risk. We are still very far from achieving the goals of sustainable development.

Certain weak economies are still vulnerable to natural disasters. In this international context, key powers like India, Russia and China bear a particularly big responsibility.

Our three countries account for one-third of the global population. We must support the politics of multilateral relations, work towards creating a multilateral world order for this purpose, as well as ensure compliance with international law.

In the RIC format, we must work on four aspects: regional and global stability, economic prosperity, exchange of experience in areas of mutual interest, and cooperation in response to new and recurring challenges as well as existing challenges.

I agree with President Putin. Whenever we meet on the sidelines of international events, we must find an opportunity to hold such top-level RIC meetings. I believe that currently there is a growing need for us three to meet and cooperate more frequently.

We must play a special role at the global arena as well as seek ways to drive our countries’ development forward. I would like to thank President Putin once again for restoring and giving a new lease of life to this format.

President of China Xi Jinping (retranslated): Colleagues,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here with President Putin and Prime Minister Modi for an informal RIC meeting. I would like to thank Russia for organising this event.

China, Russia and India are three big countries that are making a serious contribution to global development. We are partners in global development, strategic partners. We have common interests and similar development goals.

We also bear a special responsibility for the future of the region and the world in general. Right now the world is facing new risks and challenges. Therefore, common development and close cooperation between our three countries in this context is becoming increasingly important for global stability and predictability.

In the past ten years, our three countries have been involved in an active dialogue and cooperation in the spirit of openness, solidarity, mutual understanding and trust.

We succeeded in achieving serious progress in this area. I hope that this meeting will also result in thorough talks with Prime Minister Modi and President Putin on RIC cooperation in the new environment, in order to improve our consensus, cooperation and coordination so that together we can promote peace in the whole world, stability and development.

<…>

BRICS leaders’ meeting

2019-01-29T19:11:03+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in a meeting of leaders of the BRICS member countries held on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Argentina.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends, colleagues,

I am pleased that we are meeting again and, like my colleagues, I express my gratitude to the President of South Africa, Mr Ramaphosa, for organising our work and for everything South Africa has done during its chairmanship.

I would like to join in the gratitude addressed to President of Brazil Michel Temer. He supported our organisation, and I can add that he also has done a lot to strengthen Russian-Brazilian relations. We know and remember that. Mr President, we will always be glad to see you in Russia.

Thanks to efficient cooperation between the BRICS members, our strategic partnership has grown stronger and continues to actively develop in the most diverse areas.

It is important that the BRICS members are improving coordination within international organisations and forums. Our meeting today, which is a chance to discuss our positions on the eve of the G20 summit, is a testament to that.

I support much of what my colleagues have said about the difficult situation in global politics, economy, trade and finance. I would also note such risk factors as an increase in global debt, volatility of stock markets and escalating trade disputes.

In general, we cannot help noticing that unfair competition often takes the place of fair and equitable intergovernmental dialogue. The nefarious practice of imposing unilateral sanctions and protectionist measures without regard to the UN Charter, WTO rules and other generally accepted legal norms is spreading.

All of this seriously undermines the atmosphere of cooperation on the global stage and leads to declining business ties and loss of trust between participants of economic relations, distorting the very fabric of the global economy.

The BRICS countries should continue to work together to create a fair and equitable system of international relations. Collective action based on mutual respect and consideration of interests is needed in order to overcome the critical challenges facing the international community.

First of all, this concerns the settlement of numerous regional crises, which are fraught with real danger not only for the countries involved, but for the rest of the world as well. Of particular concern is the situation in the Middle East, namely, the Gaza Strip, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and several other countries and regions.

Unfortunately, the danger posed by international terrorism is not subsiding. Of course, double standards or any compromises are unacceptable when it comes to terrorist groups, not to mention making reckless use of them to achieve geopolitical ends, since flirting with terrorists plays into their hands and emboldens them to commit new bloody atrocities.

Thus, in Syria, where militants continue armed attacks on the government forces, the November 24 attack on residents of the western districts of the city of Aleppo involving the use of toxic chemical agents, presumably chlorine, was a blatant violation of the ceasefire. Dozens of Syrians were affected, including children. Such crimes perpetrated by terrorists should not go unpunished, otherwise they will not stop.

For a long-term stabilisation of the situation in Syria, it is important to promote an actual political settlement process. To this end, Russia is working closely with its partners, Iran and Turkey, within the Astana format. We look forward to the formation and convocation of the constitutional committee in Geneva as soon as possible.

Other priorities include rebuilding the economy and infrastructure in that country and creating conditions for the return of refugees to their homes. I hope that the BRICS countries will join humanitarian aid programmes in that country.

In order to prevent a new round of escalating tensions around the Iranian nuclear programme, we should do our best to maintain the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Progress in resolving the Korean Peninsula crisis is a positive development. However, the categorical demands for unilateral concessions from Pyongyang could lead to a disruption of the agreements reached. Therefore, it is important that the sanctions against this country should gradually be relieved in response to the disarmament steps taken by North Korea.

Naturally, one cannot help being alarmed by the state of affairs in non-proliferation and disarmament. The possible withdrawal by the United States of its obligations under the INF Treaty and its unclear position on extending the Strategic Arms Treaty pose the risk of an uncontrolled arms race.

We presume that the BRICS countries will hold a common position on these critical issues. This will be an important factor in mobilising the efforts of the world community for the sake of international security and stability.

Colleagues,

I would like to note with satisfaction that the BRICS countries have largely coinciding approaches to the key issues on the G20 agenda. Our countries have great economic, innovative, and human potential.

The BRICS countries have already overtaken the G7 in terms of aggregate GDP ($44 trillion) and in purchasing power parity. They can play a more significant role in the global financial system, push for the continuation of the IMF reform and for greater influence in the IMF.

A significant contribution to financial stability has been made by the new development bank, which is now supporting 26 projects in BRICS countries with $6.5 billion in financing. We also expect the bond and national currencies fund of the BRICS countries to become available in 2019, which would allow strengthening financial and investment stability and expanding the interaction of national payment systems.

We are committed to supporting the groundwork for the process of further developing the World Trade Organisation to stabilise it. It is important that trade disputes are settled exclusively through dialogue that all interested countries can join.

We pay special attention to coordinating the BRICS countries’ positions on issues related to energy and climate change. Russia, as a reliable exporter of energy to many countries and regions in the world, intends to continue to actively participate in harmonising global energy markets jointly with other suppliers and consumers of fuel and to provide global energy security.

We welcome the fact that the Paris Agreement on climate has come into effect and believe it to be a reliable international legal instrument for long-term climate regulation. It is critically important to finish drafting the rules to implement it, taking into consideration the views of all stakeholders.

We regard the sustainable development of agriculture as a key topic on the G20 agenda. Russia is a large producer and exporter of agricultural produce, contributing significantly to food security. Over the last 10 years, we supplied over 650,000 tonnes of food and humanitarian aid to more than 110 countries.

We believe it is important that this year agreements on the digital economy and adaptation of the labour market and education systems have been reached within the G20. We express our gratitude to our BRICS partners for supporting the Russian idea of consumer rights’ protection in the digital economy and our initiatives to step up coordinated actions at the UN on internet governance and international information security.

The agenda also includes the important topic of combatting corruption. We are ready to work together, including in line with India’s proposal to pursue fugitive economic criminals. During discussions at the UN, I am counting on the support of BRICS members for the Russian draft international convention on returning stolen assets.

Colleagues, in conclusion I would like to wish success to our Brazilian partners next year, during their chairmanship of BRICS. We will provide all the necessary assistance.

Thank you for your attention.

Russia Calling! Investment Forum

2018-11-29T19:47:58+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the annual Russia Calling! Investment Forum hosted by VTB Capital. The plenary session is entitled “Building Partnerships. Bridging Differences.”

Russia Calling! Forum is a leading platform for drawing capital to the Russian economy, improving the investment climate and promoting the country’s international economic and business ties.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen,

I am very pleased to welcome the participants and guests of the traditional, already tenth, Russia Calling! Forum to Moscow.

This year again, the forum brought together senior executives of leading Russian and foreign companies, investment funds, and eminent experts whose work, at least part of it, is associated with Russia and who are interested in our country.

Before opening the discussion, I would like to provide a brief overview of the situation in the Russian economy. Overall, it is steady. Russia's GDP is estimated to have increased by 1.5 percent during the first three quarters of this year.

The industrial output showed higher growth rates, exceeding forecasts and adding 3 percent, with the manufacturing industries adding 3.2 percent.

Key indicators, such as inflation and unemployment, are at low levels with unemployment at 4.7 percent and inflation around 3.5 percent. Based on the Central Bank’s forecasts (Ms Nabiullina may have already mentioned this), we planned it at around 4 percent, but the current number is 3.5 percent, as far as I know.

Despite the external attempts to exert pressure and well-known internal difficulties, the Russian business is making long-term plans and increasing investment in development projects.

The volume of investment in fixed assets grew by 4.1 percent over the first nine months of 2018. Such business optimism shown by investors and their positive outlook are an important measure of business confidence. We highly appreciate that and will support such positivity.

Of course, it is obvious that the current economic growth rates are not enough to bring about a major improvement in living standards for our citizens. We are open about it, we are aware of it, and are creating an entire development programme in order to change the state of things.

As I have already said, we are seeking to achieve growth rates above the global average and to firmly establish Russia among the world’s top five economies. It is by addressing structural challenges that we can lay a solid foundation for getting this breakthrough effort off the ground.

First, we need to improve productivity, primarily by introducing modern and better performing technologies in the non-oil and gas sectors.

We will improve the vocational training system in order to be able to constantly develop and expand competences and ensure effective personnel development.

Second, we will direct substantial resources towards infrastructure development and provide all the possible assistance to private companies to this effect. Roads and railways, seaports and river ports, air travel, power supply, communications – in all these areas we intend to step up our efforts manifold in order to enhance connectivity within the country with convenient and safe communications.

Let me emphasise that this is also essential for enabling Russia to be proactive in its international economic ties and expanding our export opportunities.

Third, we will do everything it takes over the next several years to promote priority growth of the digital economy. We will form a regulatory and technological framework for introducing digital solutions in public administration (we have already started moving in this direction, and this effort has gathered significant momentum), as well as in utilities and urban infrastructure, the industrial sector, transport, education and healthcare.

We will create fundamentally new industries and business platforms based on digital solutions, and will stimulate the development of Russian companies – global leaders in the digital era.

Of course, to ensure investment growth, to attract capital to the Russian economy, we will continue to improve the business climate, reduce the administrative burden on businesses and offer investors new, more convenient mechanisms to expand their business.

The implementation of plans for the development of Russia’s economic potential will certainly require large government investment; you have probably heard the figures. As a reminder, in 2019–2021, the plan is to allocate 2.3 trillion rubles from the federal budget for these purposes.

At the same time, I would like to note that, despite the obvious growth of expenses, we have not opted for weakening the budget policy. We will further maintain a responsible approach to financial management and ensure the necessary balance of revenues and expenditures of the state treasury.

Such long-term predictability of macroeconomic, financial, and monetary policy is extremely important for both domestic and foreign investors.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to say at the beginning. We still have a small discussion scheduled – I am at your disposal.

Thank you for your attention.

President and Chairman of the VTB Bank Management Board Andrei Kostin: First of all, thank you very much for coming. Indeed, this is our 10^th anniversary forum. If I may, I will take just two minutes of the audience’s and your time to briefly remind everyone how it all started 10 years ago.

The creation of this forum is directly related to the creation of VTB Capital investment bank, which took place 10 years ago in a very unlikely period amid the global crisis, when many investment banks were scaling down their operations.

Of course, we consulted with senior bank managers and leading experts. I talked with the head of Deutsche Bank Josef Ackermann, a renowned investment banker, and he told me: ”Andrei, when you see Mr Putin, tell him there is no great country without a powerful national investment bank.“

When I came to see Mr Putin after that (he was prime minister at the time) to give a report, he, first, approved this initiative and, second, said: “How can I help?”

Like in a fairy tale, I thought about asking him to grant three wishes, but then I remembered that the more wishes, the worse the fairy tale turns out, so I made just one wish: “Mr Prime Minister, may I ask you to come to our conference (back then, every self-respecting investment bank hosted conferences), and not go to others?” He said nothing about other conferences, but positively stated he would come to us.

Of course, even in my wildest dreams I never thought that 10 years would pass and every year Mr Putin, regardless of the weather, political climate and his busy schedule, would come to our conference. This made the forum what it is now. I believe it is our country’s leading financial forum, and, of course, you come here primarily to be able to listen to and \ talk with Mr Putin.

Mr President, I was searching my memory to come up with some numbers. We had 300 investors at the first forum where you spoke, now we have 2,200, with over 500 coming from more than 63 countries. I hope your efforts were not in vain, because the great nation of Russia, I believe, now has a dependable national investment bank. Thank you so much for supporting us all these years.

Colleagues, we will now have a Q&A section. This is a democracy. You can ask questions from the floor. Mr President often picks the speaker himself. But while you are preparing, let’s have the first question.

This is not something we have prearranged, but I think, The Wall Street Journal has an interesting question: One of your government’s key economic priorities is to increase investment to 25 percent of GDP. You have set similar targets in past election campaigns, but with little success. What makes things different this time around? What makes you think this is a more realistic target today?”

I can tell you that we touched on this topic this morning, and Alexei Kudrin said that as a rule when specific instructions by the President or the Government are not fulfilled, punishment follows, but when we set strategic goals and they are not met nobody seems to be responsible. Who will answer for this now? And an additional question from me. Who will be held responsible for failing to meet this target?

Vladimir Putin: First,I don’t think people come here to see me or hear me speak, I am not the biggest attraction in Moscow. They have things to do and to discuss among themselves, and it is very important to talk with their colleagues from the Government, from the Central Bank and to get a feel for what makes Russia tick.

To start with, 2008 and 2018 are very different. There was a crisis then and times are also hard today, but the causes of the crises are different.

Today, I think, there is a sense that in spite of any crisis phenomena or artificially created difficulties, the Russian economy is adapting to the challenges, is feeling confident, creating conditions for domestic development, and this, in my opinion, is the factor I mentioned when I talked about this.

GDP growth is 1.5 percent, not that much, but investment in fixed assets outstrips GDP growth, 4.1 percent. This shows that investors have confidence in tomorrow and understand the policy pursued by the Russian financial authorities. It is stable, reliable and predictable, and the economy adapts to external shock, as indicated by the factors I have mentioned.

As for punishment, with us it is usually a case of (you know the expression) “the rewards go to the uninvolved and the punishment to the innocents.” Let’s not go down that road and try to decide who should be punished. We need to think about what needs to be done to fulfil the ambitious plans we have set for ourselves. We do have such a plan.

Andrei Kostin: Colleagues, feel free. You have the opportunity to have a direct dialogue. Please, go ahead.

Akar Tolga: Dear President, I would like to ask you. There has been much discussion about moving away from the dollar to achieve greater diversification, whether to make payments, to engage in foreign trade and for foreign reserve purposes. Interestingly, one of the impediments to this are governments themselves. They keep signing agreements in dollars whether they are for loans or for trade and they continue to keep the currency for reserve management. Russia is no exception. What can governments do to support this diversification? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: We are not seeking to walk away from the dollar – rather, the dollar is walking away from us. (Laughter, applause.) Those who take these decisions are not just shooting themselves in the foot but a bit higher, because this instability in making payments in dollars is causing quite a few economies to look for alternative reserve currencies and create settlement systems independent of the dollar.

It is not just us, believe me – we see what is happening across the world. Look at how the foreign exchange reserves of various countries, including the United States’ closest allies, are shrinking. Dollar assets are dwindling, look at the reports – and this concerns the largest holders of dollar assets. This is the result of this sanction-based policy that targets, among other things, dollar assets.

I think that sooner or later they will wake up to the reality, but as long as the world has to address these sorts of challenges in the economy, the search for alternative options for making settlements and accumulating reserves will continue. We are also doing this like many other countries.

There are long-established practices in some commodity markets, say, in the oil market, but still when people look for a solution to a problem they tend to find it. For example, 70 percent of our exports to EAEU countries and 30 percent of our imports from them are settled in rubles.

We are actively working together with our major trade and economic partners to create systems that would not be linked to SWIFT. We are working to ensure the flow of goods.

I have just talked to the Turkish President, your leader – literally, half an hour ago. We discussed several practical issues but I would like to remind you of our military technology deal, the one to supply S-400 missile systems. We understand that if we make payments in dollars, the payments will not go through.

So, we thought of another way of doing this and the deal came off. We will act in the same way for all types of goods and I have cited just one example that is on everybody’s lips.

And so we are not pursuing the objective of moving away from payments in dollars, rather we are forced to do this. I can assure you that we will continue to do this, but not because governments do not want to [make payments in dollars] – we simply do not want to make dramatic moves that could harm us.

Of course, to make the global economy more sustainable and predictable and settlements more efficient and reliable, alternative options will be found.

Andrei Kostin: Next, please.

Raymond Zucaro: My name is Raymond Zucaro. I am the Chief Investment Officer at RVX Asset Management based in the United States. We focus on emerging markets globally. But I really consider myself a student of history. And when I look at what you’ve done for Russia, Mr Putin, I think in history books you will be regarded much like Peter the Great. Restoring Russia to a world power, stopping the European encroachment on the near abroad. And at the same time, being an American citizen, I often look and wonder at the lack of understanding from the US policies and understanding of the world. I was given this gift which commemorates your summit with President Trump in Helsinki. This coin, it was printed in the United States, it has grammatical errors, it has spelling mistakes in Russian. My question for you is really: what would you tell the leaders of my country to better understand the Russian history, to better understand their perspective, your perspective that the two countries can get along better in the future?

Vladimir Putin: As a historian, you know that you need to study history to know it, just read it. There is nothing difficult in that. And when you do this, you will understand the motives of your partners.

History is a useful and very interesting subject. You and I know the saying that to know the future you must know the past. I find it difficult today to make any recommendations, which is a thankless exercise anyway.

You said that Russia is a great power. The United States is a great power as well, with a population of over 300 million and the world’s largest economy. The US dollar is actually the only universal reserve currency. America has huge advantages. It spends $700 billion on defence.

We spend $46 billion and the United States spends $700 billion. This is more than the aggregate defence spending of all the world’s countries. Of course, the United States is a great power. And this is how we treat it. Countries must respect each other and show their respect in practice.

We talked here about all kinds of restrictions, including in dollar-denominated settlements. Or various sanctions and customs tariffs that have been introduced against some countries, for example, China.

According to the WTO, mutual restrictions that have been recently introduced by the G20 countries have reduced global trade by nearly $500 billion. Has this benefitted any country, including an economic giant such as the United States?

This has created windows of opportunity for us. For example, we will export soybeans to China. The United States used to deliver vast amounts of soybeans to China, and now we will do this as well. We have agreed with our Chinese friends to supply them with poultry meat and several other agricultural products.

In fact, the Americans have voluntarily withdrawn from this huge market. Why have they? I believe one must strive for a positive result without trying to harm one’s partners but instead looking for joint spheres of operation so as to ultimately make cooperation more effective.

This will benefit all sides. But everyone stands to lose from unilateral and politically motivated harmful measures that are illegal from the viewpoint of international trade law.

What can I recommend here? Abandon this policy and start looking for points of contact. We are ready for this, and we want this, as I have said more than once. I hope to discuss this with the US President, if we meet in Argentina. As I understand and feel, this is what he meant when we talked during the lunch in Paris, where we sat across from each other. We had about an hour to talk with each other and with the other colleagues who sat next to us.

Overall, I believe that President Trump is favourably disposed. We must find the points of contact I have mentioned, but this depends on the US administration, not me. You need internal consensus in the United States, which would motivate the US elite to work with its partners.

Mohammed Bassatne: My name is Mohammed Bassatne, I am the CEO of BB Energy Trading. My question really relates to the relationship between OPEC and Russia. Over the past few years, there has been a lot of collaboration regarding the curtailment of production. And of course, the main issue here is that many people believe that this is at the cost or at the advantage of the shale oil industry. I would like to get your view on that. On the same token, because of this curtailment of production, some might argue that that does affect directly the technology and innovation in the Russian oil sector. How do you see that going forward and do you believe that this strategy is a long-term one for Russia, to keep on curtailing the production at the cost of other players?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have organised work with OPEC countries – the 15 member-countries and 12 non-members – and we have come to terms on working jointly on the world markets to balance supply and demand.

It should be said, I think, that we have managed to do this for the first time in the organisation’s history – all agreements have been implemented 100 percent. There was nothing like this ever before in the organisation itself. I must admit that this took place thanks, to a large extent, to Saudi Arabia’s position. This, in effect, is the achievement of Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince, who was the one to initiate this work. And it has led to positive results.

As for shale oil, we did not have, do not have now, nor, I hope, will ever have – at least, Russia will not have – the objective of undermining someone’s business, including those in shale oil. But it was necessary to balance the market and raise the price to a level, where the industry itself will become viable and see the return of investments.

What was the danger, after all? That the flow of investments to the industry will be suspended. As a matter of fact, this was what began happening. A subsequent price surge was inevitable, but this would have been largely destructive for both producers and consumers. This is why our objective and aim was to work jointly and to be flexible and also meet the interests of both producers and consumers. And we have succeeded in this.

If I recall rightly, back in the year 2013 a barrel cost around $43 and this year it was $72 a barrel during the first 10 months. Recently, the price went down but then went up a bit again. As I see it, $60 a barrel or round about that price is absolutely acceptable and it is fine with us.

We are satisfied with it because our expenditure budget is based on approximately $40 a barrel and next year’s expenditure budget will hinge on $43. What I mean is that the price will be $43 a barrel, while the point where shale oil production is profitable is anywhere between $35 and $45.

There are different options, we know this. The profitability margin could be as high as $60 a barrel but on average it is anywhere between $35 and $45 a barrel. Therefore, the price I am speaking about is balanced and fair. If need be – we are now in contact with OPEC – we will continue this joint work.

Ravi Ruia: Your Excellency, friends here. My name is Ravi Ruia, I am the co-founder of the Essar Group in India, along with my brother Shashi Ruia. Your Excellency, we are involved with Essar Group in different businesses. We are in the oil refining and exploration business, in spill manufacturing, power generation, port infrastructure, metals and mining. Our total revenues are around $15 billion a year. Your Excellency, in the last two years, with active cooperation and assistance of VTB Bank, we have been instrumental in bringing in a large investment from the state-owned oil company Rosneft into India, which has given access to Russia to a very large market in India of over 1.25 billion people. It is a total investment of almost $13 billion, which is the largest investment ever made by a Russian private company into the Indian private sector. And it has given a big, major outlet for potentially Russian crude into India and access to over 4,000 to 5,000 filling gas stations in India where our product will be directly given to Indian consumers. Your Excellency, we are also looking at how else we can bring in more Russian investment into India, which would add to the growth of both Indian market and access to Indian population as well as add to Russian export. For instance, in the power generation sector, India genuinely believes that there is large potential for Russian power equipment to come into India as the Indian power generation is growing. This is the background of our group. We are now looking at, Your Excellency. My question to you, Your Excellency, is the economic growth in India is at 1.5 percent. And now that the oil price has recovered, what measures do you envisage to take it to a sustainable high level of 3 percent? Thank you.

Andrei Kostin: Do you mean in Russia?

Ravi Ruia: Yes, in Russia.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to say that we have really good constructive relations with India, thanks also to our friendly personal ties with Prime Minister Modi, who is a serious politician and a really reliable partner.

It is largely thanks to his efforts that we are moving our relations forward in many fields. Yet we are not satisfied with the current state of our relations. It is beyond the capabilities of both India and Russia. We can increase the volume of our trade and economic ties and mutual investments manifold, yes, many times over.

One of the investment projects you have mentioned is, indeed, the largest foreign investment in the history of the Indian economy – the acquisition by Rosneft, if I am not mistaken, of a stake worth $12 billion in one of India’s largest oil refineries. I hope it is not the last investment of this kind.

Of course, we would welcome Indian investments in Russia. We know that the Indians are working effectively and on a large scale in the pharmaceutical industry. We would welcome the further development of our ties in this sphere, but, of course, not only in it.

You mentioned power generation. Our electrical engineering has always developed very well. We still need to do a great deal in some segments of this market, increasing or launching the production of some types of equipment. But overall, we have good technology and high quality products as well as the necessary personnel and system of training. We can certainly work actively together in this sphere.

As for increasing the pace of economic growth, I have mentioned this before, including here. We have a special programme for increasing the growth rate in this area. First of all, we must increase labour efficiency based on novel technology, including digital technology, so as to be able to improve our infrastructure, education and healthcare.

Speaking about infrastructure, we plan to considerably increase the traffic capacity on our roads. We will direct ample resources, both public and private, that we will earmark for this in the next five or six years.

For example, we plan to increase the efficiency of our railways, considering that we need to export such commodities as coal, oil, which involves pipelines, and gas.

We will also expand our ports, especially in the Russian Far East and Eastern Siberia. We will continue to develop our seaports. Just to remind you: the volume of transhipment in our ports has increased from 300 million tonnes in 2013 to 1 billion tonnes last year, a record-breaking achievement.

This is not the end of the road. We will continue working on this. We will seriously increase investment in healthcare and education, because attaining the results we need is impossible in a modern economy without healthy and highly educated people.

We will also expand the internet, so that it is accessible in every, even the smallest village, and so on. This is the long list of goals we have mapped out within the framework of our national projects. I strongly hope that this will produce the required results.

Ewan Thompson: Thank you. Ewan Thompson from Neptune Investment Management in London. You mentioned the plans to increase the investment rate in the Russian economy while still maintaining the fiscal strength. How do you see the capacity of the Russian banking sector to help accelerate the economy? What role will it play in financing this growth? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: We are fully aware of the potential of our banks, of our banking system as a whole, how it compares with the leading world banks, what resources they have today, what opportunities, what they can do and, most importantly, how they are developing.

We have several leading banks; one of them is VTB Bank. We can also see the difficulties they are facing, their achievements and successes. For several years, the Central Bank has been consistently making efforts for the rehabilitation and strengthening of the Russian banking system. Sometimes it is painful and affects people’s interests, but ultimately, it serves the interests of the citizens of the Russian Federation, so that its banking system, its financial institutions where people keep their savings are reliable and stable.

For this, we have adopted a number of legislative acts, a number of laws that ensure depositors’ interests. We also recently decided to split the licences. There are two types of licences now that require different amounts of capital from banks, I think, one billion and 300 million, that would be, say, a general licence and the other one.

Here is the difference: in the latter case, these banks, mainly regional ones, should be less burdened by reserves and other requirements from the regulator. We believe that regional banks should be able to work more flexibly. I hope it will be so. And regional governors are asking us about it, suggesting what we should do.

Overall, the banking system is developing successfully and steadily, and its profits are at a good level. Their total capital is 90 trillion rubles, I think. In the first nine months of this year, they made almost 1.5 trillion rubles. We can see what is happening here, and we know what to do next to strengthen our financial system.

Jean-Pierre Thomas (retranslated): It’s Jean-Pierre Thomas, adviser of the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy for the cooperation between France and Russia and now President of the Thomas Vendome Investment. Mr President, I will ask you a question about the US sanctions. Is there finally some positive side of the sanctions on the Russian economy you want to comment and we can work on? Because we read, for example, a very interesting, a very successful story of import substitution in the sector of agriculture, or agrosector, and all the sectors of the Russian economy.

Vladimir Putin: I believe any restrictive measures that are politically motivated and illegal, and let me emphasise that they are illegal, in terms of international law and WTO norms, are detrimental for everyone, including for those who introduce them.

You represent France, and you have been working on cooperation with the Russian Federation. There are obvious facts that are objective and backed by statistics. The European Union was and still is Russia’s largest trade partner, but Russia-EU trade is now at about $236 billion, while it used to be at $450 billion. Do you see the difference?

According to the European Parliament, the fallout from the decline in exports to the Russian market resulted in the loss of 400,000 jobs in the European Union. How is this not detrimental both to the EU economy and its people? Does this not lead to social issues? After all, this is about families, their incomes, and their children! This is where decisions of this kind lead. Of course, we also feel the pinch.

However there is also a positive side to this story, even though this situation has a negative impact on Russia and its economy. Once the Russian economy adjusted to this kind of actions on behalf of our partners, and this adaptation was real as everyone could see, I believe that advantages started to outweigh the disadvantages.

First, since you also belong to the investment community, you will understand that in this situation, if this macroeconomic policy remains in place, and given the resilience of the Russian economy that we see today, there are opportunities to make a profit in Russia.

This is what many believe. Some of our partners are willing to co-invest in any project carried out by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) with no questions asked.

So when the RDIF has a project, its partner automatically invests in anything the RDIF works on. What does this tell us? This shows trust not only in the fund, but in the Russian economy as a whole.

And how about the profit margins? Are they above average in Russia?

CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) Kirill Dmitriev: Three or four times above average.

Vladimir Putin: So the profit margins when investing in the Russian economy are three to four times higher compared to other markets. These are the concrete results of this work, you see?

As for the import substitution, it was not our choice, but it turned out to have a positive effect. You have cited the example of our agriculture. Our agricultural production has increased several-fold. If there are people from our agricultural companies here, they will definitely tell you they do not want the European sanctions to be lifted.

Because this would create additional competition on Russia’s domestic market, although internal competition is increasing and is replacing foreign competition, which is having a positive antimonopoly effect.

You have said about our agriculture that our farming exports were just over $13 billion in 2013. We thought it was a great deal. In the first ten months of this year, our agricultural exports reached $21 billion. This is a good achievement for us.

Russia has become the world’s largest wheat exporter – not just grain but specifically wheat exporter. Other farming sectors have grown as well. The most complicated situation is in the vegetable sector, but it is growing steadily too.

We need money for growing some vegetables in greenhouses. The loans have been provided, and this sector is developing too. But it is not just agriculture.

Look, we produce between 95 and 98 percent of vehicles at home. In the past, we imported a large number of them, but now we make them ourselves. Between 95 and 98 percent in transport engineering. The figure for the automobile industry is 85 percent. Part of this result is due to the deep localisation we have achieved under agreements with our partners, primarily European ones.

We only produce 48 percent of oil and gas equipment so far, but the process is gaining momentum, and if new restrictions are introduced we will achieve our goals here just as we did in transport engineering, bringing the share of Russian-made equipment to some 90 percent. That is, if someone wants to shut themselves out of the Russian market.

I need not say anything about military equipment. We hardly import any now. We regularly monitor the situation. I do this personally, meeting with representatives of the defence industry and the Armed Forces twice a year. We spend a week in Sochi discussing all the relevant issues.

Last year we invested 600 billion rubles in the import substitution programmes, including 120 billion from the federal budget. All this is good, as you can see, yet we would like to change this form of relations as soon as possible and to restore a normal system of economic relations and international trade.

Michael Henry: Michael Henry from Wellington Management in Boston. Thank you very much for being here today and for thoughtful comments. My question to you is to look forward a little bit. You are obviously the most dominant figure in Russia domestically, politically and the face of Russia abroad. But I am wondering if you could tell us what you think Russia would look like the day after President Putin exits the political scene.

Vladimir Putin: Why the hurry? I am not going anywhere yet. But I can tell you the following: Russia is already feeling confident, self-sufficient but it is also open to cooperation with all our partners, including the United States. I hope that this realisation will eventually come to them and the need to solve our common problems and matters will encourage us to work together efficiently.

As concerns Russia’s development, I have just talked about this in my speech, as well as just now, when I was answering a question. We have a whole range of national projects. I hope they will be carried out more or less but they are large-scale and ambitious tasks. But if we confidently follow the path to their solution, the country will be heading towards changing for the better.

Jacob Grapengiesser: Jacob Grapengiesser from East Capital. I want to ask you about the relationship with Ukraine. First of all, maybe a bit on the incident in the Kerch Strait, what really happened there and why those vessels were kind of taken into Russian custody. Secondly, there are elections in Ukraine next year. Do you think there will be anti-Russian propaganda or campaigning from the Ukrainian politicians to score some points in the elections possibly? And will that lead to more tension with Russia? Thirdly, how could you normalize the relationship with Ukraine in the long term?

Vladimir Putin: As concerns the incident in the Black Sea, it was obviously a provocation organised by the current officials – I think, by the incumbent president, ahead of the presidential election in Ukraine to be held next March.

The current president is, I think, fifth in the popularity rating and there is a chance he may not make it into the second round. Therefore, he needs to do something to escalate the situation and create unsurpassable obstacles for his rivals, especially in the opposition.

Why do I think so and why am I even certain that this is the case? Look, there was an incident (I will speak about it in a minute) in the Black Sea. But it is a border incident, nothing more. What happened in 2014 when Crimea decided to join Russia? That was a different story, a big one.

What about the painful civil war in southeastern Ukraine, in Donbass, in the Lugansk region, when government forces deployed tanks and heavy artillery, even aviation? It was a war while no martial law was declared.

Now, a small Black Sea incident resulted in martial law. This is clearly a measure taken because of the presidential election. It is absolutely obvious.

Now regarding this incident, or provocation, to be exact. Certainly, this is a provocation. Look, last September roughly the same convoy of Ukrainian military ships passed through the Kerch Strait under the Kerch Bridge to the Sea of Azov.

They fully complied with all agreements and requirements, informing the border guards about what ships made up the convoy, who they were and where they were going. We provided them with a pilotage service and quietly led them to their destination in the Sea of Azov.

What happened this time? They did not respond to our border guard’s requests. They entered our territorial waters. I would like you to note that they entered our territorial waters which were ours before Crimea became part of the Russian Federation. That is, they entered the waters which have always been Russian territorial waters.

Without responding to our border guards, they proceeded to move towards the [Kerch] Bridge. Neither did they respond to our proposal to moor the ships at the marina. Our proposal to take a pilot – even after the violation of our state border they, nevertheless, were offered to take a pilot – was met with silence, there was no reaction whatsoever.

What should border guards do in a situation like this? Military ships had entered Russian territorial waters and were not responding to our border guards and it was unclear what they were going to do. What did the border guards have to do? Had they acted differently, all of them would have been put on trial. They were fulfilling their military duty, the order they were given and, as things stand, they were fulfilling their legitimate functions to protect the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

I believe that the same would have been done in your country, it is absolutely clear. Also, it was discovered that two Ukrainian Security Service officers were among the crew members and, in fact, were in charge of this special operation. They have acknowledged they were Ukrainian Security Service officers. These are clear signs of a provocation that had been planned in advance so it could be used as a pretext for introducing martial law in the country.

This has nothing to do with the efforts being taken to put relations between Russia and Ukraine back on track. This is a game to exacerbate tension, this is an immoral game that is being played in the country in order to neutralise someone’s political opponents. You know, sometimes it is amazing to see…

In fact, I have already got used to many things but today’s Kiev authorities…They have succeeded in selling anti-Russia sentiments and they have nothing else to sell. It seems that no matter what they do, they always get away with it. If they ask to be given infants for breakfast they will probably have them served. Well, we will be told, they want to eat and that is it.

This is a very short-sighted policy. It will not lead to good things because it tends to unnerve today’s Ukrainian leadership in a way that it does not urge them to get down to normal political work within the country and start pursuing normal economic policy.

They have economic problems in addition to social and financial problems and they never stop to beg, asking the International Monetary Fund to give them money. But these are the future generations who will have to pay this money back. As for their work to promote cooperation with their neighbours, there is nothing good to speak about.

As for long-term prospects, no matter what happens, no matter who is today in power in Kiev, the Russian and Ukrainian people have always been brotherly and very closely connected and will remain as such for ever. This political scum will come off. (Applause.) One day, the Ukrainian people will assess its today’s leadership in the way the Georgian people have assessed the activities of [Mikheil] Saakashvili.

Andrei Kostin: Thank you, colleagues, we should start to wrap up…

Vladimir Putin: Hold on, one more question so as not to end on that.

Christopher Granville (retranslated): My name isChristopher Granville from TS Lombard. I am also a member of the board of the UK investment company Baring Emerging Europe that has invested an estimated $120 million, mostly in Russian PTC (publicly traded companies) stocks.

My question is about pension savings.

Vladimir Putin: No need to continue. I know exactly what you have in mind.

Christopher Granville (retranslated): This is very important for all of us. If I am not mistaken, everyone, including millions of future Russian pensioners, companies, stock and corporate bond issuers, other players on the Russian market that will become more liquid, less volatile, that will boast improved corporate governance and greater IPO demand, and so on, can profit from the decisions of the Government and the Central Bank under the individual pension capital plan.

This is the fifth year without savings. We know that the Central Bank and the Government have the plan from our forum’s previous panel. I was happy to hear Anton Siluanov mention this project. But no specific action has been taken so far. Still chances are that this realistic project might be implemented in a year.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, naturally, we discuss this subject all the time. We do not overlook the issue of private and state pension savings funds. We believe that they must work in such a way (you just mentioned their pluses and advantages), so that people contributing their money to these pension funds would see these obvious advantages, so that these funds would not fall apart, so that they would be managed effectively, so that people would find it profitable to invest in them, and so that inflationary processes would not somehow cause this money to vanish into thin air, and they need to conduct well-thought-out, realistic and effective economic policies. This is linked with the need to guarantee the interests of the Russian Federation’s citizens who entrust their money to these pension funds.

And you can discuss specific issues regarding the continuation of this work with Government members and the Central Bank.

Andrei Kostin: Are pensions a good subject to close the forum on?

Vladimir Putin: Pensions will increase. The matter is settled.

Andrei Kostin: Thanks a lot.

Colleagues, I believe that we should say on behalf of everyone present here: Thank you very much, Mr President. And, just like ten years ago, I would like to ask you to keep attending our forum on a regular basis in the next ten years, if you can.

Vladimir Putin: Are you speaking with your colleague from Boston now?

Andrei Kostin: Oh, no, I am only joking (Laughter.)

Thanks a lot.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for coming.

Meeting with Assistant to the US President for National Security Affairs John Bolton

2018-10-23T21:06:39+04:00

Vladimir Putin received in the Kremlin Assistant to the President of the United States of America for National Security Affairs John Bolton.

Taking part in the meeting from the Russian side were Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev.

Earlier today, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu met with John Bolton. On October 22, Nikolai Patrushev and Sergei Lavrov also had talks with the Assistant to the US President.

* * *

Beginning of conversation with Assistant to the US President for National Security Affairs John Bolton

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Bolton, colleagues,

We are pleased to see you in Moscow.

At the beginning of our conversation I would like to recall our meeting with the President of the United States in Helsinki. In my view, it was a useful, and at times fairly tough, meeting and conversation which ultimately turned out to be fruitful, in my opinion.

This is why, to be honest, we are sometimes perplexed to see the United States take absolutely unprovoked steps towards Russia that we cannot call friendly. We actually do not even respond to your steps, yet this approach continues.

Despite your efforts trade between our countries – however strange it might seem – continues to grow, 16 percent last year; this year it has already grown by 8 percent. This is small in absolute numbers, very small, of course, however, this is the trend. With a positive balance for the United States, by the way. Mutual investments are also growing with Russian investments in the US economy at twice the US investments in the Russian economy.

It will, of course, be very useful to exchange views on the issues of strategic stability, disarmament issues, and regional conflicts.

We know – and talk a lot – about the unilateral exit of the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We recently heard about the United States’ intention to exit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We know about the Administration’s doubts about prolonging New START and hear about the intention to deploy some elements of the anti-missile defence system in space.

As I recall, there is a bald eagle pictured on the US coat of arms: it holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other as a symbol of peaceful policy: a branch with 13 olives. My question: has your eagle already eaten all the olives leaving only the arrows?

In general, I would like very much to talk with you not only as the Assistant to the US President, but also as a specialist on disarmament and arms control.

And, of course, it would be useful to continue a direct dialogue with the US President, first of all, on the sidelines of the international events that will take place soon, such as the one in Paris. Of course, if the US is interested in such contacts.

Assistant to the President of the United States of America for National Security Affairs John Bolton: Well, thank you very much, Mr President. It is a pleasure to see you again. I appreciate you taking the time to get together and will be pleased to go over all the items on the agenda.

And to begin, as you indicated I think President Trump will look forward to seeing you in Paris, on the sidelines of the celebration of the 100^th anniversary of the Armistice. Because despite our differences, which exist because of our different national interests, it is still important to work in areas where there is a possibility of mutual cooperation.

And I had discussions with all of your senior national security advisors in the past two days, and again, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you on behalf of President Trump. And hopefully, I’ll have some answers for you, but I didn’t bring any olives.

Vladimir Putin: My thoughts exactly.

(Laughter.)

John Bolton: The olive branch is held in the right talon of the eagle, demonstrating its priority.

Vladimir Putin: If I remember correctly, there is also an inscription: In Varietate Concordia, United in Diversity. This is why, despite different approaches, we can and should look for points of contact.

John Bolton: That’s very much our intention, though our motto is “E pluribus unum,” “Out of many, one,” so maybe it is something to look forward to there.

<…>

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

2018-10-24T20:13:20+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 15^th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

The main topic is The World We Will Live In: Stability and Development in the 21^st Century. The plenary session moderator is Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club.

The Valdai Forum opened in Sochi on October 15. Its participants – 130 experts from 33 countries – are discussing Russia’s political and socioeconomic prospects as well as social and cultural development and place in the modern world.

The Valdai Club was established in 2004. Traditionally, the forum participants meet with Russia’s senior officials as part of the annual meetings.

Following the plenary session, Vladimir Putin held an informal meeting with several members of the Valdai International Discussion Club, including member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of China’s Communist Party Yang Jiechi, former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Lassina Zerbo, former UN Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov, General Director of the Hermitage State Museum Mikhail Piotrovsky, and public activist Natalia Solzhenitsyn.

* * *

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Plenary session moderator Fyodor Lukyanov: Good afternoon, friends,

Let’s begin our final session. As per tradition, we have President of Russia Vladimir Putin here as our guest.

Mr President, in case you have forgotten, you are here for the 15^th time. How are you?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to speak to the permanent participants of our meeting. It is true, 15 years is quite something. I believe that the Valdai Club, as we called it because the first events took place in Novgorod, has become a good international platform over these years, a platform for professionals who are interested in global politics, the economy, culture as well as the work of media. Of course, in relation to Russia.

As a rule, these are experts on Russia. And we would like very much for people who work with Russia to have such a platform, so that we could meet and you could hear our position on all matters of interest for you, your countries, and for us, for Russia, not in someone’s retelling, but firsthand, from me and my colleagues.

These discussions have always presented different and sometimes even opposite points of view. I think that this is the advantage of this discussion club; we call it a discussion club because where there is only one, right point of view, there is no place for discussion.

Truth is born from comparing different approaches to the same phenomena and various assessments. Thanks to your participation, we can reach this result.

I see many world-famous politicians in this hall; here, on my right; and I would like to welcome them all, including the President of Afghanistan and our colleagues from the EAEU. I can also see scientists, cultural figures and journalists. I hope that today’s meeting will also be not only useful but interesting as well.

However, I am a bit confused about the format today. Usually we have several people on this stage, and the discussion lasts for quite some time. Of course, I am ready to fly solo, as the organisers suggest, but I hope that it will not take four or five times longer than usual.

Thank you and let’s just skip the long welcoming remarks and go straight to our conversation, our work and our discussion.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, it is true that, as you have noted, Valdai has various points of view. There have always been many opinions, and this year is no exception.

Especially as we see our membership expand not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of representation of various countries and regions, which, or course, provides for differing visions.

This year we have a very busy agenda with a subject that has not been very characteristic for Valdai recently, because we usually talk about Russia practically all the time. Last time we talked about Russia was at the 10^th meeting. And you certainly remember that it was a very large event; you attended, and we decided to return.

Not only because many of our participants, club members, asked for this, but also because we believe (Valdai has prepared an annual report for this session) the world is facing some very serious changes.

It is not only being globally transformed; but in some sense, we are losing the vision on what foundations it can be built later. We looked for these foundations in our previous reports, but now, in fact, we have given this up and can say that the moment when the changing of the world could be controlled has passed.

We will talk about this later, but this means that every country – big or small – should rely on itself above all, to provide for its own stability and development. This is why it would be reasonable to consider if we are ready for this. In this sense, of course, what you say is really firsthand information.

Unfortunately, our work is darkened by a tragic event. We have heard the news from Kerch. You talked about it yesterday, and we also spoke about this tragedy.

What is the main thing here? Of course the first thought that everybody here – or everybody everywhere – had was that it was a large terrorist attack again. Unfortunately, we are getting used to this. But later it turned out that the situation was a bit different.

Why is this coming back to me now? Not only because it just happened, but because it also brings up memories of the first Valdai Forum in Novgorod. You mentioned it; it took place against the backdrop of the Beslan tragedy.

I attended that forum, and many of those who are with us today did, too. I remember it well. The discussion was, of course, erratic as everyone kept going out to see what was happening on television, for lack of smartphones.

You were at Valdai then, but during the forum you recorded a televised address to the nation, which was harsh, understandably so given the context.

In the address, you said something that would be quoted later: “The weak get beaten. Some would like to cut a big piece of our pie. Others help them. Thinking that Russia, as one of the largest nuclear powers, is still a threat that must be eliminated. Terrorism is just a tool they use.”

Afterwards, when you talked to the Valdai members, you said that we had been challenged and that we would rise up to that challenge. It’s been 15 years; do you think we have?

Vladimir Putin: That was some long opening statement. You started with “last time, during the 10^th Valdai Forum; it was the 14^th Valdai Forum” (Laughter.)

Fyodor Lukyanov: You are better at math.

Vladimir Putin: I am a better listener.

I would like to begin with what you did in fact, with yesterday’s tragedy. Among other things, paradoxically this appears to be the result of globalisation. We have seen whole communities spring up on the internet after the well-known tragic events in US schools. Young psychologically unstable people start to believe in false heroes.

This means that we, in Russia and globally, are failing to respond to the changes in the world. It means that we are not creating useful, interesting and essential content for young people, and they turn to this surrogate heroism that leads to tragedies like this.

There is a demand for true heroism in our lives. True heroism can manifest itself, in particular, by defending civilisation from today’s evils. Of course, terrorism is one of the most serious and challenging evils. I have said many times, including at the 70^th session [of the UN General Assembly] in New York, that the only way to effectively stand up to terrorism is to join efforts.

Unfortunately, in the true sense of the word, we have not put this cooperation in place yet. There are some aspects of cooperation where we have succeeded but this is not enough. By the highest standards, we have failed to join efforts the way we should so far, while this could be done, based on the relevant international rules of law and UN resolutions.

I will try to give you a straight answer to your question: “Have we achieved the results we expected to achieve, beginning with those sad, tragic events which we witnessed or took part in in the mid-1990s and the early 2000s?”

Generally, yes, of course. Let us remember that – we tend to very quickly forget the wrongs done to us, trying to think only about positive things – a civil war was raging in Russia at the time. It was not a global war, and it did not involve the whole country but there were hostilities, a real war.

Warfare with the use of aviation and military hardware and so on, a huge number of militant groups on the territory of this country, with militants coming mostly from terrorist organisations based abroad, including Al-Qaeda who were active in this country.

Thank God, we got rid of this but we have not eradicated terrorism per se. Of course, terrorism still poses a great threat to our country as well, which was why we launched these operations in Syria.

Terrorism is a great threat to our neighbours, including Afghanistan – I see President [Hamid] Karzai here. If he is given the floor, he will tell us what is going on in his country today – this is also a serious threat. I mean that we have not defeated terrorism globally, of course, but we have delivered a tremendous blow to it and have certainly drastically changed the situation at home – in the Russian Federation – for the better.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You are naturally inducing a different reminiscence. The Valdai conference from three years ago (in 2015), took place exactly two weeks after the military operation began in Syria.

I remember one of our colleagues asked you a question: “Was it actually worth being involved at all? Because of the costs, the casualties, and it is not clear how it will end.” And you said your branded phrase, which was quoted a lot later: “Fifty years ago, I learned one rule in the streets of Leningrad: if the fight is inevitable, be the first to strike.”

Well, we struck, and three years later, the situation in Syria has indeed changed dramatically, but it is still impossible to say that the problem has been resolved. Recent events make both positive and negative impressions. So I would like to repeat the question from three years ago: “Maybe it was not worth the risk, because the casualties have proven serious?“

Vladimir Putin: I remember this question, but it sounded like “are casualties possible?” I then said: “Yes, they are, but we must prevent the worst course of events.” And what would the worst development be for us? Full “somalisation” of that region, complete degradation of statehood and infiltration of a significant part of the militants into the territory of the Russian Federation and into the territory of neighbouring states with which we have no customs barriers, or borders in fact, a visa-free regime. That would have posed a real, serious danger to us.

But we have largely ruled out that risk by our actions, because we did a lot of damage to the terrorists in Syria. Many of them were eliminated, and some of them, thank God, decided they wanted out: they laid down their arms after losing faith in the principles they considered right. This, I would say, is the most important outcome.

The second, no less important thing, is that we have preserved Syrian statehood and in this sense helped stabilise the region. We talked about this in some detail with the President of Egypt just yesterday; he shares this position, and it is shared by many other countries. Therefore, I believe we have generally achieved the goals we had set for ourselves in starting the operation in the Syrian Arab Republic; we have achieved a result.

Look, after all, for some years before us, countries that agreed to participate in these anti-terrorist operations, most often voluntarily, and maybe even with less than perfect goals and objectives – what result have we seen in the previous three years? None. While we have liberated almost 95 percent of the entire territory of the Syrian Republic. This is my first point.

Second. We supported Syria’s statehood, prevented the state from collapsing. True, there are still many problems. Now we see what is happening on the left bank of the Euphrates. Probably, our colleagues know: this territory is under the patronage of our American partners. They rely on the Kurdish armed forces.

But they have obviously left a loose end: ISIS remains in several locations and has begun to expand its area of influence recently. They took 130 families hostage – almost 700 people.

I think few of those present here know that they have made ultimatums, extended demands and warned that if these ultimatums are not met, they would shoot 10 people every day. The day before yesterday, 10 people were shot. Executed. They have begun to fulfil their threats.

This is just horrifying. It is a tragedy I think. We need to do something about it. Why do our colleagues keep silent? According to our information, several US and European citizens are among the hostages.

Everyone is quiet, there is silence as if nothing is happening. Therefore, there is still much to be done; this is true. But I repeat, on the whole, we have achieved our goal.

The next step is a political settlement at the UN in Geneva. We need to form a constitutional committee now. Progress is not easy, but we are still moving forward. I hope that we will move ahead with our partners in this area.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You said, some of the militants lost faith and understood that they were wrong. First, are you sure they lost faith? Or maybe they were just overpowered, and they realized it was pointless to continue to fight, but the situation might change a little, and they will get their faith back?

Vladimir Putin: Maybe. Maybe so. You are probably partly right.

Some of them have really laid down their arms and really realized they had false goals. Others have simply taken advantage of our humanitarian measures for the time being, and are ready to take up arms at any moment. This is possible.

This simply means we all need to be on the alert, not underestimate the threats, and step up our joint work to combat terrorism, the ideology of terrorism and the financing of terrorism.

Fyodor Lukyanov: A question on current events, if I may. October 15 was a deadline set by Turkey to do certain things in Idlib. Do you think they accomplished what they were supposed to do?

Vladimir Putin: No, not yet, but they are working on it. We see it. In this regard, I want to thank our Turkish partners. We see that they are working at this. This is not simple. On the contrary, everything is complicated, but they are honouring their commitments.

The demilitarised zone, on which we agreed, is being created in the Idlib de-escalation zone with a depth of 15–20 kilometres. Not all heavy weapons have been withdrawn yet, and not all members of the terrorist organisations ISIS and Jabhat an-Nusra have left, but our Turkish partners are doing their best to fulfil their obligations.

This, I repeat, is not easy, there is more than meets the eye. They have even deployed a military hospital in this zone because there are losses. They are acting very tough and are very effective in their fight against these terrorist groups.

Fyodor Lukyanov: We are now switching to our favourite subject, which we discuss every year, because we inherited it from our American colleagues and, let’s face it, the United States is always on the agenda.

In 2016, you made a very colourful statement. It was a difficult period, as we all remember, following the Ukraine crisis, and the Syria crisis was already in full swing. There was a question from the audience: “Is this not the time to reduce tensions?” And you answered, “We are all looking forward to seeing geopolitical tensions reduced, but not by way of our funeral. If the cost for reducing geopolitical tensions is our funeral, we are not happy about it.“ Funeral is nowhere to be seen yet, but this method, I think, continues to be considered in some parts of the world as an option.

You had the experience of talking with the President of the United States recently, and, in general, much is going on, but things are exclusively negative. I may be wrong as an onlooker, but I have a feeling that your meetings with Mr Trump lead to results that are the opposite of what’s expected. In this regard, I have a question. Perhaps, it makes sense to even stop trying and take a break? They have their own big internal problems, let them figure it out.

Vladimir Putin: You know, there is an old joke, but some people may not know it. They might find it amusing. It sounds like that. Question: ”How do you relax?“ Answer: ”I am relaxed.“ (Laughter.)

The same goes for tensions in international affairs. We are not creating any problems for anyone Are we the ones creating problems? No. Instead, we are being accused of things. They say that Russia was “highly likely” to have done this or that, intervened at one place and wreaked havoc at another. But, no one believes it is necessary to produce any evidence.

For me it is clear, and I have said this: this is the result of the internal political struggle in the Western world as a whole. Now they are fighting over the conditions for Britain’s exit from the EU; the Democrats and the Republicans are fighting in the United States, and there is controversy among the Republicans themselves. So someone has apparently decided that playing the anti-Russia card would be a very convenient way to resolve domestic political problems. This is bad for everyone.

I hope this will pass, but apparently we need to wait for internal political crises to be resolved. Whether this will happen after the Congressional election or not, I do not know yet, but maybe. Or maybe it will happen in 2020, with the next US presidential election, and then he will no longer have to constantly deal with those who speculate with anti-Russia rhetoric.

Were our meetings with President Trump harmful or helpful? I believe that, despite the attempt to discredit these meetings, they nevertheless were more positive than negative. Why? Because we can see what is happening there.

We can certainly see, we know how to read after all, we look at what is happening there in the domestic political landscape. Still, it is better to communicate and interact with each other than, forgive my language, engage in a never-ending dogfight.

Our meetings have hardly improved US domestic politics, I guess. Probably because, again, there are those who are always trying to play this card in the domestic political struggle.

I would say the incumbent president is geared to stabilise and level Russian-American relations. Let's see how the situation develops. We, in any case, are ready for this at any time.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Several books about Donald Trump have been released, one after another.

Vladimir Putin: We will read them.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, they are very interesting. They create this image of a person who only listens to and hears himself. When you meet with him, does he listen to you?

Vladimir Putin: This is not true. Maybe he behaves this way with someone else – but then they are to blame. We have a comfortable professional dialogue with him. Of course he listens. And not just listens, I see that he reacts to the arguments I make. He may disagree with something I say, just as I would disagree with something he might say. We have different views on some things, different approaches, but this is a normal discussion between partners. I do not share the opinion of those who say that he speaks like a wood grouse calling out and never listening. That is not true.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You know that commentators and political scientists often say that when a relationship is deadlocked and this appears to be the case, a “sobering” crisis is beneficial because the countries realise that the danger is real and something needs to be done to move beyond the abyss.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was like that. Some suggest we need a similar crisis today to help the Americans shift their view from their domestic issues, and realize that the stakes are high and positive steps need to be taken.

Vladimir Putin: This is a bad idea. Stirring up emotions is not our approach, as they say sometimes in our country. Generally speaking, it is irresponsible to lead the world to the brink of a global crisis whose consequences are hard to foresee. We have never used such a policy, and we will not do so in the future.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you, that’s a comprehensive answer.

However, I will then mention another of your quotes. Speaking about antimissile systems in 2011, you said more broadly that Russia is not afraid of conflict. Back then it was one type of conflict, but today it’s different. What kind of conflict are we not afraid of today?

Vladimir Putin: Any kind. We are not afraid of anything. Given our territory, our defence system, and our people that are ready to fight for independence and sovereignty — the willingness of our men and women to give up their lives for their country is not common among all nations. Nobody can change these things, and this makes us certain that we can feel secure.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Okay. You said we were not creating problems for anyone, but I think that some people in this hall will challenge you on this later, because the impression is that Russia is creating a lot of problems.

Vladimir Putin: Later when? Let’s get started. How long will we be sitting here?

Fyodor Lukyanov: Okay, I’m sorry.

Still, let’s assume this is the case. But if we aren’t creating any problems, others may be creating them for us.

Vladimir Putin: Of course they are. Full ahead.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You once coined a wonderful phrase (a well-known metaphor that compares Russia to a bear): “The bear will not ask anyone for permission. He is the master of the taiga and he will not move to other climatic zones, but he will not give up his taiga to anyone, either. And everyone should be clear about that, that’s all there is to it.”

Is anyone encroaching on our taiga today, or are we already living in the “that’s all” era?

Vladimir Putin: “That’s all” has always been there. It is ‘that’s all“ time now as well.

Look, we live in a world where security relies on nuclear capability. Russia is one of the largest nuclear powers. You may be aware, I have said it publicly, we are improving our attack systems as an answer to the United States building its missile defence system. Some of these systems have already been fielded, and some will be put into service in the coming months. I am talking about the Avangard system. Clearly, we have overtaken all our, so to speak, partners and competitors in this sphere, and this fact is acknowledged by the experts. No one has a high-precision hypersonic weapon. Some plan to begin testing it in one or two years, while we have this high-tech modern weapon in service. So, we feel confident in this sense.

Naturally, there are many other risks, but they are shared risks, such as environment, climate change, terrorism, which I mentioned, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. If we are unable to put an effective end to this, it is not clear where it will lead to, and in whose hands this deadly weapon may end up.

So, in this sense, nothing has changed. We are not going anywhere, we have a vast territory, and we do not need anything from anyone. But we value our sovereignty and independence. It has always been this way, at all times in the history of our state. It runs in the blood of our people, as I have repeatedly said. In this sense, we feel confident and calm.

Fyodor Lukyanov: With regard to us not going anywhere and not needing anything, clearly, there are people who will disagree with you.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

Fyodor Lukyanov: They will say, “What about Crimea?”

Vladimir Putin: Crimea is our land. We are still not going anywhere. Why is it our land? Not because we went there and took it. Even if someone decides to argue with me, the dispute will immediately come to a dead-end. Everyone is democratic here, right? What is democracy? Democracy is the power of the people. How is it exercised, this power of the people? It is exercised through referendums, elections and so on. People came to a referendum in Crimea and voted for independence, first, and then for being part of Russia.

Let me remind you for the hundredth time that there was no referendum in Kosovo, only the parliament voted for independence, that was all. Everyone who wanted to support and destroy the former Yugoslavia said: well, thank God, we are fine with that. Here, however, they disagree. Ok then, let's have a discussion, go over the UN documents, see what the UN Charter is all about, and where it talks about the right of nations to self-determination. This will be an endless discussion. However, we proceed based on the will expressed by the people who live on that territory.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Now, about the people. I just remembered that at the 10^th Valdai meeting in 2013 you mentioned Alexander Solzhenitsyn. One of his key ideas was that saving people is more important than anything else. Indeed, in the modern world, the competition for the people, the souls and minds and for human capital is more fierce than for the territories that may be acquired or not. Natalia Solzhenitsyn spoke on this issue at our session. We are discussing conventional conflicts here, but if we talk about conflicts or competition, certain rivalry, for human minds and souls, do you think we are prepared for it? Are we winning?

Vladimir Putin: I think we are, pretty much yes. Look, there are senior executives from our television company Russia Today sitting across from me. What is happening in some countries where they operate? They are being banned. What does this mean? It means those who do so are afraid of the competition. This is what it means. We do not close anyone here, whereas they are faced with conditions that preclude their operation as mass media. Someone is making it hard for them. That means we are winning. We have just one radio station, and we are not a monopoly on this information field. We do not have global media like CNN, Fox News, BBC and so on. We do not have these. We have just one fairly modest channel. Even if it causes so much heartburn and fear of it being able to influence minds, then we are winning this competition. By the way, in France, I know, they don’t really like it, but if I ever have a chance to be in Paris, invite me, and I will come see you, see what is going on there and how things are with work.

Editor-in-Chief of Russia Today TV channel Margarita Simonyan: You have our invitation.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Well, that is nice.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, too.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s continue this subject as it is important, I believe. In the now historic speech of 2014, which is now called the Crimea Speech in connection with Crimea rejoining Russia, you mentioned the Russian world, compatriots and a divided nation. It was exciting and impressive. However, by doing so you touched on very delicate strings and awakened very powerful emotions, because this national identity, what you think about yourself and your country, your land is, of course, a very powerful weapon which can be either positive or negative. Since then, we have seen many events that have occurred, including in the Russian world, and are still unfolding, such as the Ukrainian church, and, clearly, there will be more. Here is a question that may sound somewhat audacious: Do you regret raising this subject and touching it the way you did now that we know the results?

Vladimir Putin: Frankly, I am not sure I understand your question. I think it is a natural thing to do, we should always raise this issue and never lose sight of it. Our national identity is what makes us who we are. It is our culture and history.

The preservation of the people, which you just said when you mentioned Solzhenitsyn, is not just about physical preservation, although, maybe, this is, above all, what Solzhenitsyn had in mind, but also about our identity as a people, otherwise we will simply erode and cease to exist. The history of mankind offers us similar examples. We will just be unable to recall the names of those peoples, who have already disappeared from our consciousness. There were lots of them. But why should we follow those examples? We want to be the Russians, or the Tatars, or the Jews, who live here, or the Mordovians, etc. We have 160 ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation. So why should we let ourselves be eroded? We treasure it and we must talk about it. We must strengthen our identity.

Fyodor Lukyanov: You have repeatedly said, including at Valdai forums, that nationalism and chauvinism of any kind cause a lot of damage, first, to that people and to that ethnos, whose interests nationalists are allegedly concerned about. In 2014, you told us that you are Russia's biggest nationalist. Are you still?

Vladimir Putin: You are well-prepared, Mr Lukyanov.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I prepared.

Vladimir Putin: He is trying to take me at my word. No, there is no contradiction here. I will explain what I meant. What are the things that nationalists say, exhibit and flaunt all the time? They say that they are the best defenders of the interests of one ethnos or another, one people or another, one nation or another. While the Russian Federation initially shaped itself, from its very first steps, as a multi-ethnic state.

There are many people in this hall who deal with these matters professionally. I see the director of the Hermitage, who, though being an expert on the Middle East, knows well how the Russian nation was formed. So how did it emerge? The Russian nation did not exist forever. It was composed of various Slavic tribes. There were no Russians at a certain point. And then, on the basis of a common market, the power of the prince, a common language and, later, a common faith, the Russian nation emerged. But it consisted of various tribes. And then, when statehood started to form, the primeval form of Russian statehood, it comprised many Finno-Ugric peoples. Today, we find material evidence proving that Finno-Ugric peoples also inhabited central areas of the European part of modern Russia, and not just the Ladoga region.

Russia developed as a multi-ethnic state first, and then as a multi-religious state. But it has lived for a thousand years and remained stable primarily because a very tolerant relationship was initially established between all the ethnic groups within the state and the representatives of different religions. This is the groundwork for Russia’s existence. And if we want Russia to remain as it is, to develop and gain strength, while Russians remain a state-forming nation, then the preservation of this country serves the interests of the Russian people. But if we huff out this caveman nationalism and throw mud at people of other ethnic groups, we will destroy this country – something the Russian people are less than interested in. I want Russia to survive, including in the interests of the Russian people. In this context I have said that I am the most proper and true nationalist and a most effective one too. But this is not caveman nationalism, stupid and idiotic and leading to the collapse of our country. This is the difference.

Fyodor Lukyanov: If there is only you, then this is not enough. Do you have like-minded people, the same kind of nationalists?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Almost 146 million of them.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Great.

Ok, Mr President, then it is agreed that Russia should not be destroyed. But you also made one very harsh statement not long ago.

Vladimir Putin: Pestering me with these statements again.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Well, I'm sorry, it’s my job, they pay me for it.

Vladimir Putin: Will there be just the two of us debating?

Fyodor Lukyanov: One minute please. Everything in its time.

Can you please explain to me? You didn’t say this at Valdai: “Why do we need the world if Russia isn’t in it?” Many interpreted this in their own way, that you meant “after me, the deluge,” you know the expression. Is this what you meant, or, I suspect, you meant something else?

Vladimir Putin: No. First, King Louis XIV said that in response to the accusations that he was spending too much money from the treasury on all sorts of palaces and entertainment. By the way, it was not such a waste, because after him a lot of things remained, palaces included. And second, he was also a statesman. If I remember correctly, he created the first regular army in Europe. Therefore, all the talk of his extravagance probably had real reason behind it, but this does not mean that he actually did what he once said during an argument.

As for my statement you quoted, I don’t remember, but I probably said it to Vladimir Solovyov.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, in the film.

Vladimir Putin: But you cannot quote things out of context. I will remind you what this was about. I was asked whether we were ready and whether I was ready to use the weapons we have, including weapons of mass destruction, to protect ourselves, to protect our interests. And that’s what I answered.

I will remind you of what I have said. I have said that our nuclear weapons doctrine does not provide for a pre-emptive strike. I would like to ask all of you and those who will later analyse and in one way or another interpret my every word here, to keep in mind that there is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a reciprocal counter strike. There is no need to explain what this is to those who understand, as for those who do not, I would like to say it again: this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking Russia, our territory. I am not revealing a secret if I say that we have created a system which is being upgraded all the time as needed – a missile early warning radar system. This system monitors the globe, warning about the launch of any strategic missile at sea and identifying the area from which it was launched. Second, the system tracks the trajectory of a missile flight. Third, it locates a nuclear warhead drop zone.

Only when we know for certain – and this takes a few seconds to understand – that Russia is being attacked we will deliver a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter strike. Why do I say ‘counter’? Because we will counter missiles flying towards us by sending a missile in the direction of an aggressor. Of course, this amounts to a global catastrophe but I would like to repeat that we cannot be the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we are sitting on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that retaliation is inevitable and they will be annihilated. And we as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won’t even have time to repent their sins.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I feel the urge to address Metropolitan Tikhon right away, however, I will do this a bit later, if you do not object.

I take it that you, Mr President, are bored with me as an interlocutor, so let me ask you one more question and then people from the floor will ask questions.

As a follow-up to what you said regarding a reciprocal counter strike and who will go where, last evening we had a remarkable meeting where Valery Gergiev gave a speech. He, in addition to being a great musician, is a man who plays an active role in social life and civil society.

He spoke about many things. He also said this: in his opinion, three countries and their three leaders have a great responsibility. These countries are – you can name them in any order – the US, Russia and China. Everything depends on them. They can achieve things and prevent things. In general, I agree with this.

I think it is obvious that there are three countries that have more opportunities and a greater potential, both destructive and creative. As a leader who carries this burden, do you ever feel scared? Or do you not think of it at all?

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean by ‘scared’?

Fyodor Lukyanov: It is a great responsibility.You are one of the three people responsible for the entire world.

Vladimir Putin: And so?

Fyodor Lukyanov: You have no fear?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Fyodor Lukyanov: All right, no further questions.

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is actually a tricky question. Why? Because fear is the reverse side of the self-preservation behaviour that all people, all living things have. Everybody has the self-preservation instinct, and fear is an integral part of it. It is how we respond to a threat.

You know, after I graduated from university and went to work for the security services and then intelligence, this is how we were trained: if you have taken up something, some job, you need to think through in advance what it involves. And when you take it on, you need to act carefully, cautiously and responsibly, and you need to assess all the risks. It is extremely important, especially for people who are responsible for their compatriots, for millions of people.

You mentioned earlier that during the tragic events of the late 1990s-early 2000s, when I flew over Grozny I saw that it had been destroyed completely, like Stalingrad. Shots could come from behind every rock, and they did, by the way . We flew at a low altitude above some areas because it was too dangerous to fly higher. It was the first time I saw that a helicopter could fly so low and so fast; I did not think it was possible. But it was my choice, you see?

And it is still my choice. I think it is the same for everybody, for all of my colleagues. But if you have decided something for yourself, if you have made your choice, you must act without thinking about some negative consequences for yourself. You must think about a positive outcome for the people you are doing this for.

Fyodor Lukyanov: There are two aspects to fear. On the one hand, what you are talking about is your internal feeling, and on the other hand it is a leadership style. Do you think ruling by fear is an effective way to govern?

Vladimir Putin: No. It is a bad management method, because it is very unreliable. The best way to govern, in terms of having contact with society, is by convincing people and using positive motivation.

It requires the joint efforts of the people you communicate with. You must not allow any separation of those who make decisions from those who implement them. All people should collaborate in the implementation; that would be efficient joint work with a positive result.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Let us move on to joint efforts. Sheng Shiliang is our old-timer.

Sheng Shiliang: Mr President, you have rightly noted that, indeed, Russia never creates problems for others. But, as a Chinese proverb goes, the trees want to remain quiet, but the wind will not stop. We are not left in peace. Firstly, both China and Russia have been labelled “revisionist states.”

Secondly, Russia and China are declared, along with Iran and North Korea, to be the main adversaries of the greatest, most peaceful, and most offended country in the world and of all times.

Thirdly, there are the sanctions imposed on you, and the trade war waged against us. The situation is very serious. I have a quote from a well-known Hong Kong mafia film: the uncle is very angry; the consequences will be very serious.

This means we have much in common. I would like to ask you how Russia is going to respond. And what recommendations would you give to us, to China?

Vladimir Putin: My dear friend and colleague, I think China is no less a great country, and the Chinese people are no less a great nation than the one you have just mentioned.

The Chinese civilisation is a great ancient civilisation. I do not think China even needs our recommendations. I can only express my point of view on this matter.

You cited the Chinese proverb, the trees want to remain quiet, but the wind will not stop. However, the weather is changeable. A time will come when the wind will calm down. It seems to me one does not need to immediately respond to certain things that might aggravate the situation in some way. But one must certainly always respond and protect one’s own interests. As a matter of fact, we are doing just that – both China and Russia.

So why am I saying that the weather is changeable, and the wind will stop blowing at some point? The fact is that those who stir up this wind, they also suffer from it.

You mentioned trade wars and sanctions. You know, I am not even going to say anything new for some people here in this hall, the experts will understand what I am talking about.

Firstly, a certain part of US rhetoric is related to their domestic political situation. Secondly, what is the domestic policy calendar? Midterm elections are underway, which will be followed by the presidential election. Certain economic trends need to be preserved. In the medium term, such actions may lead to a positive result.

However, in the long term, in my opinion, negative consequences will follow inevitably, because everything that is being done now affects the global economy and influences its segments in individual countries.

The US and China exchange blows that cost some $500 million. And if they keep doing so, it will amount to $1.5 trillion, which is 0.4 percent of the global economy.

It will be one of the reasons for a future recession of the global economy. Everyone will feel it and nobody wants it to happen. Therefore, it is possible to stir up a wind at some point, but a moment will come when it will not benefit anybody.

Therefore, I think the Chinese civilization is very old, the Chinese people have a lot of patience and I think the fundamental structure of the Chinese economy will allow them to endure everything. In terms of volume, the Chinese economy has outgrown the US economy; the per capita figure is still smaller, of course, taking into account China’s huge population.

Of course, the American economy is high-tech and introduces contemporary innovative technologies quickly, so both Russia and China have something to work on and to learn from our American colleagues. Nevertheless, the world is changing and so is the global economy; the growth rate of the Chinese economy is high.

It has adjusted, as we see, but it remains high. It will inevitably lead to a change in the economic situation between countries and in the global economic environment. This poses certain threats, and not only for countries, but for the global economy as well, I would say.

Fyodor Lukyanov: To use the wind metaphor – let the east wind blow some more. Let us hear from our colleague from Japan.

What do you think he will ask, Mr President?

Vladimir Putin: I have no idea.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Neither do I.

Vladimir Putin: Is it about the islands again? Not interested.

Question: Sorry, but I have to ask. Two years ago, I asked you here in this hall how realistic it was to expect a favourable atmosphere for Japan and Russia to sign a peace treaty in the near future, say within two, three or four years. You said it was wrong, impossible and even harmful to set a fixed timeframe, because there was not enough trust between us at the time.

In September 2018, during the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, you suggested to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, “Let us sign a peace treaty, not now, but by the end of the year without any preconditions.”

Could you please clarify: does this mean that enough trust has already been established between us to sign a peace treaty, bearing in mind what you said two years ago, or does it mean something else?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, I spoke about the need to build trust. I am not saying what comes next is an insurmountable obstacle. Nonetheless, we are talking about increasing trust, about the possibility of signing a peace treaty, of reaching some compromise on the territorial issues that Japan constantly raises, although we do not believe they even exist, and yet, we do not reject this dialogue.

At the request of Prime Minister Abe, we have established simplified formalities for Japanese citizens visiting these territories, so they can visit their historical places, family graves, and so on. That is, for our part, we are tying to create the necessary conditions of trust.

However, Japan has imposed sanctions against us. Do you think this looks like a step towards increasing trust? What does Syria or Crimea have to do with Japan? Why did you do it? To increase trust? Yet, we still do not refuse; we are ready to continue this dialogue. We are not avoiding contacts.

Just now, your Chinese colleague asked a question. We have been having a discussion over territorial issues with China for many years, for 40 years, in fact. Can you imagine that? Forty years. Russia-China relations saw a lot in that time, but in the end, we signed a friendship agreement. And we have reached a level of understanding between Russia and China that is assessed as unprecedented by both our countries. However, the territorial issue had not been resolved yet by that time.

But the fact that we signed these documents with China, with our Chinese friends, the fact that we have built such a system of relations – did it put an end to our debates over the territorial issues? No, it did not. On the contrary, this created an environment necessary for resolving these issues, which is exactly what we did in the end – we signed the necessary document, finding compromise.

I said the same thing to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. I said that if we fail to sign this peace agreement now, without resolving the issue of those islands, this would not mean that we would consign it to the dustbin of history and go on as if nothing happened. The example of our relations with China showcases the opposite: we created an environment of trust, and then resolved the issue. This was exactly what I suggested.

Our dispute with Japan over these issues dates back 70 years, and we cannot seem to find a solution, a way out of the dead end. But let us finally sign this peace agreement, work on improving our level of trust, refrain from creating new problems in bilateral relations and move on, and keep discussing these territorial issues.

We are not saying no, but Prime Minister Abe has his own opinion on this. Later, when we attended the junior judo tournament, we continued discussing this issue in an informal setting.

He said that as of today, Japan finds this approach unacceptable, and we must first find solutions to the issues that are key to resolving the territorial issues, and then start discussing a peace agreement.

We can do that, but we have been doing it for 70 years, and there seems to be no end in sight. We are talking about carrying out joint economic activities on these islands, and the ideas are good, but so far, they are being implemented on a very small scale – that is the problem. However, we are ready to keep working on this, certainly.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Your Grace Metropolitan Tikhon, please.

Chairman of the Patriarchal Council for Culture Metropolitan Tikhon: The round table I took part in here, at Valdai, dealt with cultural issues, or to be exact, whether and how culture can affect the life of society in the 21^st century and today.

At the onset of the discussion Mr Zanussi asked the following question, Can we even grasp, can we assess a nation’s culture today? An opinion was voiced that the level of charity in society may be such an assessment criterion. I mean general culture, not its specific manifestations.

It may seem that it was a fairly abstract discussion. But the events in Kerch, even though we do not fully understand the motives behind this ill-fated person’s actions, let us see how aggression and intolerance are on the rise not only in Russia but also generally everywhere.

My question is as follows: Firstly, what do you yourself think of the conclusions we have made at this round table regarding charity as a key criterion of society’s general culture?

Secondly, we talk a lot of about state culture policy nowadays. There is a lot of debate. We are all aware that the state will not regulate culture in a rough or intrusive way, and this is probably absolutely correct. But can the state deliberately support all those creative and historical spiritual and cultural keynote dominants that have developed in Russia, something we call spiritual and cultural values?

Vladimir Putin: I think this what we have been doing, in reference to the second part of your question. I think the state must do this very carefully by allowing people with different outlooks to work out their own views, express them and compete, let us say, with your views. It may seem surprising for me to say that, but I think this is the way it is.

My sympathies certainly lie with you, but as a state official, I still think it is my duty to ensure the opportunity for every person to express their position. Why? Because my position is based on the first part of your comment.

What is charity? To use more modern words, it is tolerance, commitment to compromise. At any rate, it is one of the facets of charity. This is the way it is. If we claim that charity, tolerance is a criterion of culture, then we must be in a position to let people express their views and listen to them.

Fyodor Lukyanov: SinceHis Grace raised the issue of charity, I cannot but give the floor to Nyuta Federmesser.

Founder of the Vera Hospice Charity Fund Nyuta Federmesser: Thank you very much. First, thank you for the chance to be here. Yesterday there was also a very important discussion on the interaction between society and the authorities. Thank you for bringing me in on this issue.

During the first half (I hope the second half is still to come), you spoke and the questions that were asked were mostly about war. As a representative of a totally different side of life, since we will all die anyway, I do not understand why this pain could be induced…

Vladimir Putin: This may happen in a variety of ways.

Nyuta Federmesser: Yes, absolutely.

In palliative care, in hospices, dying is always preceded by a tremendous concentration of love. Because when people know that this is to come, that it is ahead and that they do not have much time, they spend all that time saying, “Forgive me,” “I forgive you” and “I love you.” Whereas what we talked about here was about a different kind of death: death related to hate.

You said you have no fear, no fear of the responsibility for the world. We have an incredible number of people in our country totalling 18 million with family members, 18 million of those who have fear because their loved ones are severely ill or dying without getting adequate help.

It is clear that this is not the first time I speak about palliative care and hospices, and we have been drafting a priority project, you know about that, it was done in part following your instructions. About a year ago, incredible funds were allocated to palliative care development, which, unfortunately, will not be spent. They were allocated in such a way that as of today only 12 percent was spent on palliative care while the rest of the funds will go back to the budget. And I am terribly afraid that I will have no right to say to you, “Mr President, can we revisit the palliative aid issue?” because you will say, “But the funds were returned, so they were not needed.”

I would very much like that alongside considering Russia’s totally different role in world history and sanctions from all sides, we would also discuss the people who make up the country. Eighteen million is a huge figure. There are 1,300,000 – one million three hundred thousand – of those who die each year while needing that care. I want to see care for those people, who are afraid, also to become a priority area. I want them to reply as easily as you did to that question, “I have no fear.” No fear because they know that the state will protect them, the system will protect them, and this help is very inexpensive.

And to protect them, there is no need to reshuffle the economy and re-shape the GDP or whatever. What is needed is your very firm decision, as firm as regarding the issues discussed earlier. Well, that is probably all. I just want those people to also be able to quietly say “We have no fear” thanks to your efforts. Thank you very much. I have the relevant papers with me.

Vladimir Putin: All right, I will definitely take them.

Firstly, I completely agree with you that our discussions, our internal discussions should be centred on our problems, domestic problems, our people’s lives, which is actually a major part of our work. And as you said, the fact that we are discussing war – and not just war but terrorism and other similar issues – is due to the way our host Mr Lukyaunov organised the discussion, I am not the one who organises it, it is done by the host, so let us put all the blame on him.

As to the problem you raised, it is obviously very sensitive, demanding special attention and tact from the state. Ultimately – you said it yourself – the state allocated the funds. The fact that only 12 or 16 percent were used means the work was poorly organised. I assure you that it does not mean that I will say to you, “The money was allocated and you did not use it, so that’s it, good-bye.” Do not worry, this will never happen.

I know the way money is spent, and very often, funds allocated by the state to handle certain matters of absolute priority do not reach the end receiver. If they are returned to the budget, it does not mean that they will stay there for good and the necessary funds will never be allocated again. We will certainly keep doing it.

Yet we have to admit that whatever the state might do, it is impossible to completely solve any problem 100 percent. Life is more complicated and keeps throwing in more and more of new problems for us. Of course, efforts by the state are very important, as are those by society and religious organisations, by the way. It is religious organisations, and I mean our traditional faiths, that create the internal strength and internal basis for any person to feel secure in this fast-changing and fairly dangerous world.

The state will definitely pursue all the tasks in the context you have just mentioned. Do not worry. I will take your documents, of course. It does not mean we will wrap up the topic just because someone underused the funds. Have no doubt. I will see why such a small percentage was spent. It looks strange.

Fyodor Lukyanov: I seem to be the chief militarist here. I am going to prove this is not true. Behind me is the world’s most cheerful man, a food producer, who made an indelible impression during the conference.

Head of the Cheesemakers Union of Russia Oleg Sirota: Good afternoon, Mr President. I am a farmer from Moscow Region, I make cheese. Let me begin by saying on behalf of the farmers, we have been telling you this repeatedly over the last four years….

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr Sirota, the concise version, please.

Oleg Sirota: I wanted to thank you for the sanctions. In fact, we had a long discussion about this with experts at our session…

Vladimir Putin: You should thank the Americans, not me.

Oleg Sirota: That is what we were debating, who to thank, Obama, Merkel or you? Anyway, thank you for all of that.

Russian agriculture is clearly thriving. Take me: I sold my flat, my car, my business, made an investment, and my cheese-making factory has been growing 300 percent a year. The agricultural breakthrough is boosted by protectionism, the sanction shield, the cheap ruble, and care, such as record subsidies.

Vladimir Putin: What kind of cheese do you produce?

Oleg Sirota: Hard and semi-hard. We are thinking about exporting them. Next year, our cheese will make Vienna, Munich and Berlin tremble. I assure you, we already have an agreement.

Vladimir Putin: Will they tremble because your product is delicious, or because it is something else?

Oleg Sirota: Because it is delicious.

Vladimir Putin: Or is it the smell?

Oleg Sirota: Our cheese is tasty, hard and cheap thanks to the ruble rates.

It is attracting investors, including international ones. Everyone has begun investing in Russia’s agriculture. We have partners from Switzerland who relocated to Russia and are building farms. I was asked repeatedly during the session about what would happen if the sanctions were cancelled. What would I do? Would it be a disaster?

So I have a question myself: will the Government continue to pay close attention to our industry, to support it and to continue with protectionism, if the sanctions are lifted? Because we need to be able to sleep well for a few years.

And a personal question, if I may. Mr President, I am Russia’s record holder in that I have tried nine times to give you my cheese as a gift, and nine times it was confiscated by your security detail, who must be doing a great job.

Vladimir Putin: And enjoying great meals as well.

Oleg Sirota: It would seem so. So my question is whether they have let the cheese through, Mr President, or not? One time I even wrote a message thanking you for the sanctions. They said they were going to pass it on. Did they? Or did they eat it themselves?

Vladimir Putin: They ate it.

Oleg Sirota: I see.

Vladimir Putin: They ate it themselves.

This is not a joke, what I am going to tell you. My colleagues gave me several bottles of wine, and my security asked whether they should test it or if I would drink it. I told them to check it. Especially given that I am not big on alcohol.

Regarding cheese and what happens if sanctions are lifted. First of all, we are not seeing them readying to lift any sanctions so you can sleep tight.

Second. The longer it goes on, the less likely those who quit Russia’s market are to be able to return. You know this better than I do, as a producer. If your product is of high quality, as it seems to be the case, and if you are thinking about exporting, it means that your quality is on par with competition, but production and logistics costs will always be lower. Therefore, your rivals will have a hard time pushing you out of the domestic market. I think it is virtually impossible, especially if you work with retail chains and shops. Still, you need to be ready that they may try.

You know, I want to say this. You and I, let me say “we”. Why? Because we are onto one and the same task – developing Russia’s economy, and, in this case, such an important industry as agriculture. We need to be ready to face competition. There is no use thinking that we will continue to restrict and block foreigners, keeping our market exclusive for domestic producers. If we do, the quality will fall in the end. I am not talking about cheese alone, but about all agricultural production, and not just agricultural. We need to create natural market competition, at this time at the very least between domestic producers. We will be focusing on this. Support to agriculture will not dwindle, we will be stepping it up.

Oleg Sirota: Excellent. Thank you.

Mr President, let me jump on the occasion before they take the mic…

Fyodor Lukyanov: Stop, Oleg, you are not the only one here.

Oleg Sirota: I have got a head of cheese for you. Please, come and get it, it has been waiting for you for four years.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Here it comes.

Vladimir Putin: Let me have it right now, or it will not get through again.

Oleg Sirota: Good.

Vladimir Putin: I hope to finally get your cheese. Where are you based?

Oleg Sirota: Istra, Moscow Region.

Vladimir Putin: Is the cheese there?

Oleg Sirota: On the shelf in storage.

Vladimir Putin: In storage?

Oleg Sirota: It has been waiting for you for four years.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: What is more, the quality has not deteriorated.

Vladimir Putin: That is because it is good. What do you call it?

Oleg Sirota: You must have tasted it while stationed in Germany. It is Bergkäse, a hard Alpine cheese.

Vladimir Putin: Great.

Oleg Sirota: We call it Istra Cheese.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do inform Karin Kneissl that they are going to tremble over there in Vienna. After all, the cheese is coming.

Vladimir Putin: And the consumers will like it.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Of course.

Ragida Dergham, go ahead, please.

Ragida Dergham: Thank you, my name is Ragida Dergham. I am Founder and Executive Chairman of Beirut Institute. It’s a think tank for the Arab region with a global reach. So I have specific question about three countries, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

On Saudi Arabia, of course, the world is preoccupied with the developments, and I’m wondering what consequences or… Do you see that there may be consequences, on your particular relationships, Russian-Saudi relations, given that you have been eager to have good relations and beyond.

On Egypt, you had magnificent success yesterday with President el-Sisi. Did you agree also that Egypt would play a role in Syria, particularly, in rehabilitating the government of Syria with the Arab League and the Gulf states?

And lastly, on Iran. Why, Mr President, don’t you feel comfortable asking the Iranians to withdraw from Syria since you have said in the past all forces would go. Why can’t you be specific? That would help probably in bringing your own troops back home. And maybe the public would be more comfortable then being worried about their troops. And also, this is a big issue between you and the United States. And I think I have heard you say you would like to have good relations. Can you solve that? Do you feel comfortable to deal with the Iranian question and have better relations with the United States? Thank you, sir.

Vladimir Putin: I will begin with the last part of your question, Iran. It is better to worry about our military personnel on the territory of Syria instead of having to worry about our fighters on Russia’s territory.

Fighting terrorists while they are still far away from our borders is better for us in order to prevent them from coming to our country. This has already happened in the not-so-distant past, as I have already mentioned. It is better for us to fight them over there, rather than here. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

Second, coming back to Iran. It is not up to Russia to persuade Iran to leave Syria. After all, both Syria and Iran are sovereign countries, and they should build their own relationship.

Yes, Russia does have serious, deep-rooted ties both with Iran and Syria. Moreover, we have been able to resolve certain issues by engaging in dialogue and discussions with our Iranian partners, including on withdrawing offensive systems from the Israeli border and the Golan Heights.

As for the complete withdrawal, this is a separate issue that has to be resolved through dialogue between Iran and Syria, as well as between Iran and the United States. We are ready to join this discussion.

Third, in order for Syria to move forward with the help of its allies, including Iran, the Syrian state needs a safe and enabling environment.

This means that those who want Iranian troops to withdraw from Syria must guarantee non-interference in the domestic affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, stop funding terrorists or using them for political aims to fight the legitimate regime in Syria, its government, and so on. This is a complicated matter that is relevant for all parties to this conflict.

As I have already pointed out in public, Russia believes that once the decisions of this kind are taken, including the definitive victory over terrorists, all foreign troops must leave the Syrian Arab Republic as the country improves its defence capability and in keeping with the wishes of the Syrian government. This is the main criteria.

Now concerning Saudi Arabia. What is it that is bothering you? I can’t understand. We have built really good relations with Saudi Arabia in recent years.

Please, specify your question about Saudi Arabia. What is it that is perplexing you in this regard? Why should our relations with Saudi Arabia break down?

Ragida Dergham: As you know, because of the developments in Istanbul, at the Saudi Consulate, there is a big interest worldwide in the investigation regarding the assassination or the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist who was our colleague and has been a participant in the Valdai Group. So this is what I am talking about. Right now, of course, there is pressure on President Trump that may reflect on the mid-term elections, and there are countries pulling out and countries being concerned, I mean, media and others are concerned about continuing to be present in Saudi Arabia given the alleged feeling that maybe someone in the government may be involved in this atrocity, of killing of Jamal Khashoggi. That is what I meant. Do you think it will impact your relations with Saudi Arabia at all? And please do not forget the questions about Egypt.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As far as I know, the journalist, who has disappeared and whom you have just mentioned, lived in the United States of America. He lived in the US, not in Russia. In this sense, the US, of course, bears certain responsibility for what has happened to him. This goes without saying.

He was the one to go to the United States for asylum. In this connection, I would like to say the following. First, we should wait for the results of the investigation to become available. How can we, Russia, start spoiling relations with Saudi Arabia while being unaware of what has really happened over there?

As far as I can judge, this man was to a certain extent a member of the Saudi elite. In some way or other, he was connected with certain ruling circles. It is hard to say, what is going on there.

But we can see that complicated processes are also taking place within the US elites. I hope America will not go as far as Saudi Arabia did. But we don’t know what, in fact, has happened over there. So why should we take any steps directed at downgrading our relations, if we do not understand what is really happening?

If someone understands it and believes that a murder has been committed, then I hope that some evidence will be presented and we will adopt relevant decisions based on this evidence. This gives me a pretext to say something else.

From time to time, there are steps taken against Russia and even sanctions are imposed, as I have repeatedly said, on the basis of flimsy excuses and pretexts. They groundlessly claim that we have allegedly used chemical weapons, even though, incidentally, we have destroyed our chemical weapons, while the United States has failed to do so despite the obligation to that effect it assumed.

So, there is no proof against Russia but steps are being taken. According to claims, the murder was committed in Istanbul, but no steps are being taken.

Uniform approaches to problems of this kind should be sorted. To reiterate: Our policy towards Saudi Arabia has evolved over a long period of time, over many years. Of course, it is a misfortune that a man has disappeared, but we must understand what has really happened.

Yes, as for Egypt, we have very good, friendly relations. We recently marked the 75^th anniversary of our diplomatic relations and they are not being revived, they have been revived and the quality and level of our relations are actively improving.

We have ambitious plans for joint work in the economy and energy, I mean both hydrocarbons and nuclear energy. We are starting to build a nuclear power plant, as you know, using a Russian-provided $25 billion loan. It is a good loan with an advantageous interest rate. The payments of the principal amount will begin in 2029, so these conditions are quite good. Thus, we both provide orders for our power-generating equipment manufacturers and develop Egypt’s economy.

We cooperate very effectively in industrial production: we have agreed to obtain a large, 525-hectare plot of land, where we will build timber processing, engineering, pharmaceutical and other facilities, creating 35,000 jobs.

As for the overall value of investments, we count on at least $7 billion. Our state allocation will be $190 million to create the necessary infrastructure.

We also work a lot in the area of military-technical cooperation and purely military cooperation. We regularly hold joint military exercises, both in Russia and Egypt. The most recent one, I think, finished in Egypt just yesterday or maybe is still on.

We have developed our relationship and will go further with this, and our partners are interested in doing so. As for Egypt’s participation in the Syrian settlement, it is significant. There is the so-called Cairo Platform that unites a number of opposition groups.

We see that Cairo has a positive influence on these people and encourages them to work with the Government of Syria, but, naturally, they have their own position on how the work should be organised. As usual, the eventual result will arise from compromises and agreements.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, a practical question to follow: Is flight security in Egypt no longer an issue? Has it been resolved?

Vladimir Putin: No, it has not. As you know, we resumed flights between Moscow and Cairo. Charter flights to Sharm El Sheikh and Hurghada are to reopen soon. We discussed this issue with President el-Sisi, and I think that these routes will restart soon.

However, our experts at the Ministry of Transport and special security services, along with their Egyptian colleagues, have a bit more work to do. We know what they have to do and by what time. I will not get ahead of myself, but I hope it will happen soon.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Professor Toloraya, please.

Georgy Toloraya: Georgy Toloraya, the Russky Mir Foundation and the National Committee for BRICS Studies.

Mr President, in the morning we widely discussed Asia, the east wind and Russia’s European-Pacific characteristics. In fact, I think that this autumn marks a milestone with respect to Asian politics: the Eastern Economic Forum was attended for the first time by all the leaders of Northeast Asia except North Korea; I also know that you will attend the East Asia Forum in Kuala Lumpur.

There are big problems in Asia, and one of them, my favourite, is the Korean problem. Now we can see significant progress. Last year when we met it seemed that we were on the brink of war, but now we may be on the brink of peace.

How do you think Russia can help the peace process, in particular, the agreement between North Korea and the US? It is no secret that the Russian diplomats do a lot, but maybe they can do more.

And regarding sanctions. We suffer under the sanctions. Our trilateral project, Rajin-Khasan, suffers. Isn’t it time for us to take some measures in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the situation around the Korean Peninsula is moving in a positive direction in general. You have noted this, too; we all can see this. You have just said that we were on the brink of war, and now, thank god, we are on the brink of peace.

Direct contacts between the US administration and North Korea are ongoing. I hope they will continue soon, in the near future. We hear that preparations for a new meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un are underway. I also hope it will take place.

Let me express my position once again; I have already spoken about this. I do not think that this work will be effective if it is a one-way street. Demanding total disarmament and total denuclearisation from North Korea without providing any security guarantees is hardly a good approach.

Nevertheless, anything is possible. If North Korea believes the promises of the US, this could be the best way to de-escalate the situation. It is difficult for me to say.

What positive role could Russia play here? We could implement those trilateral plans we have discussed many times: connecting the South Korea – North Korea – Russia railway; power lines; and a pipeline from Russia to South Korea via North Korea, including gas routes. We still could establish some joint enterprises. Of course, it would be a contribution.

This is because joint work in the economy unites us and creates conditions to resolve political and security issues. Let us not forget that China has done a great deal in this regard. Russia and the People’s Republic of China have a joint platform. We are trying – I will not repeat this now because I have said it many times – to comply with these joint agreements.

What else can Russia do? I think (I have also said this many times, but I will repeat it once again) that it is very important to establish security guarantees for North Korea. Of course, Russia could also play a certain role here, because I believe that if we want these guarantees to be effective they should be international.

We do not want to see any military action there or any tensions. Russia and North Korea are neighbours; so Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a nuclear power, as well as other participants of this process – China and the United States – could of course make a contribution by creating and participating in the system of guarantees.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yerlan Karin.

Director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Yerlan Karin: Good evening, Mr President. I would like to take the Asian issue further. Five years ago, during his visit to Kazakhstan, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke about the Belt and Road Initiative.

Two years later, you and the Chinese President adopted a joint statement on integrating the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Today, given the current events in the international political arena, all these sanctions and more trade disputes between China and the United States, are these initiative still relevant? Are they losing their importance, or are there new prospects? I would like to hear your point of view.

And the second question. In August, together with your colleagues, leaders of Caspian states, you adopted a very important document in Aktau, a convention that, as many think, has become a sort of constitution of the Caspian region. How do you see the further cooperation in the region and the resolution of other issues related to this area?

Vladimir Putin: First, as regards China's Belt and Road Initiative and everything related to it, including the economic aspect. This initiative of our friend, and I indeed consider him our friend, Chinese President Xi Jinping, is becoming even more relevant. This is because all economic restrictions are, on the one hand, putting pressure on the global economy and markets, which is a negative factor, yet these actions create certain windows of opportunities.

This means that in these circumstances Russia can carve out an additional niche. For instance (this is not the key point, but still): Americans used to deliver a great deal of soybeans to China, and now we will slowly enter this Chinese market with our soy, and we will give our Chinese partners the opportunity to produce soybeans in the Russian Far East in the event they want to invest their money in this agricultural sector.

Say, in aircraft engineering. Indeed, China like us was a major purchaser of Boeings. And now together we have intensified the work on a wide-bodied long-range aircraft. We will move on and construct big heavy helicopters. We will jointly continue our work on space programmes.

We have a huge trade turnover when it comes to the field of military-technical cooperation and we have agreed that we will engage not only in sales but we will also transfer technology. We are interested in this not to the detriment of our security and nobody should have any doubts about this. This is why I mention the high level of trust between our countries that we have attained.

The development of infrastructure is extremely important for the region in general, so we welcome, say as part of this Chinese initiative – the Silk Road – participation of our Chinese friends in the development of the Northern Sea Route. These are absolutely specific things.

The Chinese Silk Road Fund is one of the shareholders of our new LNG enterprise in the Arctic established by our company NOVATEK jointly with the French company Total. This is real work.

The enterprise has been built and is up and running. Therefore, someone’s sanctions do not make this initiative less relevant, on the contrary it is taking on a new aspect.

Our trade turnover with EU countries is actually growing. It shrank by 50% but now it is increasing year after year. Trade with the Asian-Pacific region is expanding at priority rates. While the EU share in our trade turnover is 42 percent, the Asian countries have already reached 31 percent and it is on the rise.

Of course, we are interested in building infrastructure, including in the field of transport. Of course, we are interested in building up the operations of the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur railways. We expect the railway cargo traffic to go up four times and the cargo traffic along the Northern Sea Route to grow up to 80 million tonnes.

And all this is absolutely naturally compatible with the Chinese initiative and our development within the Eurasian Economic Union where Kazakhstan is also one of the key players.

So, we are happy with the way this situation is developing in this sphere and we will be most active in working jointly with all our partners.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Andrei Sushentsov, welcome.

Andrei Sushentsov: I am Andrei Sushentsov from the School of International Studies at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).

There have been media reports on a number of countries developing biological weapons agents, and the issue of the presence of the United States' biological laboratories on the territory of other countries has long been a concern among experts.

Recently, the former Georgian minister of state security presented documents to the media regarding this. There is a convention that prohibits the development of biological weapons. What measures can be taken in response? And is this data true?

Vladimir Putin: I would not judge whether this is true or not. I saw this statement by the former Georgian minister of state security. This is definitely cause for concern. These developments – if they are actually taking place – are very dangerous and are related to the latest achievements in genetics.

From what I have seen, I can only repeat what is there: it is about finding agents that can selectively affect people depending on their ethnic group, and over two or three generations, allegedly, they have used animals to conduct such experiments.

Dogs and rats have relatively short lifecycles, and in the second or third generation changes occur that dramatically alter the initial look. If this is so then it poses a big threat.

How can this be prevented? Everyone has to be aware that nothing comes from nothing and nothing disappears; every action has a reaction, or rather, an opposite. So if someone is developing this technology, they have to understand that others will be doing so as well. So it is better to sit at the negotiating table beforehand and develop unified rules of conduct in this very sensitive area.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Yaroslav Lisovolik.

Chief Economist of the Eurasian Development Bank Yaroslav Lissovolik: Good evening, Mr President. During today's discussion, you mentioned the refocusing Russia's foreign trade towards Asia. The question is to what extent this can be expressed in currencies other than the dollar. Are there opportunities for the de-dollarization of the global economy?

There are different opinions, and this issue is being actively discussed not only in Russia but internationally as well. It would seem that given the exaggerated role of the dollar in past decades, there is a lot of room for de-dollarization. On the other hand, the developing markets' currency volatility poses certain questions here. What is your opinion regarding the opportunity for the de-dollarization of the global economy?

Vladimir Putin: First, we are not making an effort to redirect our foreign trade from Europe towards Asia. This is just happening naturally. For example, our trade with the European Union was 450 billion (euros or dollars, I do not remember exactly, but that’s not important), and today it doesn’t even amount to 300 billion, or even 250 billion. But there is growth: last year it was 23 percent and during the first eight months of this year it was 22 percent.

In Asia, mutual trade is growing slightly faster. So, as I mentioned, Russia’s foreign trade is 41 percent European Union, and 31 percent the Asian countries. If this trend continues, the figures will soon become equal.

As regards using the dollar in international transactions, I am not the only one talking about this. For instance, the French president recently mentioned this. He said Europe should increase its economic and financial sovereignty. This means shifting from the US dollar, and France is one of the United States' major trade and economic partners.

As I recently said, our American friends are quarrelling with their bread and butter. They challenge the reliability of the dollar as a universal tool for international settlement. Once again, this is a typical mistake for an empire.

Why is this happening? Because – and I am not lashing out at anyone – but an empire always thinks it can make minor mistakes and allow excess, because its might makes it all irrelevant.

But the number of these excesses and minor mistakes inevitably grows, and the time comes when this cannot be handled either from a security standpoint or from an economic standpoint. Obviously, this is the way our American friends are acting; they are devaluating confidence in the dollar as a universal settlement tool and the world's sole reserve currency.

And of course, everyone started giving it more thought. The EU countries want to conduct trade with Iran. They do not think Iran has violated anything in its nuclear deal with the international community. And it actually has not. But our US partners decided that this deal should be revised, but the Europeans disagree with that.

The Americans are imposing sanctions, so-called secondary sanctions, on everyone cooperating with Iran. Certainly, why should companies lose if they are working in the US market? Some will leave anyway and someone else, who is not tied up with the US, will be pleased to continue working there, however, settlements should be arranged for. For this reason, an alternative to SWIFT, the current international settlement system, is being created, and more transactions are being completed in national currencies.

You are certainly right that volatility in the developing markets, the volatility of national currencies, is very high, which is unavoidable. Still, certain instruments are being introduced that can reduce this volatility. For example, a pool of national currencies and a joint bank have been created in the framework of BRICS, which means that such instruments are already on the way. It’s true that this bank cannot be compared with the IMF in terms of potential, but at least something is being done in this respect.

Indeed, currency volatility exists. However, if we keep working at this, and we are working on it, insurance support or other ways to hedge risk will be found, they are real. I will not go into details, but even now, in dealing with some countries, we have found certain instruments to avoid these risks. We can link them to certain agreements; we can do whatever needs to be done.

This will not happen today or tomorrow. And our companies in, say, the oil and gas field, in energy commodities, are not interested in giving up dollar transactions at this point and going to only national currencies.

But if these instruments are created – that provide for giving up the US dollar and disposing of national currency volatility – a transition will be guaranteed. As soon as this happens, hard times will come for the US dollar as a universal unit in accounting.

We will see. We will definitely move in this direction, not because we mean to undermine the US dollar but because we want to guarantee our own security, because they impose sanctions on us and do not give us a chance to operate in US dollars.

This is why we have reduced our gold and foreign currency reserves in dollar equivalent in the treasury; the Central Bank had to withdraw from this.

Why are they doing this? In my opinion, it would be wiser of them to pursue their goals without discrediting their national currency. Nevertheless, many companies in the US are following this route. I believe they are making a big mistake.

Fyodor Lukyanov: We have people here in this room who know how to live without the dollar. Mr. Sajjadpour from Iran, please.

Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour: Thank you, Mr President. I am Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour, Institute for Political and International Studies, Iran. Thank you again.

I have a question about militarisation of the Middle East. Three facts. First, there is military activity in Syria beyond the control of the Syrian government. Second, there are people in the United States imagining that we are responsible for the invasion of Iraq <…>. Third, there are some actors in the region who really want a military confrontation, bringing the US to a broader military confrontation.

How do you see the picture and what would be the US response? Do you feel there is more militarisation in the region? And does this militarisation need to be contained? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The key underlying factor of all the problems in the Middle East is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; you know as well as I do, in fact everyone knows this. Whatever our perspective on the Middle East, we will come to this in the end anyway; therefore, every effort must be made to resolve it, to establish direct contacts between the Israelis and the Palestinians, to resume multilateral efforts to resolve this multi-year, even decades-long crisis. This is my first point.

My second point is the following. There are new crises associated with terrorism, and the actions of our American partners are doing little to improve the situation in the region. On the contrary, truth be told, we repeat a hundredth time, and you just said: the invasion of Iraq resulted in a sharp increase in the terrorist threat due to the weakening of statehood. That's what happened.

And Libya? In general, that state ceased to exist. It is being torn to pieces between separate armed units still fighting among themselves. This is a catastrophe. Gaddafi once said Libya was an insurmountable obstacle to the movement of refugees and immigrants from Africa to Europe. He said: “What are you doing? You are destroying this wall.” So it was destroyed. This is what is happening right now. Seeking for a guilty party. But they have only themselves to blame.

It’s okay to dislike a regime in a country. Tastes differ. But, destroying the existing regime and offering nothing in return or offering something that is unacceptable or impossible for the people due to historical specifics is absolutely thoughtless, immoral policy that leads to the worst results.

Our position is that we probably can support someone or sympathise with someone without directly interfering in the affairs of other states, but any move should primarily rely on the country’s internal development. True, this requires patience, and a delicate handling of the current situation, but there is no other option. Any other behaviour, attempts to impose something from the outside leads to the gravest consequences, as in Libya or Iraq. This is the result of monopoly, the result of a unipolar world, which they tried to create at the time. Thank goodness, this situation of unipolarity and monopoly is already coming to an end and it has practically disappeared. I believe this is very dangerous, including for the monopolists, because they lose their bearings and get a sense of permissiveness, and this is always very dangerous and leads to dire consequences.

But at any rate, at a certain level, as we now deal with the Syrian crisis, we have developed a way of cooperation between Russia, Iran and Turkey, which is working and is rather effective, although we do not use the same approach for everything that is taking place in the region. Nevertheless, we did manage to do this. We have developed enough contacts, at any rate, at a working level, with all the participants in this process, including with the United States. As a matter of fact, the US military behave in a more responsible way than certain politicians, but all of this, in any case, paves the way for expanding the basis of joint work.

Militarisation is always a bad thing. What good can it do? It’s an explosive region. We know Turkey’s grievances against the selfsame United States: It is arming various groups. We see what is happening. I have mentioned the current goings-on on the left bank of the Euphrates: They are supplying arms there as well as they are bankrolling the armed groups, but, regrettably, they have failed to cope with the threat, which is yet to be finally eliminated. Seven hundred people have been taken hostage. It’s a disaster! But, alas, this is really happening. We should work together.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you say that monopolism is a bad thing. America, for example, used to artificially dismember monopolies on the market to create competition. Should we perhaps do the same in politics?

Vladimir Putin: You know, there is talk about a tragedy that has allegedly occurred – I don’t know for certain – in Istanbul, where the case in point was also dismemberment. These are always nasty events linked to the use of force or something of the kind. People should find common ground through talks. I think, life will anyway force the parties to sit down together at the negotiating table and team up to neutralise common threats.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.

Timothy Colton.

Timothy Colton: Thank you very much. Timothy Colton, Harvard University. I have a question about Russian public opinion.

As is well known, since you became leader of the country all those years ago in 2000, you have had very steadily positive ratings in the eyes of your fellow citizens. Approval of your work in office is usually higher than 60 percent and sometimes is as high as 80 percent. This is quite extraordinary. But Russian sociologists also ask a number of other questions, but one in particular, which is very interesting. It is a question about the direction that the country is taking. And if we look back, we have this information all the way back to the 1990s. There is often a rather large difference or gap, that very commonly has been the case that support for you personally coincides with many Russians actually thinking that the country is going in the wrong direction. Now, after 2014, the so-called ‘Crimea bounce’ occurred, your ratings went even higher than usual but at that point for several years, more Russians, a lot more Russians thought that the country was going in a positive direction and not in a so-called ‘tupik.’ But this has changed this year, all of a sudden. It seems that more Russians think that the country is going in the wrong direction even as they continue to support you. So what is your interpretation of this disparity?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t see any inconsistencies. I’ll explain what I mean.

First of all, who can be fond of the 1990s and the early 2000s that you have also mentioned? These were the years, when the great and huge state was disintegrating. This is my number one point. Many people both in Russia and the former republics of the USSR don’t like this. Just ask people over there and they will tell you. True, they have their own interpretations but anyway they think they felt more secure, calm and confident in the Soviet Union. In a united, huge and powerful state, there were more prospects.

Of course, there are many changes and people in many of these countries feel the advantages of sovereignty. After all, everything that happened at that time was Russia’s initiative – not even its suggestion! When they in the post-Soviet space start accusing us of something, I always ask them: “But who did that?” It’s we, Russia, who did it. Well, not me, of course, it was the doing of Russia’s former leaders, but Russia all the same. This is my first point.

My second point is that no one who remembers how it was in the 1990s wants to make a comeback. Street crime was on the rampage; the economy, social sphere, healthcare and education were in tatters, all was lost. There was total poverty! So, as I see it, the main achievements that have been scored over the past years are not only the domestic political stabilisation or the solution of the most pressing problems related to fighting terrorism in our country – we had a civil war on our hands and combat operations… Who would like to return to that state? No one!

But I think what is most important is the restoration of the economy, economic growth, our own foundation for development and the growth of people’s incomes. But, of course, everything is relative: things might have been a bit better yesterday and are a bit worse today, but, nevertheless, the income level has improved radically.

Yes, there are still many people in the country who live below poverty line, and this number has grown a little since the 2008 crisis. But in the early 2000s, they accounted for almost 40 percent of the population, almost half of the country. Is there a difference? Of course, there is. But nevertheless there are fluctuations. After the 2008 crisis incomes declined somewhat, and who would like that? Of course, everybody understands it, and so do I.

As for Crimea. Yes, in Russia, the actions of the President and the state in general are considered to have been just and fair. Because historically this land belonged to Russia, and its inhabitants wanted to return to Russia. This is important because some people prefer to ignore it and pretend that such sentiments do not exist. But in fact, the public reaction is the best proof that it was fair.

The Government is currently introducing a series of painful but necessary measures related to the pension law and the raising of the retirement age. All other countries are doing the same. Who would like that? I understand these people perfectly, those who are discontent.

But do you know what the Russian phenomenon is? Our people are smart. They may not like something, but they understand that the Government has to do it. And if not today, then we would have to do it tomorrow anyway. By 2024, we plan to reach the life expectancy of 78 years, and by 2030 it will be 80 years. Well, inevitably we will have to raise the retirement age, but then without any transition period or any benefits.

What did we do here? What did I suggest we do to make the transition easier? People who have reached their retirement age but have not yet retired and do not receive pensions, will be able to receive benefits both in utilities and taxes, and others.

Most people understand that it is an inevitable move. There is nothing to be happy about, but understanding is key. It is important that people trust the leadership and their Government. I think this trust has not been lost and in my opinion, this is the most important key factor in the domestic political life.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Sabine Fischer, please.

Sabine Fischer: Thank you. My name is Sabine Fischer, and I work for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP).

Good afternoon, Mr President. I would like to continue the discussion about Russian society. Last week, the Civil Initiatives Committee published a new report that says the Russian society has a growing demand for changes, and which is proved by the recent opinion polls.

What do you think about what the report authors call a change in the collective consciousness of Russian society, and how are you going to deal with it?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is a perfectly natural thing that people strive for change. Doesn’t Germany have such a demand? Let us look at the election results in Bavaria and it will be clear if people want change or not. As I see it, they want it a lot.

In general, Europeans want change. In Great Britain, they voted for Brexit, which is unbelievable. And in Russia people want change too.

However, it is unlikely that most people in Russia want revolutionary changes. We had enough of revolutions in the 20^th century and even in our recent history.

Therefore our task is to time these changes well, which, by the way, we are doing in close cooperation with civil society. This is the key to success in our domestic policy.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you want any changes for yourself?

Vladimir Putin: I want this discussion to end already. (Laughter.) It is time for me to leave for Uzbekistan and I want to play hockey on the way.

Fyodor Lukyanov:So my question was well-timed.

But let us take some more questions?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mikhail Pogrebinsky, please.

Director of the Kiev Centre for Political and Conflict Resolution Studies Mikhail Pogrebinsky: Mr President, I think the conversation would be incomplete without mentioning Ukraine, the fraternal country I come from. Although Mr Lavrov described in detail the homeostasis in this difficult matter, maybe you can add something optimistic here?

I believe my country’s Government is doing its best to drive the solution to this problem into a dead end, and the US, as represented by Kurt Volker is helping it, while at the same time the Normandy format seems to have frozen and nothing it happening there.

Is there, in your opinion, maybe not in the immediate future, but in the medium term, any chance of healing this bleeding wound in our relations and steering the situation out of the deadlock?

Vladimir Putin: I will only have to repeat what I was already saying earlier. We all know that the crisis in Donbass is, of course, the most pressing problem. I think many people will agree with me.

Terrorist attacks and assassinations of people elected by the population to administer these regions are, on the part of the Ukrainian secret services, the worst method to establish relations with these territories.

The best way of doing this is to implement the Minsk Agreements. No one forced their hand. This document is a compromise which Ukraine has accepted. But today, obviously, we can say just anything when it comes to this.

But it is quite clear to everyone that the current Ukrainian authorities are not only shirking from implementing the Minsk Agreements but also have no intention to do this for the moment, including for domestic political reasons: I mean the approaching presidential and parliamentary elections.

All political forces have their hands tied because any move to accommodate the opposite party at home – and you know this better than me – will be interpreted as, pardon me, high treason.

But can we hope for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements under these circumstances? The situation being what it is, we ought, I think, to desire just one thing – lest they should conceive the temptation to aggravate the situation and use the exacerbation in domestic political affairs, including during the preparations for the presidential and later parliamentary elections. This seems to be the best-case scenario we can expect for now.

But, of course, Russia is interested in a full-scale revival of relations with Ukraine. What the current Ukrainian authorities are doing today means driving the situation into an impasse. More than that, they are pursuing an anti-state and anti-national policy identical to the one that was conducted by Saakashvili in Georgia, who at first sought to conceal [his plans] and then made an attempt to implement [them] by attacking South Ossetia.

As a result of its openly criminal actions, Georgia has lost vast territories, which was precisely the consequence of Saakashvili’s acts and doings. It would be very sad, if the current Ukrainian authorities followed suit.

I hope this will not happen. But what has taken place recently in the economy and social sphere? The Ukrainian economy is in the process of being completely deindustrialised. There is practically no investment; they are just talking about all kinds of investments, but there is nothing of the kind in reality.

How can one work with an economy that is constantly shaken and ripped apart from within by internal political crises, with a country where military hysteria is whipped up? Will investors go there? Certainly not. And the things it had before were all ruined.

Where is the shipbuilding industry that Ukraine used to be so proud of? Where is the aircraft industry that was created by the whole Soviet Union over decades? How many people are employed there today? The same thing is happening to all the other sectors that Ukraine deservedly prided itself on in previous decades.

This is exactly what I said would happen. Let me again, though I am aware that this will fall on deaf ears, repeat a rhetorical question: Why were our Western partners, above all, the then leadership of the European Commission, pushing so hard for such a tough scenario involving Ukraine being dragged into this association with the European Union?

What did it give Ukraine? The opening up of EU markets? They now want Ukraine to allow the export of round timber. But this is not Siberia. Three or four years of felling and there will be no forest left at all.

The American partners are now pressing Ukraine to use genetically modified organisms in its agriculture. If this happens, we will be forced to completely shut off the border as GMOs are prohibited in our country. Next, it will start exporting humus, etc. There is nothing else it can do.

Therefore, I believe that the current policy followed by Ukraine’s government is aimed solely at – what are they selling? – Russophobia and anti-Russian sentiments. They have no other goods left.

In return, they are forgiven for everything, because even in their wildest dreams our so-called partners would not envisage that Ukraine and Russia might cooperate in any way as they fear that competition in the world would grow as a result of such cooperation.

In fact, we are not laying any specific claims whatsoever. We just wanted to function normally. So, why was it necessary to cut open the Ukrainian markets without giving anything in return, while constantly pressing the Ukrainian government to raise domestic prices for energy, for gas, aware that the purchasing power of the population verges on zero?

Even in former times, meagre sums were collected for the use of energy resources, and today, probably, none at all is collected. What is there to pay with? Pensions are at zero, revenues are falling.

Therefore, we should wait till the internal political cycle runs its course. And I hope very much that we will manage to build at least some relations and negotiate something with the country's new leadership. We are ready for it and we want it.

Jean-Pierre Raffarin: Thank you, Mr President, for this large and deep discussion.

I am in politics for 40 years, and I have never seen the world so dangerous. We have a lot of conflicts, and we have a lot of threats, and we have a lot of war everywhere; school for wars. We have never schooled for peace. But we know that peace is not something coming from the sky; peace is work, hard work. So I would like to know how we can promote peace, promote antiterrorism, make reforms – for example, for multilateralism, for the WTO, for the Security Council? How can we develop a dialogue with people we do not agree with? And I think it is very important for people to know that no one wants a war in their country. They know that war is awful, as you said, a disaster. So, in this matter, how can we have some development of the culture of peace? Such a very big point for everybody in society. And so, maybe together we can make peace great again.

Vladimir Putin: There is a lot to be said about this situation. I think the problems that have appeared in the past few years or so concerning global politics are related to the unipolar world that, as just pointed out, appeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Everything is recovering now though and the world is becoming or has already become multipolar, and it will inevitably lead to the need to recreate the importance of international law as well as international global institutes such as the United Nations.

It is necessary to, based on the UN Charter and on everything that was achieved in the past decades, on mutual trust – and one needs to handle the rest of trust with care, to learn to listen, hear and respect each other and be ready to find compromises.

I think that it is inevitable in the long run. The sooner it happens, the better. We are ready for this.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, there is another question standing between you and the changes, and I cannot just sweep it under the rug , because there is a winner of the Valdai Award this year. Actually, there are two winners, but this is of particular importance. Our colleague Piotr Dutkiewicz was rightfully awarded the prize and let him ask the final question.

Director of the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Carleton University (Canada) Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr President, you have taken part in the Valdai Club for 15 years now. It is a long period of time, and many changes have taken place.

Permit me to ask you a question. During these 15 years, how has your perception of Russia and what surrounds it changed? And what is most important is how did your perception of yourself as Russia’s leader change?

Vladimir Putin: Please let’s just skip the second part of your question. I think it would be rather unbecoming to evaluate myself.

As for Russia and my attitude towards our country, I can tell you that my love of Russia, and I am not afraid to express myself in such a way, has increased masses of times over the years. Frankly speaking, I did not know Russia too well before.

Of course, I am Russian, my roots are in Russia, my ancestors lived for 300 years in the same village and went to the same church, which I know from church records. Knowing this is exciting, I feel a part of our country and a part of the Russian people, even if it sounds like a high-flown statement, but I really do.

My previous life and work were connected with international activities, so to say. I have been working in intelligence for almost 20 years, so, of course, I did not know Russia as well as I got to know it after I came to Moscow and started working at the federal level, and then became prime minister and president.

I saw how deep and powerful this country is, and what powerful historical and moral roots it has. It was not from the books about the Great Patriotic War of 1941–1945 that I became convinced about the might as well as the wisdom of the Russian people. I saw it with my very own eyes.

So it is in this connection, and I’m not exaggerating, that I am saying that my love of Russia has increased many times over. As for the events unfolding around it, there is nothing unusual about it and it has always been that way when it boils down to the history of our country.

We have always been treated more or less well when Russia was going through difficult times, and they were happy to send humanitarian aid to us. By the way, this is good, and we are grateful to our partners for this. I am not being ironic when I speak about this.

But as soon as it became a sufficiently notable and influential competitor in international affairs, they immediately started to create problems in order to impede our development. Perhaps, from the perspective of the logic of mutual relations on the international arena, this makes sense. After all who in their right mind wants to have a strong competitor?

It is much better to be able to push forward without any competitor or competition. However, this is a bad thing for those who go alone and are at the forefront. I have pointed this out many times already.

So, I think that the world, despite the numerous threats that we are observing today, is still becoming more balanced due to its multipolarity which is now taking root. It is good both for Russia and our partners all over the world.

I very much hope that we will overcome today's difficulties, build a dialogue with all our partners and participants in international activities and strengthen ourselves from within, which will enable us to build full-fledged relations with our partners on the international arena.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, of course, the Valdai Club cannot compete with the wisdom of the Russian people, which you have been partaking of all these years. However, we will commit ourselves and try and come up with some sort of an intellectual surprise for you next year. I hope we can make it happen if we pool all our efforts.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your time, and we hope to see you again next year.

Vladimir Putin: On my part, I would like to thank all the Russian and foreign experts who have been participating in this work for so many years now. Special words of gratitude go to my colleagues who have held or are holding now high government positions, because they have places to go where they can be useful, but they nevertheless choose to come to Russia in order to participate in discussions with us.

It is important and good for us, because it gives us a chance to convey to you our position on key development matters and listen to what you have to say. Even the way you frame your questions is important for us, because it also provides an important perspective for us.

I would like to wish you all the very best and thank you all very much indeed.

Russian Energy Week International Forum

2018-10-04T13:04:06+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session of the second Russian Energy Week Energy Efficiency and Energy Development International Forum.

The forum is taking place in Moscow on October 3–6. Its main theme is Sustainable Energy for the Changing World.

The forum will be attended by representatives of the largest international companies and organisations, and leading experts. About 60 business events will be held within the framework of the official programme.

* * *

Excerpts from transcript of plenary session of the second Russian Energy Week Energy Efficiency and Energy Development International Forum

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues.

I am very happy to welcome the participants and guests of the Russian Energy Week. This time, we have a record number of participating experts, people interested in power engineering – nearly 10,000, or more precisely 9,500 participants. You came here to hold an open and trust based discussion on the issues of the global energy agenda.

Russia is one of the most powerful players on the global energy market. We are among the leaders in oil and gas production and export, as well as in terms of power generation and coal mining. It is highly important for us to keep track of global energy trends in order to use our competitive advantages efficiently and, together with other countries, create a common energy space and a common energy future.

We believe that progress in global energy, as well as the stable energy security of our entire planet, can only be achieved through global partnership, working in accordance with general rules that are the same for everyone, and, of course, through conducting transparent and constructive dialogue among market players which is not politically motivated but is based on pragmatic considerations and an understanding of shared responsibilities and mutual interests.

The balance of supply and demand in the oil market reached owing to the agreement with OPEC reaffirms the correctness of this approach.

Russia will continue promoting dialogue of oil-producing countries to ensure the stability of the oil market and create conditions for the sustainable development of the sector and implementation of long-term investment plans. Indicatively, the demand for oil will be growing in the foreseeable future, primarily in the Asia-Pacific region. It is also growing in Europe and of course, in America.

I think Russia’s responsible partnership approach stands out and is understandable to everyone. Russia is implementing it in the gas market as well, providing an example of reliability and predictability. Our advantage is not limited to the tremendous deposits of natural gas. We also have delivery systems and the pipeline infrastructure, which together with low cost ensures the stable positions of pipeline gas in the market.

At the same time, as we know, trade in liquefied natural gas (LNG) is also increasing. In the past decade its consumption almost doubled.

Russia is an active participant in the LNG market. We are putting into operation new producing and processing capacities, carrying our strategic plans for the development of transport infrastructure, including the Northern Sea Route, and building an ice-breaker fleet that will allow us to organise year-round transit of ships, including gas carriers, in the Russian Arctic.

One more major area of the world’s energy sector is the coal industry, which has been demonstrating positive dynamics again. Just a decade ago few people believed in the prospects of this energy carrier but now we are seeing a steady growth in the demand for coal, first and foremost in the Asia-Pacific region. It is very important for Russia to consolidate and enhance its presence on this dynamic market.

We have already made a number of strategic decisions in this area. We are expanding the capacity of the Baikal system and the Trans-Siberian Railway, building up seaport infrastructure and working to make coal mining more effective and safe. And, of course we will pay special attention to eco-friendly technology of its transportation and consumption, including in electricity generation and other areas.

We will continue upgrading heat generation in Russia on a large scale and introduce digital solutions in the national power grid. We see these measures as a response to global challenges that are facing the electricity generation industry as a whole.

Accelerated demand for electricity in the world is forecasted for the next 20 years. Experts believe its consumption will double by 2040 while the demand for primary energy – oil, coal, gas and other sources – will grow by about 30 percent. Such trends are opening up opportunities for increasing both the exports of electricity and its production technology.

We have one more priority: to preserve the lead in such high-tech sector as the nuclear power industry. Today, Russia is actively building 25 energy units at nuclear power plants in 12 countries. In all we have 36 such energy units in our portfolio. We will be consistently working to increase the number of export orders in the nuclear power industry, complying with the highest requirements of environmental and industrial security

A separate ambitious task for the future is the development of renewable energy sources, especially in remote, difficult-to-access areas of this country, such as Eastern Siberia, and the Far East. This is opening a great opportunity for our vast country, the world’s largest country with its diverse natural and climatic conditions.

Friends, in conclusion I would like to tell you the following: sustainable and steady development of the energy industry is a key condition for dynamic growth of the world economy, enhancing living standards and improving the wellbeing of all people on our planet.

Russia is open to cooperation in the energy industry in the interests of global energy security and for the benefit of the future generations. And we certainly rely on active dialogue on these subjects and cooperation.

Thank you for your attention.

Plenary session moderator Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, thank you very much. While you were making your way here, I informed everyone in the room that you were meeting with the OPEC Secretary General. I’m not sure if that was a secret or not, but it’s no longer a secret.

I want to start with the price of oil in the oil market. The question everyone wanted to know from you and from the OPEC Secretary General and Saudi Arabia last year at this gathering was how long you were prepared to maintain the cuts in production. A lot has changed over the last year. The question now is how much more oil is Russia prepared to add to the market. If you think about this time last year and now, the price of oil, a barrel of oil is more than 50 percent what it was last year, from about $55 a barrel to $85 a barrel today. A lot of people would argue that shows the success of Russia’s partnership with OPEC. That said, there is one other head of state, President Trump, who says that the price of oil is too high. Is Russia going to pump more oil to lower prices?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You asked in the first part whether Russia is ready to keep production at the same level.

Ryan Chilcote: Last year the question was how long is Russia prepared to maintain cuts. Now the question is how much oil is Russia going to give to the market.

Vladimir Putin: As for reducing the production and keeping it at a low level, and so on, these are all instruments. They are not a goal in itself. The goal is to balance the market. When we agreed, with our friends and colleagues from OPEC, to reduce production, this is exactly what we had in mind. The goal was to reduce excessive reserves and balance the market. After all, this matter is not about the income of oil companies or an opportunity to pocket money, it is to do with the health of the industry.

It is necessary to provide resources for investment goals, investment projects. This was the bottom line. If the market is unbalanced this will inevitably lead to a reduction in investment, and eventually create a shortage in the market and trigger a sharp price hike.

Our position has been very responsible. The market had to be balanced and we achieved this goal in cooperation with our OPEC colleagues.

Indeed, we have now met with the Secretary General and spoke about our cooperation in detail. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that probably for the first time in history all participants in the agreements honoured their commitments in full. I believe Russia made a commitment to reduce production by 30,000 barrels, and we did this, just like all other participants in this agreement.

The market is now balanced. The current growth of oil prices is by and large not a result of our efforts but triggered by attendant circumstances, expectations of decisions on Iran – incidentally these decisions are absolutely illegal and harmful to the world economy. The fall in oil production in North Africa is also linked with political circumstances – a civil war and so on. The reduction in Venezuela is also taking place for domestic political reasons and in connection with the restrictions it has introduced. This is what it is all about.

As you said, President Trump considers this price high. I think he is right to some extent but this suits us very well – $65–$70–$75 per barrel. This is quite enough to ensure the effective performance of energy companies and the investment process. But let us be straight – such prices have largely been produced by the activities of the US administration. I am referring to expectations of sanctions against Iran and political problems in Venezuela. Look what is happening in Libya – the state is destroyed. This is the result of irresponsible policy that is directly affecting the world economy. Therefore, we must work closer with each other, not only in the energy industry but also in the political area so as to prevent such setbacks.

As for increasing production – we have already increased it by 400,000 barrels as we agreed with our partners. We can raise it by another 200,000–300,000 barrels per day if need be.

<…>

Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, is it right for the President of the United States to be so actively trying to manage the price of oil? We’re coming up on elections in the United States, he’s concerned about the price of gas. A gallon of gas in the United States costs almost $3. Traditionally, voters punish the party in power when prices rise ahead of elections. Is he doing the right thing, or actually should he step out of the oil market and let the market dictate what happens?

Vladimir Putin: I have already said this and want to repeat it again: we had a very good meeting with the President of the United States in Helsinki. But if we had talked about the issue we are discussing now, I would have told him: Donald, if you want to find out who is guilty for the increase in prices, you should look in the mirror. That’s the truth.

We have just spoken about the geopolitical factors behind the price hikes. They exist and really play a role in the market. It is better not to interfere in these market processes, not to try and get some competitive advantage by using political instruments and not to try to regulate prices as the Soviet Union did. This does not end well. After all, when talking about our negotiated actions with OPEC we do not use non-market instruments. We are merely matching supply and demand in the market, no more than that. Everything else today has to do with geopolitical factors that influence prices.

As for gas prices, they are calculated on the basis of oil prices. Oil prices are produced by the market whereas gas prices are linked to oil prices. Gas prices fluctuate depending on oil prices with a small time lag of five to six months. That is all.

What is happening in the United States? The United States is one of the world’s biggest producers of both oil and gas. We know everything about new technology that is being countered by environmentalists. I agree with them, this production is often carried out using barbarous methods we do not use.

Who is trying to exert pressure on the administration? I do not know. Let us talk about the energy industry. Please do not involve me in domestic political processes and squabbles in the United States. It is for you to figure out or else we will be accused again of meddling in the domestic political life of the US.

Ryan Chilcote: When I spoke about the price of gasoline in the United States, a gallon of gasoline, I meant the price of petrol, of “benzin,” not “gaz.”

Vladimir Putin: As you understand, this is the price of the end product and this applies to oil products. This price is not simply formed from the primary price of oil or gas if we are talking about gas fuel. State policy also exerts an influence on the final price for consumers.

And what about taxes? Why do some European countries double prices on our gas before it reaches the final consumers? This is all state policy.

So it would be best not to point your finger at energy producers all the time. You should figure out what economic policy is being pursued in a country and what is being done to make sure the product reaches the customers at affordable prices. That is all.

<…>

Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, let me ask you about this EU initiative. What do you make of it?

Vladimir Putin: (commenting on the EU initiative to protect European companies in connection with US sanctions against Iran) It is a bit delayed but better late than never. It is delayed because quite recently the President of France speaking, I believe, in New York directly announced the need to enhance the economic sovereignty of the European Union and reduce its dependence on the United States. This is certainly right.

And how can it be otherwise if, as I have already said, someone is trying to gain competitive advantages in business by using political instruments? I think nobody will like this but this is happening and we are seeing this today.

This is why Europe is thinking about some new opportunities in connection with these circumstances, for instance about dollar-free settlements that incidentally will undermine the dollar. In this context – I have said this many times but would like to repeat it again – I believe that our American partners are committing a huge strategic mistake and undermining confidence in the dollar as today’s only reserve currency. They are undermining confidence in it as a universal instrument and are really biting the hand that feeds.

This is strange, even surprising, but I think this is a typical mistake made by any empire when people believe nothing will happen, that everything is so powerful, so strong and stable that there will be no negative consequences. But no, they will come sooner or later. This is the first point.

And the second point, Europe wants to fulfil its international commitments – this is how we understand our European partners – in this case, as regards Iran’s nuclear deal, and sees in it, as we do, an element of stability in global affairs, in global politics, which, in one way or another, is reflected in the global economy, as we have already noted.

<…>

Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, I’d like to go back to Iran for a second. One of the things that the United States would like to see Iran do is to obviously withdraw from Syria. The US national security advisor just last week said that the United States is going to now stay in Syria as long as Iran and its proxies are there. Russia has been very clear. Russia says that the US military’s presence in Iran is illegal. What can you do about the US being in Syria?

Vladimir Putin: There are two options available to remedy the situation.

The first is that the United States must obtain the mandate of the UN Security Council to have its armed forces on the territory of another country, in this case Syria, or receive an invitation from the legitimate Syrian government to deploy its troops there for whatever reason. International law does not allow the presence of any country on the territory of another country for other reasons.

Ryan Chilcote: What can Russia do to change the US’ position? The US says it’s going to stay, that Iran has to leave, and the US will stay until Iran pulls out of Syria. So what can Russia do?

Vladimir Putin: As we are all well aware, in this particular case the United States (just read the UN Charter to see that my point is correct, and this is not news to anyone) is violating the UN Charter and international law by its presence on the territory of another country without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, without a corresponding resolution and without the invitation of the government of that country. There is nothing good about it.

We have been operating on the premise that we nonetheless cooperate with our US partners in fighting terrorism and ISIS in Syria. But as ISIS gradually ceases to exist in Syria, there is just no other rationale, even outside the framework of international law.

What, in my opinion, can be done and what should we all strive to achieve? We must strive to ensure that there are no foreign troops from other countries in Syria at all. This is what we need to achieve.

Ryan Chilcote: Including Russian forces, of course.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, including Russian, if the Syrian government so decides.

Ryan Chilcote: You just struck a deal with President Erdogan on Syria. Do you think that that’s going to hold?

Vladimir Putin: How is that related to oil?

Ryan Chilcote: It’s in a very sensitive geopolitical area.

Vladimir Putin: Maybe it is related, since Syria also produces energy resources and influences the market situation one way or another.

In this sense, yes, we need a stable Syria, no question about it. I am not even talking about other aspects related to international security and fighting terrorism.

This is a very good deal (between Russia and Turkey in this particular case), because it prevented more bloodshed. As you may recall, it includes our agreement to create a demilitarised zone 15–20 kilometres deep, a de-escalation zone near the city of Idlib, known as the Idlib zone. I would like to note that along with our Turkish partners we are now working to implement these agreements. We can see it and are grateful to them for their efforts, and we will continue to work with them on this matter with the support of Iran.

Ryan Chilcote: Let’s return to energy, or at least more directly to energy, President Putin, and talk about Nord Stream 2. That’s the pipeline that Gazprom wants to build between Russia and Germany. Again, the President of the United States has said his opinion about this. He says that Germany is effectively a hostage already of Russia, because it depends on Russia for so much of its energy and gas supplies, and that it’s vulnerable to “extortion and intimidation” from Russia. What do you make of that?

Vladimir Putin: My response is very simple. Donald and I talked about this very briefly in Helsinki. In any sale, including the sale of our gas to Europe, we are traditionally the supplier, of pipeline gas I mean. We have been doing this since the 1960s. We are known for doing it in a highly responsible and professional manner, and at competitive prices for the European market. In general, if you look at the characteristics of the entire gas market, the price depends on the quantity and on sales volumes. The distance between Russia and Europe is such that pipeline gas is optimal. And the price will always be competitive, always. This is something all experts understand.

We have a lot of people here in this room, in the first row, who could easily be seated next to me, and I would gladly listen to them, because each one is an expert, so each of them can tell you that. And so Nord Stream 2 is a purely commercial project, I want to emphasise this, warranted by rising energy consumption, including in Europe, and falling domestic production in European countries. They have to get it from somewhere.

Russian gas accounts for around 34 percent of the European market. Is this a lot or a little? It is not insubstantial, but not a monopoly either. Europe certainly can and does actually buy gas from other suppliers, but American liquefied gas is about 30 percent more expensive than our pipeline gas on the European market. If you were buying products of the same quality and you were offered the same product for 30 percent more , what would you choose? So, what are we talking about?

If Europe starts buying American gas for 30 percent more than ours, the entire economy of Germany, in this case, would quickly become dramatically less competitive. Everyone understands this; it is an obvious fact.

But business is business, and we are ready to work with all partners. As you know, our German partners have already begun offshore construction. We are ready to begin as well. We have no problems with obtaining any permits. Finland agreed, and so did Sweden, Germany, and the Russian Federation. This is quite enough for us. The project will be implemented.

<…>

Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, did you want to jump in here?

Vladimir Putin: (following up on the remarks by CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Ben van Beurden) We understand the realities and treat all our partners with respect. We have very good, amiable long-term relations with all our partners, including the company represented by my neighbour on the left. This company is working in the Russian market and working with great success, but we understand everything very well and understand the realities. We are carrying out the project ourselves. We do not and will not have any problems here. That is to say, they may arise, of course, but we will resolve them.

Some things are beyond the realm of political intrigue. Take supplies to the Federal Republic of Germany. Not everyone knows that the decision was made there to shut down the nuclear power industry. But that is 34 percent of its total energy balance. We are proud of the development of the nuclear power industry in the Russian Federation, although the figure for us is just 16 percent. We are still thinking about how to raise it to 25 percent and are making plans. Theirs is 34 percent and everything will be closed down. What will this vacuum be filled with? What?

Look at LNG [liquefied natural gas ] which is sold by our various competitors and partners. Yes, LNG can and should be in the common basket of Europe and Germany. Do you know how many ports built in Europe are used for LNG transfer? Just 25 percent. Why? Because it is unprofitable.

There are companies and regions for which it is profitable to supply LNG and this is being done. The LNG market is growing very fast. But as for Europe, it is not very profitable, or unprofitable altogether.

Therefore, in one way or another we have already seen Nord Stream 1 through and its performance is excellent. Incidentally, our gas supplies to Europe are continuously growing. Last year, I believe, they amounted to 194 billion cubic metres and this year they will add up to 200 billion cubic metres or maybe even more.

We have loaded practically all our infrastructure facilities: Blue Stream to Turkey, Nord Stream 1 is fully loaded. Yamal-Europe is fully loaded – it is almost approaching 100 percent, while the demand is going up. Life itself dictates that we carry out such projects.

Ryan Chilcote: President Trump’s position on American LNG exports is perhaps a little bit more nuanced. His point is that instead of buying Russian gas, even perhaps if it’s a bit more expensive, the Germans and other European allies of the United States, because the United States is paying for their defence, should be buying American gas even if there is, I guess the argument suggests, a little bit of a higher price for that

Vladimir Putin: You know, this argument doesn’t really work, in my opinion. I understand Donald. He is fighting for the interests of his country and his business. He is doing the right thing and I would do the same in his place.

As for LNG, as I have already said, it is not just a little more expensive in the European market but 30 percent more. This is not a little bit more, it is a lot more, beyond all reason, and is basically unworkable.

But there are markets where LNG will be adopted, where it is efficient, for instance in the Asia-Pacific region. By the way, where did the first shipment of LNG from our new company Yamal-LNG go? Where did the first tanker go? To the United States, because it was profitable. The United States fought this project but ended up buying the first tanker. It was profitable to buy it in this market, at this place and time, and it was purchased.

LNG is still being shipped to the American continent. It’s profitable.

It makes no sense to fight against what life brings. We simply need to look for common approaches in order to create favourable market conditions, including, for example, conditions conducive to the production and consumption of LNG in the United States itself and securing the best prices for producers and consumers. This could be achieved by coordinating policy, rather than just imposing decisions on partners.

As for the argument, “We defend you, so buy this from us even if it makes you worse off”, I don’t think it is very convincing either. Where does it lead? It has led to the Europeans starting to talk about the need to have a more independent defence capability, as well as the need to create a defence alliance of their own that allegedly will not undermine NATO while allowing the Europeans to pursue a real defence policy. This is what, in my view, such steps are leading to.

This is why I am sure that a great many things will be revised. Life will see to that.

<…>

Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, let’s get back to geopolitics. When you were talking about oil – and when everyone talks about oil and disruptions on the market, they don’t just talk about Iran, they talk about Venezuela – you mentioned Venezuela at the beginning of our conversation. Last year, I interviewed President Maduro, the President of Venezuela, here. Venezuela is an ally of Russia. Russia has a lot of oil interests in Venezuela. Oil production in Venezuela is not going well, and politically, things are going very poorly, as you know. Millions of people are leaving the country. There’s hunger. There is a lot of talk in the United States, and not only in the United States, in Central and South America, that perhaps it’s time for President Maduro to go. Do you agree with that?

Vladimir Putin: This is up to the people of Venezuela, not anyone else in the world.

As for various means of influencing the situation in Venezuela, there should be no such thing … All of us influence each other in one way or another, but it should not be done in a way that makes the civilian population even worse off. This is a matter of principle.

Should we rejoice that life is extremely difficult for people there and want to make things even worse with a view to overthrowing President Maduro? He was recently targeted in a terrorist attack, an assassination attempt. Shall we condone such methods of political resistance too?

I think this is absolutely unacceptable. This and anything like it. The people of the country should be given a chance to shape their destiny themselves. Nothing should be imposed from the outside.

This is what has emerged historically in Venezuela. What has emerged historically in the Persian Gulf has emerged there, and the same in Europe, America and Southeast Asia. Nobody should go in there like a bull in a china shop without understanding what is taking place there, instead thinking only that the bull is one of the largest and smartest animals. It is necessary to take a look and give people a chance to figure it out. I have a very simple outlook on this.

I would like to return to the previous question. After all, we are dealing with energy. I would like to confirm what my colleagues said here about Russia’s energy resources and potential. They are indeed enormous. Truly enormous. We are in first place in gas reserves. I believe we have 73.3 trillion cubic metres of gas. The Yamal peninsula was mentioned here but NOVATEK will carry out one more project, Arctic 2, on a neighbouring peninsula. It is about the same size and with the same investment. The first tranche in this project is $27 billion, and the second tranche is about $25 billion. I believe all this will be carried out.

We have the world’s largest coal reserves – 275 billion tonnes. We are third in oil reserves. Third in the world in oil reserves. We are the world’s largest country by territory. If we take a deeper look we are bound to find many other things. So, we are indeed lucky.

But we were given this not by the Lord alone. Past generations of ours developed these lands. We should never forget what was done by our predecessors, and we will continue to build on it. We will work with our partners. Incidentally, almost all major energy companies work in Russia.

Ryan Chilcote: When we were talking about the EU initiative to try and allow trade between EU countries and Iran, I couldn’t help but remember that Russia itself, faced with sanctions, is thinking about a plan to wean itself off of the dollar. This is something that many countries have tried and failed. Why does Russia think that it can succeed in this?

Vladimir Putin: You used the past tense or is the translation inaccurate? Faced. Have the sanctions been lifted? Did I miss something?

Ryan Chilcote: Russia is facing with sanctions.

Vladimir Putin: Okay then. You know, sometimes I think that it would be good for us if those who want to impose sanctions would go ahead and impose all the sanctions they can think of as soon as possible. (Applause.) This would free our hands to defend our national interests however we deem most effective for us.

It is very harmful, in general. It hurts the ones doing it. We all figured this out long ago. That is why we have never supported and will never support illegal sanctions that circumvent the United Nations.

Ryan Chilcote: Since you brought up the subject of sanctions, as you know after the Skripal poisoning, Russia is facing even more of them, perhaps as soon as November. What is Russia prepared to do to change the trajectory of relations with the United States and the West?

Vladimir Putin: We are not the ones introducing these sanctions against the United States or the West. We are just responding to their actions, and we do this in very restrained, careful steps so as not to cause harm, primarily to ourselves. And we will continue to do so.

As regards the Skripals and all that, this latest spy scandal is being artificially inflated. I have seen some media outlets and your colleagues push the idea that Skripal is almost a human rights activist. But he is just a spy, a traitor to the motherland. There is such a term, a 'traitor to the motherland,' and that’s what he is.

Imagine you are a citizen of a country, and suddenly somebody comes along who betrays your country. How would you, or anybody present here, a representative of any country, feel about such a person? He is scum, that's all. But a whole information campaign has been deployed around it.

I think it will come to an end, I hope it will, and the sooner the better. We have repeatedly told our colleagues to show us the documents. We will see what can be done and conduct an investigation.

We probably have an agreement with the UK on assistance in criminal cases that outlines the procedure. Well, submit the documents to the Prosecutor General’s Office as required. We will see what actually happened there.

The fuss between security services did not start yesterday. As you know, espionage, just like prostitution, is one of the most ‘important’ jobs in the world. So what? Nobody shut it down and nobody can shut it down yet.

Ryan Chilcote: Espionage aside, I think there are two other issues. One is the use of chemical weapons, and let’s not forget that in addition to the Skripal family being affected in that attack, there was also a homeless person who was killed when they came in contact with the nerve agent Novichok.

Vladimir Putin: Listen, since we are talking about poisoning Skripal, are you saying that we also poisoned a homeless person there? Sometimes I look at what is happening around this case and it amazes me. Some guys came to England and started poisoning homeless people. Such nonsense. What is this all about? Are they working for cleaning services? Nobody wanted to poison… This Skripal is a traitor, as I said. He was caught and punished. He spent a total of five years in prison. We released him. That’s it. He left. He continued to cooperate with and consult some security services. So what? What are we talking about right now? Oil, gas or espionage? What is your question?

Let’s move on to the other oldest profession and discuss the latest developments in that business. (Laughter.)

Ryan Chilcote: A lot of what we’ve discussed today goes back to Russia’s relationship with the United States, and so I’ll ask you just a couple of questions about that and we can move on. The US says you personally ordered the 2016 interference in the elections – I know you deny that. You have said you wanted Trump elected. What do you want to see in 2018 from these midterm election

Vladimir Putin: In Russia or the United States? What are you asking me about?

Ryan Chilcote: What would you like to see happen in the 2018 midterm elections in the United States.

Vladimir Putin: What I want – and I am completely serious – is that this nightmare about Russia’s alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up their own mess and restore a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like in the oil market. I want the domestic political squabbles in the United States to stop ruining Russia-US relations and adversely affecting the situation in the world.

Ryan Chilcote: I’ll ask this final question on the political front. In Helsinki, you said that you wanted President Trump to win because he favours better relations with Russia. But in fact, as Russia itself says all of the time, relations between Russia and the United States seem to get worse every day. Wouldn’t it be better for Russia to have a president in the United States that is not politically compromised by the widely held perception that this country helped him get into the White House?

Vladimir Putin: Firstly, I do not believe President Trump was compromised. The people elected him, the people voted for him. There are those who do not like this; those who do not want to respect the opinion of the American voters. But this is not our business – this is an internal matter of the United States.

Would we be better off or worse? I cannot say either. As is known, there are no ifs in politics. Maybe it would have been even worse, how are we to know? We must derive from what is, and work with that. Good or bad, there is no other President of the United States; there is no other United States either.

We will work. The US is the largest world power, a leader in many spheres, our natural partner in a variety of projects, including global security, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, climate change, as well as the environment. We have a lot of common problems which overlap that we have to work on together.

We presume that sooner or later the moment will come when we will be able to restore full-fledged relations.

<…>

Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, I know you need to get a meeting with the Austrian Chancellor, so I’m going to wrap this session up with you, sir. The title of our conversation today is Sustainable Energy for a Changing World. You’ve been driving Russian energy policy for nearly 20 years now. What changes in the world, or what change in the world, would you identify as the biggest concern for you, and what gives you the most optimism when it comes to what we’re seeing.

Vladimir Putin: If you allow me, I would stick to the subject. The questions that you asked concern me as well.

Indeed, we are apparently witnessing global warming, but the reasons for this are not entirely clear, because there is still no answer. The so-called anthropogenic emissions are most likely not the main cause of this warming. It could be caused by global changes, cosmic changes, some changes in the galaxy that are invisible to us – and that’s that, we don’t even understand what is actually happening. Probably, anthropogenic emissions influence the situation somehow, but many experts believe they have an insignificant effect. This is my first point.

Secondly, I already said this, and I can remind you once again. Everyone blames the United States now. As you see, we have many problems and unresolved matters with the United States, and the US President and I approach many international affairs differently and evaluate our bilateral relations differently. But we still have to be objective. There was a time I saw President Bush refuse to sign the Kyoto agreements. But we still found a solution. I think the same will happen in this case. Well, Trump believes that the Paris Agreement is unprofitable for his country for a variety of reasons. I will not go into details now, he must have talked about this many times, and we know his position.

But I think, we should not antagonise the relationship with the US, because without them it would be impossible to reduce the influence of anthropogenic air pollution on the global climate even a little bit. Therefore, one way or another we need to involve the US in this discussion and this joint work. As I understand, President Trump does not object. He says that he dislikes some provisions of the Paris agreement, but he is not opposed to working with the global community on this matter.

Now, as regards the pollution and the future of the global energy, in order to fight the heat, we need no less energy resources than to fight the cold. Secondly, my colleagues were right, millions of people do not have access to energy resources, and we will never prohibit the use of the contemporary blessings of civilization, it is just unreal. The economy and the industry will keep developing.

Of course, in Russia we also join the best international practices, so-called energy efficient technology that has a little bit of influence on the environment, and we, of course, will continue this.

But I also agree with our Saudi colleague. These alternative sources are very important, but we will not be able to go without hydrocarbons in the next decades. People will have to use them for many decades to come. We mostly speak about oil, but coal is what is used most.

We are speaking about the need to use electric cars, but where will the electricity come from? From the socket? Okay, from the socket, but how did it get there? First we need to burn coal to produce electricity, while gas remains the most environmentally friendly energy resource. So we need to take a comprehensive approach to all such matters.

Ryan Chilcote: Patrick Pouyané posed a challenge to you. He said it would be good if Russia used less coal. Are you prepared to accept that challenge and reduce consumption of coal here in Russia and production?

Vladimir Putin: We have signed the relevant Paris agreements and taken up our responsibilities. We have implemented the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, and now the Paris Agreement will replace it. We have taken up all necessary responsibilities and will adhere to them. The question is not about reducing the usage of coal for domestic needs, we are not the largest emitter, the US and Asian countries emit much more. Here, we are not the leaders. We sell a lot of coal, but also not more than anyone else and we only help cover the demand. The question is not about us, but about modern technology that uses primary energy resources.

Let us go back to the last question, could you please repeat it?

Ryan Chilcote: Well, the title of the panel is Sustainable Energy for a Changing World. You’ve been driving Russia’s energy policy for nearly 20 years now. What changes, or what is the change that gives you the most hope and what do you think the biggest challenge that you see amongst the changes is for energy?

Vladimir Putin: Concern is caused by uncertainty. In politics, in security, and in the economy. Volatility, in other words. This is it. And the number of uncertainties is growing. This is what causes concern – the unpredictability of the situation.

Ryan Chilcote: Are you talking about your colleague, the President of the United States?

Vladimir Putin: Not exactly. He certainly makes a significant contribution to this unpredictability by virtue of being the President of the largest world power, but not only him. I am talking about the situation in general.

Look at the rise of extremism – where did it come from? Why is this problem so acute today? Why is this extremism turning into terrorism? Doesn't that concern us? This is what we need to understand – where it all came from.

I will not go into details because we have a limited amount of time. But this is happening in many spheres. In the economy – the same thing. This growing uncertainty in all fields is what causes concern.

Now, what causes optimism? Common sense, I think. No matter how hard it is, people, humankind have always found ways out of the most difficult situations, guided by the interests of their countries, their peoples, and it is the goal of any government to ensure the well-being as well as the growth of the welfare of its people.

I think that sooner or later, and the sooner the better, the realisation will come that we need to get away from controversy as soon as possible, in any case, away from trying to resolve this controversy with unacceptable tools and ways that go beyond international law. It seems to me that it is necessary to strengthen the leading role of the United Nations, and on this foundation, move on.

Ryan Chilcote: And on that note, please join me in thanking and congratulating our participants in today’s panel and, of course, our host today the President of Russia.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Eastern Economic Forum plenary session

2020-10-28T20:22:38+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the Eastern Economic Forum. The President spoke at a plenary session of the Forum.

* * *

Excerpts from transcript of the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, Mr President of the People’s Republic of China, Mr President of Mongolia, prime ministers of Japan and South Korea, ladies and gentlemen, friends,

I would like to welcome you all to the 4^th Eastern Economic Forum. It is a pleasure to host the heads of major states in the Asia-Pacific Region, the heads of global corporations, and acclaimed international experts in politics, the economy, science, culture and the environment.

This year, the forum brought together guests from over 60 countries. Representatives of over a thousand Russian and foreign companies are working at the forum. Each and every partner is important and valuable to us. First and foremost, I would like to wish you every success in promoting business initiatives.

I expect that the meetings in Vladivostok will become a good opportunity for establishing reliable business links and productive cooperation across the Russian regions and primarily in the Far East. It is for the development of the Far Eastern economy that we organised this forum.

Developing the Far East is an absolute priority for us. I would like to repeat that this is a consistent and long-term policy. We are working hard to create a strong centre of international cooperation and integration, business and investment activity, education, science and culture in the dynamically growing Asia-Pacific Region. We are building this centre primarily in the interests of Russian citizens, the residents of the Far East, for their wellbeing, as well as for people to fully realise their potential.

We can see powerful resources for achieving the strategic goals that we set, for a breakthrough, for greater competitiveness of the country and a better quality of life for our citizens.

We understand how complicated the challenges are. We know that it is impossible to immediately solve all the demographic and social, economic and infrastructural problems of the Far East. But we have to do it, we will do it and will eventually succeed.

Modern models of cooperation with businesses and a priority statecraft approach towards the development of the Far East are already yielding results. The Far East is becoming a growth point and continues to attract investment. And I am confident that the new role of the Far East as the driving force of the national economy, innovations and culture will continue to expand in the years to come.

In the past five years, from 2013 until 2017, the region’s industrial output soared by almost 22 percent, considerably exceeding the average national levels. Today, the region accounts for over 25 percent of all direct foreign investment in Russia. This is quite impressive considering that this share totaled only about two percent five years ago.

Over 130 companies have been established, and over 16,000 new jobs have been created in line with special mechanisms for developing the Far East and the free port of Vladivostok. We are posting obvious development in such sectors as manufacturing construction materials, the transport infrastructure, engineering, tourism, production of minerals, the development of marine biological resources as well as the agro-industrial sector.

I would like to point out that we are witnessing a substantial increase in agricultural-project investment here in the Far East. It is necessary to support such investment, including the incentives for reclaiming disused plots of land and other areas subject to various sorts of restrictions.

Yesterday, I met with our colleagues from foreign companies and investors who are directly interested in this work in terms of the various competitive advantages that I have just been mentioning, including those in the field of agriculture.

In this connection, I would like to ask the Government and the governors of Russian regions to directly address this matter and to assess the use of farmland in each specific region.

And, of course, we need to more actively export Far Eastern farming produce to foreign markets, including the Asia Pacific region. In this connection, we are suggesting that our Chinese, Japanese and Korean friends and other partners whose businesses are proactively investing in the Far Eastern agricultural sector jointly eliminate food-trade barriers and reach optimal solutions for our common good.

We realise the importance of phyto-sanitary oversight, and there are many spheres here where we can work together, all the more so as we are establishing companies and absolutely “clean” territories for joint work in the Far East.

Russia is proactive in promoting cooperation and investment ties with the People’s Republic of China. Today, more than 30 projects worth some 200 billion rubles are being implemented in Russia’s Far East, with the help of Chinese investors.

We are committed to promoting a positive cooperation agenda with our Japanese partners. Only yesterday, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and I launched an engine plant in Primorye Territory. We will always support substantive, result-driven joint undertakings of this kind.

There is also great potential for promoting projects with Mongolia, our long-standing and reliable partner, on infrastructure, energy, as well as the environment.

Companies from the Republic of Korea are successfully carrying out their projects in Russia. It is in the regions of Russia’s Far East that cooperation with South Korean businesses is especially promising.

Of course, I cannot fail but to highlight once again trilateral projects in infrastructure, energy and other spheres involving Russia, the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Normalising the situation around the Korean Peninsula is a key prerequisite for achieving progress on these projects.

All in all, in order to ensure steady development, we need stability, peace and security in the Asia-Pacific Region. It is essential that we prevent new conflicts from emerging and resolve old ones in the spirit of dialogue. Russia has always stood for this approach and promoted a constructive agenda on all international platforms, and is committed to doing so in the future. The same applies to our interaction with our partners within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, APEC, ASEAN, and other regional frameworks.

There is one more thing I would like to add. As I have already said, new forms of protectionism and various barriers have emerged across the world, affecting the global economy. They are becoming increasingly more apparent and are gaining momentum.

It is unfortunate that fundamental principles of trade, competition and mutual benefit are depreciated, falling hostage to ideology-driven approaches and short-sighted political calculations. This is a serious challenge for the global economy, especially for the vibrant APR, threatening its leadership.

We strongly believe that in order for our region to achieve high growth rates and remain a key force in international economics and trade, it needs to preserve the spirit of economic freedom and facilitate business initiatives free of sanctions, bans or political bias.

As we invite foreign partners to take part in joint projects in the Far East, we are acting in line with pragmatism, common sense and mutual benefit. We want investors vying for an opportunity to implement their projects in the Russian Far East to expand their fair competition, so that the best business proposals would win, yielding high profits, which are the main goal of any business.

Just look: companies from Kazakhstan, India, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, as well as many other countries, which are quite different in terms of their interests, traditions, culture, political systems, international obligations and priorities, already operate in this Russian region. But I repeat, we are providing all entrepreneurs with equal conditions for successful and effective work.

Our decision to introduce electronic entry visas for people going to the Far East meets the spirit of development and openness. Today, people from 18 countries can obtain such visas; they can submit all documents online and under a simplified procedure. We will continue to work on this in the future, so that more and more people will be able to obtain online visas, and this also concerns Asia Pacific countries.

Friends,

I have already said that the scale of the tasks facing us requires systematic work for decades to come. I believe that we need a national programme for the development of the Russian Far East until 2025 and up to 2035.

The Government will be instructed to draft this document in close contact with the Far Eastern regions, citizens, businesses, public and business associations. Considering the significance of this national programme, it will be approved by a presidential executive order.

The programme should bring together and integrate the activities of our national projects and state programmes, long-term departmental plans of agencies and infrastructure companies, and the development strategies of all Far Eastern regions.

It goes without saying that this national programme should contain detailed and specific dimensions together with measurable indicators. This is a job for our colleagues in the Government and the regions.

Already now, what I would like to say is that the goals that we must set may only be ambitious, progressive and advanced. Otherwise, we should not even get into this. We need to strive for the economic growth rate of Russia’s Far East to be above the global average.

We understand that this is a complicated task. Our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific Region have demonstrated good growth rates. This means that we must demonstrate a growth rate of at least six percent annually in the Far East. Competition is strong; therefore, our work must be even more efficient.

This is required primarily to make significant improvements to the quality of life of our citizens, to ensure that in the next few years more people relocate to the Far East from other regions, than the number of people leaving. Our ambition must be to ensure that more and more citizens live, work and build their homes, start their families and raise their children here in the Far East.

What are the key spheres that should be covered by the national development programme for the Far East?

First and foremost, we must ensure a high, advanced dynamic in such sensitive fields as quality housing, utilities, transport accessibility, connectivity of the Far East with the rest of Russia, healthcare, culture and availability of sports facilities. We must have special measures in place to help boost demographic development and support families.

Second. The future of the Far East does not only comprise traditional areas that we must also bring to a new level. Above all, these are such fields as education, science and international cooperation in the industries that are definitive for global progress.

We are meeting here on Russky Island at the Far Eastern Federal University where we intend to start a world-class education and research centre and develop it further. This includes, of course, construction of a technology park and a mega-science research installation that will allow solving completely new fundamental science and applied science tasks in pharmaceuticals, materials science and other spheres.

I believe our major companies and corporations involved in Far Eastern projects, such as Rosneft, Gazprom, Rosatom and Roscosmos, aviation industry companies and others should build their engineering facilities, research and development centres on Russky Island. The Government and the top management of these corporations should consider this as direct instructions.

Today, it is not uncommon for new technology to outpace deeply rooted legal regulation and certification norms. We want to remove these barriers. What we want is for Russia’s Far East to be a space of the future, of a dream, and a place of creativity, if I may say so.

I instruct the Government to devise a special status for Russky Island. It must offer an enabling environment so that any research team or any group of enthusiasts can launch start-ups, make their ideas a reality and engage in innovative projects. In this environment they must be able to test the most advanced solutions before their practical or commercial use makes its way into laws, including in robotics, unmanned and sea transport, healthcare, biotechnology and the environment.

In addition to this, I propose establishing a Digital Development Centre on Russky Island as part of our programme to promote a digital economy. This centre could focus on software development, big data storage and transmission, as well as cyber security, and other spheres.

Two months ago now, a unique and innovative training course on digital technology was held at the Far Eastern Federal University as part of our national technology initiative. The educational process in its entirety was designed and planned using artificial intelligence, from the selection of participants to mapping out individual educational trajectories.

Following up on this experiment, the Far Eastern Federal University has now launched a management course for the digital economy. We will ensure that other regions and universities across the country adopt these practices.

Of course, Russia’s Far East must become a platform for introducing new cutting-edge digital solutions in transport, housing and the utilities, education and healthcare, as well as in government services.

For example, businesses can already receive essential services online, including receiving construction permits, setting up companies within priority development areas, registering land titles and obtaining licenses.

Third. I am confident that the Far East can and should become a powerful economic and industrial centre with a high export potential, but this cannot be achieved without entrepreneurial energy and the growth of small and medium-sized businesses.

The business climate in the Far East should be competitive with other Russian regions and neighbouring countries. But, to be attractive to our neighbours, and the Russian part of the audience understands this perfectly, we need to go one step ahead.

This year, four out of nine Far Eastern regions made it to the Top 40 of the national investment climate ranking. This is a good dynamic, but there is still a lot to be done.

As for federal support, a number of additional solutions have already been adopted. Until the end of 2025, investors in the areas of advanced development and the free port of Vladivostok are entitled to apply for a 10-year grace period on their insurance premiums. Please note – I am calling on those engaged in business – this will be for 10 years. It is for them that the so-called grandfather clause has been added, that is, investors have thus received guarantees of unchanged conditions for the implementation of their projects.

To support both Russian and foreign business leaders, to provide them with soft-term financing, we plan to add more than 8 billion rubles to the Far East Development Fund this year. I also ask the Government to decide on the capitalisation of the Fund for the next three years.

Fourth. The Far East should fully attain its logistic potential. The large-scale modernisation of the BAM Railway and the Trans-Siberian Railway, the development of the Far Eastern ports and the Northern Sea Route will dramatically increase the transport connectivity of the APR and Europe. In the coming years, we will need to modernise border crossings in the Far East, and make the customs, control, checkpoint and other border services more convenient for individuals and businesses.

Allow me to remind you that in the next six years, the volume of container traffic by rail should increase fourfold, and the shipping time from the Far East to the western border of Russia will be cut to seven days. Traffic along the Northern Sea Route should grow to 80 million tonnes per year.

Once again, these are all worked-out and feasible plans, all the more so since such an infrastructure generates obvious interest and business demand. Right now, the first ice-class container ship the Arctic 4 is moving along the Northern Sea Route – the shortest sea route between the Far East and Europe.

This voyage from Vladivostok to St Petersburg (with an initial visit to the Korean port of Busan and then on to Bremerhaven in Germany), without exaggeration, opens up a new page in the history of commercial navigation, and confirms the safety, efficiency and relevance of the Russian Arctic and the entire Northern Sea Route as an international corridor.

We invite interested partners to develop this promising transport artery. And we already know that such projects are of great interest to our partners.

And another thing. It is obvious that the profits and benefits from transit corridors should not forego the Far Eastern regions and the people living here. Modern transport and export infrastructure should become a framework for creating high-quality jobs, new industries and enterprises, producing high-value-added products in the Far East, including, and perhaps above all, export-oriented products.

This is extremely important. It is certainly important to create export-oriented transport corridors, but it is even more important to develop our own economy and our own production.

The main users of the Far Eastern transport routes, the ports, as a rule, are large coal and energy companies. I suggest thinking about ways to encourage these Russian exporters to channel part of their revenues into effective economic and social projects in the Far East.

Friends and colleagues,

Russia and our Far East are certainly open to expanding business ties. We are confident that there is an obvious mutual benefit here. And it is not just about profit in financial reports. Joint projects in industry and science, education and culture, infrastructure and energy serve to bring countries and peoples closer together, to better understand, to know each other, to strengthen our common heritage – peace, neighbourly relations and trust in the dynamic and complex 21^st century, where we pool efforts and potential to create the future.

I wish you all success and wellbeing. Thank you for your interest in the work of today's forum.

Thank you.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: (answering a question on Mongolia’s proposals on infrastructure and the electricity sector) We have just discussed these proposals with my colleague, the President of Mongolia, at a bilateral meeting. We know them, we are working on them, and overall, they are quite feasible.

You know, we have been working in Mongolia for quite some time now. Speaking of the country’s transport infrastructure, Russia owns 50 percent of the Ulaanbaatar Railway, and partners on both sides have good plans to develop its infrastructure. We discussed with our Chinese, as well as with our Mongolian friends possible delivery routes for supplying hydrocarbons through Mongolia. There are also other questions and proposals concerning the energy sector that deserve our support. All this is work in progress.

<…>

Moderator of the Eastern Economic Forum’s plenary session Sergei Brilyov: Mr President, what I am going to say now is probably the scariest thing I have ever said, since it might seem as though I am pretending to walk in your shoes. This is what I have been thinking: remember, back in 1956, the Moscow Declaration, the expression of good will, the idea of two islands, and a possible path toward a peace treaty. However, after that the situation shifted away from the good will. Specifically, one of the apparently negative developments was the stationing of US troops on Japanese islands, including offensive forces.

Since you have touched upon this subject during the talks, I would like to ask the following question, if I may: what if US troops are deployed on what we regard today as Russia’s Southern Kuril Islands, since they have an absolutely critical location in terms of accessing the Pacific Ocean? Is this aspect part of the negotiations or not?

Vladimir Putin: Allow me to begin by saying that Shinzo is right: both he and I are eager to sign a peace treaty. I believe this to be extremely important for the relations between our countries. It would also be a very positive development for the world in general, as President Xi Jinping just pointed out. We need to ensure favourable conditions in the region. I totally subscribe to this idea. Japan is a natural partner for Russia, and we do not want our relations to be constrained by anything.

Security matters are very important, and we discuss them, including from the perspective that you have mentioned. Of course, there are many aspects related to military cooperation in the region that are a matter of concern for us, including the deployment of US missile defence systems. We discuss all these questions as part of the negotiating process.

I do not want to go into detail, I would like to proceed from what Shinzo said, and it was he who suggested changing our approaches. You will not believe this, but I will tell you honestly that such a simple thought dawned on me right here and now. We have been trying to resolve contentious issues for 70 years. You have mentioned the 1956 declaration. Not only was it signed, but it was also ratified by the Diet (Parliament) of Japan and the USSR Supreme Soviet. The Japanese side later refused to honour this declaration. We are now reexamining these issues.

We have been in talks for 70 years. Shinzo suggested changing approaches. Therefore, it has dawned on me that we should sign a peace treaty, not now, but before the year is out, and without any preconditions. (Applause.) I did not even ask the audience to support me by applauding. Thank you for this support.

As friends, we would continue to address all contentious issues in line with this peace treaty. To my mind, this would certainly make it easier for us to resolve all the problems that we have been unable to cope with for 70 years.

<…>

Sergei Brilyov: In the past three to four days, at least two theories have been advanced as to what happened to those two young men, photographed in the United Kingdom in connection with the “Skripal case.” Either they deliberately poked their faces towards the camera in order to be photographed, or they are completely unprofessional to have their images captured by all the cameras. Perhaps you have a third theory?

Vladimir Putin: Actually, we have, of course, taken a look at these people. We already know who they are, and we have located them. I hope they will show up and tell everyone about themselves. This would be better for everyone. I assure you that there is nothing special or criminal here. We will see shortly.

Sergei Brilyov: Are they civilians?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, they are civilians.

Sergei Brilyov: All right, we will wait.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to address them, so they can hear us today. Let them come to a media outlet and tell everything.

<…>

Sergei Brilyov: Mr President, the Chinese supplied an aircraft to the North Koreans [for Kim Jong-un's flight to Singapore], maybe even put an umbrella in it, but obviously not a nuclear one. Would Russia be willing to provide a “nuclear umbrella” to North Korea?

Vladimir Putin: China has a “nuclear umbrella”, so China feels confident enough in this sense. Nevertheless, I fully agree with what was just said by President Xi Jinping, as well as with what Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe said.

Indeed, President Trump has shown, as he said, an innovative approach to dealing with North Korea. I agree, this actually shows a certain amount of courage and an innovative approach, all right. But after all, North Korea was promised security guarantees in exchange for its denuclearisation efforts, as you have just pointed out.

North Korea has taken certain steps to denuclearise – it blew up its nuclear test site, destroyed it, but it apparently expects something in return. And it seems counterproductive if North Korea is required to do so much while the other side does nothing at all. It sounds like North Korea has to take their word for it that in the long run it will benefit.

What guarantees could be offered? International guarantees. We have the format of six-party talks. And the international community can give such guarantees, including those secured by the presence of nuclear powers in these agreements. China and Russia are parties to these talks.

If North Korea is satisfied with US guarantees alone, that is also fine with us, but it is probably unlikely to happen, we have to be realistic. It seems to me that international guarantees would be more relevant in this case, and we can talk about it.

Sergei Brilyov: We already had six- party talks on Iran, and we know the position of President Trump on this. As for his recent meeting with Kim Jong-un, isn’t this a threat that, if the Americans handle the negotiations with North Korea on their own, everything would end in much the same way as it did with Iran – all agreed, but the agreements collapsed?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the Iran agreements were actually largely negotiated between the Americans and the Iranians. We only accompanied them, to be honest about the whole story, we only supported that process. The decision relied on their agreements anyway. Therefore, such threats are always out there, but this does not mean we should not do anything and should not move forward.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: I spoke about President Trump’s actions without any skepticism or irony. I really think it is an innovative approach, and that he showed courage, political courage.

If North Korea makes efforts for its denuclearisation, it expects something in return, not just endless demands of complete disarmament before even deciding how its security will be defended. That is all. This is simple formal logic.

Sergei Brilyov: [Federation Council Speaker] Valentina Matviyenko visited Pyongyang and conveyed your personal message to Kim Jong Un, Mr President. Are we expecting him here?

Vladimir Putin: We are inviting him. He can visit any time that is convenient for him.

<…>

Sergei Brilev: I am talking about a serious matter, transactions in national currencies. It is a popular idea but last week during the Moscow Financial Forum, Alexei Kudrin expressed certain scepticism because, as he believes, it would be an additional burden on businesses, at least based on the current regulations.

Do you think the transition to trading in national currencies is realistic?

Vladimir Putin: Allow me to say a few words about infrastructure. It is a very important matter.

First, we fully support President Xi Jinping’s idea regarding linking the infrastructure development ideas, the One Belt One Road cooperation and our integration within the EAEU.

We are already negotiating with many countries within the EAEU. We signed a free trade zone agreement with Vietnam in Asia and are now negotiating with Singapore. We signed a non-preferential cooperation agreement with China. The agreement covers customs procedures, protection of intellectual property and e-commerce. All this is progressing.

Look, yesterday (this is the latest example, also covered in the media) the famous Alibaba signed cooperation agreements with Russia’s Mail.Ru, MegaFon and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. We expect that it will be a serious contribution to the development of e-commerce. Here we are also linking the China-proposed One Belt One Road initiative and our EAEU efforts, this time in e-commerce.

As concerns the infrastructure, it is just as important to us. I have already spoken about this many times and mentioned today the development of the Trans-Siberian Railway Network and the Baikal–Amur Mainline. In order to develop the Trans-Siberian Railway Network – and it does need to be done, we are doing it and we will be doing it, the question is, what is the scope of this work? Do we need to build more tunnels like, for example, the Severomuisky Tunnel? It would be good, of course. This will significantly expand our opportunities to transport cargo but it should not be only coal. What if the coal industry caves in in the world? We need to guarantee the volume of container shipments. Therefore, we need to cooperate with China, Japan, South Korea and with Mongolia.

You asked me about a bridge to Sakhalin. Yes, this will significantly increase the potential of the Sakhalin ports. But we need to understand the scope of cargo operations. Therefore, it is extremely important to build cooperation with the countries in the region. Our economic decisions on the amount of investment into our own infrastructure depend on this. These are not just idle meetings and idle talk.

Settlement in national currencies. Of course, all experts understand that we must proceed step by step. And this is how we will proceed. Today the ruble and the yuan are traded at the Moscow Exchange. Some goods are more often traded in USD, especially homogeneous goods of the hydrocarbon group such as oil and gas.

For example, the ruble is being actively used to settle with the CIS and EAEU countries: I believe 71 percent of export revenue is in rubles, as well as 79 percent of import earnings.

Given the situation we have to face when settling in USD, more and more countries want to trade in national currencies. There are limitations. What Alexei Kudrin spoke about primarily concerns trade in oil, petroleum products and gas. But developing bilateral trade in national currencies is also right. It is right from the position of sustainability of global finances and the global economy. We will proceed step by step.

Sergei Brilyov: Does the Central Bank of Russia have a political task to sign agreements with the corresponding central banks in other countries to transfer trade to national currencies? Or should this be its own initiative?

Vladimir Putin: This is not a political task but an economic one.

<…>

Sergei Brilyov: And about tugriks…

Vladimir Putin: We can deal in tugriks too. This concerns the settlement day and the exchange rate: how this issue should be resolved, first at the level of central banks. These mechanisms are being tested. Are there risks? Yes, there are risks everywhere. Are there no risks with the USD? The United States’ national debt is $20 trillion. This entire burden falls on the USD, by the way. What will happen next? Nobody knows; there is no answer.

There are risks everywhere and they must be minimised. What should we do to minimise them? We should diversify our payments and activities.

For example, we diversify our foreign-exchange reserves, as we do the national debt of the Russian Federation, which is nominated not only in USD but in other currencies as well. All this is important. I believe it provides for the sustainability of our financial system and the entire global financial system, as well.

<…>

Sergei Brilyov: Can the resolution of territorial disputes be viewed as a possible prerequisite for larger economic prosperity, freedoms, etc.?

Vladimir Putin: The President of Mongolia has just said that they also had territorial disputes, including with China, but were able to come to an agreement. The same happened with us. Strange as it may seem, Russia had territorial disputes with the People’s Republic of China. Talks on this matter took 40 years, but in the end, we were able to find acceptable compromises and resolved these problems.

Moreover, allow me to inform you that Russian and Chinese businesses now even propose that we work together on making full use of the opportunities offered by these islands.

Sergei Brilyov: Are you referring to the islands near Khabarovsk?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, they propose stepping up activity there, including both infrastructure development and tourism.

Sergei Brilyov: On the islands that have been handed over?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. This goes to say that not only did we find what I hope is a permanent solution to this problem, but there are also proposals to work together. For this reason, I do believe that we will be able to resolve other similar matters, including with Japan.

I was not joking when I mentioned signing a treaty without preconditions. We can state right there in the treaty that we will seek to settle all issues, and I have no doubt that the day will come when we will. We need to remove all the barriers that stand in the way of our relations.

If this does not work, Prime Minister Abe and I agreed to work together on promoting joint economic activity on the islands. We need to create a favourable environment for dealing with these questions. After all, I believe that these are secondary matters with no significant impact on the national economy.

Just take a good look at the map of the Russian Federation. This country is so huge, actually the biggest in the world. And here are these islands. These questions have to do with ethics and politics rather than anything else, although this does not make them less urgent or sensitive for our people. For this reason, I would like to reassure you that we need to be cautious when dealing with various approaches.

We will seek to provide favourable conditions for resolving these issues. We want to resolve them, and I hope that one day this will happen.

Sergei Brilyov: And the last thing, Mr President. You have now spoken about the situation, so I would like to touch upon – maybe, of course, it is not the President's concern – visas, and yet, you mentioned this word today and in recent days as well.

After all, the sky did not fall down during the FIFA World Cup when Russia significantly simplified visa formalities. Why not continue this? I can even cite one technically curious story.

Speaking about the APEC countries, we have visa-free travel with nearly all Latin American states, save Mexico, although Mexican fans were the most prominent. Russians can travel to Mexico as electronic visas are available there, but Mexicans are required to get full-format visas in order to enter our country, except during the World Cup. Perhaps, we should review our visa system. People complain about US visas and Schengen visas, but believe me, I think even your acquaintances find it hard and inconvenient to get a Russian visa, businessmen in particular.

Vladimir Putin: I am all in favour, but Lavrov is against it. He is sitting over there. And I have to heed specialists' opinions. As the Foreign Ministry staff insists, such matters are mainly solved on the basis on reciprocity. For now, we will retain the existing format of dealing with these matters, but we will doubtless strive towards lifting all visa barriers.

And for Shinzo, of course, if he has to obtain a visa each time, we will grant him a five-year or ten-year visa. Let him travel.

Meeting on socioeconomic matters

2018-08-29T19:59:17+04:00

As part of his working trip to the Siberian Federal District, Vladimir Putin visited Omsk, where he chaired a meeting on socioeconomic matters.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

We will talk about issues related to socioeconomic development. We have just discussed the development problems in the Omsk Region and Siberia with the Governor.

But in my opening remarks, I will mention only one of the most serious current problems: the pension system reform proposed by the Russian Federation Government.

As is known, the Government launched an initiative to reform the pension system and submitted a relevant draft to the State Duma, which the parliament adopted in the first reading.

Of course, it was expected and sparked rather fierce debates in society.

It is understandable, because for everyone, especially for older people, a pension age rise is an important and sensitive matter which hardly anyone is going to approve of. This has always been the case when reforms like this were carried out. Always and everywhere.

At the same time, we must look at the real situation in the economy and the labour market. We must understand what awaits Russia in ten, twenty or even thirty years.

We agreed that, while preparing the draft law for the second reading, our colleagues in the Government would hold consultations with political parties, trade unions, civic organisations, regions and the expert community.

Today I would like to hear what amendments you propose to make to the draft law, following these discussions.

Of course, I, for my part, constantly monitor the discussions. I have my own opinion on a number of issues. I will speak about this later. And now I will point out the approaches I believe essential.

I understand that in developing the draft law, our colleagues in the Government followed strict economic, financial and demographic calculations. This is how it must be. It is important and necessary.

But please do not forget that all our decisions will concern millions of people, therefore, they must be fair and take into account Russian citizens’ interests. It is not enough to act in a formal and mechanical way. It takes careful and well thought-out action. It is important to consider and contend with very different life situations. The human dimension must be taken into consideration in the provisions of this draft law.

Of course, all the decisions to ensure the interests of older citizens, their labour rights, healthcare and social welfare, must be made in advance. We cannot follow the principle of Louis XIV of France who said “After us the deluge.” We cannot act this way if we have a responsible attitude towards our country.

Before we begin sharing our opinions, I would like to repeat: if these reforms are necessary, it is so that the Russian pension system can do more than just live up to today’s realities. Also, it is not enough for the system to be financially stable for decades ahead.

Most importantly, these changes must ensure a decent quality of life, protect the interests of today’s pensioners and future generations of our citizens. Therefore, all our steps must be system-wide and thoroughly calculated.

Very soon, perhaps tomorrow, I will elaborate on my attitude and make a statement. But first I would like to hear what you think.

Let’s start working.

<…>

Meeting of BRICS leaders with delegation heads from invited states

2018-07-27T19:20:33+04:00

Vladimir Putin attended a meeting of BRICS leaders with delegation heads from invited African states and chairs of international associations.

Those invited included the leaders of African countries, namely, Angola, Botswana, Ethiopia, Gabon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, the Seychelles, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The meeting was also attended by the heads of Argentina (the current chair of the G20), Turkey (the current chair of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) and Jamaica (the current chair of the Caribbean Community).

Before the meeting, there was a joint photo session.

* * *

Speech at the meeting of BRICS leaders with delegation heads from invited states

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,

I would like to begin by greeting the leaders of African states and the heads of the countries that are the current chairs of the G20, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Caribbean Community.

I am grateful to the President of the Republic of South Africa for organising this representative meeting. Five years ago in Durban, BRICS leaders held a meeting with the heads of African states for the first time. Since then, our Group of Five and African countries have greatly strengthened and expanded their cooperation in the economy, politics and the humanitarian sphere.

Africa is one of the world’s most rapidly developing regions. According to the UN, the population of this continent will reach 2.5 billion by 2050. The level of urbanisation in Africa is increasing as well: the proportion of the population living in urban areas is expected to reach 60 percent by 2050.

The domestic African market and consumer demand are expanding. BRICS and the African states have similar development goals in many respects. In 2015, the BRICS summit in Russia adopted the large-scale BRICS Strategy for Economic Partnership.

We need to think about involving our African partners and friends in the work of each of the areas we identified then: the economy, finance, and food security.

Russia has always given priority to the development of relations with African countries, based on long-standing traditions of friendship and mutual assistance. We have recently held a number of high-level contacts, including with many of the leaders present in this room.

Russia's trade with African states grew by more than 25 percent in 2017. Food supplies increased by 38 percent, metals – by 30, machinery and equipment – by 24 percent.

Russian businesses are interested in working with African partners in a variety of areas, including industry, agriculture, healthcare, communications, geology and mining.

I will give just a few examples of Russian companies’ interaction with countries represented at this forum.

Yesterday, the President of Angola and I talked about the joint work of Angolan companies and the Russian company Alrosa in developing the Katoka diamond deposit, which accounts for 6 percent of the world's diamond output.

A joint venture was launched in Burundi to manufacture lighting equipment, with some of the products intended for export to other countries in East Africa.

Senegal is implementing projects in agriculture and building poultry and fish processing plants.

I would like to note in particular that Russia plans to increase its assistance to the development of the national energy sector in African states. We are implementing promising oil and gas projects with a number of countries, such as Angola, Mozambique, and Gabon.

In the nuclear power industry, where Russia is a technological leader, we offer our African partners the creation of an entire industry on a turnkey basis. Agreements on cooperation in the field of atoms for peace have been signed with a number of countries in the region, while in some of them the work has acquired a practical dimension. All these projects will be of strategic importance for Africa, where, according to different estimates, as many as 600 million people still live without electricity.

A considerable part of Russian initiatives provides for localising industrial businesses in Africa, including, among other things, the construction of plants manufacturing component parts and assembly works.

The implementation of these joint projects will serve to strengthen the industrial potential, support local businesses and create new and well-paid jobs. On the whole, this will lead to an improvement in living standards and a solution of social problems in African states.

Russia has a vested interest in intensifying interaction with African regional and sub-regional organisations, primarily with the African Union as well as the Southern African Development Community.

The amount of Russian assistance to Africa exceeded one billion dollars in 2017. Russian contributions to the World Food Programme fund are constantly growing. Russia is the fifth biggest contributor to the UNIDO Industrial Development Fund.

Considerable funds are remitted to the World Health Organisation for the fight against non-infectious diseases on the African continent. Our work to combat the Ebola virus has proved highly efficient.

Russia has for years trained national professional personnel for countries of the continent. Currently, thousands of Africans are being educated in Russia. We will continue to build up cooperation in this sphere.

In conclusion, I would like to inform you that we are studying the idea of holding a Russia-Africa summit with the participation of heads of African states. This could be preceded by relevant meetings of prominent business people, experts, and public figures; I intend to discuss this with representatives of African countries.

Thank you for your attention.

Meeting with football legends

2018-07-06T17:57:06+04:00

Vladimir Putin met with world football stars in the Kremlin.

The guests invited to a meeting with the President of Russia included best player of the 2010 World Cup playing for Uruguay Diego Forlan, 1990 World Cup champion playing for Germany Lothar Matthaeus, 1988 European champion playing for the Netherlands Marco van Basten, six-time winner of the English Premier League and winner of the 2008 UEFA Champions League Rio Ferdinand, 1992 European champion playing for Denmark Peter Schmeichel, 1999 Confederations Cup winner playing for Mexico Jorge Campos, bronze winner of the 1998 World Cup playing for Croatia Zvonimir Boban, silver winner of the 2009 European Women’s Championship playing for England and winner of the 2007 UEFA Women’s Champions League Alexandra Scott, as well as 1956 Olympic champion, Merited Master of Sports of the USSR, Merited Coach of the USSR and First Vice President of the Russian Football Union Nikita Simonyan.

President of the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) Gianni Infantino and Presidential Aide Igor Levitin also participated in the meeting.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Infantino, friends,

Welcome to the Moscow Kremlin.

First, I want to express my gratitude to the FIFA President for inviting all of you to Russia and the World Cup. I think we could start a very nice tradition for the future because you, as people who are well known not only in the football community but among all sports enthusiasts in your countries and around the world, are representatives of this wonderful sport, football. This is the first point.

Second, when people see you on the stands and how you communicate with your teams, with football fans from your and other countries, this inspires them to do sports and stay fit, and creates a special atmosphere of trust and celebration.

Therefore, I want to point out that football fans from all over the world – our fans are doing their best as well – so both foreign and Russian football fans are those who create this atmosphere of trust and celebration.

As you know, many of them are travelling all over our country. Tens of thousands of people came to Russia from across the world. Tens of thousands. And they are those who created this wonderful festive atmosphere.

Of course, they can see the hospitality and such a great welcome from our people, both sports lovers and ordinary people who are far from football. Our people are happy that so many fans came to Russia with such good intentions.

In this regard, I want to point out that the so-called people’s journalists, people who work independently on their own behalf in social media, have also helped destroy many stereotypes about Russia. People can see that Russia is a hospitable and friendly country.

To a large extent, our football enthusiasts deserve credit for this.

Everyone knows that fans in many countries behave differently, and so I will not comment on this now. However, our football fans view those who have come to cheer for their teams as their friends and members of the extended football family. This is why they are doing all they can to make visitors feel at home, as we say in Russia, and to tell them about our culture and the traditions of the diverse peoples living in Russia, because World Cup matches are held in different Russian cities and different regions. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of visitors will take back home the best feelings and impressions of our country, and that they will visit it again.

The championship itself, as I see it, being no football expert but just a person who loves this wonderful game, is proceeding very well, on high note. There have been many surprises, but then, we like it that way. It is interesting to see the strongest win, when victory depends on the team’s level of preparation and the tactics chosen by the coaches for each particular match. Unpredictability is what makes this game so interesting and why millions of people around the world love it.

Only eight out of the initial 32 teams are still fighting. You are world class experts, and maybe when the journalists leave, you will tell me which team you think will win the cup this year.

One more element of this championship, like any world football championship, is the amazing positive impetus it will give to the development of sports, in particular, football.

You can see that we love football in Russia. We have done a great deal and invested a lot of money in building football infrastructure. I am confident that it was the right decision to choose Russia to host the 2018 World Cup, and we are grateful to the FIFA leadership and everyone else who voted for Russia. To us, it is an opportunity to develop not only football but all popular sports, and football is one of the most popular sports. It is an opportunity to attract people, especially young people, to the values of sport so that they avoid self-destructive action and improve themselves, physically and spiritually.

We will pay special attention to the further development of our football heritage. As soon as the championship is over, we will get together with those who are in charge of sports and those who built and are maintaining these sports facilities and the sports infrastructure in general to discuss a plan for using this sports, engineering and transport infrastructure to promote physical culture in Russia.

I would like to thank you for coming to Russia. Thank you for taking part in this wonderful event.

I give the floor to Mr Infantino now. Gianni, please.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino (In Russian.): Spasibo bolshoye.

Thank you very much, Mr President,

Just really a few words to thank you for having us here today, for having these great legends here today who have written so many emotional, exciting, incredible pages in the history of our sport, a sport that millions, hundreds of millions of people, probably billions or certainly billions of people love all around the world. And I am particularly happy that we are here today, and that we are here in Russia during this month because, of course, Russia is a big country, is an important country in the world, and I think that two things have happened at this World Cup.

One is that Russia has become a true football country. I think at the latest since the qualification of the Russian national team against Spain for the quarter-final, the virus of football has entered the bodies of each and every Russian citizen from east to west and from south to north. In the whole country there were incredible celebrations.

And this passion for football in Russia together with what you were just saying – the infrastructure you have built, the stadiums that are beautiful, the 12 stadiums in 11 cities are absolutely beautiful, and there are other stadiums as well in other cities in Russia, not only in Moscow, which show what can be done with football. The plan that you have to not only organise an event but make this a legacy for the future of Russian football is absolutely crucial.

And one crucial element in addition to the stadiums, airports, infrastructure and transportation facilities is the passion for football. And now Russia is a true football country. This is the first thing that happened at this World Cup.

The second happening of this World Cup is that we all fell in love with Russia. All of us, everyone who has been here for a period of time now has discovered a country that we did not know. You were speaking about stereotypes, and it is true. When you come here, when you live here, when you meet the people in the street, when you see Moscow in its incredible beauty as it is these days with all the lights, with all the colours, and with the colours of all the participants of this World Cup walking around wearing their shirts, with their faces painted as their national flags, celebrating, partying, enjoying with the Russian people in an open, festive atmosphere.

This shows that all the fears that some were trying to put on us with regard to this World Cup, not only they are not true, but it is actually the opposite that is true. Everyone who is coming, everyone who is visiting, everyone who is living football in Russia can see what great work has been done, of course with your input by yourself and with input from all the population of Russia, and the volunteers.

I was told that police officers in Red Square are smiling when they are asked for some information. They are very friendly, and this is great. This is exactly what Russia is, and this is a new image of Russia that we now have. So thank you, and thanks to all Russian people for having us here. We are enjoying it incredibly. I feel like a child in a toy shop. I do not know how to explain it. And in addition to this we have a great World Cup from a football perspective which the whole world is enjoying.

Thank you very much on my behalf, on behalf of FIFA, on behalf of the whole world of football, and certainly as well on behalf of all the legends, who are here in Russia. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin (In English.): Thank Gianni, thank you for these kind words.

Gianni Infantino: Who wants to take the floor? Don’t be shy. Lothar, you’re half Russian. (Laughter.)

1990 World Cup champion playing for Germany Lothar Matthaeus: I am half-Russian, because my wife is from Russia. She is from the north, but she lived in Moscow, so I have been to Moscow a long time before the World Cup.

I came to Moscow for the first time in 1979 with a junior national team of Germany. We visited Red Square. It is completely different. I cannot believe that you can now play football on Red Square with kids, with the President. It was very nice. I saw how Russia and Moscow changed in the last ten, fifteen or twenty years.

Moscow is an international city with a national flair: great restaurants, great places, great places of history. I like Moscow not because of the football only. I like Moscow because it is a beautiful international city. I feel like at home here, and not only because of my wife or because of my relationship with Moscow. I always come to Moscow with a smile because I know what I can expect here. Beautiful people, and especially the World Cup is something special for Russia.

I know that Russians love football, but they were not happy that for the last ten or fifteen years there were no results from the Russian national team, especially two years ago they were not playing with this passion as they are playing now. This passion from the players is caused by spectators and makes this great atmosphere at the stadiums.

I have been to ten World Cups: five World Cups as a player, and five World Cups as a fan. And this is one of the best World Cups I saw in the last forty years.

Thank you, Mr President, thank you very much.

<…>

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Summit

2018-06-10T15:25:30+04:00

Vladimir Putin took part in the meeting of the Council of SCO Heads of State.

After a restricted meeting, the leaders were joined by members of the delegations of the member states, leaders of the observer countries and representatives of a number of international organisations. This year, India and Pakistan attended the summit for the first time as new member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Summit participants discussed various aspects of security and antiterrorist cooperation, the current economic situation, the development of humanitarian ties and coordination on regional issues, in particular Afghanistan and Syria.

The main political document signed by the participants of the meeting was the Qingdao Declaration, which reflects the consolidated approaches of the SCO member states regarding current issues of regional and global politics, laying out a common vision for the further development of multifaceted cooperation within the SCO.

They also adopted an Action Plan for 2018–2022 to implement the Treaty on Long-term Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation between the SCO Member States, and the SCO Member States Programme on Cooperation in Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism for 2019–2021. The leaders also approved the Anti-Drug Strategy of the SCO member states until 2023 and 20 more joint documents.

After the official events, Vladimir Putin talked to the Russian media.

The day before, in Qingdao, the Russian President held a number of meetings with his counterparts in the SCO.

* * *

Speech at the expanded format meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s Council of Heads of State

Russian President Vladimir Putin: Mr President,

Colleagues,

I share my colleague’s opinion that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is successfully progressing. With the accession of India and Pakistan – whose leaders are attending the meeting for the first time as full-fledged members – our organisation has become stronger, expanding its boundaries and capabilities.

I would like to stress that countering terrorism remains the priority for cooperation within the SCO. The programme adopted today on countering terrorism, separatism and extremism identifies cooperation benchmarks in that area for the coming three years.

The programme envisions holding joint drills and counter-terror operations, streamlining a closer exchange of experience and operational information. We expect the SCO Youth Council to actively participate in our work on preventing the recruitment of young people to participate in terrorist activities.

One of the SCO’s priorities is assisting in the political and diplomatic settlement of conflicts near the external borders of the organisation’s member states. The situation in Afghanistan calls for special attention, I agree with my colleagues who spoke about this earlier.

It is crucial that we fight the terrorist threat emanating from that country in unison, curb drug production and trafficking and render aid to Afghanistan in its national reconciliation, economic revival and stabilisation.

There has been good progress in the fight against terrorism in Syria. Thanks to the coordinated actions of Russia, the Syrian Government, Iran, Turkey, and other partners, including Kazakhstan, terrorist activity has become largely suppressed in that country. This opened the way to a political settlement.

Colleagues, I would like to note that the Government of Syria today controls an area that is home to about 90 percent of the country’s population. Damascus is following the agreements reached at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi in January, and has sent proposals on constitutional committee members from the Government of the Syrian Republic to prepare the new fundamental law of the country. Therefore, the Syrian Government is fully abiding by its obligations and has shown its commitment to a political dialogue. Now it is up to the opposition.

Undoubtedly, our countries cannot help worrying about the situation around the Iranian nuclear program. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action could destabilise the situation. Russia stands for the consistent, rigorous implementation of the JCPOA. For our part, we will continue to honour all our commitments.

The problem on the Korean Peninsula is having a significant impact on the security situation in the SCO space. We positively assess the desire of Pyongyang, Seoul and Washington to reach a comprehensive resolution of the crisis through dialogue and negotiations in line with the roadmap proposed by Russia and China.

The SCO should continue to help normalise the situation in the region. Russia welcomes the forthcoming summit between the United States and North Korea and acknowledges China’s great contribution to the resolution of the Korean crisis.

Colleagues,

An important track of SCO activity is the development of mutually beneficial economic ties between our countries. Trade and investment are gaining momentum. We are simplifying the mutual availability of goods and services, improving customs regulations, eliminating unnecessary administrative barriers, and implementing joint projects in energy, transport and agriculture.

We are working on several integration initiatives between our countries. In May, a cooperation agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and China was signed in Astana, Kazakhstan. It is important to take additional steps that would lead to increased coordination in the implementation of trade, investment and infrastructure projects through the EAEU and China’s Belt and Road programme. Russia and China are also preparing an agreement on the Eurasian Economic Partnership, which, of course, will be open to all the SCO countries.

I would like to use this opportunity to invite representatives of your countries to participate in the first meeting of the heads of regions of the SCO member states and in the Forum on Small Business of the SCO and BRICS regions, which are to be held in the Russian Federation.

Colleagues, at the end of the year, the term of office of the Secretary General of the SCO and the Director of the Executive Committee of the RATS expires. I would like to express my gratitude to our colleagues for their efficient work and wish success to their successors.

In conclusion, I would like to thank President Xi Jinping and all our Chinese friends for their very warm welcome and hospitality and congratulate China on its successful presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Today, Kyrgyzstan is taking over. Our Kyrgyz friends can count on all possible assistance from the Russian side.

Thank you.