I've
managed to get this from behind a tall paywall from this source
Transcript: ‘All this fuss about spies ... it is not worth serious interstate relations’
The Russian president on globalisation, China, Trump and the end of the ‘liberal idea’
27
June, 2019
This
is the transcript of a conversation between Vladimir Putin, Russian
president, Lionel Barber, Financial Times editor, and Henry Foy, the
FT’s Moscow bureau chief, which took place on Wednesday 26 June in
the Kremlin. Mr
Putin’s quotes are translated from the Russian.
Lionel
Barber: Mr
President, you head for Osaka shortly as the senior statesman at the
G20. Nobody has been to so many international meetings of this
grouping and the G7 over the last 20 years while you have been in
charge of Russia. Before we talk about the G20 agenda and what you
hope to achieve, we know that there are rising tensions between
America and China in trade, the risk of conflict in the Gulf. I would
be very grateful if you could talk a bit about how you have seen the
world change over the last 20 years while you have been in power.
Vladimir
Putin: First,
I have not been in power for all these 20 years. As you may know, I
was prime minister for four years, and that is not the highest
authority in the Russian Federation. But nevertheless, I have been
around for a long time in government and in the upper echelons, so I
can judge what is changing and how. In fact, you just said it
yourself, asking what has changed and how. You mentioned the trade
wars and the Persian Gulf developments. I would cautiously say the
situation has not changed for the better, but I remain optimistic to
a certain extent. But, to put it bluntly, the situation has
definitely become more dramatic and explosive.
LB: Do
you believe that the world now has become more fragmented?
VP: Of
course, because during the Cold War, the bad thing was the Cold War.
It is true. But there were at least some rules that all participants
in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to
follow. Now, it seems that there are no rules at all. In this sense,
the world has become more fragmented and less predictable, which is
the most important and regrettable thing.
LB: We
will return to this theme of the world without rules, fragmentation,
more transactional. But first, Mr President, tell us what you want to
achieve in Osaka, in terms of your relationships with these other
parties? What are your main goals for the summit?
VP: I
would very much like all the participants in this event, and the G20,
in my opinion, is a key international economic development forum
today, so I would like all the G20 members to reaffirm their
intention — at least an intention — to work out some general
rules that everyone would follow, and show their commitment and
dedication to strengthening international financial and trade
institutions.
Everything
else is details that complement the main topics one way or another.
We certainly support Japan’s presidency. As for the development of
modern technology, the information world, the information economy, as
well as our Japanese colleagues’ attention to matters such as
longevity and the environment — all this is extremely important,
and we will certainly support it and will take part in all these
discussions.
Even
though it is hard to expect any breakthroughs or landmark decisions
in the current conditions; we can hardly count on it today. But in
any case, there is hope at least that during these general
discussions and bilateral meetings we will be able to smooth out the
existing disagreements and lay a foundation, a basis for positive
movement forward.
LB: You
will have a meeting with [Saudi Crown Prince] Mohammed bin Salman in
Osaka. Can we expect an extension of the current agreement on oil
production? Limitations?
VP: As
you know, Russia is not an Opec member, even though it is among the
world’s largest producers. Our daily production is estimated at
11.3m barrels, I believe. The United States has surged ahead of us,
though. However, we believe that our production stabilisation
agreements with Saudi Arabia and Opec in general have had a positive
effect on market stabilisation and forecasting.
I
believe both energy producers, in this case, oil producing countries,
and consumers are interested in this, because stability is definitely
in short supply at present. And our agreements with Saudi Arabia and
other Opec members undoubtedly strengthen stability.
As
for whether we will extend the agreement, you will find out in the
next few days. I had a meeting on this issue with the top executives
of our largest oil companies and government members right before this
interview.
LB: They
are a little bit frustrated. They would like to produce more. Is that
correct?
VP: They
have a smart policy. It is not about increasing production, although
that is a major component in the work of large oil companies. It is
about the market situation. They take a comprehensive view of the
situation, as well as of their revenues and expenses. Of course, they
are also thinking about boosting the industry, timely investments,
ways to attract and use modern technology, as well as about making
this vital industry more attractive for investors.
Recommended
THURSDAY,
27 JUNE, 2019
However,
dramatic price hikes or slumps will not contribute to market
stability and will not encourage investment. This is why we discussed
all these issues in their totality today.
LB: Mr
President, you have observed four American presidents at close
quarters and maybe five, you have had direct experience. So, how is
Mr Trump different?
VP: We
are all different. No two people are the same, just like there are no
identical sets of fingerprints. Anyone has his or her own advantages,
and let the voters judge their shortcomings. On the whole, I
maintained sufficiently good-natured and stable relations with all
the leaders of the US. I had an opportunity to communicate more
actively with some of them.
The
first US president I came into contact with was Bill Clinton.
Generally, I viewed this as a positive experience. We established
sufficiently stable and business-like ties for a short period of time
because his tenure was already coming to an end. I was only a very
young president then who had just started working. I continue to
recall how he established partner-like relations with me. I remain
very grateful to him for this.
There
have been different times, and we had to address various problems
with all other colleagues. Unfortunately, this often involved
debates, and our opinions did not coincide on some matters that, in
my opinion, can be called key aspects for Russia, the United States
and the entire world. For example, this includes the unilateral US
withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that, as we have
always believed, and as I am still convinced, was the cornerstone of
the entire international security system.
I made very energetic attempts to convince our US partners not to withdraw from the [ABM[ treaty . . . the world would be a different place today, had our US partners accepted this proposal
We
debated this matter for a long time, argued and suggested various
solutions. In any event, I made very energetic attempts to convince
our US partners not to withdraw from the treaty. And, if the US side
still wanted to withdraw from the treaty, it should have done so in
such a way as to guarantee international security for a long
historical period.
I
suggested this, I have already discussed this in public, and I repeat
that I did this because I consider this matter to be very important.
I suggested working jointly on missile-defence projects that should
have involved the US, Russia and Europe. They stipulated specific
parameters of this co-operation, determined dangerous missile
approaches and envisioned technology exchanges, the elaboration of
decision-making mechanisms, etc. Those were absolutely specific
proposals.
I
am convinced that the world would be a different place today, had our
US partners accepted this proposal. Unfortunately, this did not
happen. We can see that the situation is developing in another
direction; new weapons and cutting-edge military technology are
coming to the fore. Well, this is not our choice. But, today, we
should at least do everything so as to not aggravate the situation.
LB: Mr
President, you are a student of history. You have had many hours of
conversation with Henry Kissinger. You almost certainly read his
book, World
Order.
With Mr Trump, we have seen something new, something much more
transactional. He is very critical of alliances and allies in Europe.
Is this something that is to Russia’s advantage?
VP: It
would be better to ask what would be to America’s advantage in this
case. Mr Trump is not a career politician. He has a distinct world
outlook and vision of US national interests. I do not accept many of
his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know
what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very
well what his voters expect from him.
Russia
has been accused, and, strange as it may seem, it is still being
accused, despite the Mueller report [on the investigation into
allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign],
of mythical interference in the US election. What happened in
reality? Mr Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and
saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this.
You
and I are talking ahead of the G20 meeting. It is an economic forum,
and it will undoubtedly have discussions on globalisation, global
trade and international finance.
The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation . . . The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly and they used this in the election campaign
Has
anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what
benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we
have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years,
since the 1990s?
China
has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of
Chinese out of poverty.
What
happened in the US, and how did it happen? In the US, the leading US
companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and
partners — made use of these benefits. The middle class hardly
benefited from globalisation. The take-home pay in the US (we are
likely to talk later about real incomes in Russia, which need special
attention from the government). The middle class in the US has not
benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was
divided up.
The
Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in
the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind
Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference.
This is what we should be talking about here, including when it comes
to the global economy.
I
believe this may explain his seemingly extravagant economic decisions
and even his relations with his partners and allies. He believes that
the distribution of resources and benefits of globalisation in the
past decade was unfair to the US.
I
am not going to discuss whether it was fair or not, and I will not
say if what he is doing is right or wrong. I would like to understand
his motives, which is what you asked me about. Maybe this could
explain his unusual behaviour.
LB: I
definitely want to come back to the Russian economy. But what you
said is absolutely fascinating. Here you are, the President of
Russia, defending globalisation along with [China’s] President Xi
[Jinping] whereas Mr Trump is attacking globalisation and talking
about America First. How do you explain this paradox?
VP: I
don’t think that his desire to make America first is a paradox. I
want Russia to be first, and that is not perceived as a paradox;
there is nothing unusual there. As for the fact that he is attacking
some manifestations of globalisation, I made that point earlier. He
seems to believe that the results of globalisation could have been
much better for the US than they are. These globalisation results are
not producing the desired effect for the US, and he is beginning this
campaign against certain elements of globalisation. This concerns
everyone, primarily major participants in the system of international
economic collaboration, including allies.
LB: Mr
President, you have had many meetings with President Xi, and Russia
and China have definitely come closer. Are you putting too many eggs
in the China basket? Because Russian foreign policy, including under
your leadership, has always made a virtue of talking to everybody.
VP: First
of all, we have enough eggs, but there are not that many baskets
where these eggs can be placed. This is the first point.
Secondly,
we always assess risks.
Thirdly,
our relations with China are not motivated by timeserving political
or any other considerations. Let me point out that the Friendship
Treaty with China was signed in 2001, if memory serves, long before
the current situation and long before the current economic
disagreements, to put it mildly, between the US and China.
We
do not have to join anything, and we do not have to direct our policy
against anyone. In fact, Russia and China are not directing their
policy against anyone. We are just consistently implementing our
plans for expanding co-operation. We have been doing this since 2001,
and we are just consistently implementing these plans.
Over the past 25 years . . . the share of G7 countries in the global GDP has declined from 58 per cent to 40 per cent. This should also be reflected in international institutions in some way
Take
a look at what is written there. We have not done anything that
transcends the framework of these accords. So there is nothing
unusual here, and you should not search for any implications of the
Chinese-Russian rapprochement. Of course, we assess the current
global developments; our positions coincide on a number of matters on
the current global agenda, including our attitude towards compliance
with generally accepted rules in trade, the international financial
system, payments and settlements.
The
G20 has played a very tangible role. Since its inception in 2008,
when the financial crisis flared up, the G20 has accomplished many
useful things for stabilising the global financial system, for
developing global trade and ensuring its stabilisation. I am talking
about the tax aspect of the global agenda, the fight against
corruption, and so on. Both China and Russia adhere to this concept.
The
G20 has accomplished a lot by advocating quota changes at the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both Russia and China
share this approach. Considering the major increase in the global
economic share of emerging markets, this is fair and right, and we
have been voicing this position from the very beginning. And we are
glad that this continues to develop and to proceed in line with
changes in global trade.
Over
the past 25 years or so (25, I believe), the share of G7 countries in
the global GDP has declined from 58 per cent to 40 per cent. This
should also be reflected in international institutions in some way.
That is the common position of Russia and China. This is fair, and
there is nothing special about this.
Yes,
Russia and China have many coinciding interests, this is true. This
is what motivates our frequent contacts with President Xi Jinping. Of
course, we have also established very warm personal relations, and
this is natural.
Therefore,
we are moving in line with our mainstream bilateral agenda that was
formulated as far back as 2001, but we quickly respond to global
developments. We never direct our bilateral relations against anyone.
We are not against anyone, we are for ourselves.
LB: I
am relieved that this egg supply is strong. But the serious point, Mr
President, is, you are familiar with Graham Allison’s book, The
Thucydides Trap.
The danger of tensions or a military conflict risk between a dominant
power and a rising power, America and China. Do you think that there
is a risk of a military conflict in your time between you, America
and China?
VP: You
know, the entire history of mankind has always been full of military
conflicts, but since the appearance of nuclear weapons the risk of
global conflicts has decreased due to the potential global tragic
consequences for the entire population of the planet in case such a
conflict happens between two nuclear states. I hope it will not come
to this.
However,
of course, we have to admit that it is not only about China’s
industrial subsidies on the one hand or the tariff policy of the US
on the other. First of all, we are talking about different
development platforms, so to speak, in China and in the US. They are
different and you, being a historian, probably will agree with me.
They have different philosophies in both foreign and domestic
policies, probably.
But
I would like to share some personal observations with you. They are
not about allied relations with one country or a confrontation with
the other; I am just observing what is going on at the moment. China
is showing loyalty and flexibility to both its partners and
opponents. Maybe this is related to the historical features of
Chinese philosophy, their approach to building relations.
China is showing loyalty and flexibility to both its partners and opponents . . . it is hard to say whether the US would have enough patience not to make any rash decisions, but to respect its partners even if there are disagreements
Therefore
I do not think that there would be some such threats from China. I
cannot imagine that, really. But it is hard to say whether the US
would have enough patience not to make any rash decisions, but to
respect its partners even if there are disagreements. But I hope, I
would like to repeat this again, I hope that there would not be any
military confrontation.
LB: Arms
control. We know that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
agreement is in grave jeopardy. Is there any place, from Russia’s
point of view, for future arms control agreements or are we in a new
phase when we are likely to see a new nuclear arms race?
VP: I
believe there is such a risk.
As
I said already, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile treaty, and has recently quit the INF treaty as well. But
this time, it did not just quit but found a reason to quit, and this
reason was Russia. I do not think Russia means anything to them in
this case, because this war theatre, the war theatre in Europe is
unlikely to be interesting to the US, despite the expansion of Nato
and Nato’s contingent near our borders. The fact remains, the US
has withdrawn from the treaty. Now the agenda is focused on the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start). I hope that I will be
able to talk about it with Donald [Trump] if we happen to meet in
Osaka.
We
said that we are ready to hold talks and to extend this treaty
between the US and Russia, but we have not seen any relevant
initiative from our American partners. They keep silent, while the
treaty expires in 2021. If we do not begin talks now, it would be
over because there would be no time even for formalities.
Our
previous conversation with Donald showed that the Americans seem to
be interested in this, but still they are not making any practical
steps. So if this treaty ceases to exist, then there would be no
instrument in the world to curtail the arms race. And this is bad.
LB: Exactly,
the gloves are off. Is there any chance of a triangular agreement
between China, Russia and America on intermediate nuclear forces or
is that a dream, pie in the sky? Would you support such an end?
VP: As
I said at the very beginning, we will support any agreement that can
advance our cause, that is, help us contain the arms race.
It
should be said that so far, the level and the development scale of
China’s nuclear forces are much lower than in the US and Russia.
China is a huge power that has the capability to build up its nuclear
potential. This will likely happen in the future, but so far our
capabilities are hardly comparable. Russia and the US are the leading
nuclear powers, which is why the agreement was signed between them.
As for whether China will join these efforts, you can ask our Chinese
friends.
We must respect North Korea’s legitimate security concerns. We must show it respect, and we must find a way of ensuring its security that will satisfy North Korea
LB: Russia
is a Pacific power as well as a European and Asian power. It is a
Pacific power. You have seen what the Chinese are doing in terms of
their build-up of their navy and their maritime strength. How do you
deal with those potential security problems, territorial disputes in
the Pacific? Does Russia have a role to play in a new security
arrangement?
VP: You
mentioned the build-up of naval forces in China. China’s total
defence spending is $117bn, if memory serves. The US defence spending
is over $700bn. And you are trying to scare the world with the
build-up of China’s military might? It does not work with this
scale of military spending. No, it does not.
As
for Russia, we will continue to develop our Pacific Fleet as planned.
Of course, we also respond to global developments and to what happens
in relations between other countries. We can see all of this, but it
does not affect our defence development plans, including those in the
Russian Far East.
We
are self-sufficient, and we are confident. Russia is the largest
continental power. But we have a nuclear submarine base in the Far
East, where we are developing our defence potential in accordance
with our plans, including so that we can ensure safety on the
Northern Sea Route, which we are planning to develop.
We
intend to attract many partners to this effort, including our Chinese
partners. We may even reach an agreement with American shippers and
with India, which has also indicated its interest in the Northern Sea
Route.
I
would say that we are also primed for co-operation in the Asia
Pacific region, and I have grounds to believe that Russia can make a
considerable, tangible and positive contribution to stabilising the
situation.
LB: Can
we just turn to North Korea? How do you assess the current situation
and do you believe that in the end, any deal or agreement will have
to accept the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons and that
total dismantling is just not possible? If I could just add, Mr
President, I ask you this because Russia has a fairly small but still
a land border with North Korea.
VP: You
know, whether we recognise North Korea as a nuclear power or not, the
number of nuclear charges it has will not decrease. We must proceed
from modern realities, which are that nuclear weapons pose a threat
to international peace and security.
Another
pertinent question is where this problem stems from. The tragedies of
Libya and Iraq have inspired many countries to ensure their security
at all costs.
What
we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but
how to ensure the unconditional security of North Korea and how to
make any country, including North Korea feel safe and protected by
international law that is strictly honoured by all members of the
international community. This is what we should be thinking about.
We
should think about guarantees, which we should use as the basis for
talks with North Korea. We must be patient, respect it and, at the
same time, take into account the dangers arising from this, the
dangers of the nuclear status and the presence of nuclear weapons.
Of
course, the current situation is fraught with unpredictable
scenarios, which we must avoid.
LB: You
have obviously thought of this as an experienced foreign policy and
security analyst and a strategist. How do you see the North Asia
security situation over the next five to 10 years, given you have
Russia, you have China, you have Korea and Japan?
VP: You
have said correctly that we have a common border, even if a short
one, with North Korea, therefore, this problem has a direct bearing
on us. The US is located across the ocean, and the UK is located far
away, while we are right here, in this region, and the North Korean
nuclear range is not far away from our border. This why this concerns
us directly, and we never stop thinking about it.
I
would like to return to my answer to your previous question. We must
respect North Korea’s legitimate security concerns. We must show it
respect, and we must find a way of ensuring its security that will
satisfy North Korea. If we do this, the situation may take a turn
nobody can imagine today.
Do
you remember what turn the situation took after the Soviet Union
adopted the policy of detente? Do I need to say anything else?
LB: Mr
President, you have been in power or very close to power. I think in
Davos I said to you when we met — you were not in power but still
calling all the shots. After 20 years at the top or near the top, has
your appetite for risk increased?
VP: It
did not increase or decrease. Risk must always be well-justified. But
this is not the case when one can use the popular Russian phrase: “He
who doesn’t take risks, never drinks champagne.” This is not the
case. Quite possibly, risks are inevitable when one has to make
certain decisions. Depending on the scale of any decision, risks can
be small or serious.
We said [to the previous US administration], suppose Assad steps down today, what will happen tomorrow? . . . the answer we got was very amusing . . . they said, ‘We don’t know’. But when you do not know what happens tomorrow, why shoot from the hip today?
Any
decision-making process is accompanied by risk. Before taking one’s
chances, one has to meticulously assess everything. Therefore, risk
based on an assessment of the situation and the possible consequences
of the decisions is possible and even inevitable. Foolish risks
overlooking the real situation and failing to clearly comprehend the
consequences are unacceptable because they can jeopardise the
interests of a great number of people.
LB: How
big was this Syria risk in terms of your decision to intervene?
VP: It
was sufficiently high. However, of course, I thought carefully about
this well in advance, and I considered all the circumstances and all
the pros and cons. I considered how the situation around Russia would
develop and the possible consequences. I discussed this matter with
my aides and ministers, including those in charge of law enforcement
agencies and other senior officials. In the long run, I decided that
the positive effect from our active involvement in Syrian affairs for
Russia and the interests of the Russian Federation would far outweigh
non-interference and passive observation of how an international
terrorist organisation grows ever stronger near our borders.
LB: What
has the return been like on the risk taken in Syria?
VP: I
believe that it has been a good and positive return. We have
accomplished even more than I had expected. First of all, many
militants planning to return to Russia were eliminated. This implies
several thousand people. They were planning to return to Russia or
neighbouring countries with which we do not maintain any visa regime.
Both aspects are equally dangerous for us. This is the first thing.
Secondly,
we have managed to stabilise the situation in a nearby region, one
way or another. This is also highly important. Therefore, we have
directly strengthened Russia’s domestic security. This is the third
thing.
Fourthly,
we have established sufficiently good business-like relations with
all regional countries, and our positions in the Middle East region
have become more stable. Indeed, we have established very good,
business-like, partner-like and largely allied relations with many
regional countries, including Iran, Turkey and other countries.
Primarily,
this concerns Syria, we have managed to preserve Syrian statehood, no
matter what, and we have prevented Libya-style chaos there. And a
worst-case scenario would spell out negative consequences for Russia.
Besides,
I would like to openly speak of the mobilisation of the Russian armed
forces. Our armed forces have received such practical experience that
they could not have obtained during any peacetime exercises.
LB: Are
you committed to [Syrian leader Bashar] al-Assad remaining in power
or can we see, at some point, the transition in Syria that Russia
would support, which would not be Libya?
VP: I
believe that the Syrian people should be free to choose their own
future. At the same time, I would like the actions of external
players to be substantiated and, just as in the case of the risks you
have mentioned, predictable and understandable, so that we can
consider at least our next moves.
When
we discussed this matter only recently with the previous US
administration, we said, suppose Assad steps down today, what will
happen tomorrow?
Your
colleague did well to laugh, because the answer we got was very
amusing. You cannot even imagine how funny it was. They said, “We
don’t know.” But when you do not know what happens tomorrow, why
shoot from the hip today? This may sound primitive, but this is how
it is.
Therefore,
we prefer to look at problems thoroughly from all possible angles and
not to be in any hurry. Of course, we are perfectly aware of what is
happening in Syria. There are internal reasons for the conflict, and
they should be dealt with. But both sides should do their bit. I am
referring to the conflicting parties.
LB: Mr
President, does that same argument apply to Venezuela? In other
words, you are not prepared to see a transition in Venezuela and you
are absolutely committed to President [Nicolas] Maduro.
VP: Oh,
and it seemed we had started so well. Please do not take offence to
what I am going to say next. You won’t, will you? We were off to
such a terrific start, talking seriously, and now you have moved back
to the stereotype views on Russia.
We
have no nothing to do with what is happening in Venezuela, if you
know what I mean.
LB: What
are those advisers doing then in Caracas?
VP: I
will say this now, if you just let me finish. There is no problem
with that.
Back
under [President Hugo] Chávez we sold weapons to Venezuela, without
any limits and problems. We did this absolutely legally just as it is
done all around the world and as every country does, including the
US, the UK, China and France. We did this too — we sold weapons to
Venezuela.
We
signed contracts, which say what we have to do when it comes to
servicing this military equipment, that we must train local
specialists, ensure that this equipment is maintained in combat
readiness and so on. We provide maintenance services for this
equipment. I have already said this many times, including to our
American partners: there are no Russian troops there. Do you
understand? Yes, there are Russian specialists and instructors there.
Yes, they are working there. Only recently, I believe it was a week
ago, a group of our advisers and specialists left the country. But
they can return.
We
have an agreement that our aircraft fly there from time to time to
take part in exercises. And this is it. Are we regulating the rebels’
actions as some of our partners are doing, or the actions of
President Maduro? He is the president, why should we control his
actions? He is in control. Whether he is doing well or not, this is
another matter altogether. We do not make any judgments.
I
believe that many things could have been done differently there when
it comes to the economy. But we do not meddle in things; it is none
of our business. We have invested billions of dollars there, mostly
in the oil sector. So what? Other countries are doing the same as
well.
It
looks like everything is preserved only by Russian weapons. This is
not true. It has nothing in common with reality. Where are the
self-proclaimed presidents and opposition leaders? Some of them have
taken refuge in foreign embassies and others are in hiding. What do
we have to do with this? This problem should be sorted out by the
Venezuelan people themselves. This is all.
But is it enough that [Juan Guaidó] entered a square and proclaimed himself president? Is the entire world supposed to support him as president?
LB: I
was just applying your theory and your experience of seeing what
happened in Libya and Iraq to Venezuela. And therefore, logically,
you would say, “We are committed to Mr Maduro because we do not
want to see regime change from outside.” Is that the Russian
position? Or might you be willing to say, “We will support
[Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan] Guaidó because we have
important oil interests in Venezuela”?
VP: We
are prepared for any developments in any country, including
Venezuela, if they are taking place in accordance with internal rules
and the country’s legislation, its constitution, and in line with
the people’s will.
I
do not think that Libyan or Iraqi statehood would have been wrecked
if there had been no intervention there. It would not have happened
in Libya, the situation was absolutely different there. Indeed,
[former Libyan leader Muammer] Gaddafi wrote his books there, set
forth his theories, and so on, which did not meet specific standards,
and his practical work did not meet European or American perceptions
of democracy.
Incidentally,
the president of France said recently that the American democratic
model differs greatly from the European model. So there are no common
democratic standards. And do you, well, not you, but our Western
partners, want a region such as Libya to have the same democratic
standards as Europe and the US? The region has only monarchies or
countries with a system similar to the one that existed in Libya.
But
I am sure that, as a historian, you will agree with me at heart. I do
not know whether you will publicly agree with this or not, but it is
impossible to impose current and viable French or Swiss democratic
standards on North African residents who have never lived in
conditions of French or Swiss democratic institutions. Impossible,
isn’t it? And they tried to impose something like that on them. Or
they tried to impose something that they had never known or even
heard of. All this led to conflict and intertribal discord. In fact,
a war continues in Libya.
So
why should we do the same in Venezuela? Do we want to revert to
gunboat diplomacy? What do we need it for? Is it necessary to
humiliate Latin American nations so much in the modern world and
impose forms of government or leaders from the outside?
By
the way, we worked with President Chávez because he was president.
We did not work with President Chávez as an individual, but we
worked with Venezuela. That is why we channelled investments in the
oil sector.
And
where did we plan to deliver Venezuelan oil while investing in the
oil sector? As you know, Venezuela has unique oil that is mostly
delivered to US refineries. What is so bad about that? We wanted the
Venezuelan oil and gas sector to operate steadily, predictably and
confidently and to make deliveries to those US refineries. I do not
understand what is so wrong with this.
First,
they faced economic problems, followed by domestic political
problems. Let them sort things out by themselves, and these leaders
will come to power by democratic means. But when a person enters a
square, raises his eyes to the sky and proclaims himself president?
Let us do the same in Japan, the US or Germany. What will happen? Do
you understand that this will cause chaos all over the world? It is
impossible to disagree with this. There will be pure chaos. How could
they act like this? But no, they started supporting that person from
the very outset.
Listen, all this fuss about spies and counterspies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This [Skripal] spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks. Or even five pounds, for that matter
He
may be a very good person. He may be just wonderful, and his plans
are good. But is it enough that he entered a square and proclaimed
himself president? Is the entire world supposed to support him as
president? We should tell him to take part in elections and win them,
and then we would work with him as the state leader.
LB: Let
us talk about another democracy in Europe, my own country. You are
going to have a meeting with [Theresa] May, which is going to be one
of her last meetings before she steps down as prime minister. Do you
think that there is a possibility of some improvement in
Anglo-Russian relations and that we can move on from some of these
issues that are obviously of great sensitivity, like the Skripal
affair? Or do you think that we are going to stay in a deep freeze
for the next three or five years?
VP: Listen,
all this fuss about spies and counterspies, it is not worth serious
interstate relations. This spy story, as we say, it is not worth five
kopecks. Or even five pounds, for that matter. And the issues
concerning interstate relations, they are measured in billions and
the fate of millions of people. How can we compare one with the
other?
The
list of accusations and allegations against one another could go on
and on. They say, “You poisoned the Skripals.” Firstly, this must
be proved.
Secondly,
the average person listens and says, “Who are these Skripals?”
And it turns out that [Sergei] Skripal was engaged in espionage
against us [Russia]. So this person asks the next question, “Why
did you spy on us using Skripal? Maybe you should not have done
that?” You know, these questions are infinite. We need to just
leave it alone and let security agencies deal with it.
But
we know that businesses in the UK (by the way, I had a meeting with
our British colleagues in this same room), they want to work with us,
they are working with us and intend to continue doing so. And we
support this intent.
I
think that Mrs May, despite her resignation, could not help but be
concerned that these spy scandals made our relations reach a deadlock
so we could not develop our ties normally and support business
people, who are doing what? They do not only earn money, this is what
is on the outside. They create jobs and added value, plus they
provide revenue at all levels of the tax system of their countries.
This is a serious and multi-faceted job, with the same risks you
mentioned, including risks related to business operations. And if we
add an unpredictable political situation, they will not be able to
work at all.
I
think that both Russia and the UK are interested in fully restoring
our relations. At least I hope that a few preliminary steps will be
made. I think it would be easier for Mrs May, maybe, because she is
leaving and is free to do what she thinks is right, important and
necessary and not to bother about some domestic political
consequences.
LB: Some
people might say that a human life is worth more than five pennies.
But do you believe, Mr President that whatever happened . . .
VP: Did
anybody die?
LB: Oh
yes. The gentleman who had a drug problem and he died after touching
the novichok in the car park. I mean somebody did that because of the
perfume. It was more than one person that died, not the Skripals. I
am just . . .
VP: And
you think this is absolutely Russia’s fault?
LB: I
did not say that. I said somebody died.
VP: You
did not say that, but if it has nothing to do with Russia . . . Yes,
a man died, and that is a tragedy, I agree. But what do we have to do
with it?
LB: Let
me just ask this and I really want to talk about the Russian economy.
Do you believe that what happened in Salisbury sent an unambiguous
message to anyone who is thinking of betraying the Russian state that
it is fair game?
VP: As
a matter of fact, treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors
must be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is the
way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished.
This
gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested,
sentenced and then served time in prison. He received his punishment.
For that matter, he was off the radar. Why would anybody be
interested in him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested,
sentenced and then spent five years in prison. Then he was released
and that was it.
As
concerns treason, of course, it must be punishable. It is the most
despicable crime that one can imagine.
LB: The
Russian economy. You spoke the other day about decline in the real
wages in the Russian workforce and Russian growth has been less than
expected. But at the same time, Mr President, you have been
accumulating foreign exchange reserves and international reserves at
some 460bn. What are you saving for? What is the purpose? Can’t you
use some of this money to ease up on the fiscal side?
VP: Let
me correct a few very small details. Real wages are not in decline in
Russia. On the contrary, they are starting to pick up. It is the real
household disposable income that is falling.
Do not think that this money [Russia’s reserves] is just sitting on the shelf. No, it creates certain guarantees for Russia’s economic stability in the midterm
Wages
and income are two slightly different things. Income is determined by
many parameters, including loan servicing costs. People in Russia
take out a lot of consumer loans and interest payments are counted
towards expenses, which drags down real income indicators. Also, the
shadow economy is undergoing legalisation. A substantial part of
self-employed people — I believe, 100,000 or 200,000 — have
already legalised their business. This, too, affects real incomes of
the population, disposable incomes.
This
tendency has persisted for the past four years. Last year we recorded
a small increase of 0.1 per cent. It is not enough. It is still
within the margin of error. But it is one of the serious problems
that we need to deal with and we are dealing with it.
Real
wages started to grow recently. Last year there was an 8.5-per cent
increase. This year, the growth rate of real wages has significantly
decreased due to a whole range of circumstances. I mean that last
year we saw a recovery growth and there are some other factors
involved. However, it continues. And we really expect that it will
have an effect on real household disposable incomes.
Even
more so because lately we have adopted a number of measures to speed
up the growth of retirement pensions. Last year the inflation rate
was 4.3 per cent and, based on these results, in the beginning of
this year pensions were adjusted for inflation by 7.05 per cent. And
we set ourselves a goal, a task — which, I am certain, will be
achieved — to adjust pensions by a percentage that is above the
inflation rate.
Now,
real incomes were also affected because we had to increase VAT from
18 to 20 per cent, which affected people’s purchasing power because
the inflation rate exceeded 5 per cent.
In
other words, we expected that the negative impact of the VAT increase
would be short-term, which is exactly what happened. Fortunately, it
worked out and our calculations proved right. Now the inflation rate
is going down, the macroeconomic situation is improving; investment
is rising slightly. We can see that the economy has overcome those
difficulties that were caused by internal and external shocks. The
external shocks were related to restrictions and slumping prices on
our traditional export products. The economy has stabilised.
The
macroeconomic situation in the country is stable. It is not
accidental and all rating agencies registered it. The three major
agencies raised our investment rating. Economic growth last year was
2.3 per cent. We do not think it was enough but we will, of course,
work on speeding up the pace. The growth rate in industrial
production was 2.9 per cent and even higher, up to 13 per cent in
some industries (light industry, processing and garment industries
and several others). Therefore, overall, our economy is stable.
But
the most important task we need to achieve is to change the structure
of the economy and secure a substantial growth of labour productivity
through modern technologies, Artificial Intelligence, robotics and so
on. This is exactly why we increased VAT, to raise budget funds for
performing a certain part of this job that is the state’s
responsibility, in order to create conditions for private investment.
Let us take transport and other infrastructure development. Hardly
anybody besides the state is involved in it. There are other factors
related to education and healthcare. A person who has health problems
or has no training cannot be efficient in the modern economy. The
list goes on.
We
really hope that by starting this work on key development areas, we
will be able to increase labour productivity and use this basis for
ensuring an increase in the incomes and prosperity of our people.
As
concerns the reserves, you are not exactly correct here, either. We
have over 500bn in gold and foreign currency reserves, rather than
460bn. But the understanding is that we need to create a safety net
that would let us feel confident and use the interest on our existing
resources. If we have 7 per cent more, we can spend those 7 per cent.
This
is what we plan for the next year and there is a high probability
that we will succeed. Do not think that this money is just sitting on
the shelf. No, it creates certain guarantees for Russia’s economic
stability in the midterm.
LB: The
central bank has done a very good job in helping to secure
macroeconomic stability even if some of the oligarchs complain about
banks being closed.
VP: You
know, first of all, we do not have oligarchs any more. Oligarchs are
those who use their proximity to the authorities to receive super
profits. We have large companies, private ones, or with government
participation. But I do not know of any large companies that get
preferential treatment from being close to the authorities, these are
practically non-existent.
As
for the central bank, yes, it is engaged in a gradual improvement of
our financial system: inefficient and small-capacity companies, as
well as semi-criminal financial organisations are leaving the market,
and this is large-scale and complicated work.
It
is not about oligarchs or large companies; the thing is that it
affects, unfortunately, the interests of the depositor, the average
person. We have relevant regulatory acts that minimise people’s
financial losses and create a certain safety net for them. But each
case should be considered individually, of course.
In
general, the work of the central bank, in my opinion, deserves
support. It is related to both the improvement of the financial
system and the calibrated policy regarding the key interest rate.
LB: Mr
President, I would like to go back to President Xi and China. As you
know, he has pursued a rigorous anti-corruption campaign in order to
clean up the party, maintain the legitimacy and strengthen the party.
He has also read the history of the Soviet Union, where [Mikhail]
Gorbachev essentially abandoned the party and helped to destroy the
country — the Soviet Union. Do you think that Mr Xi is right in his
approach that the party is absolutely crucial? And what lessons do
you draw for Russia? If I can just add, you said something
interesting a few years ago about the break-up of the Soviet Union
being the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.
VP: These
two issues are not connected. As for the tragedy related to the
dissolution of the Soviet Union, this is something obvious. I meant,
first of all, the humanitarian aspect of it. It appears that 25m
ethnic Russians were living abroad when they learned from the
television and radio that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist.
Nobody asked their opinion. The decision was simply made.
Most (over 70 per cent) of the citizens of the USSR spoke in favour of retaining it. Then the decision was made to dissolve the USSR, but nobody asked the people, and 25m ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the Russian Federation. Listen, is this not a tragedy?
You
know, these are issues of democracy. Was there an opinion poll, a
referendum? Most (over 70 per cent) of the citizens of the USSR spoke
in favour of retaining it. Then the decision was made to dissolve the
USSR, but nobody asked the people, and 25m ethnic Russians found
themselves living outside the Russian Federation. Listen, is this not
a tragedy? A huge one! And family relations? Jobs? Travel? It was
nothing but a disaster.
I
was surprised to see the later comments on what I said, in
particular, in the Western media. They should try to live through
seeing their father, brother or any other close relative finding
themselves living in a different country, where a whole new life has
started. I assure you.
As
for the party and the party state building in China, this is for the
Chinese people to decide; we do not interfere. Today’s Russia has
its own principles and rules of life, and China with its 1.35bn
people has its own. You try to rule a country with such a population.
This is not Luxembourg, with all due respect to this wonderful
country. Therefore, it is necessary to give the Chinese people the
opportunity to decide how to organise their lives.
LB: Again
a big picture question. I talked at the beginning of our conversation
about fragmentation. Another phenomenon today is that there is a
popular backlash against elites and against the establishment and you
have seen that — Brexit in Britain. Perhaps you were speaking about
Trump’s America. You have seen it with the AFD in Germany; you have
seen it in Turkey; and you have seen it in the Arab world. How long
do you think that Russia can remain immune to this global movement of
backlash against the establishment?
VP: You
should look at the realities in each particular case. Of course,
there are some trends, but they are only general. In each particular
case, when looking at the situation and how it unfolds, you should
take into account the history of the given country, its traditions
and realities.
How
long will Russia remain a stable country? The longer the better.
Because very many other things and its position in the world depend
on stability, on internal political stability. Ultimately, the
wellbeing of the people depends, possibly primarily, on stability.
One
of the reasons, the internal reason for the Soviet Union’s collapse
was that life was difficult for the people, whose take-home wages
were very small. The shops were empty, and the people lost the
intrinsic desire to preserve the state.
They
thought that it could not get worse no matter what happened. It
turned out that life became worse for very many people, especially at
the beginning of the 1990s when the social protection and healthcare
systems collapsed and industry was crumbling. It could be
ineffective, but at least people had jobs. After the collapse, they
lost them. Therefore, you should look at each particular case
separately.
What
is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump
phenomenon, as you said, in the US? What is happening in Europe as
well? The ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious
problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of
course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must
do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and
existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and
predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future.
There
is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose.
Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal
idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable.
When
the migration problem came to a head, many people admitted that the
policy of multiculturalism is not effective and that the interests of
the core population should be considered. Although those who have run
into difficulties because of political problems in their home
countries need our assistance as well. That is great, but what about
the interests of their own population when the number of migrants
heading to Western Europe is not just a handful of people but
thousands or hundreds of thousands?
LB: Did
[German chancellor] Angela Merkel make a mistake?
VP: Cardinal
mistake. One can criticise Trump for his intention to build a wall
between Mexico and the US. It could be going too far. Yes, maybe so.
I am not arguing about this point. But he had to do something about
the huge inflow of migrants and narcotics.
Nobody
is doing anything. They say this is bad and that is bad as well. Tell
me, what is good then? What should be done? Nobody has proposed
anything. I do not mean that a wall must be built or tariffs raised
by 5 per cent annually in the economic relations with Mexico. This is
not what I am saying, yet something must be done. He is at least
looking for a solution.
What
am I driving at? Those who are concerned about this, ordinary
Americans, they look at this and say, Good for him, at least he is
doing something, suggesting ideas and looking for a solution.
As
for the liberal idea, its proponents are not doing anything. They say
that all is well, that everything is as it should be. But is it? They
are sitting in their cosy offices, while those who are facing the
problem every day in Texas or Florida are not happy, they will soon
have problems of their own. Does anyone think about them?
The
same is happening in Europe. I discussed this with many of my
colleagues, but nobody has the answer. The say they cannot pursue a
hardline policy for various reasons. Why exactly? Just because. We
have the law, they say. Well, then change the law!
We
have quite a few problems of our own in this sphere as well. We have
open borders with the former Soviet republics, but their people at
least speak Russian. Do you see what I mean? And besides, we in
Russia have taken steps to streamline the situation in this sphere.
We are now working in the countries from which the migrants come,
teaching Russian at their schools, and we are also working with them
here. We have toughened the legislation to show that migrants must
respect the laws, customs and culture of the country.
In
other words, the situation is not simple in Russia either, but we
have started working to improve it. Whereas the liberal idea
presupposes that nothing needs to be done. The migrants can kill,
plunder and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants must
be protected. What rights are these? Every crime must have its
punishment.
So,
the liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with
the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. Or take
the traditional values. I am not trying to insult anyone, because we
have been condemned for our alleged homophobia as it is. But we have
no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they
wish. But some things do appear excessive to us.
They
claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. I cannot
even say exactly what genders these are, I have no notion. Let
everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be
allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family
values of millions of people making up the core population.
LB: Does
that include — this is very important, like you say — the end of
this liberal idea, because — what else did you say — uncontrolled
immigration, open borders, definitely, as you say, diversity as an
organising principle in society? What else do you think is just
finished over in terms of the liberal idea? And would you say — if
I could just add — that religion therefore must play an important
role in terms of national culture and cohesiveness?
The liberal idea cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor
VP: It
should play its current role. It [religion] cannot be pushed out of
this cultural space. We should not abuse anything.
Russia
is an Orthodox Christian nation, and there have always been problems
between Orthodox Christianity and the Catholic world. This is exactly
why I will now say a few words about Catholics. Are there any
problems there? Yes, there are, but they cannot be over-exaggerated
and used for destroying the Roman Catholic Church itself. This is
what cannot be done.
Sometimes,
I get the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use
certain elements and problems of the Catholic Church as a tool for
destroying the Church itself. This is what I consider to be incorrect
and dangerous.
All
right, have we forgotten that all of us live in a world based on
biblical values? Even atheists and everyone else live in this world.
We do not have to think about this every day, attend church and pray,
thereby showing that we are devout Christians or Muslims or Jews.
However, deep inside, there must be some fundamental human rules and
moral values. In this sense, traditional values are more stable and
more important for millions of people than this liberal idea, which,
in my opinion, is really ceasing to exist.
LB: So
religion, religion is not the opium of the masses?
VP: No,
it is not. But I get the impression that you are detached from
religion because it is already 12.45am Moscow time, and you continue
to torture me. As we say here, there is no fear of God in you, is
there? (Laughter).
LB: This
is history. I have waited a long time for this. I have got one last
question. And thank you for your — go on please.
VP: Please,
go ahead.
Henry
Foy: Mr
President, would you say — I was reflecting on what you just said:
some of the themes you were referring to would echo in people such as
[former Trump adviser] Steve Bannon, and Mr Trump himself, and the
groups in Europe who have come to power. Do you think if the end of
the liberal idea is over, is now the time of the “illiberals”?
And do you see more and more allies growing around the world to your
way of seeing the human existence at the moment?
VP: You
know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas
have never existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of
humankind, but everything very quickly ends in a deadlock if there is
no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one way or another.
Various
ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest
themselves, but at the same time interests of the general public,
those millions of people and their lives, should never be forgotten.
This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then,
it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals
and troubles. This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not
mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a dominating factor) that it
must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They
cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been
attempting to do over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen
everywhere: both in the media and in real life. It is deemed
unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For
this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing,
disbanding everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody.
Of course, not. The liberal idea cannot be destroyed either; it has
the right to exist and it should even be supported in some things.
But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute
dominating factor. That is the point. Please.
LB: You
really are on the same page as Donald Trump. Mr President, you have
been in power for almost 20 years.
VP: For
18 years.
LB: You
have seen many world leaders. Who do you most admire?
VP: Peter
the Great.
LB: But
he is dead.
VP: He
will live as long as his cause is alive just as the cause of each of
us. (Laughter). We will live until our cause is alive.
If
you mean any present-day leaders from different countries and states,
of the persons that I could communicate with, I was most seriously
impressed by former president of France [Jacques] Chirac. He is a
true intellectual, a real professor, a very level-headed man as well
as very interesting. When he was president, he had his own opinion on
every issue, he knew how to defend it and he always respected his
partners’ opinions.
In
modern-day history, taking a broader view, there are many good and
very interesting people.
LB: Peter
the Great, the creator of the Greater Russia. Need I say any more? My
last question, Mr President. Great leaders always prepare succession.
Lee Kuan Yew prepared succession. So please share with us what would
the process be by which your successor will be chosen.
VP: I
can tell you without exaggeration that I have always been thinking
about this, since 2000. The situation changes and certain demands on
people change, too. In the end, and I will say this without theatrics
or exaggeration, in the end the decision must be made by the people
of Russia. No matter what and how the current leader does, no matter
who or how he represents, it is the voter that has the final word,
the citizen of the Russian Federation.
LB: So
the choice will be approved by the Russian people in a vote? Or
through the Duma?
VP: Why
through the Duma? By means of direct secret ballot, universal direct
secret ballot. Of course, it is different from what you have in Great
Britain. We are a democratic country. (Laughter).
In
your country, one leader has left, and the second leader, who is for
all intents and purposes the top figure in the state, is not elected
by a direct vote of the people, but by the ruling party.
It
is different in Russia, as we are a democratic country. If our top
officials leave for some reason, because they want to retire from
politics like Boris Yeltsin, or because their term ends, we hold an
election through universal direct secret ballot.
The
same will happen in this case. Of course, the current leader always
supports someone, and this support can be substantive if the person
supported has the respect and trust of the people, but in the end,
the choice is always made by the Russian people.
LB: I
cannot resist pointing out that you did take over as president before
the election.
VP: Yes,
this is true. So what? I was acting president, and in order to be
elected and become the head of state, I had to take part in an
election, which I did.
I
am grateful to the Russian people for their trust back then, and
after that, in the following elections. It is a great honour to be
the leader of Russia.
LB: Mr
President, thank you for spending time with the Financial Times in
Moscow, in the Kremlin.
VP: Thank
you for your interest in the events in Russia and your interest in
what Russia thinks about the current international affairs. And thank
you for our interesting conversation today. I believe it was really
interesting. Thank you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.