Interview
to German newspaper Bild. Part 1
The interview was recorded on January 5,
in Sochi.
January 11,
2016
06:00
Sochi
1 of 4
Interview to German newspaper Bild.
Question: Mr President,
We have just marked the 25th anniversary
of the end of the Cold War. Last year, we witnessed
a great number of wars and crises across the world,
something that had not happened for many years. What did we do wrong?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You have
started just with the key question. We did everything wrong from
the outset. We did not overcome Europe’s division: 25 years ago
the Berlin Wall fell, but Europe’s division was not overcome, invisible
walls simply moved to the East. This created the foundation
for mutual reproaches, misunderstanding, and crises
in the future. Many people, including in the Federal
Republic [of Germany], criticise me for my well-known speech
at the Munich Conference on Security. But what was so unusual
that I said?
After the Berlin Wall fell, there were talks that
NATO would not expand to the East. As far
as I remember, the then Secretary General of NATO, national
of the Federal Republic Manfred Woerner said that.
By the way, some German politicians of that time gave warnings
and proposed their solutions, for example, Egon Bahr.
You know, before meeting with German journalists I,
naturally, thought that we would anyway come to the issue you have
touched upon now, so I took archived records of talks of that
period (1990) between Soviet leaders and some German politicians,
including Mr Bahr. They have never been published.
Question: Are these interviews?
Vladimir Putin: No, these are working discussions
between German politicians Genscher, Kohl, Bahr and Soviet leadership (Mr
Gorbachev, Mr Falin, who, I think, headed the International Division
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party). They have
never been made public. You and your readers will be the first
to learn about this talk of 1990. Look what Mr Bahr said: “If while
uniting Germany we do not take decisive steps to overcome
the division of Europe into hostile blocs, the developments can
take such an unfavourable turn that the USSR will be doomed
to international isolation.” That was said on June 26, 1990.
Mr Bahr made concrete proposals. He spoke about
the necessity to create a new alliance in the centre
of Europe. Europe should not go to NATO. The whole
of Central Europe, either with East Germany or without it, should
have formed a separate alliance with participation of both
the Soviet Union and the United States. And then he says:
“NATO as an organisation, at least its military structures must
not extend to include Central Europe.” At that time, he already was
the patriarch of European politics, he had his own vision
of Europe’s future, and he was telling his Soviet colleagues: “If you
do not agree with it, but on the contrary agree with NATO’s
expansion, and the Soviet Union agrees with it, I will never
come to Moscow again.” You see, he was very smart. He saw a deep
meaning in that, he was convinced that it was necessary to change
the format radically, move away from the times of the Cold
War. But we did nothing.
Question: Did he come to Moscow again?
Vladimir Putin: I do not know. This talk
took place on February 27, 1990. This is a record
of the conversation between Mr Falin representing the Soviet
Union and Mr Bahr and Mr Voigt representing German politicians.
So what has actually happened? What Mr Bahr had warned
about – that’s what has happened. He warned that the military
structure – the North Atlantic Alliance – must not expand
to the East. That something common, uniting the whole
of Europe must be created. Nothing like that has happened; just
the opposite has happened what he had warned about: NATO started moving
eastwards and it expanded.
We have heard a thousand times the mantra
from our American and European politicians, who say: “Each country has
the right to choose its own security arrangements.” Yes, we know
that. This is true. But it is also true that other countries have
the right to make decisions to expand their own organisation
or not, act as they consider appropriate in terms of global
security. And leading NATO members could have said: “We are happy that you
want to join us, but we are not going to expand our organisation, we
see the future of Europe in a different way.”
In the last 20–25 years, especially after
the collapse of the Soviet Union when the second centre
of gravity in the world disappeared, there was a desire
to fully enjoy one's sole presence at the pinnacle of world
fame, power and prosperity. There was absolutely no desire to turn
either to international law or to the United Nations
Charter. Wherever they became an obstacle, the UN was immediately
declared outdated.
Apart from NATO’s expansion eastwards,
the anti-ballistic missile system has become an issue in terms
of security. All this is being developed in Europe under
the pretext of addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.
In 2009, current President
of the United States Barack Obama said that if Iran’s nuclear threat
no longer existed there would be no incentive for establishing
the ABM system; this incentive would disappear. However,
the agreement with Iran has been signed. And now the lifting
of sanctions is being considered, everything is under the IAEA
control; first shipments of uranium are already being transported
to the Russian territory for processing, but the ABM system
is being further developed. Bilateral agreements have been signed with Turkey,
Romania, Poland, and Spain. Naval forces that should operate as part
of missile defence are deployed in Spain. A positioning area has
already been created in Romania, another one will be created
in Poland by 2018; a radar is being installed in Turkey.
We strongly objected to developments taking
place, say, in Iraq, Libya or some other countries. We said: “Don’t
do this, don’t go there, and don’t make mistakes.” Nobody listened
to us! On the contrary, they thought we took
an anti-Western position, a hostile stance towards the West.
And now, when you have hundreds of thousands, already one million
of refugees, do you think our position was anti-Western
or pro-Western?
Question: As far as I understood,
you have summed up the mistakes made by the West with regard
to your country. Do you believe that Russia on its part has made any
during these 25 years?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, it has. We have failed
to assert our national interests, while we should have done that from
the outset. Then the whole world could have been more balanced.
Question: What you just said, does that mean that
starting from 1990–1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
all the years after it, Russia has failed to clearly assert its
national interests?
Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.
Question: We know that you have special attitude
towards Germany. Ten years ago in an interview given to us
on the occasion of the 60th anniversary
of the end of World War II you said: “Russia
and Germany have never been so close to each other as they are
now.”
What do you believe has been left of that
closeness to this day?
Vladimir Putin: Our relations are based, most
importantly, on mutual attraction of our peoples.
Question: So nothing has changed in this
respect?
Vladimir Putin: I think, no. Despite all
the attempts (you and your colleagues have been making) to upset
our relations using mass media and anti-Russia rhetoric, I believe
that you have failed to do this to the extent that you wanted
to. Of course, I do not mean you personally. I refer
to the media in general, including German ones. In Germany,
the media are under a strong foreign influence, first
and foremost from the other side of the Atlantic.
You have said that I have summed up everything
that we see as the mistakes made by the West. That was far
from everything, I have named but a few most important points. After
the Soviet Union collapsed, equally adverse processes emerged inside
Russia itself. Those included a drop in industrial production,
the collapse of social system, separatism, and the most
evident onslaught of international terrorism.
Certainly, we are responsible, there is no one but us
to blame. At the same time, for us it was an obvious
fact that the international terrorism was also used as a means
of fighting against Russia, while everyone either turned a blind eye
on that or provided support to terrorists (I refer
to political, information, financial or in some cases even armed
support to the actors fighting against the Russian state).
Certainly, at that moment we realised that discussions
and geopolitical interests are completely different things.
As for the Russian-German relations,
indeed, they reached an excellent level in 2005, and would have
developed successfully further. The trade turnover between our two
countries grew to over $80 billion.
In Germany, a huge number of jobs were
created thanks to Russian-German cooperation. We tried to prevent
negative developments in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq,
together.
We made major steps in furthering our energy
cooperation. A lot of German entrepreneurs opened businesses
in Russia, and thousands of enterprises were established.
Exchanges between our citizens expanded, and humanitarian contacts
developed. The Petersburg Dialogue public forum was also established
at that time.
As I have said, our trade turnover used
to reach $83–85 billion, and in the first months
of 2015 it fell by half. I believe as of the end
of the year it will stand at about $40 billion,
at 50 percent of what it was. Nevertheless, we maintain
relations, and the Federal Chancellor and I meet regularly
at various events. I think, I met her seven times, and had
20 telephone conversations with her in 2015. We still hold reciprocal
Years of the Russian Language and Literature in Germany
and Years of the German Language and Literature
in Russia. This year is to be the year of youth exchanges.
So the relations are still developing, thank God, and I hope
they will develop further. We will overcome the difficulties we are facing
today.
Question: If I got you right, NATO should
have told the East European states there and then that it would not
admit them? Do you believe NATO could have survived that?
Vladimir Putin: Certainly.
Question: Yet this has been set forth
in the NATO Charter.
Vladimir Putin: The Charter is written
by people, isn’t it? Does the Charter say that NATO is obliged
to admit everyone who would like to join? No. There should be certain
criteria and conditions. If there had been political will, if they had
wanted to, they could have done anything. They just did not want to. They
wanted to reign.
So they sat on the throne. And then?
And then came crises that we are now discussing. If they had followed
the advice the old wise German, Mr Egon Bahr gave them, they would
have created something new that would unite Europe and prevent crises.
The situation would have been different, there would have been different
issues. Perhaps they would not have been that acute, you see.
Question: There is a theory saying that
there are two Mr Putins: the first one was young pre-2007 Mr Putin who
showed solidarity with the United States and who was friends with Mr
Schroeder, and then, after 2007, another Mr Putin came. Back in 2000
you said, “We should have no confrontations in Europe, we should do
everything to overcome them.” And now we have found ourselves
in such confrontation.
May I ask you a straightforward question?
When we are going to have the first Mr Putin back?
Vladimir Putin: I have never changed. First,
I still feel young today. I was and I continue to be
Mr Schroeder’s friend. Nothing has changed.
My attitude to such issues
as the fight against terrorism has not changed either. It is true,
on September 11 I was the first to call President Bush
and express my solidarity. Indeed, we stood ready to do
everything to combat terrorism together. Not so long ago, after
the terrorist attacks in Paris, I called and then met
the President of France.
If anyone had listened to Gerhard Schroeder,
to Jacques Chirac, to me, perhaps there would have been none of the recent
terrorist attacks in Paris, as there would have been no upsurge
of terrorism in Iraq, Libya, or other countries
in the Middle East.
We are faced with common threats, and we still
want all countries, both in Europe and the whole world,
to join their efforts to combat these threats, and we are still
striving for this. I refer not only to terrorism, but also
to crime, trafficking in persons, environmental protection,
and many other common challenges. Yet this does not mean that it is us who
should agree with everything that others decide on these or other
matters. Furthermore, if someone is not happy with our stance, they could find
a better option than declaring us an enemy every time. Would not it
be better to listen to us, to critically reflect on what we
say, to agree to something and to look
for a common solution? That was what I referred
to at the celebration of the 70th anniversary
of the United Nations in New York.
Question: I would like to express
the view that today the fight against Islamic terrorism is such
an acute issue that it could bring Russia and the West back
together in this fight, but the problem of Crimea arises. Is
Crimea really worth putting cooperation with the West at stake?
Vladimir Putin: What do you mean when you say
‘Crimea’?
Question: Redrawn boundaries.
Vladimir Putin: And what I mean is
people – 2.5 million of them. These are the people that were
frightened by the coup; let’s be frank, they were worried
by the coup d’état in Ukraine. And after the coup in Kiev –
and it was nothing but a coup d’état, no matter how the extreme
nationalist forces, the forces that were coming to power at that
moment and largely stayed there, tried to sugar it up – they
just began to openly threaten people. To threaten Russians
and Russian-speaking people living in Ukraine and in Crimea
in particular, because it was more densely populated by Russians
and Russian-speaking than other parts of Ukraine.
What was our reaction? We did not make war, nor did we
occupy anyone; there was no shooting, no one got killed during the events
in Crimea. Not a single person! We used the Armed Forces only
to stop more than 20,000 Ukrainian service members stationed there from
interfering with the free expression of will by the residents
of Crimea. People came to the referendum and cast their
vote. They chose to be part of Russia.
Here is a question: what is democracy? Democracy
is the will of the people. People voted for the life
they wanted. It is not the territory and borders that I am
concerned about but the fates of people.
Vladimir Putin: It is important to always
respect international law. In Crimea, there was no violation
of international law. Under the United Nations Charter, every nation
has the right to self-determination. Concerning Kosovo, the UN
International Court of Justice ruled that, when it comes
to sovereignty, the opinion of the central government can
be ignored. If you are a serious periodical that is honest with its
readers, find the transcript of the statement made
by the German representative in the International Court
of Justice in the archives and cite it. Take the letter,
which I believe was written by the US Department of State,
or the statement made by the British representative. Find
them and read them. Kosovo declared its independence,
and the whole world accepted it. Do you know how it in fact
happened?
Question: After the war?
Vladimir Putin: No, it was done
by a decision of the Parliament. There was even no
referendum held.
What happened in Crimea? Firstly,
the Crimean Parliament was elected in 2010, that is when Crimea was
still part of Ukraine. This fact I am talking about is extremely
important. The Parliament that had been elected while Crimea was part
of Ukraine met and voted for independence and called
a referendum. Then the citizens voted at the referendum
for reunification with Russia. Moreover, as you pointed out quite
correctly, the events in Kosovo took place after several years
of war and the de-facto intervention by NATO countries,
after the bombing of Yugoslavia and missile strikes targeting
Belgrade.
Now I want to ask you this: if
the Kosovans in Kosovo have the right
to self-determination, why don’t the Crimeans have the same
right? If we want the relations between Russia and our friends
and neighbours in Europe and around the world to develop
in a positive and constructive manner, at least one condition
must be observed: we need to respect each other, each other’s interests
and follow the same rules instead of constantly changing them
to suit someone’s interests.
You asked me if I was a friend or not.
The relations between states are a little different from those
between individuals. I am no friend, bride or groom; I am
the President of the Russian Federation. That is 146 million
people! These people have their own interests, and I must protect
those interests. We are ready to do this in a non-confrontational
manner, to look for compromise but, of course, based
on international law, which must be understood uniformly by all.
Question: If, as you say, there was no
violation of international law in Crimea, how can you explain
to your people that because of that step the West, including
at Ms Merkel’s initiative, imposed sanctions against Russia that
the Russian population is now suffering from?
Vladimir Putin: You know, the Russian people
feel in their hearts and understand in their minds very well what
is happening. Napoleon once said that justice is the embodiment
of God on earth. In this sense, the reunification
of Crimea with Russia was a just decision.
As to the reaction of our western
partners, I believe that it was wrong and it was not aimed at supporting
Ukraine but at suppressing the growth of Russia’s capabilities.
I believe that this should not be done and this is the main
mistake; on the contrary, we need to use each other’s
capabilities for mutual growth, to address common issues together.
You have mentioned sanctions. In my view,
this was a foolish decision and a harmful one. I have said
that our turnover with Germany amounted to $83–85 billion,
and thousands of jobs were created in Germany
as a result of this cooperation. And what are the restrictions
that we are facing? This is not the worst thing we are going through, but
it is harmful for our economy anyway, since it affects our access
to international financial markets.
As to the worst harm inflicted
by today’s situation, first of all on our economy, it is
the harm caused by the falling prices on our traditional
export goods. However, both the former and the latter have their
positive aspects. When oil prices are high, it is very difficult for us
to resist spending oil revenues to cover current expenses.
I believe that our non-oil and gas deficit had risen
to a very dangerous level. So now we are forced to lower it.
And this is healthy…
Question: For the budget deficit?
Vladimir Putin: We divide it. There is
the total deficit and then there are non-oil and gas revenues.
There are revenues from oil and gas, and we divide all the rest
as well.
The total deficit is quite small. But when you
subtract the non-oil and gas deficit, then you see that the oil
and gas deficit is too large. In order to reduce it, such
countries as Norway, for example, put a significant proportion
of non-oil and gas revenues into the reserve. It is very
difficult, I repeat, to resist spending oil and gas revenues
to cover current expenses. It is the reduction of these expenses
that improves the economy. That is the first point.
Second point. You can buy anything with petrodollars.
High oil revenues discourage development, especially in the high
technology sectors. We are witnessing a decrease in GDP by 3.8
percent, in industrial production by 3.3 percent
and an increase in inflation, which has reached 12.7 percent.
This is a lot, but we still have a surplus in foreign trade,
and the total exports of goods with high added value have grown
significantly for the first time in years. That is an expressly positive trend
in the economy.
The reserves are still at a high level,
and the Central Bank has about 340 billion in gold
and foreign currency reserves. If I am not mistaken, they amount
to over 300. There are also two reserve funds of the Government
of the Russian Federation, each of which amounts to $70
to $80 billion. One of them holds $70 billion,
the other – $80 billion. We believe that we will be steadily moving
towards stabilisation and economic growth. We have adopted a whole
range of programmes, including those aimed at import replacement,
which means investing in high technologies.
Question: You have often discussed the issue
of sanctions as well as the issue of Crimea with
Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel. Do you understand her? Do you trust her?
Vladimir Putin: I am certain that she is
a very sincere person. There is a framework within which she has
to work but I have no doubt that she is sincere in her efforts
to find solutions, including to the situation in southeast
Ukraine.
You spoke of sanctions. Everyone says that
the Minsk Agreements must be implemented and then the sanctions
issue may be reconsidered. This is beginning to resemble the theatre
of the absurd because everything essential that needs to be done
with regard to implementing the Minsk Agreements is
the responsibility of the current Kiev authorities. You cannot
demand that Moscow do something that needs to be done by Kiev.
For example, the main, the key issue in the settlement
process is political in its nature and the constitutional reform
lies in its core. This is Point 11 of the Minsk Agreements. It
expressly states that the constitutional reform must be carried out
and it is not Moscow that is to make these decisions.
Look, everything is provided for: Ukraine is
to carry out a constitutional reform with its entry into force
by the end of 2015 (Paragraph 11). Now 2015 is over.
Question: The constitutional reform must be
carried out after the end of all military hostilities. Is that what
the paragraph says?
Vladimir Putin: No, it is not.
Look, I will give you the English version.
What does it say? Paragraph 9 – reinstatement of full control
of the state border by the government of Ukraine based
on the Ukrainian law on constitutional reform
by the end of 2015, provided that Paragraph 11 has been
fulfilled, which stipulates constitutional reform.
Consequently, the constitutional reform
and political processes are to be implemented first, followed
by confidence building on the basis of those reforms
and the completion of all processes, including the border
closure. I believe that our European partners, both the German
Chancellor and the French President should scrutinise these matters
more thoroughly.
Question: Do you think this is not so?
Vladimir Putin: I think they have a lot
of problems of their own. But if we are addressing this matter then
we must scrutinise it. For example, it says here that changes
to the Constitution should be permanent. The Ukrainian
Government introduced the law on the special status
of those territories, a law that had been adopted earlier, into
the transitional provisions. But this law, which they incorporated
in the Constitution, was adopted for the duration
of three years only. Two years have already passed. When we met
in Paris, both the German Chancellor and the French
President agreed that this law should be changed and included
in the Constitution on a permanent basis. Both the President
of France and the Chancellor of Germany confirmed that.
Moreover, the current version of the Constitution has not even
been approved and the law has not become permanent. How can demands
be made on Moscow to do what in fact must be done inline with the decisions
of our colleagues in Kiev?
Question: What is your attitude towards
the Federal Chancellor now? You said some time ago that you admired many
of her personal qualities. How do things stand now?
Vladimir Putin: When did I say that?
Question: That you respect her.
Vladimir Putin: I feel the same way
now. I have already said that she is very sincere and highly
professional. In any case, I think the level of trust
between us is very high.
Question: Let me ask you a personal
question. When the Federal Chancellor visited you in Sochi
in January 2007, did you know that she was afraid of dogs?
Vladimir Putin: No, of course not.
I did not know anything about that. I showed her my dog because
I thought she would like it. I told
her so later and apologised.
<…>
The final part of Vladimir Putin's interview
to the German newspaper Bild is being published. The interview
was recorded on January 5, 2016, in Sochi.
January 12, 2016
06:00
Sochi
No comments:
Post a Comment