Vladimir Putin attended a plenary meeting of the St
Petersburg International Economic Forum.
June 2, 2017
17:10
St Petersburg
Other participants in the session included Prime Minister
of India Narendra Modi, Federal Chancellor of Austria Christian Kern
and President of Moldova Igor Dodon.
The annual St Petersburg International Economic Forum first
convened in 1997 to discuss key issues of economic development
in Russia, the emerging economies and the world
at large. The slogan this year is Achieving a New Balance
in the Global Economic Arena.
* * *
Excerpts from transcript of the plenary meeting
of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum
Panel moderator, NBC host Megyn Kelly: Welcome, everyone. Thank you
so much for being here. I’m Megyn Kelly. And welcome
to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. Welcome
to our distinguished guests, to our host President Putin,
and to all of you. Thank you for taking the time
to be here with us today. Yes, yes, how about it for our host
and our guests (Applause).
We’ve been in St Petersburg for a few days
and understand that this is an important place, a personal place
to President Putin. And now we understand why. It’s incredibly beautiful.
The gorgeous rivers, romantic bridges, the beautiful weather (Laughter).
And most of all the lovely people who have given us such
a warm welcome and – I’ll tell you, just in our few days
here – have made us feel like we have far more in common than we do
apart. And so, the world leaders need to figure out
the differences, but I think the people feel bonded
in a lovely way (Applause).
So today we’re going to have some opening remarks, and then
we’ll get into some questions and hopefully mix it up a little bit.
And with that, I turn it over to our host, Russian President
Vladimir Putin (Applause).
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen,
friends,
It is a pleasure to welcome the participants
of the 21st St Petersburg International Economic Forum, including
directors of international organisations, heads of state, government
representatives and business leaders from dozens of countries.
We appreciate your interest in Russia and the dialogue
that is aimed at developing partnership. We are open to cooperation,
mutually beneficial projects and working together to find solutions
to the vital, strategic issues of global development.
Only by combining our efforts will we be able to overcome
current imbalances, move towards sustainable global economic development,
formulate rules for fair trade and honest competition, reduce
poverty, solve acute social issues and deal with major challenges such
as terrorism, regional conflicts and the proliferation
of nationalism and xenophobia.
We are not just approaching but have already come face to face with
formidable challenges to our civilisation. The environmental burden
on the planet is growing due to human impact and natural
processes. These issues must be thoroughly researched and analysed.
We must act responsibly and coherently when formulating our
policies and joint action plans. Only in this way will we be able
to implement the necessary resolutions in the interests
of harmonious global development.
I would like to add that new technologies are rapidly changing
our way of life, leading to the rise of new industries
and professions and opening up new development opportunities.
However, they are also creating new threats. I know that you worked hard
yesterday, holding panel sessions and discussions where you dealt with all
of this.
But I would like to repeat that we are facing systemic,
long-term challenges, the consequences of which are even difficult
to estimate and forecast at this point. So we should not, we
have no right to expend ourselves on distractions, to waste our
time and energy on quarrels, strife and geopolitical games.
We need wisdom and a sense of responsibility,
a joint search for unconventional solutions, new formats
of cooperation between states, regional integration associations, business
and the scientific community.
To this end, we must make full use of the potential
of such a unique, universal organisation as the United
Nations. The UN Secretary-General is present here. I know that he
came to visit us and I would like to thank him for this.
Let us welcome him.
We propose establishing a special international youth section
at the St Petersburg Economic Forum because tomorrow is
for the younger generation. They are the ones who will build
the future and live in it. Participants in this section
could analyse, form and shape the image of the future
of their countries and civilisation as a whole.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Russia is already making a contribution to resolving global
issues and is ready to do more. We are carrying out large-scale environmental
programmes, including those in the Arctic, increasing supplies
of quality food to world markets and expanding our participation
in projects of the World Health Organisation. We are ready
to make more active use of the powerful potential of Russian
fundamental science to search for ways to address major
challenges.
Owing to our excellent schools of mathematics
and theoretical physics, we are capable of taking the lead
in a number of areas of the so-called new economy,
primarily the digital economy. Russian IT companies are certainly
competitive on a global scale. Our specialists are not just coming up
with the best, unique software solutions but are also creating a new
area of knowledge, a new environment for developing
the economy and life.
I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate
students of the St Petersburg University of Information
Technologies, Mechanics and Optics (ITMO), who again,
for the seventh time won the international programming contest.
Our moderator spoke about the people who live in St Petersburg
and she is right. They are respectable people, and the city’s
young residents are proving this in the best way.
To build up our work force, intellectual and technological
advantages in the digital economy, we intend to take action
in areas of systemic importance. What do I mean?
Firstly, it is necessary to draft an entirely new, flexible
regulatory foundation for introducing digital technology in all areas
of life. Importantly, all decisions must be made with due account
of the need to ensure information security
for the state, businesses and citizens.
Secondly, the state will support those companies that bring with
them developments and competencies in digital technology
and have a so-called crossover, intersectoral impact – processing
and analysis of big data, artificial intelligence
and neurotechnology, and virtual and augmented reality
technology, to name a few.
Thirdly, we will build support infrastructure for the digital
economy, including secure communications lines and data processing centres
with the participation of the state and businesses.
In addition, I will note that this infrastructure should be based
on the most advanced technology and developments.
Fourthly, we intend to increase many times over the number
of graduates specialising in the digital economy.
In effect, we will have to resolve a broader task, a task
at the national level – to achieve universal digital
literacy. To do this, it is necessary to dramatically improve
the educational system at all levels – from schools
to universities. And, of course, we should launch training programmes
for people of all ages.
On my instructions, the Government has drafted
a programme for developing the digital economy.
To underscore, we must clearly determine the sources, mechanisms
and scale of its funding. We will discuss all these issues
at the next meeting of the Council for Strategic
Developments and Priority Projects.
Colleagues, to reiterate, the digital economy is not
a separate industry. In fact, it is the foundation that makes it
possible to build innovative models of business, trade, logistics,
and manufacturing. It has changed our approaches to education,
healthcare, public administration, and communication between people.
As a result, it sets a new paradigm for the development
of the state, the economy and society as a whole.
This way of thinking will determine how we build our economic
and technical policy, industry, and infrastructure, and form
an open and free business environment, and a flexible
labour market, as well as achieve goals which will ensure long-term
growth. We can already say that a new phase of recovery has begun
in our economy.
Russia's GDP is growing for the third consecutive quarter.
According to preliminary estimates, the economy grew by 1.4
percent in April. Car sales and mortgage loans are
on the rise. I am saying this because, as specialists know,
experts all over the world consider these indicators as important
signs of economic recovery and growing consumer demand.
For reference, I can tell you that car sales rose by 2.6
percent in January-April 2017. We have almost reached inflation
benchmarks, and we expect it to be under the target figure, that
is, under 4 percent, by year-end. This helps the Bank of Russia
gradually cut the interest rate.
By the way, on the sidelines of the forum,
international investors and business representatives have noted
the high quality of Russia’s macroeconomic policy. Yesterday we
discussed this with our colleagues – representatives of major
international investment funds. For them, this is a weighty argument
in favour of continuing working on the Russian market.
The inflow of foreign direct investment into the Russian
economy amounted to $7 billion in the first quarter. Notably,
this is the best number for the corresponding period
in the past three years. Investments during the first quarter were
up 2.3 percent overall.
I would like to note and underscore that
the increase in investment is currently outpacing GDP growth, which
is another sign of what I have already mentioned: our economy is
entering a new phase of growth, and the foundations
for its future growth are taking shape. It is important to support
and speed up these positive trends, so as to be able
to achieve economic growth rates outstripping global ones by late
2019-early 2020.
The key factor here is to increase investment activity,
primarily on the part of private businesses. We have done
a lot to update federal legislation, to remove administrative
barriers, and to streamline oversight and supervision procedures
and functions.
According to international experts, Russia boasts the best
dynamics internationally over the past five years when it comes
to improving its business climate. We went up 80 positions
on the famous Doing Business ranking in one go.
Importantly, our regions have joined our efforts to form
an open and supportive business environment, including
the Republic of Tatarstan, Chuvashia, Moscow, Tula Region,
and Kaluga Region. This year, they made it to the top
of the national investment climate rankings. They deserve our
congratulations. (Applause.)
A number of regions, such as Moscow Region
and Kaliningrad Region, and St Petersburg, have drastically improved
their business environment. I am pleased to note that our Far Eastern
regions –Khabarovsk Territory and Amur Region – have
for the first time joined the leaders of change. I am
asking the heads of all Russian regions to never stop building
on such efforts, and to open up new opportunities
for businesses so that they can work successfully and freely.
Effectively protecting rights, businesses and property is critical
for entrepreneurs and all citizens, for that matter. In this
regard, I would like to say that a package of proposals
to improve the judicial system has already been agreed upon. It was
discussed and worked through in conjunction with experts
and senior officials of the Supreme Court
of the Russian Federation.
This has to do with increasing the independence
of judges and improving the training of judicial personnel,
streamlining the judicial process, and reducing the unreasonable
burden on judges. The purpose of these measures is
to create additional guarantees of fair and objective judicial
proceedings.
Next, we have already created an array of tools
to support investment projects. We will develop them, making them more
flexible and targeted. What exactly do we suggest doing in this
context?
First, a solid systemic foundation needs to be created
for the project financing mechanism and investment risks
minimised at all stages – from developing projects
to implementing them, including by providing partial state
guarantees, and drawing resources from different types of investors:
banks, investment companies and pension funds.
I am asking the Government and the Bank
of Russia to accelerate the enactment of amendments
to laws that make the syndicated loan mechanism more flexible.
Yesterday, last night, we discussed this with our colleagues, and this
should be done, of course, as soon as possible. All of this
will ensure a substantial increase in private financial resources
for launching new projects in the real economic sector.
Second, to ensure accelerated economic growth rates, we need
to significantly increase investment in transport, energy,
communications and other infrastructure. Private capital should become
a source of additional investment. However, high risks remain
an impediment here, as well.
Therefore, it is important to establish understandable, stable
rules protecting investors’ rights. Return on their capital investment
should be ensured through regular payments that will come from
the principal beneficiaries of infrastructure facilities. These are
budgets at various levels, natural monopolies and other
infrastructure users.
The mechanism of state guarantees can also be used
to ensure payments. In other words, this is about introducing
a kind of an infrastructure mortgage mechanism where
an infrastructure project is in effect bought on a loan
received from private investors while the user of that facility
gradually repays the loan.
For this model to be launched, I am asking
the Government to develop a comprehensive approach toward
infrastructure development with the participation of private capital.
It should cover all stages: preparation, financing and implementation
of these projects.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are interested in investment going
to high-tech sectors. A few days ago, the MS-21,
an advanced Russian medium-range passenger plane, made its maiden flight.
I have already spoken to the company management
by telephone and I would like to thank
and congratulate all those involved in implementing this project.
In both aviation and other sectors that are critically
important for Russia’s development, we need our own developments
and competencies. They should be restored or created from
the ground up. These include advanced production technologies
and materials, power and power storage systems, transport and logistics
management, information security systems, Arctic and shelf development
technology, modern diagnostic and therapy methods, and agricultural
and food processing technologies.
Obviously, we can untie these technological knots only by involving
major private investors who are interested both in new technological
solutions and in diversifying their own businesses. To enable
them to become actively involved in this work, attractive
and understandable conditions should certainly be provided for them.
This can be done through special so-called investment contracts. I propose
considering ways of improving this mechanism.
Generally, it works, but it needs upgrading. It should be made
an effective tool. For example, the term of special
investment contracts could be extended from the current 10 years
to 20 years with provisions to be made for flexible
participation not only by federal government bodies, regions
and investors, but also by development institutions, banks, natural
monopolies and other agencies.
This concerns above all critically important areas and sectors,
as well as situations where an investor is unlikely to come
without state support, without a clear-cut and understandable system
of support, because benefits and profits cannot be immediately made
on such projects: This is not quick money.
It is also important to extend demand guarantees to products
created within the framework of special investment projects
on the part of both the state and companies with state
participation.
Another important thing. It is essential to ensure that tax
and other conditions related to state regulation remain unchanged
throughout the term of a contract’s implementation.
As for taxes, I propose extending the current exemption
on profit tax until after 2025.
I would like to stress that the pinpoint solutions
related to developing critical technology that I have just mentioned
must not lead to the destruction of the competitive
environment in the economy as a whole. I am asking
the Government to analyse all these issues and submit specific
proposals. We will discuss the areas of our joint efforts
to address technological development goals at one
of the next meetings with business representatives.
Next. These days, breakthrough innovative technology is often developed
by small companies, so-called start-ups. As a rule, this
technology is created by teams of young researchers. I am
certain that they can become effective partners for major Russian businesses,
and we will expand this partnership, creating essential infrastructure. We
intend to begin creating innovative research and technology centres
at our leading schools of higher learning. Education, research
and high-tech and venture companies will be concentrated here
in one place. All of them will be closely integrated with each other.
I am calling for the management of our major
companies – Rostec, the Federal Space Agency, the United
Aircraft Corporation, the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Rosatom
and other domestic high-tech companies – to actively use
the opportunities opening up.
It is important to create subdivisions that will work closely with
start-ups and small innovative companies, as well as venture
funds, to finance such projects. I am asking you to make sure
that this does not remain empty rhetoric. I am asking you to do this
in practice and as soon as possible.
For its part, big business should have a clear-cut legal
mechanism for acquiring or entering the capital of small
innovation companies. I am asking the Government
and the State Duma to prepare and adopt appropriate
amendments to the law.
Dear friends, we are going through a difficult
and contradictory but very exciting period that is rich in new ideas,
discoveries, projects and rapid change. It takes persistence
and strong will to meet the challenges of the times,
because this is about building our future, while it has always been shaped
by daring, smart, focused and capable people – those who are
prepared to translate their intellectual abilities
and entrepreneurship into bold innovative plans and efforts that help
the country.
It is this kind of people, including very young people, who achieve
success in science, develop modern business projects and implement
civic and social initiatives. Therefore, we will augment our human capital
and I am sure that we will be able to ensure sustainable
long-term growth – to qualitatively improve the Russian economy,
and to transform Russia and change our citizens’ lives
for the better.
Great creative work lies ahead and we invite everyone
to participate. I am certain that this partnership will be
interesting and mutually beneficial.
We welcome you to work with Russia!
Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.
Megyn Kelly: Thank you, President Putin. We are going
to continue with the speeches in just a minute. But they
encouraged me to ask questions in-between if I have any,
and I have one that I want to ask Mr President.
You mentioned that Russia is entering a new phase of growth
right now. But there remains in Russia a significant income
inequality problem. They say that the top one percent here in Russia
holds over 70 percent of the wealth. And walking around talking
to some of the Russian people, they say they are spending too
much money on food, they are spending much money out of their budget
on shoes. What’s being done to address that?
Vladimir Putin: To resolve this issue, we need to implement
the programme I just mentioned. We need to develop new
technologies. This is not about spending money left and right
or handing it out, it is about making our economy generate more revenue,
so that our people earn higher incomes, accordingly. This can be done only
by developing innovative technologies, including digital technologies.
The problem you mentioned is real. It is characteristic not only
of Russia, but of many other economies as well. We are aware
of it; we acknowledge that it exists, and that it is highly
sensitive. This is my first point.
Secondly, we cannot afford to wait too long. Therefore,
the state must find ways to redistribute resources using
the tools at its disposal in order to support those who
find themselves in a difficult situation.
We have many such tools, such as support for low-income
families to pay their utility bills. This may not seem very special
at first glance, but it is important for the people. They also
include the maternity capital that we pay to families with two
or more children. I know you have three children. If you were
a Russian citizen, you would receive it as well. However, this is not
enough.
We must build up targeted support. That is, on the one hand,
we should help people who honestly – and I want
to emphasise this – honestly earned their capital, and help them
invest in expanding our economy, rather than consumption.
On the other hand, we should develop targeted support measures
for those who need help from the state.
<…>
Megyn Kelly: Now we are going to have some questions amongst
all the panel, and there’s a lot to cover, so stay with me.
So let us start with what has been in the news everywhere, what’s
on the minds of a lot of people here today, which is
that yesterday, as you gentlemen know, President Trump announced that
the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate deal, saying
that it will hurt the United States economy and cost jobs. European
leaders were quick to react, accusing President Trump of shirking
America’s role as a global leader. President Putin, how do you see
it?
Vladimir Putin: I do not belong to the category
of European leaders, at any rate they do not think I do (laughter, applause),
but of course we, I mean Russia, have our own viewpoint. Have you
read the Paris Agreement? No, you have not, as I can see.
In general, the Paris Agreement is a good, logical
document aimed at resolving one of today’s global problems –
preventing climate change. The question is whether we are
in a position to avert climate change. What does it do?
The goal is to prevent a two-degree rise in temperature.
So far, we do not get the sense here that the temperature is
going up rapidly. Actually, we should be grateful to President Trump.
I heard it was actually snowing in Moscow today, while here it is
raining and quite chilly. Now we can blame everything on him and US
imperialism, and say it is all their fault. But we will not.
As for the Paris Agreement, it is a framework
document that relegates all decisions to national governments. It does not
contain any mandatory requirements. All countries are to make decisions
independently. The United States undertook to reduce emissions
by 26–28 percent by 2025, as I recall, while Russia
committed itself to reduce them by 70 percent of the 1990s
level but by 2030.
If memory serves, the United States ratified the agreement
whereas we have not done so yet. However, we have not done this because we want
to wait for the rules for distributing resources
and other strictly technical but important matters to be worked out.
The United States assumed an obligation to contribute $100
billion to the so-called Green Climate Fund that is to be used
to help developing nations implement environmental programmes. But how
these funds are supposed to be transferred and who will dispose
of them – these issues have not been resolved yet.
Here is the premise I am working from. To cut emissions
by 26–28 percent by 2025 – that is not too far away –
obviously, it is essential to modernise production on a really
big scale. It is important to force businesses to invest hundreds of millions
and maybe billions – that is right, billions of dollars
in the economy.
The other side of the coin is that it is necessary
to think about what to do with the employees who will be made
redundant in the production system today. They need to be
employed, and this requires planning ahead and appropriate resources,
unless we want them to fall by the wayside and join
the army of people living below the poverty line.
I was asked about people with low incomes in Russia.
By the way, since 2000, we have almost halved the number
of people living below the poverty line, from 40 percent. There are
certain fluctuations related to the current crisis but nevertheless,
we have managed to do this. So the United States should also think
about what to do about people who will end up without a job. These
are additional resources.
Therefore, I will not pass judgment on President Trump right
now, because President Obama made certain decisions and maybe
the incumbent president believes they were not well thought out. Maybe he
thinks that there are not enough resources to go round. All of this
calls for careful analysis. However, in my view, it was
unnecessary to pull out of the Paris Agreement because it is
a framework agreement in nature. Now, what could have been done?
The US commitments within the framework of the Paris
Agreement could have been changed. However, what is done cannot be undone. What
has been said cannot be unsaid, and now it is time to think about how
to proceed, what to do next. As for the problem,
of course, it should not be ignored. However, as far
as I know (granted, I am not acquainted with the text
of President Trump’s statement), he said he would like either
to review the agreement or sign a new agreement.
After all, he is not refusing to work on this issue.
And it seems to me that now it is important not to make
a fuss but to create conditions for joint work because if such
countries, such large emitters as the United States do not cooperate,
then it will be impossible to coordinate and sign any agreement
in this area. Therefore, it is essential to make do with what there
is and seek to put this work on a constructive track.
Incidentally, this agreement has not even entered into force yet. It
should come into force in 2021, so we still have time. If we work
constructively, we will still be able to agree on something. Don’t
worry, be happy! [last four words said in English]
<…>
Megyn Kelly: President Putin, does all this squabbling over NATO
help Russia?
Vladimir Putin: Disputes over NATO? Do they help Russia?
Well, in the sense that NATO may fall apart, yes, this may
help. However, for the time being, there are no signs of it
falling apart. You know, I wondered on many occasions and even
asked this question publicly. NATO was created as a Cold War
instrument to oppose the Soviet Union and what was known
as the Warsaw Pact. Now there is neither the Warsaw Pact, nor
the Soviet Union, but NATO is still there.
Hence, the question: why? There is only one answer – no matter
what they say, it is an instrument of US foreign policy. If someone
likes it that way, so be it. What is important is if the processes that
NATO has always mentioned, specifically there was talk of transforming
this bloc into a political organisation which would create essential
elements of stability across the world, if this happens, then that is
probably not a bad thing. However, this has not materialised so far. What
we have seen so far is their military infrastructure expanding
and approaching our borders. This cannot but cause concern for us,
and we have mentioned it many times publicly.
Speaking of the recent summit, the United States is
demanding that its allies increase their military spending, while maintaining
at the same time that NATO has no plans to attack anyone. If you
are not going to attack anyone, why increase military spending?
Of course, this raises additional questions on our part.
Therefore, you know, we tried to establish a constructive
dialogue with this organisation, and even created the Russia-NATO
Council in Rome. However, all this ceased to exist, and not
through our fault. The absence of such instruments
of cooperation is a bad thing, because it does not allow us
to constructively work on the issues on the current
agenda.
They say that NATO should step up its fight against terrorism. This is
good, and we support this. But, at the same time, what do we
see? Look, we have just held a major international conference
on security issues at the level of security councils
of our partner countries. Representatives from 95 countries attended. Many
representatives from the American continent and Europe whispered
to us that Brussels and Washington tried to talk them out
of going to Russia.
What is that about? People who take such a position, what part
of their body do they think with? The professionals are willing
to cooperate, they realise the importance of such interaction
and information sharing. The politicians ride in armoured
vehicles, they are safe, and apparently do not sense any threat
to their citizens.
If it stays that way, we will be hit in Germany, Brussels,
the United States, and Russia. I said many times that it is
necessary to unite efforts in order to fight major threats, one
of which is terrorism. If NATO works constructively in this area, we
will cooperate, of course.
Megyn Kelly: President Putin, you and Prime Minister Modi yesterday
entered into several agreements promising more cooperation between your two
countries on things like counterterrorism and agreeing to have
Russia set up the final two units of a nuclear power plant
in India. What is the significance of this cooperation?
And you mentioned your relationship of trust between each other. How
does China fit into that relationship?
Vladimir Putin: You know, disagreements always have been
and still are part of the fabric of our world. Our
task – mine, and President Xí Jinping’s and Prime Minister
Modi’s – is to find streets, two-way streets, despite all these
disagreements, rather than get stuck in dead ends.
Once the three of us – the President of Russia,
and the leaders of China and India – got together here
some time in 2005 despite all the difficulties, including regional
disagreements. We agreed to get together and resolve common problems.
This work was launched despite all the difficulties
and disagreements.
It was launched and went so well that Brazil
and the South African Republic wanted to join us. This led
to the emergence of BRICS, which is a major factor
in international affairs today. I believe this is a very
positive process, and that is how it is viewed by the People’s
Republic of China, by the Chinese leaders.
I spoke about this fairly recently, maybe at yesterday’s
meeting with the heads of news agencies – we conducted border
talks with China for forty years but owing to the atmosphere
that was created in our bilateral relations we managed to find
a compromise. Of course, one could say that we gave
in on something or China gave in on something, but we
got it done and it created more opportunities for advancing
relations.
We have never had any problems with India. I hope we never will
have any. On the contrary, we have only positives, and there are
a great many. I am referring to our historical cooperation.
Yesterday we signed a number of agreements that are aimed
at developing the already traditional areas of cooperation
as well as new ones.
We are trying to find new forms of interaction and, naturally,
we want to focus on innovative sectors of the modern
economy first and foremost. This certainly applies
to the nuclear industry, as you mentioned. A number of units
are already operating in India and we have ambitious plans
for future cooperation. There are very interesting and promising
areas for us to work in.
We will provide comprehensive support to those who are involved
in this because such cooperation will benefit the people of both
India and Russia and, actually, the entire region. This will also
facilitate the implementation of the Chinese leadership’s
projects related to the Silk Road. We spoke about coordinating
efforts of the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Silk Road
plans. There are always issues that require additional study. But we want
to follow this path and we will follow it, and provided there is
goodwill, we most certainly will achieve success.
<…>
Megyn Kelly: On the subject of relationships, one
of the elements between Russia and the United States today,
and indeed Russia and Europe today, is the allegation that
Russia interfered in elections. Mr Putin, this week you told a French
newspaper that Russia is being accused of interfering with the US
election by people who lost that election, who don’t want to admit
defeat. But all 17 of the United States’ intelligence agencies have
concluded the Russians did interfere with our election, and these are
non-partisan career professionals.Republicans and Democrats alike
on Capitol Hill, including President Trump’s supporters (and some are
your defenders) who have seen the classified intelligence report have all
accepted this conclusion. And even private non-partisan security firms say
the same – that Russia interfered with the US election. Are they
all wrong?
Vladimir Putin: Have you read these reports?
Megyn Kelly: I have read the non-classified version.
Vladimir Putin: A non-classified version means no version.
“‘Who made the suit?’ ‘Are the pockets good?’ ‘They are.’ ‘Are
the buttons sewn on well?’ ‘They are.’ ‘Do you have any complaints
about the buttons.’ ‘No, they are sewn tight, but the suit is so
ill-fitting I can’t wear it.’” Can such a thing happen? It happened
to Arkady Raikin, one of our stand-up comedians.
Now you also say, “a non-classified version.” I have read
these reports. There is nothing specific in these reports. There is only
supposition and inference in those reports. That is it. You know, if
there is anything specific, then there will be something to discuss.
As they used to say in the organisation where I worked
at one time: “addresses, safe houses, names.” So, where is all that?
As for independent sources, there is nothing independent
in this world. Even the recent appointments in your intelligence
services show that there are some predilections all the same. Therefore,
it seems to me that this useless and harmful idle talk should come
to an end.
To reiterate, this is bringing domestic political squabbles
in the US out into the world arena. It is an attempt
to address a domestic political issues with foreign policy tools.
This is detrimental, damaging to international relations,
the global economy, security issues and the fight against
terrorism. It is simply harmful. I have just given you the example
of Washington warning against attending a counterterrorism event
in Russia. This is absolute nonsense.
Somebody is behind this. The people who engage in this
nonsense also initiate such reports. I think this needs to come
to an end, and the sooner, the better. It is necessary
to begin normal cooperation.
What else can I say? There are not so many countries
in the world that enjoy the privilege of sovereignty.
I do not want to hurt anyone but what Ms Merkel has said was
dictated, among other things, by long-standing resentment –
I assure you, despite whatever she might have said later – over
the fact that sovereignty is in fact limited.
By the way, it is limited officially within the framework
of military-political alliances, where it is stipulated what may
and may not be done, but in reality, it is even worse: Nothing is
permitted except for what is permitted. And who gives permission?
The chiefs. And where are the chiefs? They are far away.
To reiterate, there are not so many countries that have
sovereignty. Russia treasures its sovereignty, but not as a toy. We
need sovereignty to protect our interests and to ensure our own
development. India has sovereignty and we know it. Now I would like
to say something to the Prime Minister. I have never said
this to him, even though yesterday we talked face to face
for several hours and before that also for several hours, but
now I would like to say it to him publicly.
We know the position of the Indian Prime Minister, of the Indian
leadership, the Indian people and the Indian state regarding all
the attempts over the past several years to compel India
to adopt a position on Russia that is beneficial for someone
but not for the Indian people. Relying on its sovereignty, on the character
of its leader and on its national interests, India does not let
these advisers push it around. However, there are not so many countries like
India in the world. That is true. We should simply bear this in mind.
India is one such country and so is China. I will not enumerate them
all: There are other countries, too, but not many.
If these attempts continue to order people around
in or outside a country using unreliable information, it will
damage international relations. But to reiterate – and at this
point I would like to conclude my answer – this must
eventually come to an end.
Megyn Kelly: So one of the reasons the question is
relevant is because the United States views this as a matter
of its national sovereignty, as does the UK, as does Germany,
as does France, and so it keeps coming up over and over.
And what they say in response to the question
of “Where is the proof?” is that this type of disinformation
campaign is intentionally difficult to find hardcore proof of. It is other
factors. And what the experts say is that this couldn’t have been
faked – that it’s not one factor, it is a hundred factors that point
to Russia. They say it is the forensics, it’s the digital
fingerprints, it’s the IP addresses, the malware, the encryption
keys, the specific pieces of code – that all of them, all
of them, point to Russia and none of them points
to anyone other than Russia.
Vladimir Putin: What fingerprints? Hoof prints, horn prints? Whose
fingerprints are these?
IP addresses can be simply made up. Do you know how many such
specialists there are? They will make it look like it was sent from your home
address by your children – your three-year old kid, they will
organise everything to look like it was your three-year old daughter who
carried out the attack. There are such IT specialists
in the world today and they can arrange anything and then
blame it on whoever.
This is no proof. It is an attempt to lay the blame
at someone else’s door. This is not our problem. The problem is
in US politics. That is the problem. Trump’s team proved more capable
during the election campaign. At times, I actually thought
the man was overdoing it, really. That is true. However, it turned out
that he was right, that he found a key to those social groups
and voters’ groups that he had bet on, and they came out
and voted for him.
The other team lost. They are reluctant to acknowledge
the mistake. They do not want to admit that they did not get it, that
they miscalculated. It is easier to say, “We are not to blame,
the Russians are to blame, they interfered in our election, but
we are good.” It reminds me of anti-Semitism: the Jews are
to blame for everything. The halfwit cannot do anything but
the Jews are the ones who are to blame.
However, we know what such sentiments can lead to. They lead
to nothing good. The thing to do is simply to work
and think of how to get things right.
You have just mentioned disinformation. What disinformation? One
of the hackers’ planted stories was that Mrs Clinton’s election
campaign managers had acted unfairly with regard to other Democratic Party
candidates. However, when that information appeared in the public
domain, the campaign manager actually acknowledged that it was true
and resigned. Is that disinformation? It is truthful information.
Does it really matter who revealed it? They should have apologised
to the public and they should have said before resigning, “We
will not repeat these mistakes.” But what did they do? They said, “We are not
to blame. It is the Russians.” What have the Russians got
to do with it? Did the Russians engage in pushing through one
Democratic Party candidate to the detriment of another
candidate? Whatever the case might be, we did not do it. They were
the ones who did it. Enough. (Applause.)
Megyn Kelly: Even President Trump has said now that he believes
Russia did it. So it is not just people who don’t want President Trump
in office. And the difference between the hacking
and the disinformation…
Vladimir Putin: She just won’t let it go. (Laughter.)
Megyn Kelly: The difference between the hacking
and the disinformation – this is not my allegation, this is
the conclusion of the 17 US intelligence agencies
and the others that I mentioned. What they say is Russia not
only that hacked into the Democratic National Committee and hacked
into Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails, but that they also perpetuated
a campaign of disinformation that involved putting out fake news
stories through Russian-controlled entities like RT and Sputnik,
and that those then were pushed by aggregators and what are
called “bots” on Twitter and elsewhere, and specifically
targeted at voters who were potentially pro-Trump, voters
in the Rust Belt of America, in Wisconsin,
in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, who were potentially gettable
for Trump. And that is the conclusion that they have reached.
Vladimir Putin: We should all learn from American journalists.
Megyn is doing first-class professional aerobatics. I have just given her
an example showing that there was no disinformation, whoever planted
the story regarding the manipulations within the Democratic
Party during the elections.
There is no getting away from the fact that the campaign
manager, managing director (or whatever the position is called there)
resigned. I just said it and she goes: “Disinformation.” What
disinformation? Where is the disinformation? I simply do not know. Do
you understand? I do not know.
She says, specifically President Trump. Again, give me the text
showing what he actually said. Did he say he won because of Russian
interference? I do not think I ever saw anything like that.
Megyn Kelly: He did. He finally came around to saying
“I think Russia did it”, and he said, “I don’t think they’ll do
it again.”
Vladimir Putin: She thinks! Listen, these are very serious global
political issues, and you think. It is not just any interview or some
piece for a newspaper.
As for interference, you should have seen what your colleagues
are doing here. They have simply barged into our internal politics with their
shoes on. They are walking all over us, chewing gum. They are just having fun.
This is systematic, years-long, gross, absolutely unceremonious
interference in our domestic policy, including the level
of diplomatic missions. Let us end this. You will feel better, and we
will feel better.
Megyn Kelly: Prime Minister Modi, President Putin said
the other day that Russia does not engage in state-sponsored
interference with other countries’ elections. Do you believe that?
Vladimir Putin: Ask Mr Dodon. He knows. (Laughter. Applause.)
Narendra Modi: You are talking about America, Germany, Russia,
Trump, Hillary Clinton, Chancellor Merkel and Putin. You are talking about
people who, it seems, do not need a judge or lawyer like myself.
Vladimir Putin: It is not all that simple with the Hindus. It is
an ancient philosophy. It is only we, ordinary people, who say exactly
what we think.
Megyn Kelly: President Putin, there are reports today
in the American press that the Trump administration took active
steps to ease sanctions on Russia almost immediately after Trump took
office. Was this possibility ever discussed between the Trump team
and your representatives prior to President Trump being inaugurated?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I saw what was happening. Frankly,
I was also amazed. What nonsense they are talking. I do not know
where these people who are spreading this information have come from. This is
simply disastrous!
Our ambassador met with someone. What should an ambassador do? That
is his job. That is what he gets paid for. He should have meetings, discussing
current affairs, reaching agreements. What is he supposed to do there? Go
to the kind of places that he will be fired for visiting?
No. This is his job but he is being accused of meeting with someone. Are
you nuts out there or what? This is diplomatic service. This is just
amazing.
I saw that President Trump then fired his aide because he was
accused of talking to somebody somewhere. You see, I am telling
you, but of course those who have a different position will not
believe me, but I simply knew nothing about that. Who met with whom there?
What did they talk about?
They talked about nothing. There were simply general words, simply
general words about the need to think about how to develop our
relations. Should we not think about developing our relations, or what?
Should we simply act on the spur of the moment? Nothing
specific, simply zero, zilch, nothing at all. Just amazing.
This is some sort of hysteria and you cannot stop it. Do you
need to take something for that? Does anyone have a pill? Give
her a pill or something. (Laughter.) Honestly, frankly, this is
amazing.
Megyn Kelly: Let us talk about those sanctions, which have now been
in place, by the Europeans and the United States,
since 2014 against Russia. Do you believe they have hurt more than helped?
Vladimir Putin: I believe that, firstly, the sanctions
have been imposed in violation of all international norms
and rules. The United States, for one, has always been upholding
the ideas of a free market, open economy, always teaching
everyone (now apparently it is giving up on teaching others because it
needs some teaching itself) and saying that politics should not influence
global economic processes and that politics will only interfere with
the economy, but then did precisely what they cautioned everyone against
doing.
First of all, I would like to say that the events
that happened and served as a cause and pretext
for imposing those restrictions were not brought about by our policy.
As a matter of fact, they were caused by US policy. Look, they
spoke about the “greater” Middle East. Although nobody could formulate
what this concept of the “greater” Middle East means.
Then they devastated Iraq and Libya and almost ruined Syria
and destabilised and brought Egypt and Tunisia
to the point of disaster. I am not even talking about
the processes that were already under way in other countries, such
as Somalia, and after that, they got to work
in the so-called post-Soviet space.
After all, they said openly that they had spent almost $5 billion
on supporting the opposition in Ukraine and they supported
the coup. What is this? It is support of a military takeover.
When we disagreed with that, they imposed sanctions on us. However, we can
never agree to this and never will.
When we supported Russian people and people who consider themselves
to be close to the Russian world, Russian-speakers
in Crimea, who were simply intimidated by the anti-Russian
propaganda and the surge in racist sentiments and radical
views, as well as physical actions – people were being killed
in Kiev – when we supported them and in keeping with
international law, supported a referendum, sanctions were immediately
imposed. And what did you expect?
Look at what is going on now in Yemen. Its president was
also overthrown, and the entire Western world led by the US
supports the actions of countries that are in effect conducting
hostilities there. Should we, too, have conducted hostilities all over Ukraine
or what?
Let us agree on a uniform interpretation
of the norms and fundamental principles of international
law and adhere to these rules. Because until that happens
and as long as the principle that might is right is
asserted, we will continue to have problems like the ones we are
currently seeing in North Korea.
Smaller countries can see no other way to protect their
independence, security and sovereignty but by acquiring nuclear
weapons. This is what abuse of power leads to. This gave rise,
unfortunately, to the restrictions and limitations in the economy.
Who suffered more from them: we or those who imposed them? It is
absolutely clear that they have done considerable damage to those who
imposed them.
I see here one of the former leaders
of the German organisation of the so-called eastern economy
which maintains relations with Russia. They calculated that Germany lost
several hundred thousand jobs. Did it hurt us? Yes, of course,
the restrictions hurt us. This is mainly due to the financing
restrictions and the work of our financial organisations, the transfer
of technologies. But there is a positive side to it because we
were able to ramp up the development of whole sectors
of the Russian economy.
Our agriculture grows by more than three percent each year, around
three percent, which we have never had before, this is a phenomenon,
to be honest. I had some concerns about how we were going
to solve the problem. It is indeed being solved. Incidentally, we
would not have been able to do that ten years ago, whereas now we can,
and we are doing it well. It pushes the development
of a number of hi-tech sectors of the economy. We had
to use our heads rather than just sit back and enjoy the oil
and gas revenues. We had to stoke the development of some
technologies, fundamental and applied science, and we see
the positive results.
And now we have growing exports in sectors other than raw
materials, oil and gas. I do not remember exactly, I spoke about
this with my colleagues yesterday, I believe. Those exports have
grown by 10 percent this year, and they also grew last year. What
does this indicate? It indicates structural changes in the economy
itself. This is only the very beginning of the road, we still
have a lot to do, there is much that has not been done yet, but it is
basically the beginning of the road.
Thus, on the whole there is nothing good about it but it is
not going to kill us either. As the Chancellor of Austria
said here quoting Mark Twain, “The reports of my death are
greatly exaggerated.” about the same is true of the sanctions.
But we would rather there were none, and we need to put an end
to that.
<…>
Megyn Kelly: Thank you for your kind words first of all.
Flattery will get you everywhere. I appreciate that.
Let us shift gears if we may to Syria for a minute.
President Putin I know that you said that you do not believe…
Vladimir Putin: Christian spoke about the Minsk Agreements
here. It is an important issue because it is the Ukraine crisis that
lies at the root of today’s problems and sanctions. We keep
on hearing “Everything will be all right if Russia complies with
the Minsk Agreements.”
Russia cannot unilaterally comply with the Minsk Agreements. We are
ready to support this process but we cannot do what Kiev authorities are
obliged to do. They do everything to prevent any improvement,
absolutely everything. You actually do not take any notice of some things,
or pretend not to.
I did not mean you personally, I meant some Western media
and my western colleagues. Everybody says there is shooting there but
it is not clear who is doing the shooting. There was fire but it is
unclear who was behind it. As a result, nothing is done; heavy
armaments are not withdrawn from the contact line.
It was agreed to launch economic rehabilitation of those
unrecognised republics, those territories. And what is happening
in reality? Radicals decided to completely block any movement
of people and goods. President Poroshenko tried to open it up
again, staged a fight and shooting at the sky. But he still
did not achieve anything.
And even though he publicly claimed that those behind it are
virtually criminals who should be brought to order, after one or two
days, when he realised that he was unable to do anything about it, he
issued his own executive order about his joining in and signed off
on the blockade officially. But the Minsk Agreements clearly
state, I think, in Item 8, to conduct rehabilitation,
to take off the blockade. But no, he joined the blockade
by an official resolution. What are you demanding from us? What do
you want us to do in this case?
Another example. They shut down all Russian media outlets, and they
do not let Russian performers and journalists into the country. Now
they have closed access to social networks. You are a journalist,
where is free information exchange? Who is going to guarantee it,
particularly in Ukraine? Why is everybody keeping silent about it? Why are
all the demands being directed at Moscow? We will never solve any
problem this way.
If you started that ball rolling, and it was indeed largely you who
started the ball rolling, then do something to stop this. Just
something. It is not enough to point your finger at Russia all
the time. I am saying this not so much to you; this will be read
and heard by those who take real decisions. They know my stand
but I would like them to hear it once again.
Megyn Kelly: Shifting gears to Syria, our president has said
that you are backing an evil guy there. He said that Assad is an evil
guy. Do you believe that?
Vladimir Putin: What? That Assad is an evil person? Ask other
leaders who have met him. After all, since he was elected, he has been
to Europe more often than to Russia. We are not defending so much
President Assad as Syrian statehood. We do not want Syria to be
confronted with a situation similar to that in Libya
or Somalia or Afghanistan, where NATO has been present for many
years but the situation is not changing for the better.
We want to preserve [Syrian] statehood and once this fundamental
matter is resolved, to move further towards settling the Syrian
crisis by political means. Yes, perhaps everyone is to blame
for something there. But let us not forget that if it were not
for active intervention from the outside we would not have had
the situation and the civil war that we are seeing now.
What does President Assad stand accused of today? We know about
the charges of using chemical weapons. There is absolutely no proof.
As soon as that happened we proposed conducting an inspection
right there on the airfield from where President Assad’s aircraft had
allegedly taken off with chemical weapons on board. I would like
to reiterate because not everyone has heard this: if chemical weapons had
been used, if some shells with toxic agents had been loaded, modern analysers,
modern control systems would definitely have detected that there were chemical
weapons there on board this aircraft, on that exact spot.
They declined. Nobody wants to. There is a lot of talk but no
practical action. We proposed conducting an inspection
in the area of the attack, “Let us see what there is.” No
way again. “Why not?” “It is too dangerous there.” “What is so dangerous there
if the strike was allegedly carried out against the good part
of the armed opposition? These are normal people out there, why would
they be dangerous?” “No, it is not possible there either.” However, it is known
for certain that in Iraq (an Iraqi representative is present
here, and we also welcome him), in Iraqi Kurdistan, militants used
chemical weapons and that fact was established by the entire
international community. Therefore, they have them. And judging
by the statements made by the Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Syria has destroyed
these weapons.
You see, if reasons and excuses are invoked, without any intention
of looking into the essence of the problem, then one can
talk about anything. Let us get down to the heart
of the matter. Has Assad made mistakes? He probably has,
and quite a few, too. Now, are the people who are up against him
angels? Who is killing people, executing children and beheading people
there? Are we supposed to support them?
As you know, we argued with our US colleagues until we were blue
in the face about whether certain territories could be attacked. “No,
that is off limits.” “Why?” “The healthy part of the opposition
is based there.” We say: “But ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra are still there.”
“Yes, but everything is intermingled there, so it is hard to understand
who is where.” “Well, separate them then. What are decent, honest people doing
with terrorists? Do you have control over them? Let them go and let us
fight terrorists.” “No, do not touch them.” Why not? Should we wait until they
come to you or to us? We will not. If you want to agree
on something, let’s agree.
The Prime Minister is nodding because India is constantly
confronted with the terrorist threat. It is not an imaginary problem.
According to our preliminary estimate, there are 4,000 people from Russia
alone in Syria, plus 4,500–5,000 from the CIS countries, mainly from
Central Asia. It is a real threat to us. They are trying
to return. Some are in fact returning. This is precisely why we began
our operation in Syria, because we realised where things were headed. So,
there should be no name-calling. Let us simply work together
on the matter at hand. We are prepared for this. What is
needed is a constructive position on your part.
Megyn Kelly: So, we know that Assad has used chemical weapons
before, and Russia entered into an agreement in 2013
to stop that. I mean, Russia acknowledged that in 2013
to try to stop that by Assad. The only question is whether
he launched the chemical weapons attack that happened a couple
of months ago. And I just want to ask you, to press
you a little further on this, because we all saw the video
of the suffering, dying children, and that was the reason
that President Trump dropped the bomb. Do you deny – because Assad
denies that those tapes are real, he is purporting to tell us not
to believe our lying eyes – do you believe those tapes are fake?
Vladimir Putin: Firstly, when President Obama
and I agreed to work together on destroying chemical
weapons in Syria, we acted on the premise that those weapons
were out there. However, we have never acknowledged that Assad used them.
I would ask you to be more accurate.
Secondly, regarding the people killed or injured
as a result of the use of weapons, including chemical
weapons, this is false information. At the moment, we are absolutely
certain that it was simply a provocation. Assad did not use those weapons
and all of that was done by people who wanted to blame it
on him.
Furthermore, our intelligence services received additional information
suggesting that there were plans to re-enact a similar scenario
in other parts of Syria, including near Damascus. We made that information
public. Thank God, the plotters had enough common sense not to follow
through.
Megyn Kelly: If I could just follow up on that, though,
because the bodies of the victims were autopsied
at Turkey’s and our forensic medicine institution. The autopsies
were witnessed by officials from the World Health Organisation
and from the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons, and they concluded that the victims were
attacked with sarin gas. Are we really to believe that the whole
thing was staged? That everybody was in on it – the World
Health Organisation, the forensic medicine institution,
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons?
Vladimir Putin: The answer is very simple and you know
it: it could have been used – however, not by Assad, but
by someone else in order to put the blame on Assad. So
any further investigation without understanding who did it is senseless. It
only plays into the hands of the provocateurs who organised this
attack. That is all. What is there you cannot understand? It seems to me
that everything is absolutely clear.
However, I would like to ask you a question: why didn’t
they immediately go to the spot from where the chemical weapon
attack had allegedly been launched? Why did nobody go to inspect
the airfield? Why did nobody inspect the aircraft that had allegedly
been used to carry out the strike, as we proposed? Why did
nobody go to the place of the attack? The answer is
simple: because they were afraid that this entire falsification would be
uncovered – that is all.
As for what you are telling me, it does not convince me
in the least but only goes to show that it would be far better
not to indulge in speculation or a tug of war but
combine efforts against real threats. We know very well what it is like. America
is far away and there was a minor explosion, as a result
of which, unfortunately, people were hurt at a well-known
athletic event. And do you have any idea of how we have suffered
here? We know full well, who we have to deal with.
Under no circumstances can anyone from this environment, which is
hostile to modern civilisation, be used to address current political
issues. Meanwhile, sometimes we see such attempts: “Let’s use these
and those to fight Assad.” Why these and those? Because there is
nobody else who can fight. Once you use them today, you will never know what
will happen to you tomorrow. Then they will start fighting you.
At one time, Al-Qaeda was created to fight against
the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And then Al-Qaeda carried out
the 9/11 attacks in the United States. This is what this can
lead to. It is important to think about the possible long-term
consequences.
<…>
Megyn Kelly: Last question. We have talked a lot today about
things that divide us, that divide our countries, each of our countries.
And it would be nice if we could end it on what unites us, because
there are many things, separate and apart from the disagreements our
countries have. President Putin, I will give you the last word.
Vladimir Putin: We are sitting here, discussing numerous problems.
There is a representative of India with us today, one
of the largest countries in the world. Russia, too, has
some importance. There is an EU representative. There is
a representative of a small country in the post-Soviet
space. In other words, all regions are represented.
Mr Dodon has said that the world ceased to be unipolar. No,
an American journalist is sitting here, ordering everyone around
and giving the last word. (Laughter.) However, generally speaking,
I believe this kind of unipolar world, with this quality
of discussion, suits everyone. In any event, let us thank our
moderator.
As for what unites us, there is a lot that unites us.
The Prime Minister has just talked about fighting terrorism. Should not
shared threats unite us? Should not the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, unite us? We need
to understand what is going on and where this can lead us
and prevent an unfavourable course of events
in a timely manner through joint efforts.
We should understand that poverty is growing all over the world
today, in countries from where thousands, hundreds of thousands,
millions of migrants are moving to Europe and there is
a danger that millions of people from Sub-Saharan Africa may move
to Europe in the foreseeable future. If this socioeconomic
situation continues, nothing will hold back this flow of people, nothing
will stop them in their search for a better life. Therefore, it
is necessary to think of what we should do to ensure that people
in these countries have acceptable living standards, that they can have,
raise and educate their children, get jobs and enjoy modern living
standards. Isn’t this a shared challenge?
The same goes for the environment. The Prime
Minister said this and all other speakers here said it and you also
gave much prominence to it. It is a real challenge. We need
to understand what is going on there. It is not an easy job. We
also need to work out common rules of conduct. It is very important
here – and I believe Christian spoke about this – it is
very important to have stability here and together work out
a solution, but then we should move together in carrying it out. We
have a lot of unifying agendas, a lot. And if we focus on this,
on the positive side of our cooperation, then the world
will, without any doubt, change for the better.
Megyn Kelly: With that, we thank all of you for your
attention and your patience. We thank the beautiful people of St
Petersburg for hosting us. And we thank all of you –
President Dodon, Chancellor Kern, Prime Minister Modi, and our host
President Putin. Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: Many thanks again to our moderator.
See also
June 1
− 3, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment