President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends
and colleagues,
We regularly meet at the end
of the year. Only recently I made my Address
[to the Federal Assembly]. Honestly speaking, I do not know what
else to add to what I said then. I believe I covered
all the key points.
Nevertheless, there must be issues, which you want us
to clarify. When I say ‘us’, I am referring
to my colleagues in the Presidential Executive Office
and the Government Cabinet and myself.
Therefore, I suggest that we skip any lengthy monologues
and get right down to your questions so as not to waste
time.
Mr Peskov, please.
Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Last year
we started a good tradition by beginning the press conference
with a question from one of the most experienced members
of the Kremlin’s press pool, Vyacheslav Terekhov. However, we have
another press pool old-timer, Alexander Gamov from the Komsomolskaya
Pravda. I would like to give him the opportunity to ask
the first question.
Alexander Gamov: Thank you very much Mr President,
for your 11th press conference of this kind.
Here is my question. Before coming here,
I reread the transcript of your last year’s press conference,
and there we also discussed the difficult situation developing
in the Russian economy. When Vyacheslav Terekhov and our other
colleagues asked you then how long it would take to get over this
complicated situation, you said in the worst case scenario this would
take a year or two. These were your words. I am sure you
remember them. This means this would be roughly late 2016 – early 2017.
Could you please tell us if your feelings regarding
our economic recovery have changed? The country is going through very hard
times, and you know this better than we do. What is your forecast for the future?
Sorry, I forgot to introduce myself:
Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda – radio station, website
and newspaper. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: To begin with, I will tell
you a very old joke.
Two friends meet and one asks the other:
”How are you?“ The other says: ”My life is all stripes – black
stripes followed by white ones.“ – ”So which one is it now?“ –
”Now I’m in the black one.“ Another six months pass, they meet again:
”How’s life? I know it’s all stripes, but which one is it now?“ – ”It’s
black now.“ – ”But it was black last time!“ – ”Looks like it was
white last time.“
We are having something very similar.
When a year ago we spoke of our plans
and how we would move ahead to recover from the crisis, about
our prospects, we, knowing that unfortunately our economy is very dependent
on foreign economic factors, mainly the prices for our
traditional exports like oil and gas, petroleum products
and chemicals, which are all calculated based on oil and gas prices,
proceeded from the idea that the average price of Brent, our
crude oil, would be around $100 a barrel.
This was in early 2014. We used this figure
in all our further calculations of macroeconomic parameters, revenue
and spending, and social support and support
for the economy, and late last year the Economic
Development Ministry built its development plans proceeding from these figures.
However, by the end of this year we had to rerun all our
calculations, and even last year we had to do this as oil prices
fell almost by half, not by some percentage, but by half from
$100 a barrel to $50.
We calculated the budget for next year based
on this very figure, a very optimistic one of $50 a barrel.
However, now it is what — $38? Therefore, I believe we will have
to make further adjustments.
At the same time, I would like
to use your question to demonstrate where we stand.
Statistics show that the Russian economy has
generally overcome the crisis, or at least the peak
of the crisis, not the crisis itself.
Naturally, after the drop in energy resource
prices all our other figures started ‘sliding’. What are they? The GDP has
gone down by 3.7 percent. As of December 7,
the inflation has reached 12.3 percent since the beginning
of the year.
I find it important to say this, because
there are sure to be other questions dealing with our development
prospects and our current state of affairs. To understand these
things we need to know these figures and proceed from them.
The real disposable household income has gone
down; fixed investment has dropped by 5.7 percent over the first 10
months of the year. At the same time, as we have
already said, statistics show that the Russian economy has generally
overcome the crisis, or at least the peak
of the crisis, not the crisis itself.
Starting with the 2nd quarter
of this year, we have been observing signs of economic stabilisation.
What leads us to such a conclusion? In September-October
the GDP grew (it is growing already) by about 0.3–0.1 percent
compared to the previous month. The volumes of industrial
production stopped falling as of May. In September-October, we
also had a small growth in industrial production – 0.2–0.1
percent. Incidentally, industrial production in the Far East grew
by 3.1 percent.
Agriculture is demonstrating positive dynamics with
an at least 3 percent growth. This means we are doing all
the right and timely things to support agriculture.
For the second year running our grain crops exceeded 100 million
tonnes – 103.4. This is very good. I would like to use this
opportunity to once again thank our agricultural workers for their
effort.
The labour market is stable, with
the unemployment rate hovering around 5.6 percent. We can see that if we
look back at 2008, this is an overall positive result
of the Government’s efforts.
Our trade balance also remains positive.
The overall trade volumes have gone down, but the export surplus
remains at a rather high level of about $126.3 billion. Our
international reserves stand at $364.4 billion – this is
a slight reduction, but a good figure nevertheless.
The Russian Federation’s external debt has gone
down by 13 percent compared to 2014. Capital outflow has also
significantly dropped. Moreover, in the 3rd quarter
we observed a net inflow.
The reduction in our debt burden is
a very important positive indicator. This is the other side dealing
with the so-called sanctions. It would have been good, of course,
to have access to foreign refinancing markets, so that all
the money would stay in the country and help us develop,
but on the other hand over-crediting is also a bad sign.
So, what did we do? Despite all limitations, we
complied with all our commitments to our partners, including international
credit institutions. We pay everything due on time and in full.
As a result, the overall joint debt, which is not the state
debt, but the total debt of our financial institutions
and companies operating in the real sector
of the economy – the overall joint debt has gone down,
which is generally a very positive thing.
As I have already said, we are observing
a net capital inflow, which is also a very positive factor,
and I am sure experts are saying this as well. This means that
investors, seeing the realities of our economy, are beginning to show
some interest in working here. Despite the complicated situation,
the fuel and energy complex continues developing. The production
of oil, coal and electricity has grown. More than 4.6 gigawatt
of new generating capacity will be commissioned by the end
of the year.
Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference.
We have already commissioned about 20 facilities; this
is somewhat less than last year and the year before that.
In the previous two years, we had an absolute record, but 4.6
gigawatt is also very good. We will retain this rate in the following
years. This is also very important as it shows the growing capacity
of the economy as a whole, its energy security.
The infrastructure is also developing actively.
Russia’s entire seaport infrastructure has grown by 19.5 million tonnes
worth of capacity. I would like to use this opportunity
to draw your attention to the fact that over
the January-September period the volume of cargo loaded
at Russian ports went up by 3 percent. What does this mean,
colleagues? Why have our budget revenues from our export goods gone down?
Because of the prices. Meanwhile, as we are observing growing
trade turnover at the ports, it means the physical volume has
not gone down but has actually increased. This is a very positive factor.
We continue developing our airport system.
In the first nine months, our airports served over 126 million
passengers, which is 2.5 percent more than last year. Internal air traffic has
also grown noticeably – by more than 16 percent.
Despite the complicated financial
and economic situation, we continue our responsible state financial
policy. In the 11 months of this year federal budget revenue
reached 12.2 trillion, spending – 13.1 trillion. The budget deficit,
as we can see, stands at 957 billion. The expected budget deficit
by the end of the year is about 2.8 – 2.9 percent
of the GDP. This is a satisfactory figure
for the current economic situation, even more than satisfactory.
To achieve a balanced federal budget this
year we used our reserve fund. At the same time, it is very important
that the sovereign funds generally remain at a healthy level
of 11.8 percent of the GDP. The reserve fund amounted
to 3.931 trillion rubles, which is 5.3 percent of the GDP, while
the national welfare fund was 4.777 trillion rubles, which is 6.5 percent
of the GDP.
We have complied with all our social commitments this
year and are witnessing a natural population growth. This is
a very good figure that speaks of the people’s state
of mind, shows that they have the opportunity to plan their
families, which makes me very happy. Thus, 6.5 million Russian families have
received maternity capital over the entire period since the programme
was introduced. We have now extended this programme. I would like
to remind you that in 2016 maternity capital payment will remain
the same as in 2015 at 453,000 rubles.
In the majority of regions,
the situation with accessibility of preschool facilities has been
resolved by over 97 percent.
According to the Federal State Statistics
Service, life expectancy at the end of this year is forecast
to exceed 71 years.
We have complied with our commitments in terms
of adjusting pensions to the actual inflation in 2014, with
the PAYG component increased by 11.4 percent.
As of April 1 of this year, social security pensions have
gone up by 10.3 percent.
You began your question by asking about last year
and our expectations for next year and the year after that.
Proceeding from the current value of our exports, the Government
is expecting our economy to achieve at least a 0.7 percent
growth in 2016, 1.9 percent in 2017 and 2.4 percent
in 2018.
I would like to draw your attention
to the fact that all our calculations were based on the oil
price of $50 a barrel. Now the price is lower. Volatility is
high. We will not rush to adjust the budget, as this would lead
to a reduction in the funding of both the social
and real sectors; however, the Government is of course working
on different development scenarios. The Government should have this
instrument available, to be ready for any developments.
Our calculations were based on the oil price
of $50 a barrel. Now the price is lower. We will not rush
to adjust the budget, as this would lead
to a reduction in the funding of both the social
and real sectors; however, the Government is working on different
development scenarios.
Of course, potential GDP growth is not limited
to our export-related opportunities. We must also promote import
replacement, as I said in my Address
to the Federal Assembly, which is not a cure-all, but we believe
that it will help us retool a large park of the production
sector and the agriculture industry. This programme will enable us
to introduce novel technology and, hence, to increase labour
productivity. We must certainly continue working to improve economic
management, to de-bureaucratise our economy, and to create more
attractive conditions for doing business and for helping
entrepreneurs achieve the goals that are facing them
and the national economy as a whole. We will be working
hard, with a focus on these targets.
Thank you for your question: it allowed me
to use the materials at hand.
Yelena Glushakova: Thank you.
Yelena Glushakova, RIA Novosti.
Good afternoon! Mr President, you said we are past
the peak of the crisis, however the economic situation
continues to be very disturbing, something economists say.
In particular, your team mate Alexei Kudrin calls for reforms, but he
is known to be an optimist.
This week, for example, your Ombudsman,
Commissioner for Entrepreneurs’ Rights, Boris Titov, expressed very
disturbing thoughts. He said, in particular, that the Central Bank
interest rate is extremely high. So our entrepreneurs, who for obvious
reasons are unable to borrow in the West, cannot borrow
in Russia either because the costs are too high. He said that if this
situation continues, we will turn into Venezuela, where there is one national
currency exchange rate on the black market and a very
different official rate.
Do you share these concerns? Do you support
the monetary policy of the Bank of Russia? Do you consider
it necessary to lower interest rates?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Please give a long applause
for this question.
Naturally, these are everyone’s concerns.
And of course, everyone wants the Central Bank refinancing rate
lowered, because everyone knows it guides commercial banks in lending
to businesses. This, by the way, is not the only thing that
affects the rates in the commercial sector, but a major one
of course.
Boris Titov does the right thing in fighting
for the interests of the business community, and it is
important that we have such a man and such institutions. Why do you
think I insisted on appointing a business ombudsman
in the first place? Because I want to hear different points
of view, and I do not want to miss important
and essential elements of our economic life over all the current
issues.
To begin with, I will simply answer your
question. I support the policy that the Central Bank
and the Government pursue to ensure macroeconomic stability.
That is first.
Second, however much we want to lower
the rate, it cannot be done by administrative methods. We have
to work from the realities of our economy and its
structure. Of course, I often hear this talk about interest rates
being far lower outside Russia. Of course, there are lower rates. So they
do it on purpose. But they have other problems, and a different
economic structure. We are threatened by inflation, and they probably
have deflation looming when manufacturers cannot sell what they make. That is
their problem.
I support the policy that the Central
Bank and the Government pursue to ensure macroeconomic
stability.
We have a different problem. To lower
the rate, we need to help the Central Bank
and the Government suppress inflation and reduce devaluation
risks and expectations, rather than snap at the regulator
as was common in Soviet times in the planned economy. Once
we can do both, once we start down this road, then the market will calm
down naturally and Central Bank refinancing rate will decrease.
When there’s a possibility to support
the real economy, the Central Bank is doing it anyway. That said, it
should not be pushed to do even more, since this could affect its ability
to keep the inflation at bay, which is one of the key
issues, not the only, but still a very important one. It could prompt
the question: Does the Central Bank have any objectives other than
making sure that the country’s financial and banking systems are up
and running? And we can argue that this is the way things are
at the present time. What else is the Central Bank doing?
For example, together with the Government it is working
on the so-called project financing programmes: the Government
oversees a wide range of projects under various programmes worth tens
of billions of dollars, about 250 billion already, and up
to 500 billion moving forward. Under these programmes, the Central
Bank provides funding to Russian private banks so that they can finance
these specific programmes. The Central Bank is also involved in new
investment projects. It uses a wide range of instruments.
For now, this is enough.
Veronika Romanenkova: TASS news agency, Veronika
Romanenkova.
Mr Putin, could you tell us in all honesty
whether you are satisfied with the Government’s work? To what extent
are the initiatives that are being taken against the backdrop
of crisis developments you’ve just described adequate? Can any changes
in the Government line-up be expected?
Vladimir Putin: Well, as you may know
or could have noticed throughout the years I’ve been in office,
I
a) value people highly and
b) believe that staff reshuffles,
usually, but not always, are to be avoided and can be detrimental.
If
someone is unable to work something out, I think that I bear
part of the blame and responsibility. For this reason,
there will be no changes, at least no major reshuffles.
We are working together with the Government
on ways to improve its structure. This is true. This is about finding
solutions for enhancing the Government’s efficiency with respect
to the most sensible economic and social issues. There are plans
to this effect, but there’s nothing dramatic about them and they
don’t boil down to specific individuals. Our efforts are aimed
at improving the operations of this crucial governing body.
As for the question whether I’m
satisfied or not, overall I think that the Government’s work has
been satisfactory. Of course, it can and should be even better.
An anti-crisis plan was drafted and enacted in early 2014.
I don’t remember its exact title, but essentially this was an anti-crisis
plan. If you look at what has been done, you can see that unfortunately 35
percent or more than one third of the initiatives listed
in this plan have yet to be implemented. This goes to show that
efforts on the administrative, organisational front undertaken
by various ministries and agencies did not suffice to respond
to the challenges we are facing in a prompt and timely
manner. However, let me reiterate that overall in terms of its
strategy the Government is moving in the right direction
and is efficient.
I think that the Government’s work has been
satisfactory. Of course, it can and should be even better, but
overall in terms of its strategy the Government is moving
in the right direction and is efficient.
Let’s give the floor to Tatars. There is
such a big poster. How can we possibly do without Tatars? Nothing is
possible without Tatars here.
Yelena Kolebakina: Thank you very much, Mr
President. I am Yelena Kolebakina with Tatarstan’s business newspaper
Business Online. The people of Tatarstan will not forgive me if
I do not ask you these questions.
In your address, you said – you stressed,
actually – that the kind, hard-working people of Turkey
and the ruling elite should not be put on the same plane
and that we have a lot of reliable friends in Turkey.
As you know, over the years Tatarstan has forged extensive economic
and cultural ties with Turkey. What are we supposed to do now?
Rupture these ties, cut our bonds with the entire Turkic world? After all,
this is precisely the message of Vladimir Medinsky’s recent telegram
with his recommendation that all contacts with the international
organisation of Turkic Culture (TURKSOY) be broken. What is to be
done with the Turkish investors who have invested a quarter
of all foreign direct investment in Tatarstan? This is my first
question.
And allow me to ask the second question
or the people of Tatarstan will be unhappy. In keeping with
the federal law, from January 1, 2016, President Rustam Minnikhanov
of Tatarstan will no longer be referred to as president.
However, this can hurt the ethnic feelings of all Tatars
in the world while you – let me remind you – have always
said that in accordance with the Constitution, it is up
to the republic itself to decide what to call the head
of the region. So, will the federal centre insist
on renaming the position of the head of Tatarstan
after all?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I saw the “Turkey”
poster. Please go ahead with your question and you too. We will sort this
out.
Yelena Teslova: Yelena Teslova with
the Anadolu news agency. I have a similar question. I would
also like to start off with the fact that in your Address
to the Federal Assembly, you said that we should not put
the Turkish people and the part of the Turkish elite
that is directly responsible for the death of our military
personnel in Syria on the same plane. On a day-to-day
level, however, the impression is somewhat different. Complaints are
coming to the Turkish embassy in Moscow from students saying
they have been expelled and from business people who say they are about
to be deported. What is to be done about this?
The second question concerns Syria.
The position on the fate of the Syrian president is
well-known. Russia says it should be decided by the Syrian people
while the United States and its allies insist that he has no political
future. Did you address the issue with John Kerry during his visit
to Moscow? Will this issue be raised in New York? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: And your question please.
Fuad Safarov: Mr President, Fuad Safarov with
the Turkish news agency Cihan.
The rapid deterioration of relations between
Russia and Turkey benefits neither side. What is more, this has only
harmed both sides. Do you believe there is a third party in this
scenario?
The second question, if you allow me.
An Islamic anti-ISIS coalition was established recently, but we know that
there is also the NATO-led coalition and the Russian-Syrian
coalition. It turns out that there are three coalitions against ISIS. Is it
really so difficult to deal with this evil? Maybe there are some other
goals and some other plans here? Maybe it is not ISIS that is
the problem? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference.
Vladimir Putin: Okay, I will talk about
Syria in the end. Now, regarding the conflict that has flared
up. We believe that the actions of the Turkish authorities
(in relation to our warplane, which they shot down) are not
an unfriendly, but a hostile act. They shot down a warplane
and our people were killed.
What outraged us so much? If it was an accident,
as we heard later, apparently, the Turkish authorities did not even
know it was a Russian plane… What is usually done in such cases?
After all, people were killed. They immediately make a phone call
and straighten things out. Instead, they immediately ran to Brussels,
shouting: “Help, we have been hurt.” Who is hurting you? Did we touch anybody
there? No. They started covering themselves with NATO. Does NATO need this?
As it turned out, apparently it does not.
What is the most important thing for us?
I want you to understand this. I want our people to hear
this and I want Turkey to hear this as well. Apart from
the tragedy, the fact that our people were killed, what has upset us
so much, do you know? You know, we did not refuse to cooperate. When
I was last in Antalya I had contact with Turkey’s entire
leadership. Our Turkish colleagues raised very sensitive issues and asked
for support. Even though our relations have soured now (I will not
say what the issue was – this is not my style), but believe me,
they raised issues with us that are very sensitive and that do not fit
into the context of international law when we consider
the decisions proposed by the Turkish side.
You will be surprised, but we said, “Yes, we
understand, and we are willing to help.” You see, I had not
heard about the Turkomans (Syrian Turks) before. I knew that
Turkmen – our Turkmen – lived in Turkmenistan, and so
I was confused… Nobody told us about them. But after we indicated our
willingness to cooperate on the issues that are sensitive
to Turkey, why did not they phone us via the cooperation channels
between our militaries to say that during our discussions we overlooked
a certain part of the border where Turkey has vested interests.
They could have expressed their concerns or asked us not to hit
certain areas. But nobody said anything.
As I said, we were willing to cooperate
with Turkey on very sensitive issues. So why did they do it? Tell me, why?
What have they accomplished? Did they think we would just pack up and go?
They could not have thought that of course, Russia is not that kind
of country. We have increased our presence and increased
the number of warplanes [in Syria]. We did not have air defence
systems there, but after that we dispatched S-400 systems
to the area. We are also adjusting the Syrian air defence system
and have serviced the highly effective Buk systems that we had sent
them before. Turkish planes used to fly there all the time, violating
Syrian air space. Let them try it now. Why did they do it?
You asked if there is a third party involved.
I see what you mean. We do not know, but if someone in Turkish
leadership has decided to *brown nose the Americans, I am
not sure if they did the right thing. First, I do not know if
the US needed this. I can imagine that certain agreements were
reached at some level that they would down a Russian plane, while
the US closes its eyes to Turkish troops entering Iraq,
and occupying it. I do not know if there was such an exchange.
We do not know. But whatever happened, they have put everyone
in a bind. In my opinion – I have looked
at the situation and everything that has happened and is
happening there – it appears that ISIS is losing priority. I will
share my impressions with you.
*brown nose = 1. to be abjectly subservient (to); curry favour (with)
Some time ago, they invaded Iraq and destroyed
that country (for good or bad is beside the point).
The void set in. Then, elements tied to the oil trading emerged.
This situation has been building up over the years. It is a business,
a huge trafficking operation run on an industrial scale.
Of course, they needed a military force to protect smuggling
operations and illegal exports. It is great to be able to cite
the Islamic factor and slogans to that effect in order
to attract cannon fodder. Instead, the recruits are being manipulated
in a game based on economic interests. They started urging
people to join this movement. I think that is how ISIS came about.
Next, they needed to protect delivery routes. We began attacking their
convoys. Now, we can see that they are splitting up with five, six, ten, fifteen
trucks hitting the roads after dark. However, another flow, the bulk
of the truck fleet, is headed for Iraq, and across Iraq
through Iraqi Kurdistan. In one place there – I will ask
the Defence Ministry to show this picture – we spotted 11,000
oil trucks. Just think of it – 11,000 oil trucks in one place.
Unbelievable.
Whether there is a third party involved is
anyone’s guess, but a scenario whereby these moves were never agreed with
anyone is quite likely. However, today, the Turkish authorities are taking
quite a lot of heat – not directly, though –
for islamising their country. I am not saying if it is bad
or good, but I admit that the current Turkish leaders have
decided to let the Americans and Europeans know – yes, we
are islamising our country, but we are modern and civilised Islamists.
Remember, what President Reagan said about Somoza in his time: “Somoza may
be a son of a bitch, but he is our son
of a bitch.” Just keep it in mind, we are Islamists, but we are
on your side, we are your Islamists.
There may be such an overtone, but nothing good
came out of what happened. The goals, even if Turkey had any, not
only were not achieved, but, on the contrary, only exacerbated
the situation.
Now, regarding Turkic peoples residing in Russia.
Of course we should maintain contacts with those who are close to us
ethnically. I am saying “us,” because Turkic-speaking peoples
of Russia are part of Russia, and in this sense
the Turkish people, whom I mentioned in my Address as a friendly
people, and other Turkic-speaking peoples remain our partners
and friends. Of course, we will and must maintain contacts with
them.
We have learned from experience that it is hard
or almost impossible to reach common ground with the current
Turkish leadership. Even when we tell them “yes, we agree,” they are trying
to outflank or stab us in the back for absolutely no
good reason.
Consequently, I do not see any prospects
for improving relations with the Turkish leaders in terms
of state-to-state relations, while remaining completely open to humanitarian
cooperation. However, even this area is not without issues. I think that
Turkish leaders have actually gone beyond their own expectations. Russia is
forced to impose restrictive economic and other measures,
for example, in tourism.
You know, the creeping islamisation that would
have made Ataturk turn over in his own grave, affects Russia. We know that
there are fighters from the North Caucasus on Turkish soil. We have
told our partners time and again: “We do not do such things with respect
to Turkey.” But these fighters are still there, they receive treatment
and protection. They benefit from visa-free travel arrangements
and are able to enter Russian territory using Turkish passports
and disappear, while we have to go after them
in the Caucasus or in our million plus cities.
For this reason, we will certainly have to do it along with
a number of other initiatives to ensure our national security.
As for the President of Tatarstan,
there is a saying in Russia: “Call me a pot but heat me not.”
This is Tatarstan’s business. I do not think that this is such
a sensitive issue or that it could hurt national feelings. You know
the people in the Caucasus always react vehemently to all
issues related to their national identity. However, even Chechnya said:
no, the country should have only one President, and we will not call
the head of the Republic this way. This was the choice
of the Chechen people. We will respect the choice
of the people of Tatarstan. It is up to you to decide,
all right?
Anton Vernitsky: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.
Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, I forgot, but
I wrote down your question. Again, I am sorry, Anton.
The fate of the Syrian president.
I have said it many times, and I would like to repeat it:
We will never agree with the idea of a third party, whoever it
is, imposing its opinion about who governs who. This is beyond any common sense
and international law. Of course, we discussed it with US Secretary
of State Kerry. Our opinion remains the same, and this is our
principled approach. We believe that only Syrians can choose their leaders,
establish their government standards and rules.
Therefore, I will say something very important
now. We support the initiative of the United States, including
with respect to the UN Security Council draft resolution
on Syria. The Secretary of State’s visit mainly focused
on this resolution. We generally agree with it. I think Syrian
officials will agree with the draft, too. There may be something that
somebody does not like. But in an attempt to resolve this bloody
conflict of many years, there is always room for compromise
on either side. We believe it is a generally acceptable proposal,
although there could be improvements.
As I have said before, this is
an initiative of the United States and President Obama.
This means that both the US and Europe are highly concerned with
the current situation in the Middle East, Yemen, Syria
and Iraq. We will do what we can to help settle the crisis
and will aim to satisfy all parties with our solutions, however
complicated the situation.
But first, it is necessary to work together
on a constitution and a procedure to oversee possible
future elections. It must be a transparent procedure that everyone trusts.
Based on these democratic procedures, Syria will decide which form
of government is the most suitable and who will lead
the country.
Anton Vernitsky: Back to the Syria
issue. Mr Putin, do we have a clear-cut plan on Syria or we are
acting impulsively? I mean, Turkey shot down our plane and we
immediately increased our military presence in Syria. When will our
military operation end? What will you regard as the end point
of our military operation in Syrian airspace?
Do you believe that the intra-Syrian conflict
can, after all, be switched to a political track? Though you already
talked about it, is it possible?
VladimirPutin: I was trying to answer
this just now. We think that,
A, it is possible; and,
B, we believe that there
is no other way to resolve the situation.
This will have to be
done in any case sooner or later, and better sooner than later
because there will be fewer casualties and losses, and there will be
fewer threats, including to Europe and to the United States
as well. Look, 14 people were killed in the United States − ISIS
has made its way into the US.
US law enforcement has acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack committed by ISIS, so it is a threat to everyone. And the sooner
we do it, resolve this, the better.
Let me repeat, there is no solution to this
problem except a political one. Do we have a plan? Yes, we do,
and I just spelled it out. In its key aspects, strange
as it may sound, it coincides with the American vision, proposed
by the United States: cooperative work on the constitution,
creating mechanisms to control future early elections, holding
the elections and recognising the results based on this
political process.
Of course, it is a complicated objective
and of course there are various mutual grievances: some do not like
this group and others do not like that group, some want to work with
the Syrian Government and others refuse do so categorically. But what
is necessary is that all conflicting parties make an effort to meet
each other halfway.
Anton Vernitsky: And the military
operation?
Vladimir Putin: What about the military
operation? We said a long time ago that we will carry out air strikes
to provide support for offensive operations by the Syrian
army. And that is what we have been doing while the Syrian army
conducts their operations.
By the way, I have recently said
publicly – the idea was proposed by François Hollande –
that we should try to pool the forces of the Syrian army
and at least part of the armed opposition
in the fight against ISIS. We have succeeded in working towards
this goal, even if partly. (Note of the poster - I think it should be pull off = succeeding in persuading)
At the least, we have found common ground
with these people. This part of the Syrian opposition, these
irreconcilable and armed people want to fight against ISIS
and are actually doing so. We are supporting their fight against ISIS
by delivering air strikes, just as we are doing to support
the Syrian army. When we see that the process of rapprochement
has begun and the Syrian army and Syrian authorities believe
that the time has come to stop shooting and to start
talking, this is when we will stop being more Syrian than Syrians themselves.
We do not need to act in their place. And the sooner this
happens, the better for everyone.
Dmitry Peskov: Mr Brilyov, do you have anything
to add?
Sergei Brilyov: Thank you. Yes, I want
to add to what my Turkish colleagues and Anton [Vernitsky]
have said.
Mr President, first I would like to ask if
the Turkish ship has sailed.
- Can President Erdogan do anything
to reverse the situation?
And second, we do not have to be
more Syrian than Syrians themselves, but since Turkey’s actions have forced
Russia to increase its contingent at Latakia, maybe we should keep
that base to ensure stability in Syria and the rest
of the Eastern Mediterranean?
Vladimir Putin: I do not want to answer
for other people and the leaders of other countries. If
they believe it possible and necessary to do something, let them do
so. We do not see any change so far. So why should I speak about it now? That
is my answer to the first question.
As for the second question, about
the base, opinions differ, you know.
Some people in Europe
and the US repeatedly said that our interests would be respected,
and that our [military] base can remain there if we want it to. But
I do not know if we need a base there. A military base implies
considerable infrastructure and investment.
After all, what we have there today is our planes
and temporary modules, which serve as a cafeteria
and dormitories. We can pack up in a matter of two days,
get everything aboard Antei transport planes and go home. Maintaining
a base is different.
Some believe, including in Russia, that we must
have a base there. I am not so sure. Why? My European colleagues
told me that I am probably nurturing such ideas. I asked why,
and they said: so that you can control things there. Why would we want
to control things there? This is a major question.
We showed that we in fact did not have any
medium-range missiles. We destroyed them all, because all we had were
ground-based medium-range missiles. The Americans have destroyed their
Pershing ground-based medium-range missiles as well. However, they have
kept their sea - and aircraft-based Tomahawks. We did not have such
missiles, but now we do – a 1,500-kilometre-range Kalibr sea-based
missile and aircraft-carried Kh-101 missile with a 4,500-kilometre
range.
So why would we need a base there? Should we need
to reach somebody, we can do so without a base.
It might make sense, I am not sure. We still need
to give it some thought. Perhaps we might need some kind of temporary
site, but taking root there and getting ourselves heavily involved does
not make sense, I believe. We will give it some thought.
Dmitry Peskov: Colleagues, let's be respectful
of each other and ask one question at a time, OK? So that
everyone can get the chance to ask a question. Terekhov,
Interfax, please go ahead.
Vladimir Putin: Sorry, here’s Ukraine, our sister
republic. I’m never tired of saying it over and over again. Please go
ahead.
Dmitry Peskov: Microphone to the first row,
please.
RomanTsimbalyuk: Thank you
for the opportunity to ask a question, even though we are
not Turks, but Ukrainians.
Vladimir Putin: I can see that, yes.
Roman Tsimbalyuk: Mr Putin, as a follow-up
to your allegations that there are no Russian servicemen in Donbass,
Captain Yerofeyev and Sergeant Alexandrov, Third Brigade, the city
of Togliatti, send their regards to you.
Are you going to exchange them for Sentsov,
Savchenko, Afanasyev, Kolchenko, and Klykh? And the list goes
on.
One more question, if I may, just
to continue my first question:
The Minsk Agreements are coming
to an end, and none of the parties have complied with
their provisions. So, what should we expect from you come January 1? Are
you going to launch an offensive again, come up with some negotiation
ideas, or maybe forget about Ukraine for a while?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding exchanges. We’ve never
said there are no people there who deal with certain matters, including
in the military area, but this does not mean that regular Russian
troops are present there. Feel the difference. This is the first
point.
Second, you mentioned two or three people you
propose exchanging and then offered a long list of persons
to exchange them for.
First of all, the exchange should be
equitable.
Second, we should discuss everything calmly with our colleagues,
talk and propose what we have always insisted on and what
the Ukrainian President has proposed.
People who are being held
on one side and those held on the other should be released.
This applies above all to people from Donbass, southeastern Ukraine,
and Ukrainian servicemen who were detained in these territories.
However, the exchange should proceed on an equitable basis.
What am I talking about? It’s no secret that
the Ukrainian authorities regard all those detained and held
in Donbass as people who are subject to exchange while those who
are held in Kiev prisons are considered criminals and therefore
outside the scope of this exchange.
People in Donbass don’t
agree with this. This should be treated fairly and it should be said:
Let’s exchange all for all, as President Poroshenko proposed, not
selectively – we’ll exchange these but not those. This is the line
to take here and we support it. We have a lot
of disagreements with the Ukrainian authorities but here we have
a common position.
Now regarding January 1. On January 1,
regrettably for us, we predict a deterioration in our economic
relations because we had to make the decision that from
January 1, we will no longer treat Ukraine as a member
of the CIS free trade zone.
EU leaders have proposed and asked me not
to expel Ukraine from the free trade zone and not to strip
it of preferences in trade with Russia in the hope that we
will negotiate in a tripartite format – Russia-EU-Ukraine –
for a year and make certain changes in various formats, so
that if the EU association agreement itself is not changed, we will
introduce certain amendments through additional protocols to address our
concerns and guarantee our economic interests. In the period
before July, we had asked a hundred times for a tripartite
meeting. Contact was only established in July, you see? The result
was practically zero.
Only recently, I met with the German
Chancellor and President of the European Commission
in Paris. We received a document. I will use this chance
of speaking to such a sizeable audience and explain
the specifics shortly. We’ve tried to maintain good economic
relations with Ukraine, since Ukraine is member of the free trade
area which offers mutual preferences and zero rates. In its economic
relations with Russia and the CIS, Ukraine has used standards,
technical regulations and customs rules which we inherited from
the past and which we are gradually changing together. Ukraine is
unilaterally withdrawing from this system and joining the European
standards. Those, for example, state that all the goods
in the Ukrainian market must comply with EU technical standards
and regulations. But see, our products don’t comply with them yet.
Does this mean Ukraine has to keep our goods from
its market? Okay, they heard us. Now Ukraine is officially allowed to keep
both compliant and non-compliant products in their market. It’s not
an obligation but a right. Whether it uses it or not, we don’t
know. They have the right to establish a subcommission
to decide, but again, it is not an obligation. However, Russia is
expressly required to maintain all preferences in place. No, it
doesn’t work that way.
Moreover, one doesn’t have to be an expert
to see that Russia is required to bring CIS customs regulations into
compliance with EU standards.
In Paris, I told them: this doesn’t make any
sense. The three of us (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan) have
argued for years about these customs duties. And you want us
to change the CIS customs regulations just because Ukraine entered
into this agreement with the EU. This is not a fair requirement. It
will take years to accomplish.
Also, it was stated that we must comply with EU
phytosanitary requirements. Ukraine is willing to do so but nobody
discussed it with us. It is expressly written that Russia has agreed
to comply. Since when? We may be in favour of the idea but
it will take time. How can you not understand that it takes time
and money? Tens, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars. We need
time too.
By the way, they told me in Paris, “But
our standards are better and maybe you had better switch to those
standards.” Well, it is true, and we want to, but we need money – we
need investments. And we still have our access to external financing
blocked. You understand that it is impossible, I said, so why did you
write all this? They said, “But we have not read this yet.” Look, you have not
even read it, but you sent us this official paper. Should we agree with it?
Now, about what we will do. We are not going
to impose any sanctions on Ukraine – I want this to be
heard. We are just switching to a most-favoured-nation treatment
in trade. Which means conditions for Ukraine will not be any worse
than those for our other foreign partners. But of course, Russia will
grant no more privileges or preferences to Ukraine from
January 1, 2016.
What will this mean in practice?
In practice, it means that the zero tariffs in trade between Russia
and Ukraine will change to the weighted average tariff of 6
percent. Various rates will range from 3 to 8 or 10 percent. But this
is not our choice. We have fought for this not to happen. But they
did not want to listen to us. They did so unilaterally
and in the style I just described to you. But we have
to work in the conditions we have.
Now, about launching offensives. I tell you
frankly that we are not interested in exacerbating the conflict.
On the contrary, we are interested in resolving this conflict
as soon as possible, but not by way of physical
annihilation of people in southeastern Ukraine. By the way,
take a look at the results of the municipal elections
and see the voting pattern in the area. In nearly all
the regions – nine or ten, I think –
the opposition bloc came first or second.
Even in those territories of Donbass
and the Lugansk Region that are controlled by the Ukrainian
authorities more than 43 percent voted for the opposition. Don’t
the Kiev authorities see this? Are they so reluctant to take into
account the sentiments and expectations of their own people? We
very much hope that we will have an open, honest dialogue.
Now about the Minsk Agreements. We have heard it
a hundred times that Russia must comply with the Minsk Agreements. And this
is what we want! Let’s look at their provisions.
First –
to introduce amendments to the Constitution and coordinate
them with Donbass on a permanent basis. Has this been done?
Transitional provisions were amended, it seems. And what are those amendments?
The law on the special status was incorporated into
the transitional provisions. “On a permanent basis?” I ask
all my colleagues. They all say, “Yes, permanent.” I say, “Do you
know that this law has only been adopted for three years? A year has
already passed.” They all say, “Really?” I say, “Yes.” “Is that true, Mr
Poroshenko?” He answers, “Yes.” This is almost a direct quote. Everybody
says, “You know, he should do it on a permanent basis.” I say,
“He should, nobody is stopping him.”
Now the law on the special status. Has
the Rada passed this law? Yes, it has. Under the Minsk Agreements, it
should be “implemented within 30 days by having the Rada adopt
a resolution to this effect.” Have they adopted the resolution?
Yes. But how? They added an article, I think number 10,
to the law, which stipulates that it can only be implemented after
elections, which means more delays. I told them, “Listen, it says here
that the law must be implemented.” “No, it does not. It says: the Rada
must pass a resolution. We have done it. That is it.” But this is
a manipulation.
000
If we really want to resolve the problem,
let’s stop this, let’s work together. And we are willing to influence
people in the southeast of the country and persuade
them to accept a compromise. We are willing and we want it
to happen, but we need our partners in Kiev to be willing
as well.
Vyacheslav Terekhov: Hello, Mr President. You
just talked about a significant expansion of the military
presence in the conflict zone in Syria.
Vladimir Putin: There you go again about Syria. Ask me
about the national economy.
Vyacheslav Terekhov: No, about Russia, not Syria.
Sanctions are in force, oil prices are falling
and there are not only sanctions but also a crisis. Will Russia have
enough resources for all this?
Vladimir Putin: For what?
Vyacheslav Terekhov: For military operations,
the expansion of its military presence, for survival.
In addition to this, there are more than enough other problems
to deal with. Meanwhile, resources – this is not only money
and military officers. A popular expression has just come
to my mind: “It’s easy to start a war but difficult
to end one.”
Vladimir Putin: We did not start a war. We are
conducting limited operations with the use of our Aerospace Forces,
air-defence systems and reconnaissance systems. This does not involve any
serious strain, including strain on the budget. Some
of the resources that we earmarked for military training
and exercises – we simply retargeted them to the operations
of our Aerospace Forces in Syria. Something needs to be thrown
in, but this does not have any significant impact on the budget.
You see, we hold large-scale exercises. Take
the Centre or Vostok-2015 drills alone. Thousands of people are
involved. Thousands are redeployed from one theatre to another. There are
hundreds of aircraft and so on and so forth. We simply
direct a part of the resources to the operation
in Syria. It is difficult to think of a better training
exercise. So, in principle, we can keep training for quite
a long time there without unduly denting our budget.
As for other components, yes, that is
an issue – I mean the economic problems we are faced with.
We know what needs to be done and we know how to do it,
and we talk about this publicly.
What can be said in this regard? If we go back
to the economy, of course, here we need to implement import
replacement programmes (I believe I mentioned this earlier). Not just
import replacement as such, but we need to modernise our economy,
enhance labour productivity, improve the business climate and ensure
effective public demand. This is an element of our economic drive.
We need to carry out an array
of measures that the Government has publicly announced. And this
is what we will do.
Anastasia Zhukova: Hello, I am Anastasia
Zhukova from Tulskiye Novosti. Here’s my question. A tragedy occurred
in Tula last year when two babies were burned in a local
maternity home. One of them was seriously injured
and suffered burns to almost 80 percent of his body.
The issue of his adoption is being reviewed now. People from all over
the country are worried about Matvei’s fate. They worry that he will be
institutionalised. They think the boy will end up in a nursing
home. Most Russians and foreigners want him to be adopted
by a loving family.
Mr Putin, can you please see to his fate
and personally control his adoption and treatment? And what do
you think can be done to prevent such accidents from happening again?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: This is a horrendous,
terrible story. It is impossible to think about it or talk about it
without tears. What a horrible tragedy. I simply do not want
to say any more about it now – it is just awful.
The problem is not rooted in healthcare. No
matter how much money is allotted to it, there will always be people who
will be criminally negligent in fulfilling their duties. This needs
to be monitored. The attitude of personnel to their duties
should rest on a completely different approach.
As for a nursing home or adoption,
I know that the entire country is watching the developments.
I know this anyway, and we are keeping an eye on it.
Moreover, several people (not one, two or three), several families not
only want to adopt Matvei but are fighting for him. I wish them
success and want to thank them for this. I hope this issue
will be resolved very soon.
Young lady, I promised you – go ahead
please.
Yekaterina Vinokurova: Thank you for keeping
your promises, Mr Putin.
Yekaterina Vinokurova, Znak.com.
It is December 2015. You have been
at the helm for 15 years, and so we can say that
a certain system of authority has evolved. I have
a question about a very dangerous aspect of this system because
we can see especially clearly now that a very dangerous second generation
of the elite has grown up over this period. One of them is
Rotenberg Jr, who has received the country’s long-haul truckers
as a present. Another is Turchak Jr, who cannot be summoned
for questioning over the assault of Oleg Kashin, even though
journalists continue to be beaten up in his region. These are also
the children of Chaika, who have a very murky business, which
should be investigated. Sorry, but I do not give a damn whether this
is a paid-for reporting or not, because even rumours must be
investigated. There are many more such children who are unable to revive
or even preserve Russia, because they are not the elite but only
a poor semblance of it.
At the same time, when journalists
investigate something or public accusations are made
as in the case of Prosecutor General Chaika and his
team, the authorities, instead of launching an investigation,
shout that the rumour is being spread by the hateful State
Department or Obama, or order an inspection –
for instance, how the prosecutor’s office dealt with the Dozhd
TV Channel, which helped investigate the problem. When the long-haul
trackers hold protests, they are accused of acting on somebody’s
orders, whereas instead you simply need to talk to them.
Mr Putin, I have a simple question. Did you
expect to see these results when you assumed power in 2000? Maybe
the situation needs improving before it is too late? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Let’s start with results. If we
want to be objective, we will have to admit that these are not
the only results. Our best achievements are higher incomes
for the people and a stronger economy, which has grown by nearly
100 percent. Our GDP has almost doubled. These are our results. Stronger
defences and improved capabilities of our Armed Forces – these
are the results. The fight against terrorism, which we have not
defeated yet but we have definitely broken its back – these are the results.
As for the problems of secondary
importance you mentioned, they can happen anywhere. Now
for the reaction of the media and the public
to the activities of our high-level officials’ children. Take
young Rotenberg, whom you mentioned: his father does not hold any government
posts, as far as I know. Maybe he has found his way into
a government agency since I last looked, but I do not think so.
As for Mr Chaika, and who else? Turchak
and the rest. I am aware of the reports
by the media and online that, say Turchak was involved
in beating up journalists. Is he the one responsible or is his
father involved? There is a famous Soviet-era joke, when an HR
manager says: We are not going to promote this guy. Why? He had an incident
with a fur coat. It turned out that five years ago his wife’s fur coat was
stolen in a theatre. Something had happened, so the guy will not
be promoted, just in case. This should not be our attitude. You are right
to raise this issue. No, I really mean it. This provides us with
an opportunity to respond… I mean, it is our obligation
to respond.
Regarding all the issues you have mentioned,
especially those related to the children of high-ranking
officials… Let’s take for example the Prosecutor General – he
heads a very important institution. We have to understand did
the Prosecutor General’s children commit an offence or not? Does
anything point to a conflict of interest
in the Prosecutor General’s work? Did he assist or help his children
in any manner? For that, we have the Presidential Control
Directorate. I did not want to mention this issue, but it does not
mean that we are not working on it. All the information should be
carefully reviewed. The same goes for examining all the reports
online.
Let’s now move to the truck drivers. Are
there any questions on this particular issue? Are there any questions
about the truck drivers? Go ahead. Maybe someone can articulate this
question better.
Question: My question is not just about
the truck drivers. Everyone is aware of professional drivers’
problems, why they have been protesting for weeks against
the problems with the new toll system. But I have questions
on behalf of the entire driving community.
Ordinary motorists are also forced to pay.
For example, there is this new road being built from Moscow to St
Petersburg, recognised by all as the most expensive
in Europe. For example, a drive to the nearest Moscow
suburb and back costs 1,000 rubles, more than a small amount
for most people.
In Moscow, the metered parking policy has
reached residential areas where there actually was not any serious need
for it, as many have said. But drivers have been told that this is
the way things are in Europe. But we have a standard
of living far lower than them, and even you pointed out
at the beginning of this news conference that real income has
declined. So my question is: is it fair to dump these high charges
on all categories of motorists?
Vladimir Putin: Paid parking is kind of beyond
the point; it’s another matter. As for these car parks
in Moscow, all major metropolitan areas at some point have
to introduce paid parking because the problem cannot be solved
in any other way. Of course common sense should prevail here too
and you need to watch not only what to do but how to do it,
and prices should be based on reality. However, the Moscow city
authorities have made this decision. You need to know this.
The Moscow authorities decided that parking
prices should not be directly set by the mayor's office, but only
after consultations with the municipalities and with
the districts. Moreover, the local elected authorities, district
authorities have the right to decide on this issue – they
have been given that authority. And parking is free for people who
live in the buildings next to these car parks. I can assure
you that the citizens concerned, the Muscovites who live near these
car parks, are more in favour of the policy than against it.
The charges apply to those who arrive from
other districts or other regions: from the Moscow suburbs and so
on. This does not mean, however, that we should not think about them
at all. And of course, the fees should have some relation
to average incomes. But I repeat, these decisions are largely up
to the local municipalities. The revenue from parking goes
entirely, completely, one hundred percent, into the local district
budgets.
I would like to reiterate that this does not
mean the upper levels and limits should be ignored. After all, this
is the prerogative of district and city authorities, above all,
the districts.
Now, regarding other components of the auto
business.
Most importantly, Rotenberg Jr was mentioned here.
What should I say, and what is important? It is important to get
to the bottom of the problem, not try to use
a difficult situation for some quasi-political purposes, but look
inside. And what lies inside? All revenues coming from the Platon
system – all 100 percent – do not go into somebody’s pocket but into
the Road Fund of the Russian Federation, down
to the last cent, and from there all this money, down
to the last cent, is spent on road construction in Russian
regions. I would like you to hear this. This is the first point.
Second, where does this joint venture set up
by Rostekhnologii and the company represented by private
investors get funding from? Directly from the budget – I believe
about 10 billion [rubles]. For what purpose? For the repair
and maintenance of this system, keeping it operational,
for development. However, what does it mean that they receive funding from
the budget? This means that everything can be checked, including
by the public and the Accounts Chamber, which is very
important. If some people think that these maintenance and development
costs are inflated, let them do calculations and submit them. This will be
the right thing to do – calculate and submit. This can be
done – [count] the money and revenues from Platon, the company
created by private investors and Rostekhnologii – these revenues
do not go there. I want this to be heard.
Where did the idea come from? It came from
the Government. Why? For two reasons.
First, because economic agents across all transport
sectors, including aviation, river, sea and rail transport, pay taxes
and infrastructure fees, including on the railway. Motor vehicle
owners pay only a portion of the infrastructure tax through
the excise tax on petrol. But that is only a portion of it.
In other industries, economic agents pay infrastructure fees in full.
This had a portion of cargo travel from rivers, seas
and railways to motor roads. Huge numbers of trucks flooded
motor roads, causing damage to infrastructure. A motor vehicle tax is
the same for passenger cars and trucks weighing 12 tonnes
or more.
I know that those guys are saying there is no
difference between a passenger car and a heavy-duty truck. But
this is not true. Experts say that during acceleration and braking,
12-tonne trucks do more damage to the roadbed than cars. However, they
pay the same amount. This proposal seeks to create a level
playing field for all types of transport.
Second, the licensing of this activity was
stopped in 2008 or 2007 as part of the war on red
tape. It seemed like a good idea, but what do we have as a result?
Large numbers of people go ahead and buy heavy-duty trucks
and get away with it. But this is an absolutely grey economy. They
are not even licensed as sole proprietors.
I come from a working-class family,
and I know that these guys work hard driving these trucks, but we
need to leave grey schemes behind. I would like to support them,
believe me. Ms Pamfilova came to see me and said that she met with
them, and they are hard workers and nice people overall. However, we
must shed these grey schemes, and help truck drivers out as well.
Someone asked me if I am pleased with
the Government or not. Here certain things must still be fine-tuned.
How do we go about it? How do we get them out of the scheme
and make sure that we do not charge them too many fees and taxes?
There is a simple way to do this. They should be given
an opportunity to purchase inexpensive patents. However, there is
a problem. Patents are issued for a year, while there may be
seasonal transport. Let the Government think about it in advance
and do it.
Some time ago, the Government reviewed
the possibility of introducing a similar fee. They charge
for mileage covered by heavy-duty trucks in many countries
around the world. In Belarus, truck drivers are paying seven times
more than is suggested in Russia. They are paying seven times more
for their mileage, just think about it. We said that the motor
vehicle tax can be cancelled after transiting to this system. The tax
was not cancelled upon the request of the regional authorities,
as the motor vehicle tax goes straight to the regional
budget. It must be cancelled at least for heavy-duty trucks whose
owners must pay for mileage. I hope the Government will do so
in early 2016.
I know that there is concern over having
to buy various devices. They also cost money. Here also it is necessary
to take a thorough look into who must pay and for what.
For instance, a tachograph, a device
showing how much time a driver has been at the wheel. Listen,
after all, this must be paid for. And people all over the world pay
for this. It must be done to ensure the safety of both
heavy-truck drivers and other motorists. Because when a person works
overtime, sitting at the wheel for 20 hours on end, he
poses a threat to himself and to other road users. Yes,
this must be paid for. I cannot recall how much, but this must be paid
for.
And there are two more devices. One is
the Platon tracking device , which must be provided to all free
of charge, and the other is the ERA-GLONASS system
(or the SOS system, so to speak), which sends out
an emergency signal. The latter device must be tucked away
in a safe spot to prevent it from getting damaged during
an accident. And so, the first and second systems
[tachograph and Platon] can be put together in one box, while
the third system must for the time being be hidden deep inside
a vehicle. And by the way, it must also be provided free
of charge.
Some people say that while it must be installed
on new trucks free of charge, money is charged for installing it
on used trucks. No, they must not charge anything. Around two million have
already been produced, as far as I know.
As a matter of fact, this is
the initiative of Rostekhnologii, and not of any private
persons. Why? Because, first, Rostekhnologii proposed a technical
solution, assigned the work to their enterprises and created
jobs, so this is their intellectual product. Why do we need private persons
there? We need them as investors. They have invested 29 billion rubles
(by the way, as regards the elites, they or their
children can do something, or cannot), invested these 29 billion rubles
in Russia, and not in the United States, or Cyprus
or anywhere else. The point is that the system needs to be
adjusted, that’s true.
I hope the Government will make all these
decisions, including taxes on transport vehicles in the near
future – no later than the first quarter.
Tamara Gotsiridze: Tamara
Gotsiridze, Maestro TV.
Mr President, I have a general question
about the future of Russian-Georgian relations. Three years have
passed since the change of government in Georgia. There were
expectations of a summit. It is still unclear why this has not been
held yet. People hoped that Russia would ease visa restrictions
for Georgians or make travel visa-free altogether but there is no
progress on this either.
I have this question: what does each side need
to do? What does Moscow expect from Tbilisi? What can be expected
of Moscow to bring Russian-Georgian relations to a new
level? What do you think about our prospects?
Vladimir Putin: As for the events
in 2008 and the subsequent decline in our relations, we
have talked about this many times, but I consider myself obliged
to repeat it. We are not to blame for the deterioration
in relations. The former Georgian leaders and the then
President Saakashvili should not have made the adventurist decisions that
triggered Georgia’s territorial disintegration. This is their fault, their
historical fault. They are fully to blame for this.
Now the export of politicians has begun.
They are actively operating in another former Soviet republic –
independent Ukraine. As you can see, they have not changed their approach.
I have already mentioned this but I would
like to repeat it. I think this is simply a slap
in the face of the Ukrainian people. Not only have they
been put under an external administration but they have also had
to accept so-called politicians that were delegated there.
By the way, I think Saakashvili was never granted a work
visa to the United States but they sent him to run the show
in Ukraine and he is functioning there.
What was Ukraine told? We will not only organise
you – we will send people who will administer over you, people from more
civilised countries – either your neighbours or from overseas.
We will put all of them into key positions:
finance, the economy, and so on and so forth because you do
not know how to do it well. Others know but you do not.
Is it impossible to find five or ten honest,
decent and efficient managers out of 45 million people? This is
simply a slap in the face of the Ukrainian people.
Now let’s turn to relations with Georgia. We did
not initiate the collapse of these relations bit we are willing
to restore them. As for Georgia’s territorial integrity, this is
primarily up to the people of Georgia, South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. It would be necessary to work with them. We will accept
any decision.
Today, despite the difficulties you mentioned we
notice signals from the current Georgian leaders and we are receiving
them. Imagine, today Russia accounts for two thirds of Georgia’s wine
and wine stock exports. They are coming to the Russian market
not to some other market abroad. We are importing these products
as well as others and our trade has increased. It declined
a little this year due to general economic difficulties, but
on the whole it is demonstrating fairly high growth rates.
As for visas, we think we are ready
to cancel them with Georgia.
Yekaterina Vyskrebentseva: Yekaterina
Vyskrebentseva, TV Centre.
Mr President, I would like to go back
to Russian economic problems. This autumn, it became obvious that regional
debt has grown significantly. Experts, the Ministry of Finance,
the Accounts Chamber and foreign analysts are saying that one
of the principal reasons for this is regional budget imbalances.
For example, some regions spend up to 65 percent of the GDP
to meet their social security obligations…
Vladimir Putin: GRP [Gross Regional Product].
Yekaterina Vyskrebentseva: Right, I am
sorry. This leaves nothing for economic development, which, as you
just said, is a key objective today.
What is the way out of this situation?
Vladimir Putin: Generally speaking, when all is said
and done, it is in fact the primary objective
of the regional authorities to meet their social security
obligations to the public.
What is economic development? Economic development can
and should be ensured above all by creating conditions for such
development. We always cite a number of Russian regions
as an example. Say, Tatarstan and Kaluga Region, among others,
they are creating such conditions. Top regional officials simply give their
cellphone number to major investors and say: “Call me if there is any
problem.” They take measures to provide tax incentives.
Today federal law provides for such
possibilities: two-year tax holidays for new businesses, priority development
areas, and so on. A region can grant a lot of preferences
to encourage businesses to develop in a particular region.
Of course, regional budgets need funds
to develop infrastructure for future investment. Indeed, there are
problems related to high debt levels in certain regions. However,
the government is making appropriate decisions. This year we have provided
an additional 160 billion rubles from the federal budget
to regional budgets – 310 billion in all. For what?
For regional debt restructuring. Where commercial loans were taken out
at 11–12 percent interest they can receive loans from the federal
budget at 0.1 percent interest.
Next year, the federal budget will provide
another 310 billion rubles for regional debt restructuring.
However, the most important thing is that these
regional loans are spent on addressing primary, not secondary objectives.
What is the most important thing in terms
of development? This [money] should be spent on creating new jobs,
providing conditions for new manufacturing facilities, new technology
and new infrastructure so that investment generates revenue that can be
used to repay loans and generate additional funding for regional
budgets. Unfortunately, this is something that we still need to work on.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s continue. A question
from OTR, the Public Television of Russia.
Tamara Shornikova: Thank you. Tamara Shornikova,
the OTR public television network.
We asked our audience in the regions
to suggest a question for the President. The most
popular question was, “How can you survive on a pension or even
wages without falling behind on your housing and utility payments?”
People in small towns and villages have
to make a very difficult decision every month: Should they spend
their pension or salary on mandatory payments and then try
to live until the next pay day or not? The trouble is that
the authorities claim that the average salary in their town
or village is 20,000, 30,000 or even 40,000 rubles, while the people
say many of them receive between 7,000 and 8,000 rubles.
The low-income groups receive benefits, but not everyone is entitled
to them, and not all municipal authorities have the funds
to help everyone who really needs this assistance.
Maybe the Federal Government should step
in at long last? Maybe there is a mechanism for doing this,
and if not, one should be created, so that rent, electricity, gas
and water fees do not exceed a certain share of people’s income,
which has been decreasing? Meanwhile, the bills keep growing.
Vladimir Putin: I believe that your question
is certainly an issue of priority importance for millions
in our country.
The OTR audience is not very large, probably, but
I sometimes watch your programmes. And I want to thank
the TV network team. You make interesting, substantive and solid
shows in response to people’s questions; you ask sharp questions
and try to find answers to them. You have asked me one
of such questions. They concern housing and utility fees, people’s
spending on these payments, and pensioners’ incomes.
Let’s start with pensioners’ incomes. You know that
the Government has adjusted retirement pensions for inflation despite
last year’s high inflation rate. Pensions were increased by more than 11
percent, and 10 percent for social pensions, I think.
Honestly, this was almost impossible, but we still
managed to do it. Next year, all categories, including those receiving
military pensions, will receive a 4 percent increase. We will see how
the situation in the Russian economy plays out. I would
really like 2016 indexation to be at least on par with
the annual rate of inflation. I cannot say whether we will be
able to do it or not, since we have to respond
to the situation and simply cannot sacrifice the budget,
since it would hurt everyone at the end of the day.
Now for housing and utilities. This year,
rates were increased 8.7 percent on average and are expected
to go up another 4 percent next year. Consequently, we expect this cost
to decrease. However, this will not affect rates for building
maintenance, waste removal, etc. These issues have to be tackled
by the municipalities.
In addition, under the federal law, families
who pay more than 22 percent of their income for utilities are
entitled to subsidies. The federal law also enables regions
to introduce an even lower threshold to subsidise families who
pay less than 22 percent of their income for utilities. If I am
not mistaken, this is the case in Moscow and many other regions.
There is no doubt that this issue deserves
the most careful attention; we need to closely monitor
the property management companies. A lot has yet to be done
to improve this system. Make no mistake, this will be a priority
for the Government and the regional authorities. It is true
that we have a long way to go before we settle this issue.
Now for the system you have mentioned,
and whether the system that has been proposed will be adopted
or not. What is this system all about? Under federal law, there is
a method for calculating the average possible increase
and the possible variations both ways. This method is expected
to be developed by the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service, which will
be in charge of overseeing what the regional authorities are
doing in this area. This is to say that not only will we monitor what
the regions are doing but also how the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service
carries out its functions.
Nathan Hodge: Thank you, Mr President. My name is
Nathan Hodge, Wall Street Journal.
Now, with the sharp fall in oil prices
and the economic crisis, isn’t it time to privatise state-owned
companies such as Rosneft and Aeroflot to fill the budget?
Will the privatisation of state-owned companies improve their
management and help withstand the crisis? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: As we all know, privatisation
of large companies solves two problems. The first problem is
unrelated to fiscal issues or budget profits, although this is also
important. But most importantly it changes the ownership structure,
increasing the efficiency of enterprises.
As for Rosneft or Aeroflot, which you
mentioned, other companies often recalled in this context, I wrote
in my articles back in 2012 that it was possible,
and in principle, we are going to continue this work.
We will certainly always ask ourselves whether
the market conditions are right to sell these valuable assets, which,
so to speak, bring positive results to the economy,
the budget, say, Rosneft. It is virtually impossible to say if
the situation or conditions are right, although as you know,
the Government did not take a decision on privatisation this
year.
Yet, I do not rule out that the government
might go for these decisions to generate income and make some
changes in the structure of these large companies, to avoid
tapping reserves. I try not to interfere with such decisions,
especially as it is not as if the government will lose its
controlling stake in those companies anyway.
Dmitry Peskov: We have a question from
a company that recently celebrated an anniversary, Russia Today.
Ilya Petrenko: Good afternoon Mr Putin. First,
I would like to thank you again for your greetings
on the tenth anniversary of the RT channel.
The English Section appreciated your recent gift to Sports Minister
Vitaly Mutko, an English phrasebook.
Does this mean that not just Mr Mutko but also his
other colleagues in the Russian Government will need this phrasebook
in the near future, considering the worsening relations with our
Western partners, including our English-speaking partners?
And now a more serious question: What
relations do you expect to have with the next US president? There
will be presidential elections in the United States next year. Thank
you.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding foreign languages,
Russia is an open country and English is certainly the most
widely used language in business, culture and diplomatic relations. English
has replaced French as the lingua franca of diplomats. We
encourage the study of foreign languages at schools
and universities. We have programmes for training young professionals
not only in Russia but also abroad, and we will continue to do
so. I hope that my colleagues at the Government ministries
and agencies and also in the regions will contribute
to these efforts.
As for Mr Mutko, you can make fun
of him, but he has no problems in this respect and is willing
to work for his own improvement. Actually, this is very good.
I would never have given him this gift if I did not know he would
take it in stride and not develop a complex. You can make fun
of him, of course, but you must admit that he knows what he wants
and how to get it. He is working to improve, which is not easy.
It is one thing when you start learning a foreign language
as a child, and it is quite another matter when you do it
at a mature age. By the way, learning a foreign
language is very good brainwork. In fact, it is the best form of ‘brain
jogging.’ I hope my colleagues will listen to me and do
this too.
And your second question?
Ilya Petrenko: It is about the next US
president.
Vladimir Putin: The next US president. First, we
need to figure out who it is going to be.
No matter who he or she may be, we are prepared
and willing to develop our relations with the United States.
I think the recent visit by the US Secretary of State
showed that the United States is willing to make certain moves
towards jointly addressing issues that can only be resolved together. This is
already a sensible position. We have been supporting it in every
possible way and will continue to do so in the future.
We are never closed to this, no matter whom
the American people elect as their president. It is them who are
constantly trying to tell us what we should do in our country, who
should get elected and who should not, and what procedures
to follow. We never meddle in other people’s affairs. They say it is
dangerous to do so in America. They say that if foreign observers get
closer than five metres to a line of voters, they could end up
in prison. We are not doing even that, right? We are open and will
work with any president voted in by the American people.
Yevgeny Dzichkovsky: As a follow-up
to the question about Mr Mutko. The government is spending big
money on professional sports. Senior citizens will agree with me. There is
a parable that you can feed a hungry man by giving him
a fish or a fishing rod. We are giving our sport a big
fish, a sturgeon, to try to promote the prestige
of our country, but then this doping, which they have regularly caught us
red-handed with. What we get instead of boosting our image is a blow
to the country. Who will be held accountable for this? So far,
we have seen two token resignations and the actual disqualification
of our athletic federation. Who will answer for this, what do you
think? Also, please say a few words about the corruption scandal
at FIFA. Should we be looking for Western ulterior motives
in this, or is it simply a hunt for bribe-takers? Thank
you.
Vladimir Putin: There are underhanded dealings,
of course, there is no way to get around it. Most importantly,
as I have always said, no country should or has any right
to extend its jurisdiction to other states, especially international
organisations. This does not mean that we should not fight corruption.
Of course, we should. But we believe that seizing foreign nationals around
the world and dragging them to their country
for an investigation and then a court trial is
unacceptable.
What should we do in this regard? It is
imperative to maintain an equal, transparent, and open
partnership with all countries. Not to impose your own jurisdiction
on anyone else, but just work with everyone in an honest
and open manner. I hope that someday we will get there. We will go
from the efforts to establish domination to cooperation,
including the fight against corruption.
The investigation will show whether or not
FIFA is involved in corruption. There are no results from this investigation
yet. Someone out there is confessing, while others refuse to talk.
As for Joseph Blatter, he is a very
respected person. He has done a lot for the development
of world football. His contribution to the world’s humanitarian
sphere is enormous because he has always tried to treat football not
as a sport but as an element of cooperation between
countries and peoples. He is the one who should be awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize.
As for the choice of this
or that country and potential problems – we do not know anything
about them. We know one thing for sure – that we received
the right to host the World Cup in an absolutely
honest competition. It is not our problem that when, say, FIFA officials
arrived before the voting, someone at the top level simply refused
to meet with them.
At that time I was Prime Minister
and I put all other things aside and met all my FIFA
colleagues. We took them on a tour around the country
and showed them where we would have stadiums. They met with the regional
leaders and they explained how important football is for us although
it was not at the world’s best level.
Nonetheless, we explained how important it is
for the development of mass sports in Russia. We showed how
many people love football in our country and how we planned to develop
it. FIFA listened to us and made its decision on the World
Cup in 2018 based on these considerations rather than some
corruption-driven motives. If you remember, I did not even attend
the voting procedure. I arrived after it was over so as not
to interfere or exert any pressure. We could not even apply any
pressure there. So let’s wait for the results
of the investigation and see who is to blame for what.
As for doping, I have expressed
my attitude to it more than once. We are against any doping primarily
because doping destroys human health. This is poison for people. This is
the first point.
Secondly, if an athlete engages in doping he
should by all means be punished for it because this destroys
the very principle of an honest sports competition
and interest in sports vanishes. By the way, I have
huge respect for those who score high results in speed skiing. But
why some people who suffer from certain diseases since childhood are allowed
to take some drugs whereas others who do not suffer from the same
diseases since childhood are prohibited from taking them? If an athlete
has to take medicines for health reasons, he should take part
in Paralympic rather than Olympic sports.
There are many problems in sports and they
are not so simple. The main point is the existence
of a common approach to the law in general
and in this case in particular: responsibility should always be
personal if it has been proved. The one who is to blame, whether it
is the coach, the organiser or an athlete has to be
held responsible. People who have nothing to do with violations should not
be responsible for those who make them. This is simply nonsense! This is
unfair and wrong! These are the principles we will fight for.
That said, Russia – and I want
to say this once again – should and will be open
to the joint struggle against doping. I will demand that
officials of all departments and levels openly cooperate with
the international agencies without concealing or hiding anything. We
have a stake in this and we will follow this path.
Inna Baskova: Kurgan, Regionalnye Vesti, Rossiya
1 Channel. As a woman, I cannot but pay a compliment
to you, Mr President, for being in such a good shape. Thank
you very much for that, because our boys are looking up to you, it’s
true! The number of young people leading a healthy lifestyle has
markedly grown.
Vladimir Putin: Without doping, I warn.
Without doping.
Inna Baskova: Yes, without doping. And we
would like these boys, youths… To encourage and engage them
in activities in their native territory, in their region.
Kurgan Region receives 24 grants annually under
the Beginning Farmer federal programme to support private farming.
But that is not enough, Mr President. I am conveying the wishes
of all our farmers that three times more is needed. This year, 70 people
expressed a desire to start their own businesses
in the agro-industrial sector, but only 20 received those
1.5-million-ruble start-up grants. Is it possible to redistribute quotas
between the regions in a way that would take into account
the peculiarities of Kurgan Region? Because with 20 quotas it is not
possible to stop the outflow of specialists from agriculture
and encourage young locals to stay.
Vladimir Putin: The development
of the agro-industrial sector and private farming is
an extremely important issue. Of course, I know about
discussions between the supporters of various development trends
for the agro-industrial sector. Some say that large-scale production
should be developed first and that only large-scale production,
and not private farmers, can provide the country with quality food
products in the required volumes. But, nevertheless, without any
doubt, we must also support private farming as a form
of agriculture. Farmers make a significant contribution
to ensuring food security. I have repeatedly said this and can
confirm that all plans regarding support for the agro-industrial
sector will be implemented unconditionally, including financial support.
Here you just mentioned the 1.5 million,
something that can be viewed as a start-up grant for their
business and maybe that is not enough, but there are also other
instruments available in Kurgan as well as in other regions
of the Russian Federation. It is possible to support those who
want to start their own business by means of regulation,
including financial or tax policies. For example the federal law
gives the right to regional governments to decide
on a two-year tax exemption for start-ups.
We are talking private entrepreneurs here, sole
business owners, but it is up to them to choose a legal format
for their business. I can assure you, it would be a significant
help. But there are other forms of support – for example,
the single agricultural tax can be appropriately transformed in order
to facilitate the financial and fiscal burden, we can help them
create the sales infrastructure. I am referring to setting up
associations which could help farmers market their produce.
Finally, there is a new and substantial
support policy, something that was not in place before: the domestic
market has been freed for our producers, and the growth
the national agriculture is now showing – 3, maybe 3.5 percent
by the end of this year – is good evidence of that.
True, it reflects on the customers, as prices go up, and it
is reflected in the macroeconomic indicators by hiking inflation,
contributing to inflation.
But in the end, if we are in it long
term, as they say, we expect to win, by which I mean
a boost in agricultural production. Therefore, Kurgan, along with
other regions, should look at the opportunities that
the Government and legislature are creating to support
the farmers as much as they can. Let's see how
the situation develops. And if there is a need, it is possible
to allocate additional resources. We do have such resources for 2016.
I saw a “pensions” poster. Pensions are
an important issue. Please.
Yulia Izmailova: Yulia Izmailova, the Molodoi
Leninets [Young Leninist] newspaper, the city of Penza.
Vladimir Putin: Molodoi Leninets is asking
about pensions? It surely is thinking ahead. All right, a question from
the Leninists.
Yulia Izmailova: The majority of our readers
are senior citizens. We write a lot about pensions.
Vladimir Putin: Senior citizens, but they are always
young Leninists. Good. Please go ahead.
Yulia Izmailova: I would like to hear your
opinion. In February, pension indexing for working pensioners will be
cancelled. Will this move to economise with working pensioners result
in certain personnel problems, or growth in “off the book”
income?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, this issue has been
repeatedly debated in the Government. Let me remind you about
the Soviet practice. An opportunity to work and receive
a pension in the Soviet Union was granted only to people
working in the economic sectors that had personnel shortages –
say, junior medical personnel, healthcare specialists and culture workers.
All others had to choose – either work or receive
a pension.
At one time, amid the collapse
of the social system and the economy as a whole,
we made the decision to pay pensions to everyone. However, there
are different ideas about this, including a return to Soviet
practices. The fiscal gain from not paying pensions to working
pensioners is small. But this decision has not been made. What makes you think
it has? Why do you say that working pensioners will not receive pensions? There
is no such decision.
A decision has been made not to index
[pensions for working pensioners]. However, here, too, I would like
to draw your attention to this. Take a closer look
at the decision and inform your readers, but I think that
people will hear it now.
If a person has decided to continue working,
his pension will not be indexed in 2016 and 2017 but, say,
in 2018, he decides to stop working and rely only on his
pension, then he will not receive compensation for 2016 and 2017 but
all the same, when he finally stops working, the indexation made
for other pensioners will be taken into account for this category
of pensioners as well. And of course, his pension will be
indexed the same as other people’s pensions over this period. These
decisions have been made, but the implications, among other things,
for the labour market, are still under discussion, under careful
consideration.
Dmitry Peskov: Any additional questions about
pensions? Yes, I see, Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Kira Latukhina: Kira Latukhina, Rossiyskaya
Gazeta.
I have a question that is connected with
this issue. For the past year, the Government
and the State Duma have discussed increasing the retirement age,
and they eventually decided that the retirement age should be
increased for officials.
Will this really save money? And are there any
other plans regarding the retirement age?
I also have a question about military
pensioners in light of the on-going debates about cancelling
pensions for working pensioners.
You said that the issue is only
at the debate stage, but military pensioners, who constitute
a large group of working pensioners, are worried.
Vladimir Putin: First, as I said,
military pensions will be indexed just as all other pensions. Pensions
will be increased by 4 percent early next year.
As for working and non-working
pensioners, I do not remember this detail, honestly. I will look into
it, but I think the rules should be the same for all
pensioners, whether they are working or not working.
You know what I think about the retirement
age; I have been fighting against increasing it. But there are problems,
of course. As for increasing the retirement age
for federal, regional and municipal officials to 65 years, both
for men and for women, it will be increased gradually, every six
months.
How will this work? For example, a woman has
reached her retirement age, 55 years, and should retire. Well, under
the new system she will be able to retire at 55 years
and six months. In this way, we will gradually increase
the retirement age for all officials. But it is true that
the economic effect will be very small.
As for increasing the retirement age
for everyone, I still think that the time is not right
for this. But frankly, many people, both experts and also people
on the street keep telling me that I mean well but that it would
eventually hurt the people. Why is that? Life expectancy is increasing
in Russia. Back in 2005 or 2006, it was barely 65 years, while
the current figure is 71.2. The number of working people who
contribute to the pension system is decreasing, while the number
of pensioners is increasing.
If we do not do anything now, eventually pension
system revenues will decrease. This year they have shrunk because real wages
have contracted, and the pension fund is made of deductions from
wages. The pension system is already running a deficit, and we
have to allocate money from the federal budget to cover
the shortage.
I hope that this is a one-off issue, not
a systemic one. However, with life expectancy on the rise,
the workforce, as I have already said, is set to shrink
compared to the number of non-employed. This could lead
to systemic issues with replenishing the Pension Fund.
What are the possible consequences? In fact,
this could result in lower incomes for retirees. The Government
will be left with no choice but to reduce retirement benefits
or increase the retirement age. But if this is the case, it
should be done the same way as with the officials: calmly
and without any haste.
When should it happen? I cannot answer this
question yet. We will have to do it at some point. All
the countries have already done it, I mean the neighbouring
countries. However, I would prefer not to publically discuss when it
should be done, because we have yet to answer this question ourselves.
In any way, this is a relevant economic issue for us.
All other countries have also opted
for a step-by-step approach. There is currently an age gap
between those who just retired and those who retired a long time ago,
and it is set to grow even more. We need to act
in a timely manner so that the pension system does not collapse
in five, 10 or 15 years.
What I want to say and people
to hear: there is no way it will affect people who have already retired.
They have nothing to do with the changes to the retirement
system, no one will be forced to start working once again, even those who
retired only yesterday. The law is not retroactive, so all those who have
already retired are 100 percent sure to be able to fully benefit from
their retirement rights.
Dmitry Peskov: RBC, second row. Could you pass
the microphone, please?
Mikhail Rubin: Mr Putin, there are a number
of media outlets within RBC media holding, so if I may and not
to offend anyone, I would like to ask not one but a few
brief questions.
Vladimir Putin: How many is a few?
Mikhail Rubin: Two.
Vladimir Putin: There are a lot
of people in this audience.
Mikhail Rubin: The questions will be brief.
First, state-owned companies, which our colleague from
the Wall Street Journal has already mentioned, failed to reduce
salaries and bonuses for their employees during the crisis, but
these very companies are constantly asking the Government for tax
breaks or funds from the National Welfare Fund. What do you say
to these requests?
I’d be remiss not to ask you about Yekaterina
Tikhonova who is in charge of an important project
at Moscow State University. Our Western colleagues tell us that she is
your daughter. Is it true and what do you think about her endeavour?
We have a big favour to ask from you
personally. Our reporter has been in jail for five months now. He is
the person behind a high-profile investigation
of the Vostochny spaceport fraud. His name is Alexander Sokolov. He
is under investigation under a nonviolent article. If I may, I would
like to hand over to you, when possible, our request to look
into this matter. We are concerned that the issue may deal with pressure
on the freedom of speech.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I've read online publications
and other sources about Yekaterina Tikhonova and my other
possible relatives and daughters.
A short while ago, everybody was saying
that my daughters: a) study abroad; and b) live permanently abroad.
Thank God, no one is saying this now. What they are saying now is that
they — and that's true — live in Russia and have never
left Russia for permanent residence in any other country. They
studied only in Russian universities. This doesn’t mean that they don’t
have contacts with their colleagues. I'm a proud father. They continue
to study and work.
Someone from Russia Today asked me about
languages. My daughters are fluent in three European languages. They
also have conversational skills in one or two Oriental languages,
and a fourth European language. They are not just fluent, they use
these languages in their work. They are making the first steps
in their careers, and are doing well. I tend not to discuss
family-related issues. They don’t engage in business or politics,
just keep a low profile.
With regard to the university project
that you mentioned, regardless of the names of those who are
engaged in it, it was spearheaded by the rector. It’s
a good initiative. What does it concern? It concerns combining
the capabilities of our higher educational institutions
and research with the needs of our major enterprises
and the national economy. Some people are running around not knowing
how to place their inventions, while others are paying tons of money,
billions of dollars, to buy Western technology and finished
products. This endeavour initiated by the rector is the right
thing to do. It’s still too early to say whether it’s a success
or not. You should ask the rector and those who are involved
in this work.
I have never been specific about
the workplaces of my daughters and their line of work,
and I’m not going to do so now. For many reasons, including
security considerations. I believe that everyone is entitled to their
own destiny. My daughters have never been star-struck children. They never
craved the limelight. They just live their lives and do so decently.
About Sokolov. If he has been jailed for some
eye-opener piece, including on the Vostochny space centre…
I should be grateful to him for putting effort
in the issue. It’s just that I know nothing about this, it is
the first time I am hearing about the whole situation,
and his name. But of course I understand. If that's
the case, I will certainly try to help your publication,
and that particular journalist.
But first I need to understand what has
happened to him, I just don’t know. But you have this paper, will you
give it to me? I am interested to have this project, one
I actually initiated at the time, a few years ago, up and…
I even visited the site, to help choose the place
for the future spaceport. At first experts suggested other
sites, a few places on the Pacific coast, not far from
Vladivostok. They almost broke ground for it there.
Then these same experts said no. If you look
at what the Americans are doing at Cape Canaveral, they said,
they often postpone landing or lift-off due to the weather.
The ocean causes a lot of problems, including an unstable
climate, unstable weather, so it is best that we moved
to the continent. And we did, moving to where it is today.
It is a major project, of national
importance. We are building a whole new city there, and I hope
that everything will be done in time. There is a backlog, used
to be about one and a half years, now reduced to four
or five or six months. I hope that the first launch
timeframe we identified – the first quarter of next year –
will be met, but it’s not wise to concentrate on specific dates so
much. It is more important to have everything done well,
and I look forward to seeing it.
Now the first part of your question –
about state companies, benefits, wages and the use
of the National Wealth Fund. You are absolutely right about
everyone – state-owned companies and state authorities
included – having to work more effectively to reduce inefficient
spending. There’s certainly room for improvement here, a lot of work.
I totally agree with you.
With regard to salaries, bonuses and so on,
I think we talked about it last year, you know, the problem is that
these amounts are calculated based on what senior executives make. We need
the most upscale, world-class professionals, and possibly non-Russian
managers to work for these companies, and these salaries
and bonuses are legal on foreign labour markets.
If we cut them, we won’t get the high quality
management we want. Another thing is that the senior executive
(I never told them that, so I hope they hear me) could use part
of their income, which they tell me – and it's true – they
need to ensure that subordinate managers have theirs paid in full,
could give some of their income to charity, as is also expected
by world standards. This would hardly make them poor.
Regarding the National Wealth Fund, yes, they
must improve the quality and administration and performance,
and reduce inefficient costs, which I’ve already mentioned. I am
personally very careful with any potential spending from the National
Wealth Fund. What is the current purpose of this? The money must
be spent on projects that will not lead to more spending
by the fund but create conditions for economic development.
What are these projects? For example, 150 billion
rubles was invested in the Trans-Siberian Railway
and the Baikal-Amur Railway. This is economically advantageous
and efficient, because there is already cargo to carry which will pay
off the investment. I think so far, only 50 billion has been
allocated for the Baikal-Amur Railway. I personally had several
meetings with shippers. As soon as the railway is complete,
transport will start and the National Wealth Fund will see returns.
This is money that can be recouped.
Not many projects will fall under this description,
but this is one of them. Another project is the ring road around
Moscow. We need to create extra transport facilities around the city
in order to ease the traffic burden on Muscovites,
as well as to secure economic growth. I believe this is
an important project that has already received around 150 billion.
Also, there is funding for Rosatom’s nuclear
power station in Finland. These are returning investments because Finland
has a stable economy. Despite all the sabotage there,
the parliament made a firm decision to support this project,
which was honestly very surprising to me. Rosatom’s partner,
a company operating in Russia, has invested billions of euros
in our economy and has expressed a willingness to cooperate
and take on the risks. This money will be recouped by all
means. This is a good investment.
Next, some of the money, I think around
180 billion, was invested in the Russian Direct Investment Fund. This
fund raises ten foreign dollars for each invested dollar. This is
an efficient investment. There are no other serious deposits
by the National Wealth Fund but we’ll think about more opportunities
that will be at least as efficient as those
in the above projects.
”Oil“ Now let’s talk about oil.
Natalya Menshikova: Good afternoon Mr Putin.
Natalya Menshikova, the TV channel of the Nizhnevartovsk
District, which is in Yugra, the home of the Samotlor oil
field. The bulk of Russian oil is produced in our region, but
these oil fields were originally explored back in the 1970s. This
brings me to my question: Do you plan to invest in exploration,
and if so, when? Also, pensioners from the Nizhnevartovsk District
congratulate you on the coming New Year.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you. Please convey
my thanks not just to pensioners but to everyone in your
region. I thank you for your support. Despite the problems
facing them, people with moderate incomes are one of the most
responsible groups in our society. These people – many
of them – suffered many hardships after the war and worked
very hard to rebuild our economy; they’ve seen a lot, and now
they only have the state to rely on.
We know this, and we are grateful to them
for their patriotic sentiments and their willingness
to contribute to the education of the rising
generation. They are doing this, and I mean not only veterans
of the Great Patriotic War but all veterans, including veteran
workers. I wish them a happy New Year. I wish them health
and all the best. Thank you! Let’s applaud, no, not for me but
for this part of our country. (Applause)
As for exploration, it’s a major part
of our future. As you know, we adopted decisions on sour oil
several years ago towards a more effective use of the depleting
oil fields. We also adopted several other decisions, including decisions
on taxation.
I know that the oil companies are not
entirely satisfied, because we envisaged the so-called tax manoeuvre,
under which we promised to reduce the export duty on crude oil
while increasing the mineral tax. But this decision was not implemented,
although we raised the mineral tax on oil and gas.
The Government has increased the burden [on oil companies]. It’s
important that this situation doesn’t last forever, and I agree with
some in the industry who say that the oil companies act
by inertia when they don’t reduce production, as I said. They
don’t revise their development plans. But I’ve noticed they’ve even increased
production.
At the same time, we, meaning
the Government, must look closely at developments in this sector
so we don’t kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. We’ll
analyse the situation very seriously. Exploration is a highly
important part, but the situation is not quite as you described it,
that nothing has been done in exploration since the 1970s. No, we
have been working on it, and we have invested in the agencies
that have been charged with this work at the Government.
We try to encourage both private
and state-owned companies to do this, and they have been doing
it. I can’t cite figures now, but I can tell you that they are quite
impressive. Maybe we are not doing enough, but I assure you that we’ve
never neglected this.
Veronika Kilina: Thank you very much
for this opportunity to ask a question.
Good afternoon, Mr President.
Veronika Kilina with Nakanune.ru, a news agency
based in the Urals Federal District.
Do you support the idea of the serial
production of Il-96 planes and do you think that betting
on foreign planes alone in connection with the recent tragic
events was wrong? Why do you prefer domestically manufactured planes? I’m
referring to the presidential air group that operates the Il-96.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: You know, I completely
share your concern. The aircraft-manufacturing industry is one that
ensures the development of our economy, it’s a high-tech sector.
This is what we inherited from the Soviet era. Although of course,
the Soviet Union developed primarily military aviation, adapting it
to civilian needs. They didn’t care about the lifespan or fuel
consumption of civilian aircraft.
We can’t follow the same approach today but we
should definitely not only provide domestic carriers with our own commercial
aircraft but also enter the international market. Generally, we should
direct our manufacturers, including aircraft manufacturers, to ensure
a level of quality that will make them competitive throughout
the world.
Regarding a wide-body plane, this simply requires
substantial investment. We have agreed with our Chinese partners to do
this together and we are following this path. This is what I’d like
to tell you. These are large, wide-body, long-haul planes. However, this
is not enough for us. We need to provide planes not only
for long-range routes but also regional routes, regional carriers. There
are plans – I believe the Il-114, an old forgotten project,
of course, with the innovation and new technology that’s possible
and necessary for a modern product.
As you know, a major event has happened
in engine manufacturing. The new PD-14 engine is the first
product of its kind since the late 1980s. Somehow, we don’t pay
attention to this, but it is a major achievement for our engine
makers. I said this at one meeting and now I’ll take this
opportunity to congratulate them on this accomplishment
and thank them for their effort. This enables us to develop our
aircraft industry further, including the Il-96 you mentioned.
The energy efficiency of the new engine
and its capabilities make it possible for us to develop
an entire line of planes, both medium-haul and long-haul.
By the way, this was our weakest spot. I believe we can deal
with avionics but this was the weakest spot, so we had to use either
Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce. Their engines are good but ours are
better. And our planes will also be better.
Vladimir Kondratyev: Mr Putin, you spoke about
oil, and you were asked about oil. And I’d like to ask you about
gas – it is also one of the foundations of Russia’s
prosperity. Not everything is clear on this issue.
We know that actions by the Ukrainian
authorities are unpredictable. This is obvious from what happened
in Crimea, where energy supplies were cut off. What if Ukraine stops
the transit of Russian gas to Europe? Here’s the problem.
The talks on Turkish Stream have been suspended because
of the conflict with Turkey, and it is unclear whether they will
be resumed. It would be very helpful if you would speak on this.
We have a backup option, Nord Stream-2 through
the Baltic Sea, but a group of EU countries has protested
against its construction and wants to torpedo the project like
South Stream was done away with in the past.
What awaits us, and what turn will events take?
By the way, what will happen
with the construction of the Russian
nuclear plant in Turkey, in which Russia has already invested $3.5
billion, according to Western sources?
Vladimir Putin: Russia has not invested $3.5
billion in the Akkuyu nuclear power station. The future
of this project should be decided at the corporate level. This
is a strictly commercial issue, and we won’t take a single step
that would harm our economic interests. But this is up to Rosatom
and its partners. As far as I know, the Turkish side
has not yet issued a permit required to launch this project
and make it a priority project. But let me repeat that this is
a corporate decision.
Now let’s talk about Nord Stream and those who
objected to it. We know that many countries were against the Nord
Stream-1 project, but it was carried out. Its implementation turned out
to be very helpful at the time. Not all conditions have been
fulfilled and the pipes are not 100 percent filled with gas,
especially in Germany – it’s 50 percent for Opal and almost
none on another route, but I’m confident that these opportunities will
come handy.
Regarding South Stream. You know our position: we were
ready to implement it, but they simply wouldn’t let us. First,
the European Parliament ruled that this project clashed with
the European Union’s interests and forwarded the relevant
document, and later the European Commission forced Bulgaria
to halt the preparatory work, and then, all
of a sudden, a Dutch regulator, where South Stream was registered,
decided to grant us permission to launch the construction
of the marine section. But how could we launch construction
at sea, sink billions of euros there and then reach
the Bulgarian coast without receiving permission first?
Naturally, they simply put us in a foolish
situation, and seeing that, we said: if this is what it is, then we’re
also stopping. They didn’t let us, do you understand? And I am
surprised at the toothless stance of the Bulgarian
Government that chose to neglect national interests for unclear reasons.
We had planned to invest three billion [euros]
in the construction itself — that means jobs, that means
salaries, that means revenues to budgets of all levels, plus they
could have had a minimum of 400 million euros per year just
for transit. Well, a no is a no, so be it. As a matter
of fact, one reason we came up with that project was to support
Bulgaria. They don’t want it – well and good.
We began discussing Turkish Stream. You know, this
doesn’t depend on us, after all. Not that we broke off
the negotiations, but we want the European Commission to give
written guarantees that all the routes, including a possible route
through Turkey to Europe, are not only realisable, but also that it is
a priority route and that the European Commission will back it.
If Gazprom’s Turkish partners bring such a document from Brussels, we’ll
move further. Unfortunately, so far, this doesn’t seem to be
the case.
Regarding transit through Ukraine. True,
at a corporate level, I heard it myself, during very serious
debates someone would say: we will totally cut off this transit. I am not
sure this should be done –cut off transit through Ukraine. But speaking
about the capacity of Ukrainian transit and that of, say, Nord
Stream-2… Well, everyone demands that Nord Stream in general and the future
Nord Stream-2 meet certain requirements. What are these requirements?
Reliability, the market nature of the gas transport system’s
operation, and legal and administrative regulations that match
the highest standards. Are our Ukrainian partners able to do what we
together with our European partners have been doing with regard to Nord
Stream? If they are able, we’ll continue working with them. If not, then we’ll
see what can be done about it.
Natalia Rybyakova: The Krasny Sever newspaper.
Natalia Rybyakova. Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area.
I have a question regarding
the Northern Latitudinal Railway. Thank you for supporting Yamal
projects. The regional government has also been doing a lot
in this respect. Specifically, a public-private partnership agreement
will be signed by the end of the year
on the Bovanenkovo-Sabetta section. Unfortunately,
the construction of the much-needed Salekhard-Nadym section has
stalled, and project costs are growing by the day. Can this
issue be resolved?
Vladimir Putin: There is no doubt that we need this
project. Yamal is Russia’s oil and gas pantry. We have been developing
this territory and we’ll keep doing so in the future.
You know about the major international project
implemented by Novatek, and the Chinese and French
partners. The Government supports this project, among other things,
because foreign investors entered this project before us. I’ll be honest with
you. These investments by our foreign partners provided us with
an incentive to support this undertaking. Withdrawing our support
for the project after foreigners invested in it would have not
made any sense. It would have been simply unfair towards our foreign partners
who had already invested in the project.
This is an important project. This shows that we
are thinking about the future. What I mean is that global LNG sales
are set to grow.
Today, we are able to offer LNG for sale
only in Russia’s Far East through the joint ventures we have,
or through Gazprom’s swap deals. But here, in the Yamal
Peninsula, there will be a powerful project by the Russian,
French and Chinese to produce large volumes of LNG
and access almost all global markets.
We have the future in mind as we work
on this project. I’m surprised that those who run it have been so
successful. Everything is on schedule, and the quality is high.
As for what you’ve mentioned, I think
this is an extremely important project, as with a huge terminal,
extraction and shipment operations, it would be desirable to have
a universal port there. This way, not just LNG products can transit through
this port, but all kinds of goods that can be rerouted from
the Trans-Siberian Railway or Baikal-Amur Mainline. This is
a very convenient location with great logistics. This could be all sorts
of goods — bulk shipments, or anything else.
As for budget allocations, this requires
additional consideration, taking into account budget constraints. We need
to look at different options, including attracting foreign
investment. The interest is there, and I hope the Direct
Investment Fund, that I’ve mentioned earlier, will contribute to these
efforts. We remember about these projects, and are committed
to effectively supporting them whenever we can.
Egypt, please.
Question: Good afternoon, Mr President, I have
two questions. The first one is about Egypt.
When will you open Egypt to Russian tourists?
This is my first question.
My second question is as follows. Two days
ago, Saudi Arabia announced a new Islamist alliance. As far
as I know, this new Islamist alliance brings together
the Sunnis, and the Shiites will be in trouble. This will
be an anti-Russian alliance, and it includes Turkey. This is
dangerous. I would like to hear what you think about this alliance
and, of course, your answer to my first question.
Vladimir Putin: With regard to tourism,
the decision to limit our civil flights to Egypt is not due
to our distrust of the Egyptian leadership. It is not
a political decision. This decision is about ensuring the safety
of our citizens. We tell our people, ”Unfortunately, the Egyptian
services, and oversight and law enforcement agencies are unable
to deal with the threat of terrorism.“
Terrorists are a threat for you and us.
President el-Sisi of Egypt shows amazing courage in fighting this
scourge, but it takes time to resolve these problems. As soon
as we come up with the mechanisms that can reliably ensure
the safety of our passengers, we’ll lift the restrictions.
We’re working on this with our Egyptian partners.
What would these mechanisms be like? At every stage of airport
control, from landing to departure, we must have our employees involved
in the process. Again, we don’t believe official Egyptian authorities
have anything to do with this. This is our common problem
and concern, so we must find a common answer to these
challenges.
With regard to the coalition created
in Saudi Arabia. We don’t think this coalition will have an anti-Russian
slant. In addition to the country you mentioned, Turkey, which
we don’t consider hostile. They have committed a hostile act against our
plane, but saying that we consider Turkey a hostile state would not be
true – our relations have indeed soured, and I’m not sure yet how
we’ll get past this situation, but in any case, the ball is not
in our court, but Turkey’s – but there’s Egypt, and other
countries. This alliance was initiated by Saudi Arabia. We have both different
and similar approaches to resolving the Syrian crisis,
and we maintain contact with Saudi Arabia.
I recently met with the King [of Saudi
Arabia]. We often meet at various meetings organised by our
respective foreign and defence ministries. We are now considering joint
projects in t military-technical cooperation with Saudi Arabia. It’s
a multibillion dollar programme. We aren’t even thinking that this
alliance may be directed against Russia.
On a separate note, in order
to effectively address the challenges facing us in fighting
terrorism, we must join our efforts rather than disperse our possibilities. I’m
not quite sure what happened. The United States has created
an alliance which includes all those countries, including Saudi Arabia.
What’s missing? Why was it necessary to create another alliance, if
there’s already one led by the United States? Do they have
a plan of their own? Are there any internal contradictions? There may
be contradictions.
Because regional interests of the regional
powers are one thing and global interests in fighting terrorism are
another. Europe is suffering from the ripple effects coming from that
region. We have seen terrible terrorist attacks in Paris. The United
States recently came under a terrorist attack that killed 14 people. The threat
of more attacks remains.
We all need to join forces in fighting
terrorist organisations, no matter what they are called and whatever
slogans they may use to cover up their activities. I hope that
the recently created alliance will uphold common interests and that
we’ll develop common approaches and rules and establish effective
cooperative actions and agree on the tools that we’ll use
in this fight.
Maria Gomenyuk-Kravtsova: Kaliningrad,
Klops.ru news portal.
Vladimir Putin: Again?
Maria Gomenyuk-Kravtsova: Klops.ru
Vladimir Putin: Klops?
Maria Gomenyuk-Kravtsova: Yes, a German
dish.
Vladimir Putin: Aha. Rulka.ru. What are these
klops – cutlets?
Maria Gomenyuk-Kravtsova: That’s right.
Many traffic accidents take place in Kaliningrad
every day in which pedestrians are killed or seriously injured. One
such victim is our colleague Nadezhda Rzhevskaya. She was run down
at a pedestrian crossing by a student
at the Federal Security Service Border Protection Institute. Three
months after, the investigation has not been closed
and a criminal case has not been opened. The student had his
driving license returned to him and he continues to drive his
BMW, as before.
Vladimir Putin: He must be a good student
to drive a BMW.
Maria Gomenyuk-Kravtsova: Our colleague was
seriously injured. She is wheelchair bound.
Vladimir Putin: Terrible.
Maria Gomenyuk-Kravtsova: In this connection
I have a question. Do you think high rank and shoulder boards
can exempt [a person] from responsibility?
Vladimir Putin: Of course not. This is
nonsense. No rank, no position [can]. He does not even have a position.
What is he, commander or what? A student, a rank and file
serviceman. It’s simply unfair to say that he has some official position
that allows him to avoid responsibility. Perhaps some influences may be
involved there that are obstructing the investigation. I simply
couldn’t know. I promise you that the investigation will be conducted
thoroughly.
It’s difficult for me to say what happened
there. In such road accidents, such tragedies, the sides’ positions
are always different. Nevertheless, it is absolutely obvious that
the investigation should be conducted objectively and brought
to its logical conclusion.
I entirely agree with you: No matter who was
driving, they must be held accountable for what happened. Those who are
at the wheel bear a greater responsibility than the injured
party, because a car is a source of enhanced danger,
and in keeping with our law, a person behind the wheel
bears a greater responsibility than the injured party. There is only
one situation where a pedestrian can be guilty
in an accident – this is when a pedestrian has deliberately
caused an accident. Otherwise the driver is responsible. He may be
charged either under the criminal code or the code of civil
procedure but he is always responsible because he drives what is a source
of enhanced danger.
What does the defence [industry] want? Okay,
defence, go ahead.
Question: Good afternoon. I come from Tula,
and Tula, as its anthem goes, is a city of arms makers.
Tula has a centuries-old history of arms manufacturing.
My question has to do with defence
procurement. According to certain reports, it is set to increase
by 10 percent annually, but given the situation with the price
of oil and the economic situation, could it be frozen
or reduced? I’m raising this issue because for Tula residents, this
is about jobs, salaries and, of course, the country’s defence
capabilities.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, manufacturing in general
and, even more so, the defence industry, is about long-term projects. It
makes more economic sense to complete the projects already underway
rather than stop them.
For example, if you start building
a ship – ok, Tula doesn’t make ships, but it does make other types
of military equipment with long production cycles – or airplanes
or missile defence systems, and invest money
in the project, it would cost more to freeze the project
than to complete it. In fact, once you discontinue financing, you
have to pay for maintenance, staff, workers, engineers, who still
need to be paid, while not actually doing anything. Otherwise they have
to be let go, which is extremely risky and should be avoided, because
it will make recruiting highly-skilled workers impossible afterwards.
This goes to say that following through
on the projects makes more economic sense for us. All these
projects are envisaged in the State Armament Programme until 2020.
Given the real budget constraints we currently face, the lower price
of oil, etc. what do we do? There will be projects, and I want
it to be clear, since no one is making any secret out of it, there
will be projects that the industry itself is not prepared to complete
by 2020. These projects won’t be launched, which will allow us
to save money.
As economists and financial experts like
to say, these projects are being shifted further down
to the right of the chart. Everything already underway will
be completed. The projects that will be pushed back beyond 2020 are not
critical for the country’s defence capability, while helping free up
resources and putting less strain on today’s and tomorrow’s
budgets.
This is a very soft approach that requires
a lot of attention by the industry
and the Ministry of Defence. This is why we meet twice
a year in Sochi, so that no one interrupts our work. We sit down
after all the necessary calculations and submit proposals. This is
one of the main, but not the only, aspects of how we work
together with the military and the representatives
of the defence industry. All the targets factored into
the defence procurement programmes will be achieved if not in 2020,
then in 2021 or in 2022 at the latest.
Maybe we should end the news conference soon.
Alexei Solomin: Thank you. Alexei Solomin. Ekho
Moskvy radio station and Diletant history website.
Mr Putin, first of all, I would like
to inquire about the question my colleague asked about Mr
Turchak. Please pardon me for being slow-witted; I’m just like
my boss, whom you know. So this isn’t surprising.
Mr Putin, don’t you think that it would make sense
to suspend Governor Turchak from office during the investigation,
since his name is mentioned not so much in the media
as in the investigatory records? This has nothing to do
with acknowledging that he is guilty. All this would mean that you’re neutral
in this case, since people are unable to influence
the proceedings at this level.
My main question is about Boris Nemtsov’s
killing. We have learned from media reports, leaks from the Investigative
Committee, and statements by the aggrieved party that
the investigative authorities are unable to access two individuals
who are involved in this case: North (Sever) battalion officers Geremeyev
and Mukhudinov. The aggrieved party explains this by the possible
stance of the Chechen leaders on this issue. They could be
either hiding in Chechnya or successfully escaped abroad.
Ramzan Kadyrov repeatedly supported
the defendants of this case in public. You had
an opportunity to talk with Kadyrov many times. Did you discuss this
investigation? What did you tell him? Did he convince you
of the innocence of these people?
And I’d like to add a few details
on children. There was a question linked with Matvei who is now
disabled. According to official statistics, Russia still has large numbers
of disabled children who have not been adopted by families. Maybe
it’s time to repeal the ban on adoption by foreigners? This
could also become part of the solution.
Vladimir Putin: Here’s how we will work… Let’s
start from the last part of your question. I’d like to point out
that according to statistics the number of sick children adopted
by foreigners is far below that of healthy ones. No foreigner has
ever rushed to adopt our sick children. This is statistics. So let’s not hurry
to change the decisions that we’ve already made. This is
the first thing.
Secondly, speaking about Turchak, I must say that
online and other publications write not about him but about
the alleged interference of his father. I don’t even know much
about this but I’m confident that administrative and personnel decisions,
not to mention legal verdicts, should only be based on authentic
facts established during the investigation and trial, not
on press reports despite our respect for them.
Finally, let’s turn to the crime against
Boris Nemtsov. I knew him personally and our relations had not always
been bad. I never spoiled relations with him but he chose this path
of political fighting – personal attacks and the like. That
said, I’m used to this, he wasn’t alone. However, this doesn’t mean at all
that the man should be killed. I’ll never accept this. I think this
crime should be investigated and the culprits punished.
You said they may be hiding in Chechnya
or may have fled abroad. It’s necessary to establish where exactly
they are. I’ve never discussed these issues with the regional leaders,
including in Chechnya, and am not going to do it
in the future. This is for the investigators
to establish, no matter how long it takes. You will remember the assassination
of [Galina] Starovoitova. She was also a member
of the opposition to some extent but law-enforcement brought
this case to a successful completion as well as some other
cases involving people that opposed the Government.
I think such cases must be investigated
by all means, and those guilty of crimes should be exposed
and punished. In this way we’ll be creating a stable political
system in our own country. This is more important than trying
to cover up somebody. Nobody is going to cover up anybody but we must
wait for the results of the objective investigation.
Dmitry Peskov: Mr Putin, maybe Sevastopol now?
Vladimir Putin: Sevastopol, please. Please pass
the microphone.
Sergei Gorbachev: Sergei Gorbachev, the Novy
Chernomorets newspaper, Chairman of the Union
of Journalists of Sevastopol.
In Sevastopol, the most popular toast is
”To the Supreme Commander!“ these days.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Sergei Gorbachev: Regardless
of the occasion, regardless of its scale.
Vladimir Putin: It is not necessary to make it so
often…
Sergei Gorbachev: This Stalin-era toast expresses
cordiality, sincerity and great gratitude to you for Sevastopol
and Crimea.
The problems that have become apparent over
the last year and a half appear to be related
to the fact that there is no definition of Sevastopol’s role
at the state level. What we have is this counterproductive discussion
at the regional level at least about what Sevastopol’s status
should be: whether it is a Silicon Valley, an IT-centre,
a centre for tourism or recreation.
In fact, Sevastopol was designed to be
the main naval base, hence its status as a city of federal
significance, a standalone entity of the Federation, not like
Vladivostok, not like Kronstadt, with all due respect to them, but
Sevastopol. It seems to me, on the state level, perhaps you need
to confirm that the main role of Sevastopol is not
the cultivation of elite vineyards, but the fact that it plays
a special role in the country's defence as the main
base of the Black Sea Fleet.
And one more thing. The Navy is
a conservative organisation, one that largely depends on tradition.
There is one tradition, even a privilege, a system
of incentives: when an officer is discharged, transferred
to the reserve, he retains the right to wear his uniform,
and the naval uniform also calls for a marine cutlass.
However, in the last two years officers began to have their
daggers confiscated.
I have served in the Navy for 36
years, and I don’t understand who would want my cutlass with
the Soviet emblem on it. And if you, as the Supreme
Commander, decide that former marine officers can keep their daggers,
as was the case in the Russian Empire
and the Soviet Union, and later, too, I think you will earn
the gratitude of thousands of naval officers and their
children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who will also serve
Russia in the oceans, in the fleets.
Vladimir Putin: First, with regard
to the importance of Sevastopol and ways for its
development. I find it hard to accept the fact that from
the naval point of view Sevastopol is more important than
the base in Vladivostok or even more so the base
on the Kamchatka Peninsula, which is home to our second-largest
submarine nuclear fleet with missile carriers and strategic nuclear
weapons on board.
We have done a lot to keep this base,
and we will develop it in the future. In the North
and Far East, our Navy has direct access to the oceans. Back
in its time, the Soviet government – and this is
an opportune moment to say a few kind words about it – did
a lot to develop infrastructure in the North, including
outside Murmansk, in Murmansk itself and in the Far East.
Our duty is to make sure that these efforts were
not in vain. We must take up where our earlier generations left off,
and take it to the next level. Sevastopol is also
an important component of the naval infrastructure in Europe.
As you can see, we equip the Black Sea Fleet with new ships
and submarines. The Rostov-on-Don submarine is the most recent
addition, though it went to Novorossiysk, not Sevastopol, where we have
created another modern, I underscore, modern naval base. If I remember
correctly, it must have six such submarines. As you may be aware, these
submarines are equipped with the latest Kalibr missiles which worked well
in Syria. There will be new surface ships there as well.
The Sevastopol naval base will also grow and improve.
Wherever you look, there are problems that we
inherited from the last century. We are now dealing with power generation.
The Krymenergo equipment hasn’t been upgraded since the 1970s.
As if there was no need to. The naval base is the same. Much
needs to be done there to develop the infrastructure. However,
saying that Sevastopol must be a solely naval base would be incorrect.
We still have to accomplish a lot
in Vladivostok. But still Vladivostok has changed
for the better. Some time ago, it too was an off-limits
territory that was used solely as a naval base. The city was
in a tough spot: no infrastructure, no airport, no roads, no modern
social facilities, or theatres and museums. However, things are
changing. In the modern world, people, wherever they live, especially
in Sevastopol, should be able to enjoy all this, and have access
to it. I'm sure that Sevastopol must be developed in several areas
at a time. How? First, it’s up to Sevastopol residents
and authorities. I know there may be different approaches.
Some want to develop it as a Silicon
Valley, as you said. Nothing wrong with that. Developing high-tech
industries instead of building hazardous production facilities makes
sense. It’s quite possible. Former Navy personnel can be part of this
work. They are intelligent and properly trained people. There are many
other professionals out there as well.
Also, Sevastopol sprawls beyond its city boundaries
and it’s a vast area that can be used for building resorts
and all kinds of recreational facilities. Why not do it? It must be
done. It’s necessary to do so and help people do so. We will help
Crimea in general and Sevastopol in particular.
And Navy officers must have their dirks back.
Thank you so much. Let’s call it a day. Thank
you.
Publication status
Published in sections: News, Transcripts
Publication date: December
17, 2015, 15:15
No comments:
Post a Comment