Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International

Discussion Club. The theme of the clubs anniversary session is Russias Diversity for
the Modern World.

Multimedia

Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club September 19,

2013 Novgorod Region

Excerpts from transcript of the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and

gentlemen,

I hope that the place for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the
timing is good. We are in the centre of Russia not a geographical centre, but a
spiritual one. [Novgorod Region] is a cradle of Russian statehood. Our outstanding
historians believe and have analysed how the elements of Russian statehood came
together right here. This is in the light of the fact that two great rivers the Volkhov and
Neva acted as natural means of communication, providing a natural linkage at the
time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.

As has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought together an
unprecedented list of participants: more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public
and spiritual leaders, philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different,
original and sometimes opposing views.

You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I'll try not to bore you
unduly. But nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have
touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about
analysing Russian historical, cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I
am thinking of general debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values,
about the values underpinning our countrys development, how global processes will
affect our national identity, what kind of twenty-first-century world we want to see, and
what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its partners.

Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a
world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts
virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or another: Russian, European,
Chinese and American the societies of virtually all countries. And naturally, including
here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet
this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we proceed
from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction and relationship
between Russia and the countries that you represent.
For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and
who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet
ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who
idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an
extreme, western-style liberalism.

It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national
self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external
challenges, nor we will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round
of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and
ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general conditions are
worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes forgoes not merely
international law, but also basic decency.

[Every country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but
nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the
quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end
economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal
conditions. They depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves
a nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values and traditions, and
whether they are united by common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the
question of finding and strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.

Meanwhile, today Russias national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures
stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of
the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different
times. The result was a devastating blow to our nations cultural and spiritual codes; we
were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the
demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root
causes of many pressing problems we face. After all, the question of responsibility for
oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental for both legal and
everyday life.

After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology,
would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes
virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official
ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the
subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited
the quasi-colonial element of the elite those determined to steal and remove capital,
and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their
money.

Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it
develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does
not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries experiences. Such
primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an
absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and
sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our
national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too.
The time when ready-made lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states like
computer programmes has passed.

We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above,
cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable
and vulnerable; we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern
world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas,
an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of
view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever,
but rather a living organism. Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation,
be directed towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument
demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who hold
different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given
problems.

All of us so-called Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called

liberals all of society must work together to create common development goals. We
need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people, angrily and even with
hatred rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You cant flip or even kick the
country's future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of
anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.

This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left-wing and,
conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a
multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must
remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the
issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism,
means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to
destroy ourselves.

Russias sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are
red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about
identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are
patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.

Too often in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have been
faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also
talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as
such. There is virtually no Russian family that completely escaped the troubles of the
past century. Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our
country and society.
We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no
longer engage in self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable
pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating
or debunking idols. It's time to stop only taking note of the bad in our history, and
berating ourselves more than even our opponents would do. [Self-]criticism is
necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism
becomes humiliating and counterproductive.

We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire,
uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is
impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.

Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the
world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of
the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian
values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral
principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They
are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief
in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are
seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia.
People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their
religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their
essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively
trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct
path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral
crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony
of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no
longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the
values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of
morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human
dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every
minoritys right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into
question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a

unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty.
Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires
vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of ones own identity, of the
God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a
collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries
or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong,
must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but
unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently
choose their own development path.

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and
Russia's role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia
itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a
balance to the international stage.

I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at
Yalta in 1945, taken with Russias very active participation, secured a lasting peace.
Russias strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested
itself as generosity and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles,
concluded without Russias participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with
them, believe that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the
Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed restrictions with which
they could not cope, and the course of the next century became clear.

There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe
and some other countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted,
artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is
because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European
politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of
multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign
cultural elements into their societies.

Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the "prison of
nations", not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained
not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You
know, I was interested to learn (I did not even know this) that in Soviet times
[authorities] paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had
its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We
should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.

Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual
influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multi-
ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup.
Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.

Russia as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it has always evolved in

"blossoming complexity" as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people,
Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the countrys other
traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state
polity. It has always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity
of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of
Russias identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens. The
main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for
members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for
all citizens.

However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through ones ethnicity or

religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the
nations unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a
patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a
sense of responsibility for their homelands fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or
religious roots.

There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be
structured politically and conceptually including with your participation, colleagues. But
I deeply believe that individuals personal, moral, intellectual and physical development
must remain at the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn
stated that the nations main goal should be to preserve the population after a very
difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not yet fully overcome the
negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from a dangerous decline
in the national potential.

Unfortunately, throughout our nations history, little value was given at times to
individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a
goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw
millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure
every individual. Russias main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its
educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural
resources.

The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an
individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature.
They must serve as the foundation for peoples personal identity, the source of their
uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal
depends on the teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important
guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community speaks the
same language the language of science, knowledge and education, despite the fact
that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this
way, the community of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense
of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most
important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.

I want to stress again that without focussing our efforts on peoples education and
health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and
establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russias
citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region,
hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of
independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.

Local governments and self-regulated citizens organisations serve as the best school
for civic consciousness. Of course, Im referring to non-profits. Incidentally, one of the
best Russian political traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the
principles of local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally-focused political
elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values and standards for good and
evil their own, rather than those dictated by the media or from abroad can only grow
through effective self-governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust self-
regulating and self-governing associations, but we must know whom we are trusting.
This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we have passed new
legislation to increase the transparency of nongovernmental organisations.

Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our
nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must
rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian
model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we
learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the development of
the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our
nations citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic
and social development of Russias territory, thereby strengthening the nations unity.
Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories development has been
very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.

I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century
of major changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as
financial and economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is
why integrating with our neighbours is our absolute priority. The future Eurasian
Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as
of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is
a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new
century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post-Soviet
space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining
on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.

I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity.
This is a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and
their political independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this
project, step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining
diversity and stable global development.

Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have
lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through
these trials and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at
other points in its history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our
roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and
the West, we must and will move forward.

Thank you very much for your attention.

<...>

MEMBER OF THE VALDAI DISCUSSION CLUB ADVISORY BOARD PIOTR

DUTKIEWICZ: Mr President, this is the tenth year that we are meeting with you here.

This is a unique platform and a unique format there is nothing like it in the world.
Thank you for these ten years of warm support for our club.

I have a two-part question concerning your article in The New York Times. It was an
excellent idea and a brilliant article. Indeed, you are personally responsible for stopping
the expansion and deepening of the Syrian conflict, which is an enormous achievement.

Question: who came up with this idea? Was it Lavrov, Shoigu, Peskov or someone
else? And when did you discuss it for the first time with President Obama?

The second part of the question: it seems to me that you put yourself in a rather
awkward position with this brilliant idea, this brilliant article, because you became a kind
of hostage. You and Russia have taken on the burden of responsibility for the success
of this agreement. You already have many detractors because they do not want to see
major global policy to develop as a Putin and Obama duet. What happens if it doesnt
work?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you for your kind words.

My colleagues and I have always been pleased that there are people in the world
interested in Russia, its history and its culture. Ten years ago, when I was told that
these people would like to come to Russia, talk with us, engage in debate, and want to
learn about our point of view on key issues in the development of the nation itself and its
place in the world, well, naturally, we supported it immediately; I supported it and my
colleagues supported it. I am very happy that over the last ten years, this platform has
become even more prestigious compared to the first steps taken a decade ago. The
interest in our nation is not waning; on the contrary, it is increasing and growing.

I want to respond to your words of gratitude in kind. I would like to thank all the experts
on Russia who remain faithful to their love of our nation and their interest in our nation.

Now, regarding the article. I had this idea completely by chance. I saw that President
Obama took the discussion on the possibility of attacking Syria to the Congress and
Senate. I followed the course of that discussion and I just wanted to convey our
position, my own position, to the people who will be forming their opinions on this issue,
and to clarify it. Because unfortunately, the media often present various problems very
one-sidedly, or simply stay completely silent.

So this was my idea; I called one of my aides and said that I would like to publish an
article in an American newspaper it didnt matter which one, but one of the leading
ones so that this information would reach the readers, and dictated what I wanted to
see written. You may have noticed that it does not contain anything I have not stated
earlier, in various places in public. I have already talked about all of it in one way or
another. So I just dictated it, and then when my colleagues put it together, I took a look.
I didnt like everything, so I rewrote and added a few things, gave it back to them, they
worked on it some more and brought it to me again. I made some more changes and
felt it was ready for publishing. We arranged through our partners that it would be in The
New York Times; we came to an agreement with this respected publication that the
article would be published without any cuts. If they didnt like it, we could give it to
another newspaper.

But I must give credit to the New York Times editors: they completely abided by our
agreements and published everything as I wrote it. They even waived their usual
requirements on the number of characters and words in the article; it was a little bit over
the limit. They were going to submit it, but then one of my aides said, President Obama
is going to address the nation tomorrow. What if he announces that there wont be any
strikes, that they changed their minds? Its better to wait. I said, Very well. We waited,
and the next morning, I was getting ready for work and I was given President Obamas
speech. I began to read it and realised that nothing had changed fundamentally, so I
laid it aside without finishing it. But then I thought, No, I need to read it to the end. And
when I read all of it, it became clear that my article was incomplete. As you understand,
the matter at hand was Americas exceptionalism. So I picked up the article, and right
then and there, I hand-wrote the last paragraph. I gave it to my colleagues, they passed
it on to The New York Times, and there it was.

Now, concerning responsibility. You know, you are all very experienced, smart and
clever people. Here is what I will say about Russias special responsibility. We have
equal rights and equal responsibilities with all our colleagues involved in the discussion
on Syria. This is not the first time I hear that I now carry a special responsibility. We all
carry a special responsibility; we all carry it equally. If the attempt to resolve the problem
by peaceful means is unsuccessful, that will be a tragedy. But we must investigate
before we do take any other steps. My good friend Francois Fillon we have known
each other for a long time and have become friends during our years of working
together talked about how after the report was released by UN experts, it became
clear that chemical weapons had been used. But this was clear to us from the very
beginning, and our experts agreed. The only thing that is unclear is who used it.

We are constantly talking about responsibility on the part of Assads government,

whether he used chemical weapons or not. But what if they were used by the
opposition? Nobody is saying what we would then do with the opposition but this, too,
is an important question. We have every reason to believe that this was a provocation.
You know, it was clever and smart, but at the same time, the execution was primitive.
They used an ancient, Soviet-made projectile, taken from the Syrian armys armaments
from a long time ago it even had Made in the USSR printed on it. But this was not
the first time chemical weapons were used in Syria. Why didnt they investigate the
previous instances?

This matter should be investigated as thoroughly as possible. If we finally get an

answer, despite all obstacles, to the question of who did this, who committed this crime
and there is no question that it was a crime then we will take the next step; we will
then work with other UN Security Council colleagues to determine the culpability of
those who committed this crime, together and in solidarity.

Thank you.

MODERATOR SVETLANA MIRONYUK: They say that Senator McCain followed your
example and published an article of his own in Pravda newspaper. He probably
remembers from the Soviet years that Pravda was a well-known publication and the
most popular newspaper in the country. True, a lot of time has passed and things have
changed a bit since then, so its no longer true. I dont know if you heard about this or
not, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I didnt know about it. I have met the senator before. He was in
Munich when I made the speech there that went on to become so famous. Actually,
there was nothing anti-American in that speech. I simply stated our position frankly and
honestly, and there was nothing aggressive in what I said, if you only take a closer look.
What I said then was that we were promised at one point that NATO would not expand
beyond the former Federal Republic of Germanys eastern border. That was a promise
directly made to Gorbachev. True, it was not actually set out and written down. But
where is NATO today, where is the border? We got cheated, to put it quite simply.
Thats the whole story. But theres nothing aggressive here. Its more just a reluctance
to admit to what I just said. But I didnt say those words to offend anyone. I said them so
that we would be able to lay everything before each other plain and clear and discuss
the problems in an honest, open fashion. Its easier to reach agreements this way. You
shouldnt keep things hidden.

The senator has his own views. I do think though that he is lacking information about
our country. The fact that he chose to publish his article in Pravda and he wanted after
all to publish it in the most influential and widely read newspaper suggests that he is
lacking information. Pravda is a respected publication of the Communist Party, which is
now in opposition, but it does not have very wide circulation around the country now. He
wants to get his views across to as many people as possible, and so his choice simply
suggests that he is not well-informed about our country.

Actually, I would have been happy to see him here at the Valdai Club say, taking part in
the discussions. As far as I know, our big television channels, the national channels,
proposed that he come and take part in an open and honest discussion. There you have
it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. He is welcome to share his point of view
with the whole country and discuss things with his equals, with political analysts and
politicians, members of the State Duma or the Federation Council.

In this respect, I can only express my regret that our American colleagues did not react
to our parliamentarians proposal and refused to receive them in Washington for a
discussion on Syria. Why did they do this? To be honest, I dont see anything so bad
about this proposal, which, on the contrary, seems to me of interest and the right thing
to do. The more we actually discuss things directly with each other, the easier it will be
to find solutions.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Thank you.

Are there more questions from the floor?

Lets stick to the subjects if we can, so as not to jump from one topic to another.

Bridget Kendall, go ahead.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT FOR THE BBC BRIDGET KENDALL: Thank you.

Again about Syria, Russia has been lauded for its achievement for bringing about a deal
which looks as though it could lead to the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria, all
the more an achievement given that the Syrian government didn't admit it had them until
very recently. Would you have been able to persuade President Assad to do this if there
hadn't been a threat of American military strikes? In other words, did the threat of US
military strikes actually play a rather useful role?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Am I right in understanding that you are asking about whether it is
the threat of military strikes that plays a part in Syrias agreeing to have its weapons
placed under control?

First, Id like to ask you all to address your questions to everyone taking part in todays
discussion, so as not to turn this into a boring dialogue. If you permit, I will redirect your
question to my colleagues and ask them to share their points of view on this issue.

The threat of the use of force and actual use of force are far from being a cure-all for
international problems. Look at what we are actually talking about after all. We are
forgetting the heart of the matter. We are talking about using force outside the
framework of current international law. Weve just been saying how the US Congress
and Senate are discussing whether to use force or not. But it is not there that this matter
should be discussed. It should be discussed in the UN Security Council. That is the
heart of the issue. That is my first point.
Second, on whether we will manage to convince Assad or not, I dont know. So far it
looks as though Syria has fully agreed to our proposal and is ready to act according to
the plan that the international community is putting together, working through the UN.
Russia and the USA, in the persons of Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister
Lavrov have already practically drafted the outlines of this plan. There is a special
organisation that will work together with the UN on this matter of eliminating chemical
weapons. Syria has declared that it will join and that it indeed already considers itself to
have joined the International Chemical Weapons Convention. These are practical steps
that the Syrian government has already taken. Will we succeed in taking the process
through to completion? I cannot give a 100% guarantee. But what we have seen just
lately, over these last few days, gives us hope that this is possible and will be done.

Let me just remind you about how these chemical weapons came about. Syria got itself
chemical weapons as an alternative to Israels nuclear arsenal, as we know. What can
be done about the various issues associated with proliferation and non-proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction remains a very relevant question today, perhaps the most
important issue of our time. If this situation gets out of control, like it once happened
with gunpowder, the consequences will be unimaginable. We therefore need to strive
towards nuclear-free status in particular parts of the world, especially in such volatile
regions as the Middle East.

We need to be very careful in our action so as to give unconditional security guarantees

for all participants in this process. After all, there are people in Israel itself who
categorically oppose nuclear weapons. You remember the well-known case when a
nuclear physicist was sent to prison, served his sentence and still continues to think that
his position was right. Why? There is nothing anti-Israeli in his position. He is a Jew
himself and a citizen of his country, but he simply believes that Israels technological
superiority is such that the country does not need nuclear weapons. Israel is already
technologically and militarily a long way ahead of the regions other countries. But
nuclear weapons only turn the country into a target and create foreign policy problems.
In this respect, there is sense in the position of this nuclear physicist, who disclosed the
existence of Israels nuclear weapons.

But to come back to your question about whether the plan will succeed or not, we hope
that it will.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Mr President, I suggest that since we have veered away from
defence and security issues, we should give Mr Rhe a chance to reply, ask a question,
and express his opinion.

Mr Rhe, you have the floor.

FORMER DEFENCE MINISTER OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

VOLKER RHE: Well, I wanted to speak about the young generation in this country.
First, I would like to begin because Ive been here from the beginning to also
compliment our Russian friends on the format of Valdai, the architects because it
would not be enough to call them organisers. What we have seen here, I call the culture
of inclusiveness and a love of pluralism. And I can tell you, Mr President, we are quite
fascinated by the pluralistic voices from Russia, including very powerful statements by
people that are in opposition to your politics, and I think this shows the strength of the
country, that it was organised in this way.

Ive never looked at Russia with the somewhat narrow eyes of a defence minister, you
know this. I was first here in 1971, and Sergei Karaganov is a friend of mine since the
late 1970s. We dont look it, but its a fact of life. We have lived through SS-20 and
Pershing.

And what I would like to say is, I came here as Defence Minister in 1995 and I went to
St Petersburg. And I said, I dont want to see any tanks or artillery, or any generals. I
want to see the Mayor, Sobchak. And I got to know you also, you were part of his team.
Why? He was a lighthouse for me, as a young member of parliament in West Germany,
still in the divided Germany, and I think what he was doing was much more important
than tanks and artillery, and it has proved to be this way. So its a lifelong interest in a
neighbour. And we all, I believe, on this continent, are interested in a successful,
modern Russia.

Now, the young generation. What Ive seen and of course it was very interesting for
me to listen to his daughter, who is a powerful voice for the young generation, two days
ago.

So what Ive seen here, what Ive seen in Russia is you have really an asset to the
country, your young generation. They are very intelligent. They want to have a good
education. They want to be more internationally connected. And they want to have a
bigger say in the politics of your country. They are knocking at the doors of the Kremlin.

The young generation in my country, they also want to build their private lives, they are
very much internationally connected. The doors to our Kremlins, which is the parliament
and the government, are very open, but they dont knock at it. They leave it to politicians
because they think things have been arranged very well. And we are very sad that
some of the very best just want to have a successful private life, but dont engage in
public life.

So my message really is, Russia can be proud of a young generation, even if there are
political opponents that want to engage in public life, which is not the case in many of
the west European countries. And Ive said earlier in Russia also, we should give up this
visa regime in the West, because that would enable hundreds of thousands of young
Russians to come and see our life and our political system. But I must say, it would also
change Russia, because once they have studied in Rome or in London or in
Washington, because theyll be forces of change, the necessary change in this country.
But I think it would make the country also more competitive.
Now what has that to do with security? I think this is the best way to ensure security and
to develop common points of view. And Im very glad that this culture of Valdai, I dont
think theres anything I have been to many conferences, and also to Munich, but
Munich is very narrow security-wise, theres no conference like this in the world.

And also when we listen for four hours to your people about ideas and politics we very
often just talk from Monday to Thursday about our politics. It was very fascinating to see
that the Russian speakers are much more interested in fundamental questions of
society than we are, which is very much on the surface, what we are debating. So I
think this is something to start from, but the real message is, I think it would be a great
project of your third term to integrate this young generation when theyre knocking at the
door of the Kremlin, because dont forget, we want more people to knock at the doors of
political power in the West, and you can be proud of these people. Thats my message.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Thank you, Mr Rhe.

Other questions, please.

PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF THE CENTER ON GLOBAL INTERESTS IN

WASHINGTON NIKOLAI ZLOBIN: Good afternoon.

Everyone seems to be expecting me to ask you about 2018 and whether you will run for
a new term. But Im not going to ask that question. Everyone else I have put this
question to so far have all said no though, so you might have to run anyway in the end,
or else there wont be anyone at all.

But I want to come back to a question we have already discussed. Unlike you, I did read
McCains article. It should be said that it is not exactly a reply to your article, because it
is really quite a personal article and not related to Syria. I think it is not very politically
correct really, but that is my personal view.

Actually, he says there that no criticism of Putin is allowed in Russia. Im here as a living
example of someone who is always criticising you. Even here at Valdai I have often
argued with you, but Im still here as you can see, alive and well. To be honest, I do not
entirely agree with the things you said today either. But McCain says that the
government Russia has today does not adequately represent Russian society, and that
Russia deserves a different government.

In this respect I have a question. I know that relations between the public and the
authorities is indeed one of Russias big problems, an old, historical problem. Before
last years election, I recall that you said that there is perhaps a need to change the
Constitution, change the relations between government and society, change the mutual
responsibility, develop local government and so on. There was the very good idea too of
bringing more young people into government. Sometimes I hear voices among the
opposition saying that this government should be swept aside and that a new
government is needed. You are now serving your third term as President. How do you
view today the relations between government and society in Russia? Are you happy
with these relations? What should be changed? Is the Constitution really the issue, or is
McCain perhaps right in a way? I do not think his argument is correct. But what is your
vision now, in the twenty-first century, of the relations between Russias highest
authorities and society?

Thank you, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You recall the words of one of the worlds outstanding political
leaders, a former British Prime Minister, who said of democracy that it is the worst form
of government except all the others that have been tried. Probably then not probably,
but for certain Russia does deserve a better quality of government. Is there an ideal
form of government in other countries, including the one that you and Mr McCain
represent? This is a big question, a very big question, if we are talking about
democracy.

It has happened twice in US history that the President of the United States was chosen
by a majority in the electoral colleges, but with a minority of the actual voters. This is an
obvious flaw in the electoral procedure, that is to say, a flaw at the very heart of
American democracy. In other words, everyone has their own problems.

We perhaps have no fewer problems than you, and maybe even more, though this
would only be natural. Russia has gone through the experience of rule under the tsars,
then communism, then the disintegration of the 1990s. This has been a period of very
difficult and complicated rebuilding. But it is very clear that Russia is on the road to
democracy and is looking for its own ways to strengthen these democratic foundations.
There is this very fact that for ten years now we have been getting together, debating,
openly discussing, even when we used to meet behind closed doors, it all became
public anyway. And this is not to mention the other aspects of our life.

As for what kind of government Russia should have, this is something for our citizens to
decide, and not for our colleagues from abroad. We held an election a year ago, not so
long ago, and the majority of Russias citizens voted for me. I base myself on this
decision. That does not mean we can now sit on our laurels. I have to work on myself,
and our institutions need to improve too. This is just what we are all doing.

Note that we have returned to holding gubernatorial elections in the regions. This
practice is not so widespread in the world. Such elections are the practice in the United
States, but India say, has a completely different procedure. Many countries do things
very much their own way. Germany has its system, France has its way of doing things,
and in Russia we have decided to elect regional governors by direct secret ballot.

We have liberalised political parties activity. As a specialist on Russia, you know just
how many new political parties took part in the regional elections. In many cases they
achieved victory, and as far as I know, the winners of elections from these new political
parties are here at Valdai too. The improvement process is therefore going ahead. I
think it will never stop, because government organisation, the political organisation of
society, and democratic procedures need to keep up more or less with a societys
current needs and demands, and society is developing and changing. The political
system will change and develop with it.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Thank you.

Any other questions?

FOUNDER DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN REFORM CHARLES GRANT:

Charles Grant from the Centre for European Reform, London.

I have a question for the President, but if other panellists wish to comment, I would be
grateful, because its about Ukraine. I know Mr Prodi has a special interest in Ukraine.

Id like the President to tell us whether he sees Ukraine as a normal, sovereign,

independent country or a country thats a bit different. I ask that because we have a
question now Ukraine has to choose whether to join the Customs Union with Russia
and other countries, or to reach a closer agreement with the EU. And weve heard from
participants here in the last few days that some people in Ukraine find Russias heavy-
armed tactics closing the borders, blocking exports from Ukraine counterproductive.
They have told us this is pushing public opinion in Ukraine to be a little more critical of
Russia and perhaps closer to the EU. So could you explain what your strategy is with
regard to Ukraine and what kind of country you believe it is.

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: My good, long-time friend Romano headed the European

Commission for many years. So lets ask him to open the discussion. I have an answer,
and Im ready to reply to you, but I would like to hear his opinion.

FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF ITALY ROMANO PRODI: First of all, you remember
that I was President of the European Commission. And I remember that in our last
common press conference, when I was asked about the relation between the European
Union and Russia, I said, they must be like vodka and caviar I dont know which is
which but we are so strict, and things are not going in this direction. There is
something that we have to move or to change, because really well, maybe my vision
is influenced by the fact I am by education an economist but I see such a
complementarity, such a necessity of working together, that I think we have to work in
this direction.

And clearly, its not only a Russian problem. Europe is fairly divided. In this case, you
have countries that are much more inclined to deal with Russia, some others are not
confident in that. We also have a different vision in very simple problems like the visa.
And I agree that the first step is to have free circulation of young people. The Erasmus
project in Europe, which is a very simple circulation of students, is changing the
mentality of a generation. We must do the same with Russia.

And clearly, in the case of Ukraine, I think its going in the same direction. There is now
a double proposal that says, one is the association agreement that will be signed
probably in Vilnius at the end of November, and then there is the proposal of, lets say,
the Eurasian economy.

First of all, I am not a technical expert of trade, but all my consultants say, Look, the
two proposals are not incompatible. They are incompatible taken as a picture, as static,
but if we sit around the table, with good will, we can make very few changes and then
make them compatible. And so, as I answer to Mr Grant, reinforce the identity of
Ukraine not as a dividing country, but as a bridge between Russia and Europe,
because we need bridges, and Ukraine must and can be a bridge between us. This is, I
think, my position. And Im working in this direction because Ukraine is a great country.
Forty-five million people, even if the decreasing population is, geopolitically, very
important. And it must be an exercise in cooperation between Russia and European
Union.

Vladimir, on this point, clearly, why I am so warm about that? Because I think that if we
create two divided trade areas, well be, for the future, damaging the structure. Because
clearly, Europe is going in the direction of transatlantic trade investment partnership with
such a big area.

Russia, with this Customs Union, will have a dimension that is not comparable to the
other one. So I think well, I dont want to judge Russia, because I do not have the right
to do it but the dimensions of the country, the characteristics of the country, are such
that the great change that you are working for, modernisation and technology, needs a
strong link with you. From this point of view, really, we are like vodka and caviar. I think
the complementarity is so high that you cannot do without us and we cannot do without
you. So you have to be very prudent following your doctrine, your diversity cooperation,
very prudent to create a structure that then will diverge in the future.

This is the moment in which we must stay around the table, as you did with Syria. Your
proposal with Syria is a masterpiece, because first of all, it has avoided the war, and
even the American president was not so happy with this war. And second, it was giving
the possibility to the Americans to set the big principles of being against the chemical
weapons. So they could get a proposal that could be accepted by you.

I think this is the moment in the relations between Europe and Russia to use the same
methodology as has been done with Syria. Because if we start to diverge, Russia will be
more alone, Europe will be worse off, and the future relations cannot help us in the
direction that we both tried to explore in the past.

I agree that to dance, we need to be two. One cannot dance alone. But I think this is the
moment in which we have to make these proposals.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You see what a good idea it was to gave the floor to Mr Prodi.

Yes, Romano and I have been working together for a long time, and we do have a very
good personal relationship. Thats how things have played out. In Italy, I have always
had good relations with him, and with Mr Berlusconi, with whom he is in constant
conflict in the political arena. And Berlusconi is currently on trial for living with women,
but nobody would lay a finger on him if he were gay. (Laughter.)

Anyway, I want to talk about Mr Romanos words. Please note that he is not just an
intellectual, although he is indeed a professor, a scientist, a true European intellectual.
But he is also a European bureaucrat, down to his core. Just look at what he said:
relations between Russia and Europe are like caviar and vodka. But both caviar and
vodka are Russian products, products of Russian origin. (Laughter.)

After all, Europe is used to the well-known principle of eating from ones neighbours
plate before eating from ones own.

ROMANO PRODI: Let it be whisky and soda.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, whisky and soda is a bad drink to begin with; why ruin the
whisky? You should be drinking it straight.

Regarding Ukraine. Ukraine, without a doubt, is an independent state. That is how

history has unfolded. But lets not forget that todays Russian statehood has roots in the
Dnieper; as we say, we have a common Dnieper baptistery. Kievan Rus started out as
the foundation of the enormous future Russian state. We have common traditions, a
common mentality, a common history and a common culture. We have very similar
languages. In that respect, I want to repeat again, we are one people.

Of course, the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian culture and the Ukrainian language have
wonderful features that make up the identity of the Ukrainian nation. And we not only
respect it, but moreover, I, for one, really love it, I like all of it. It is part of our greater
Russian, or Russian-Ukrainian, world. But history has unfolded in such a way that
today, this territory is an independent state, and we respect that.

By the way, Ukraine had a long and difficult path to reach its current state today. It was
part of one state, then another state, and in each, a part of Ukraines public entities
were not privileged. The Ukrainian people had a very difficult destiny, but when we
united into one Rus, that part of the nation began to develop rapidly, began developing
infrastructure and trade. After World War II, the Soviet government allotted somewhere
around 1.5 trillion rubles to restore certain companies very large companies. One third
of that funding went to Ukraine.

Let me reiterate: today, Ukraine is an independent state, and we respect that fact.
Naturally, selecting priorities and selecting allies is the national, sovereign right of the
Ukrainian people and the legitimate Ukrainian government.
How do we see this process of [Ukraine] joining the EU or signing a Customs Union
agreement with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus? After all, Russia is also going to sign
a new framework agreement. We have already discussed signing [an agreement on]
some form of a free trade zone with the European Union, and Romano and I have
talked about this as well. This is all possible.

You know what the difference is? The fact that during negotiations on Russias WTO
accession we agreed on a certain level of tariff protection. This is hard for us because
our competition has cheap and we can say frankly quite high-quality agricultural
products, agricultural machinery. Things are very difficult for us in several other sectors,
for our industries. But the level of customs protection in Russia is higher than in
Ukraine; I think it is twice as high, or near that.

Why are we marking time in negotiation processes with our European partners? Its true
what I said earlier about them earlier that before eating whats on their plate, they first
eat the neighbours food. They are very nice guys, very friendly, polite, pleasant to talk
with, we can eat caviar and drink vodka, good German beer or Italian or French wines,
but they are very tough negotiators.

At present we cant even move forward and conclude a new framework agreement,
much less a further agreement about free trade. That is because we believe our
partners are making excessive demands and, in fact, imposing on us an agreement that
we refer to as WTO Plus. That is, it comprises the WTO requirements with regards to
open markets and several other things, particularly regarding standards, plus some
additional demands.

But first of all we need to digest WTO accession; we cannot go too fast. And we believe
that if Ukraine joined the Customs Union and we coordinated our efforts and negotiated
with the Europeans, we would have more chances to negotiate better terms of trade
with our main economic and trade partner. Europe remains our major trading partner;
50% of our trade is with the European Union.

In this sense, we believe that [joining the Customs Union] serves both our and Ukrainian
interests. All the more so since during the negotiation process we would lower energy
prices and open Russian markets. According to our calculations, and the Ukrainian
Academy of Sciences confirms this, Ukraine would receive an additional $9 billion. Not
a minus, but a plus.

How would Ukraine benefit from joining the EU? Open markets? Well, this would make
the economy more liberal. But I have no idea whether Ukraines economy can cope with
such liberalism. Its none of our business really, our Ukrainian partners must decide this
for themselves.

But what is our problem? If import duties are further reduced in Ukraine, then good
quality and cheap European goods will make their way there. They will squeeze
products of Ukrainian origin out of the domestic market, pushing them where? Towards
us. This creates problems. We are therefore warning in advance and saying: we
understand all this, its your choice, go ahead if you want to, but keep in mind that we
will somehow have to protect our market and introduce protectionist measures. We are
saying this openly and in advance, so that afterwards you will not accuse us of
interfering with anyone or questioning another countrys sovereign right to decide in
favour of the EU.

You understand that we will simply need to consider how many goods can access our
market and what protectionist measures we will have to take, thats all. After all, look at
the share of agricultural products that Ukraine imports and which end up on the Russian
market. I think probably about 70 to 80% of all food imports. And what will they do with
their pipes and other products? There's a whole range of issues, we engage in massive
internal cooperation, and some businesses cannot exist without their counterparts. And
if we introduce such limitations, these companies and perhaps whole industries will
then face severe problems. Thats what were talking about, thats what were warning
about. We are doing so in good faith and in advance, without in any way encroaching on
[Ukraines] sovereign right to take a foreign policy decision.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Thank you very much, Mr President.

I want to give Mr Simes the chance to reply.

PRESIDENT OF THE US CENTRE FOR THE NATIONAL INTEREST DIMITRI SIMES:

I enjoyed listening to this whole conversation and the Presidents speech. I feel a little
uncomfortable, like the honest old man who said: Mr President, I am an honest old
man, I have nothing to lose, and you are a genius. I do not want to speak like that and
wont do so here.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thats a pity. Its not hard just say it. (Laughter.)

DIMITRI SIMES: Maybe youll like [what I have to say], well see.

I found our previous conversation a little perturbing because it seemed like all is well,
my beautiful marchioness, except for a tiny trifle. Yes, of course there are problems
between Russia and the European Union, there are disagreements between Russia and
the United States, but on the whole everything is done with goodwill and mutual
understanding. I had the feeling while listening to the conversation earlier that all we
have to do is show some goodwill and common sense, and everything will go smoothly.

Friends, we have not yet recovered from, and have only just begun to seek a way out of
one of the most serious international crises since World War II. We have not yet
emerged from this crisis. Apart from the technical aspects of the situation with Syrias
chemical weapons, there is also a fundamental difference of views. As the President
said, Russias position is that there should be no use of force.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Without UN Security Council approval.

DIMITRI SIMES: Without UN Security Council approval.

In addition, as the President said, there is no proof that chemical weapons were used by
Assads government, which in the United States and in Europe is usually referred to
only as the regime. The American position and that of leading European powers is
fundamentally different.

Why was President Obama forced to take on President Putins initiative? As I

understand it, not because he fundamentally rejected the idea of a military strike on
Syria. As Mr President just said, Mr had Obama addressed the Congress and was
clearly preparing the country for a military strike, but he failed. First he was let down by
the British Parliament, and then suddenly by American public opinion.

I have never seen anything like what has just happened in the United States. I
emigrated there forty years ago, in 1973, and what I have seen in that time is that the
majority of Americans are political realists who do not like any foreign humanitarian
interventions, and who do not want to spread democracy by using force.

Public opinion does not matter much, because for most people it wasnt an important
issue; that is not why they voted the way they did. And then suddenly, for the first time a
real protest hurricane developed very fast, and took on momentum like a snowball.
When it began the Administration was certain that they had the support of the Senate,
which is controlled by Democrats. And after the Senates vote, it would be possible to
pressure the House [of Representatives], which has a Republican majority.

And suddenly I saw on American television and Im sure my American colleagues did
too how at these meetings of congressional representatives, senators and voters,
including Senator John McCain, the voters shouted: How dare you?! What are you
doing?! And the more the Administration and President Obama talked about needing to
attack Syria, the greater was the public opposition.

Then your initiative appeared, Mr President, one that allowed President Obama to save
face and to recognise the inevitable, that strikes wont work. But the main motives
remain: removing Assad, demonstrating that if the United States and President Obama
personally set some kind of red line, in this case the use of chemical weapons, then it
cannot be crossed. And if it does happen, then America wont tolerate that the
perpetrator remains in power, or for evil not to be punished, as Washington said. All
these points remain valid.

The problem is much broader than Syria. When you talk about Russias national
identity, I remembered how I was in Russia in 1991 with former President Nixon, and
how he spoke at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He
surprised everyone there by saying that Russia is a part of Western civilisation and that
naturally Russia must understand that there are some common democratic mechanisms
and free market principles.
He said that Russia should never simply follow along behind US foreign policy, nor
should it adopt American Western values. Not only is it unnatural for Russia, because it
is simply dressing-up the country as something it isnt, but it will have a boomerang
effect. Russian public opinion, Russian policy will never support this in the long term. As
a result, there will be some resentment of the United States and the West, and they will
have to pay for this.

In conclusion, Winston Churchill, who President Putin referred to earlier, said a very
interesting and wise thing about the United States: He said that you can always count
on the Americans to do the right thing but only after theyve tried everything else. I
hope that we are coming to the end of trying everything else, and that this will open up a
real opportunity for Russian-American relations.

I fully support President Putins tough stance, not because Im not an American patriot,
but because I believe that baby talk among great powers is not the way to reach an
agreement. One has to understand what to expect from the other country, and what
their mettle is.

My question to the President is as follows. I think you showed in your Munich speech
and in your highly effective article in The New York Times what Russia will not allow,
and the red lines that Russia is laying down. But if you talk one-on-one with President
Obama (and I understand that an audience such as this is a different format), what does
Russia disagree with in addition to what you said in The New York Times? What would
you tell him if the United States saw a window of opportunity and tried to use it? How
would you see the possibilities for cooperation with Russia? What concessions could
you offer? Is it possible, for example that Russias position on some important issues
might change?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, I do not think that the initiative to put Syrias chemical
weapons under [international] supervision contributed, as you said, to saving President
Obamas face. It has nothing to do with saving anyones face. It was his decision, based
on an empirical analysis of the situation, and Im very pleased that our positions on this
issue coincided. Thats the first point.

Secondly, what would I say? You know, there is no secret here. After all, I spoke to
President Obama one-on-one, including last time we met in St Petersburg, we talked on
the sidelines of the G20 summit, and at previous meetings in Los Cabos [in 2012]. You
know, I always have the same question. After all, the vast majority of people sitting here
are experts and I can ask them all, and you too, one of the most respected experts on
Russia and international politics, the same question: what is it the purpose? You know, I
always ask: what are you trying to achieve? If evil must be punished, what is evil there?
The fact that President Assads family has been in power for 40 years? Is that evil? The
fact that there is no democracy there? Indeed, perhaps there is none as the American
establishment defines it.
REMARK: There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either, but for some reason no one is
bombing it.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: See, they say there is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either, and its
difficult to disagree with that. Nobody is getting ready to bomb Saudi Arabia.

The issue is that we establish a trusting dialogue with Americans and Europeans so that
we can listen to each other and hear our respective arguments.

Evil must be punished. There must be a democracy. Look at what happened in Egypt:
there was a state of emergency there for forty years, the Muslim Brotherhood was
forced underground. Then they were allowed to come out into the open, elections were
held and they were elected. Now everything is back like it was before. Once again the
Muslim Brotherhood has been pushed underground, and theres a state of emergency.
Is this good or bad? You know, we need to realise that there are probably countries and
even entire regions that cannot function according to universal templates, reproducing
the patterns of American or European democracy. Just try to understand that there is
another society there and other traditions. Everything in Egypt has come full circle,
came back to what they started with.

Apparently, those who committed the now famous military actions in Libya were also
inspired by noble motives. But what was the outcome? There too they fought for
democracy. And where is that democracy? The country is divided into several parts
which are run by different tribes. Everybody is fighting against everybody else. Where is
democracy? They killed the US ambassador. Do you understand that this is also the
result of the current policy? This is a direct outcome.

I dont say this now to criticise or attack anyone. I just want to encourage all of our
partners to listen to each other, and to each others arguments. Russia has not special
interests in Syria, and that is not what we are trying to protect by supporting the current
government. Of course not. In my article, I think I wrote something like We are fighting
to preserve the principles of international law. After all, it was at the initiative of the
American founding fathers that when the statutes of the United Nations and its Security
Council were signed and I would stress that this was at American initiative that they
contained a provision that decisions pertaining to war and peace must be made
unanimously. This holds profound meaning. No matter how hard or how difficult this
may be.

After all, you understand that if any country feels invulnerable and strikes unilaterally
wherever it deems necessary, then the international order and the very meaning of the
UN and the Security Council will be reduced to zero. This would be a blow to the world
order, not simply to Syria. Thats what Im talking about, do you understand? Thats
what Id like to say to you and this audience, and to our partners in the United States.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Thank you.

Mr Fillon wants to speak.

FORMER FRENCH PRIME MINISTER, DEPUTY OF THE FRENCH NATIONAL

ASSEMBLY FRANCOIS FILLON (retranslated): I have great respect for President
Putin for two reasons.

First, because he is the president of a great country, a vast land with a centuries-old
culture, and so dialogue with him is essential. But I respect him for another reason too.
He is someone who keeps his promises and with whom dialogue is possible. It is not
always an easy dialogue, but it is always possible.

Over the five years that I headed the government, I often saw formal discussions in
international relations, sometimes rather tedious events, where the participants would
all simply read out documents prepared by their assistants. I can say that with Vladimir
Putin the discussions were also a lot lengthier and more spontaneous and alive, and of
course more constructive too. This brings me to two moments.

First, of course we cannot simply export our political system. I believe that every people
has the right choose how they want to live in accordance with their own culture and way
of life. But at the same time, we, whether in Russia or Europe, cannot be completely
indifferent to a situation in which mass murder has been taking place for two years
now.

One country intervening in anothers affairs in an attempt to impose its model is not the
same thing as attempting to stop mass killing. In this context, if we had not intervened in
the situation in Libya, as Vladimir Putin knows very well, the Libyan army would have
wiped the city of Benghazi from the face of the earth.

Vladimir Putin has made several references to Christianity, to which he, like I, is deeply
committed. But it is in Christianity that we find values that oblige us not to be just silent
witnesses to these mass killings. Of course we must respect international law in the
actions we take. France therefore opposes airstrikes at this moment, because I think
that airstrikes carried out outside international law would only worsen the situation in
Syria.

I call for building relations of trust in the Security Council. We can build these relations
of trust if we take steps towards each other. We might have doubts about the UN
experts report, but it is better to have this report than not to have it. Now that we have
it, we need to work together to build between Russia, Europe, the USA and the Security
Council members the relations of trust that will allow us to avoid war and will push the
conflicting parties in Syria towards a political solution.

Vladimir Putin took my words about responsibility as if they were addressed to him
alone. What I meant was that Russia of course has particular responsibilities through its
ties with Bashar Assads regime, and we in Europe also have our responsibilities
through the ties that we have with the opposition. This responsibility should impel us
towards one and the same result to get the two sides to stop the fighting. We are not
talking about imposing Western-style democracy there, but about stopping the mass
killing, which is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that it should have gone on for so long.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me just make one remark in this respect.

Of course we cannot simply watch calmly as mass murder takes place, but at the same
time, lets be honest with each other. Yes, an internal conflict began there, but it
immediately started being fuelled from abroad. Weapons began flowing in, fighters
began arriving in Syria. They started coming right from the outset, maybe even earlier.
This is a clear and well-known fact.

Where did Al-Nusra, an organisation linked to Al-Qaeda, come from? And theres
another group there too, also linked to Al-Qaeda. The State Department recognises this,
recognises these groups links. They have admitted after all that groups that are part of
Al-Qaeda are fighting there. What do we make of this?

In my discussions on this matter with my colleagues, I say, Ok, youre essentially

wanting to take their side and help them come to power, but what will you do next? Just
grab a newspaper and chase them away from the power theyve taken? It doesnt
happen that way. We know its not possible. It doesnt work that way. So I ask them,
What will you do? They say, We dont know. Thats a direct discussion, no secrets to
hide. But if you dont know what youre going to do next, whats the point in rushing in
and bombing away when you dont know the outcome? Thats the big question.

You know what the main difference in our approaches is? If we try to intervene in favour
of one of the parties to the conflict, give them our support, it will ultimately make it
impossible to establish an internal balance of power in the country. Everything will start
to come apart and then collapse. Difficult though it may be, we need to force them to
look for common ground, force them to reach agreements among themselves and find a
balance of interests, and then it might be possible to bring longer-lasting stability to the
country and eventually even have things level out. But if we lend our full force to one or
the other conflicting party no balance will be possible.

People in the US recognise now that the operations in Iraq were a mistake. We said this
would be the case, but no one wanted to listen. I remember my discussions with the
former President, and with the former British prime minister. I wont repeat the details,
but we spoke about precisely these things. And yet no one wanted to listen. As for the
result, Im sure this audience is already fully aware of the result.

You say that Benghazi would have been destroyed. I dont know. Perhaps this is so,
and perhaps not. But is todays situation better, when a civil war is underway and
people are being killed every day? To this day we are still seeing dozens of people
dying every day in Iraq. Every single day! The number of people killed since the end of
the military operations is already greater than the number of people killed during the
military action itself. And what is the result? It is exactly the opposite to what was hoped
for, and that is what we are trying to get across, and why we seek a constructive
dialogue with our partners in Europe and in the USA.

In Libya, living standards were a lot higher before. What is the fighting there all about?
The fighting today is about different tribes trying to get control of the oil resources. I am
not saying that Libya had a good or balanced regime. Gaddafi thought up some political
theory of his own. This does not mean that things should have continued unchanged
there for another 100 years. But to resolve the problem the way they tried, in the end
they failed to resolve it at all, and are unlikely to do so any time soon.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Thank you.

Mr President, Mr Rhe wants to respond.

Mr Rhe, please go ahead.

VOLKER RHE: President Putin, I go along with you, what you said on Iraq. And we
were as critical; the French were, also. It was not a NATO it was an American
decision.

But Libya was different. And I would like to remind you that in the first decade of this
century, the United Nations created a new development in international law called
Responsibility to Protect.

What does this mean? Every state has a responsibility to protect its own population.
And if it doesnt do this, then theres a right of the international community to intervene,
once theres a decision in the Security Council.

Russia abstained and made it possible to have this attack. And I would just like to say,
Im very grateful to the French forces who saved the lives of thousands of people in
Benghazi. This was not to create democracy and it will take a long time and will always
be different from us. But how many people can you kill in your own country by saying,
This doesnt concern the outside community? The international law says this is no
longer possible.

And coming to Syria, its a different case. There is no international basis for intervention.
But when you remember how it started, and we had a very interesting debate last night,
it was in Daraa in the south that young people demonstrated like we do in the streets,
like young Russians do in the streets. And they were shot.

And later on, we all see the pictures of a president sending out his air force to kill people
who are queuing to buy a piece of bread. I can tell you, a president who kills people with
his air force who want to buy a piece of bread, he has no future. He has no future. And
this is nothing we just can look at. We have to come to an agreement what to do, and
Im very much grateful for what has been established between you and the United
States. Its very precious. And I hope it will lead to results and it will help both of you. Its
a win-win situation for all of us.

But we must also understand that in the world of today, you cannot just go at states that
attack other states. That was the case in the 20th century. But what do you do with
states that dont protect their own population? You dont have the right just to intervene,
but on the basis of the UN decision, this makes sense. Because everybody, every
president of every country, also has a responsibility to protect his own people.

Thats my position.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I fully agree that the use of force is possible only through a decision
by the UN Security Council. Otherwise, of course, I completely concur.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Dimitri Simes. We promised a degree of debate, and here we

have it.

DIMITRI SIMES: Responsibility to protect is a very good principle. I know that in the
West, we follow it to the letter. For example, I heard that Germany broke off diplomatic
relations with Egypt when they killed one thousand mostly peaceful demonstrators
supporting their lawfully elected president. Im joking of course; Germany did not break
off relations. The United States did not impose any sanctions, and did not even stop
supplying arms. And I must say honestly, I have no problem with this, because I am a
political realist: thats how the world works.

Indeed, I think it would be a mistake for the United States to let Egypt fend for itself. But
we must be honest with ourselves. I will never forget when I read about 1862, that
France and England, particularly France, were giving Alexander II lectures regarding so-
called Russian soldiers in Poland. At the same time, England and France were
colonising Africa, using the most brutal methods imaginable.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, lets take a swing at the Europeans, with their double
standards

DIMITRI SIMES: This double standard exists. And I must tell you honestly, as President
Putins friend and admirer Henry Kissinger says, its a well-known double standard in
international relations when you differentiate between friends and adversaries; this
double standard is normal, but you must know when to stop.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, it is too bad that Henry is not here. He would add some very
interesting insight to the discussion. You know, I say this sincerely, because there are
people in the world who, in spite of patriotism and international interests, have learned
to say what they think. He is one of them.

I think the President of Israel is like that as well; he states his position freely. I mean, he
is the acting President, he certainly has limitations, but in personal discussions, he is
very open, and I am sometimes amazed by how free he is with his words. And Kissinger
he is not even in government service and can speak sincerely.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Mr President, we have about ten to fifteen more minutes for
questions.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Ryzhkov, you have the floor.

MEMBER OF THE VALDAI DISCUSSION CLUB VLADIMIR RYZHKOV: Mr President,

I have also been a member of this club for ten years and can confirm that this is a first-
rate platform, with no censorship, with open discussions and the hardest-hitting
questions. I think this 10th Valdai meeting is, in my view, the most incisive and
interesting. We have been working productively for ten hours every day.

If you will allow, I would like to return to domestic policy, because we already spent a lot
of time discussing foreign policy. Especially since, as you know, we have been working
here for three days, and I think that Russian domestic policy is currently of enormous
interest. This is because we see a kind of incredible societal awakening over the last
several years; I think you see it as well. In some places, it is happening very intensely,
and in other places, less so, but society is awakening very actively.

It is hard to disagree with what you said, that a strong nation cannot be built without
dialogue, without taking into account all opinions, through violence, force and coercion.
This is equally true of Syria, Russia and Libya.

If you allow, I want to ask you some fairly topical questions about something that
troubles me personally, which I know to be troubling to other people present here and
an enormous number of people throughout the nation.

The first of these questions has to do with the events of May 6, 2012. There was a
demonstration in Moscow, which, unfortunately for all of us, ended with a few clashes
between some of the demonstrators and the law enforcement agencies. Currently, the
so-called Bolotnaya Case is underway; if Im not mistaken, 28 people are on trial. Some
of them, about twelve of them, have already been under investigation, under arrest, for
eighteen months. One of them wasnt even able to say goodbye to his mother, who
died. Today, another defendants grandmother died; we dont know whether he will be
able to go to her funeral. I know for a fact that for a large part of society, the Bolotnaya
Case the criminal case against participants in the demonstration evokes strong
emotions and serious tensions.

Mr President, I have studied this issue very carefully and looked into our Criminal Code.
It says that mass disturbances are defined as involving explosives, arms, health risks,
property damage and large-scale unmotivated violence. Fortunately for us, there were
no explosives, no arms, no large-scale violence or health risks on May 6; there were
individual confrontations. But the charges are very severe. And Im afraid that if it comes
to severe, stiff sentences, this will become an issue that creates a lot of tension within
the society. So perhaps I understand that the judicial authorities are working
independently it would be good to consider amnesty for participants in these events,
to mollify the enormous anxiety on the part of many citizens?

And my second concern, Mr President. We spent two days discussing the September 8
elections. We had a very intense discussion, by the way, there were participants from
two of the most noteworthy campaigns: Sergei Sobyanin spoke for the Moscow
campaign, and Yevgeny Roizman spoke for Yekaterinburg. Many regions saw truly
bright, passionate, competitive electoral campaigns. But unfortunately, Mr President, a
dozen regions and maybe more once again saw large-scale falsifications. The
observers say this, the experts say this, and the people living in those regions say this.
What does this lead to?

Society is awakening; society wants to participate in running the government, it wants to

participate in the elections, and it wants to have legitimate power, but certain individuals
in the regions are used to throwing in extra ballots, rewriting them and falsifying them.
This leads to apathy, it leads to disappointment, and it ultimately leads to undermining
trust in the government a government that both those in power and those in the
opposition wish to see succeed.

So perhaps, Mr President, it could be worthwhile to consider some sort of additional

steps, taking into account that a year from now, there will be many more electoral
campaigns, in order to guarantee fair, open, competitive elections not just in the major
cities where elections were competitive, but throughout the nation overall? This would
release an enormous amount of tension that exists in many regions and I am sure that
an entire generation of bright, talented, proactive, patriotically-minded politicians would
enter the political arena.

Thank you very much.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

As for the so-called Bolotnaya Case [in 2011, for which 12 people are facing trial], I
dont want to make any juridical pronouncements as to whether a form of riot took place
there or not. I dont doubt your competences as a lawyer, but all the same it is the
investigative and judicial authorities that must take such decisions.

What is it I want to say in this regard? Whatever happens we must not forget the
lessons recent history has taught us and our neighbours. We remember the London
riots that took place just recently, three years ago, when cars were overturned. Thanks
to the CCTV cameras that are everywhere in London, the police and British intelligence
services spent a year looking for all the participants in the riots. They found almost
every one, and all were convicted. And I think that the English did the right thing,
because no one should entertain the illusion that such behaviour is permissible.
I dont know whether there were signs of riots [in Bolotnaya Square] or not. Lets leave
that to the law enforcement and judicial authorities. I do not want to intervene in this
debate. But theres one thing I can say, and I would like to once again publicly articulate
my position regarding this kind of situation. If people behave and express themselves in
a way that violates other citizens rights and interests, and break the law, then the state
must react accordingly.

You cannot call for beatings or bodily injuries of the police, try to gouge out eyes, call for
hitting people on the head, or rip off their epaulettes. And do you know what outcome
this would have in any country, and in Russia in particular? Such acts must be
repressed in accordance with applicable law. This should be clear to everyone. And
there is no need to blackmail authorities with the fact that they will be labelled
undemocratic. The authorities must respond accordingly.

Can we consider granting amnesty in this case? I do not exclude it. But we have to deal
with this case in an extremely responsible way. I do not exclude it. We need to give [the
authorities] the opportunity to see all necessary legal procedures through to their logical
conclusion.

About whether or not the elections were dishonest. I dont know, there probably was
some fraud. You drew our attention to and mentioned the elections in Yekaterinburg.
Here I think a candidate [Yevgeny Roizman] ran for, spoke at and won the mayoral
elections. A non-aligned person, a representative of the so-called non-systemic
opposition. And he went out and won.

In Moscow, our largest city, elections were free and fair, and people even expected that
the mayor [Sergei Sobyanin] would win in the first round. But they expected he would
win by a large margin. Actually, his main rival [Alexei Navalny] had almost half as many
votes. This also speaks to the level of support among Muscovites. But I cannot say that
elections in Moscow were fraudulent. I think that both you and your colleagues were
probably present at polling stations. I cant even imagine what else we could do to make
them more transparent. If you have any suggestions or ideas, lets discuss them, and
we will integrate them into existing legislation. Do such negative phenomena occur in
some Russian regions? I would not exclude it. I would urge you to join with the
authorities and law enforcement agencies to detect such infringements and take
corresponding measures.

Finally, in answer to your question, I would like to express my hope that your
assumptions are correct. I would also very much like and I think about this every day
smart, patriotic young people to enter Russian politics, people with a clear vision and
understanding of what needs to be done for the good of their country, for their
Motherland. I myself truly want this and will contribute in every way possible to making it
happen, including through informal channels.

You yourself have been in politics a long time now. You were a [State Duma] deputy,
and you know it is possible to use a protest mood to achieve electoral success. But this
does not directly translate into the positive, effective development of a given region,
municipality or the entire country. We need really qualified people, competent, effective
managers with a clear understanding and vision of how the country will develop.

Ms Sobchak, please go ahead.

TELEVISION PRESENTER KSENIYA SOBCHAK: Mr President, the first post-Soviet

generation grew up during your time in power. This generation has shown that it is
prepared to invest time in politics. We see that these people largely urban university
graduates, middle or high income are willing to work as volunteers and election
observers, and participate in rallies.

What do you think this generations moral and political demands are? Do you see any of
these thirty-somethings as your political opponents? And how do you think this
generation will remember you and, likewise, how will you remember it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, at the beginning of the 1990s and in the early 2000s, a
vast number of Russians went through an extremely trying period due to the collapse of
a great power, the collapse of standards and moral principles on which Soviet society
had been based. All this was followed by the collapse of our economy, social sphere
and security, and what was virtually a civil war in the Caucasus. People were clearly
frightened.

Naturally all these people wanted to quickly pass through this difficult stage in the
countrys development, to stabilise it, and start a positive and progressive stage. In
general, these objectives have been achieved. In general. Of course, not everything has
been achieved, but fundamental things have. Now there's an opportunity to look at
everything closely, to analyse what was done well and what was done badly, and to
glance into the future, and we can do it calmly, without the pressure of the severe
problems of the 1990s and early 2000s. I am very pleased that young people are
engaged in this.

As in any country young people have big demands and little experience. Who were the
Red Guards in China? They were young people [groups of students formed into
paramilitary units during the Cultural Revolution (196676)]. We're not going to follow
their example. We still need to focus on modern people who understand the country in
which they live, and have a clear idea about its potential development paths. That is
very important, extremely important. In part I already tried to answer Vladimir Ryzhkovs
question to this effect: we need [to enlist] the thinking part of the population, not just the
destroyers.

We have already had a lot of destroyers. One war after another, one revolution after
another. We need creators. I would really like to see more and more creators among
those people who are actively involved in politics, more and more professionals. And
[when this happens it] is a very good process, a very good sign, a sign of at least
relative well-being. I am sure that in general this will come to pass.
Our German colleague talked about how, unfortunately, in Germany young people are
not very interested in politics. Nevertheless I do not entirely agree with you, because in
its time the Green Party was set up mainly by young people, then just very recently
there was another party that was established...

VOLKER RHE: The friends of the Green Party.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I support environmental movements, and I think it is a very important

aspect of our work.

Then the Pirate Party appeared. Now its not quite as successful in the electoral sense,
but its still there and its also composed of young people. In principle, young people are
active everywhere. I would very much like for this activity to take on a positive character.
Of course, there must also be political struggle and competition. And I very much hope
that this will happen, that outstanding leaders will emerge; the country needs them.

Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Mr President, first of all thank you very much for your rich and varied
presentation.

Returning to the topic of integration, Charles Grant asked for comments about other EU
members thoughts and opinions about signing an association agreement with Ukraine.
Valdai participants are well aware that, to varying degrees, the EU has become more
sceptical about signing such an agreement in the past two years. But it is noteworthy
that this scepticism has significantly abated in response to Russias policy, and not only
with respect to Ukraine, but also Moldova, and especially Armenia.

My question is: does this surprise you? And if such an agreement [with Ukraine] is
signed in November, what will Russias response be?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think I have already answered this question. Russias response will
primarily involve steps in the economic sphere. We have no desire or aspiration to
revive the Soviet empire with respect to politics or [infringements of] sovereignty. This is
obvious, do you understand? Its not advantageous for us, and it is also both impossible
and unnecessary. But when we talk about pragmatic things we must not forget, as I
already said, that this affects not only Ukraine, but also Moldova, which you have also
mentioned.

Where will Moldova sell its wine? In France? Im sure the French will not let them sell a
single bottle of Moldovan wine in their country. Its just as impossible in Italy. That is a
fact; there is absolutely no doubt about it. Lets see what will happen if they try. Wine
producers will dump out all the crates, destroy everything, and pour it all into ditches. It
will be impossible for small states to sell any of their priority exports on the European
market. Everything will be sold on our market, nearly 100% of their exports. If we take,
for example, Moldovas exports and ask where they are going? The answer is: to
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

If Moldovan leaders sign this document and good luck to them good quality cheap
Italian and French wine will enter the Moldovan market. Where will Moldovan wine go?
Besides, there are certain technical regulations that are inconsistent with ours. Rules
are different. There are some economic parameters that are automatically applied by
the EU and European Commission, but not by Moldova itself. And they will be
automatically extended to Moldova. All these goods will rush to us, this is the first thing.

Secondly, we suspect that well receive products from third countries disguised as
Moldovan or Ukrainian goods. Thats what worries us. This has nothing to do with trying
to put pressure on a sovereign right to make decisions. We just ask you to look at
everything and make your calculations. If our colleagues deem our arguments invalid,
do not be offended if we are forced to defend our interests, or to introduce certain
restrictions. There is nothing unusual or selfish here. We have to think about our own
national economic interests.

I would like to give the floor to a representative of our Muslim community.

QUESTION: Mr President,

Let me thank you for this excellent platform that has given us a chance to spend three
or four days working as a small multi-faith team discussing various issues.

First of all, we thank you for your policy that reaffirms humanitys moral values. This is
very important today. You and the supporters of your initiative have proposed a plan for
resolving the conflict in Syria. The situation there is very serious indeed, and if you
permit, I would like to remind the audience that Syrias capital is not an ordinary city, but
in the belief of a billion Muslims, and perhaps Christians too, it is the city where Jesus
Christ will appear.

We believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and it is said that it is in Damascus
that he will appear. Even the late Pope John Paul II, when he came to Damascus, he
visited the white minaret, where many say that Christ will appear. This is an amazing
thing. This explains why the heads of many religions have given your initiative their
backing, because it is so important to preserve peace in this land.

I would also like to thank you for the support that our countrys traditional faiths receive.
At the Iversky Monastery, Metropolitan Hilarion spoke about how over recent years,
sadly, we have lost more than 50 imams and muftis, who were killed for their
convictions, killed because they stood guard over Russias stability, calm and peace.
Not only Muslims have been killed. An attempt was made on the life of a rabbi in
Dagestan, and our Orthodox brothers have been targets too. I hope very much that
relations between the authorities and the countrys religions will develop in the right
direction in the future.
Thank you very much.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This was more of a short speech than a question, I think.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: If you permit, I will call for the last two questions now. There
are still of lot of questions, and a lot of familiar faces. I can see Alexei Kudrin hiding
away in the back rows.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Alexei, where are you hiding? Do you have any questions?

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: I meant that there are plenty of people you know well here. It
simply wont be possible to answer all the questions. Lets have two more questions.
You can choose.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Ive got questions I want to ask him [Kudrin]. What questions does
he have for me? (Laughter)

Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Mr President,

We all have our various political differences, but we all have one thing in common: we
all want a great Russia. Russia can be great only when it is united. I mean united in the
broad sense of the term and am not referring to the [United Russia] political partys
name. When Vladimir [Ryzhkov] spoke earlier about the Bolotnaya Square case, he
spoke precisely about this issue of disunity. I think you have definitely secured yourself
a place in history. Future generations will give their assessment of all that you have
done.

But the discussion now is about this minority, just a small minority, yes, but one that
came knocking at the Kremlin gates many times, only it seems to them that no one is
listening. So they came knocking one time and ended up in a scuffle with the guards. Is
there a crime in this or not? You won the presidential election and you have the power
to pardon them. A draft law to amnesty these people has already been submitted to the
State Duma. This action will receive the response it deserves.

There are many other dividing lines too. You spoke about a very important issue in your
speech, about regional divisions, for example, the problem of separatism, and you
mentioned Siberian separatism. I represent Siberia in the State Duma

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Which part of Siberia?

QUESTION: Novosibirsk. I represent Novosibirsk and plan next year to run for Mayor of
Novosibirsk. In other words, I want to enter that same Kremlin gate and show that the
opposition is not just about talking, but also about actually doing something. This is what
I wanted to ask you about.
In your election campaign promises and subsequent executive orders, you decided to
raise teachers wages. The actual results of this promise give a vivid illustration of the
state of the countrys system of government today. Our region carried out your
executive order and raised teachers wages. A teacher in our region now earns 22,000
roubles. That seems surely a good thing. But what situation do we end up with? We
now have half the regional budget being spent on education. Thats great, Im left-wing
and this is just what I always wanted.

But in the villages you now have teachers earning 22,000 rubles while the people
working on the farms are getting only 6,000 rubles. That makes the teachers oligarchs
there, and the locals are already taking up arms against them. In Novosibirsk itself on
the other hand, 22,000 rubles is nothing. Every time I meet with voters they always ask
me when we are finally going to raise wages. I say that weve only just raised them. This
is just to show that it is very difficult to run the regions from Moscow. You need to
delegate powers to the regions themselves.

One of the last promises in the annual presidential address made by your predecessor,
Mr Medvedev, was the promise to redistribute budget revenues so as to transfer 1
trillion to the municipal level. Mr President, what is your view on this promise? As a
future mayor, I can tell you that if we do get this money, you will see what our great
Russia could look like.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: On the subject of education and teachers pay, what I said was that
teachers should be paid at least the equivalent of the regions average wage, the
average for that particular region. If the average wage in the region you represent is
22,000, than teachers, no matter where they live, including in rural areas, should be
paid 22,000. This does not make them oligarchs. Imagine calling teachers oligarchs
when they are really just people living modest lives.

But they maybe should indeed be earning more than some of the other groups you
mentioned. Why, for whose sake? Its precisely for the sake of these very people who
do not earn much money, so that their children will have the same opportunities as
children from better off families to get a good education and open the doors to their
future lives.

Our countrys future depends on the quality of education. I am sure that you would fully
agree with me on this. But if we do not pay our teachers a decent wage we will not
achieve this goal.

As for the fact that a big part of the regions budget is being spent on social sector
needs, of course it would be good to have more money in the regional budgets for
investment projects too. You are right here, of course. But all of these investment
projects also involve a large share of, shall we say, inefficient spending in all sorts of
subcontracted work lets just call it inefficient since I dont want to accuse anyone of
corruption. There are often big doubts about the efficiency of it all. But when we get the
money directly to the people, and all the more so when it is groups such as teachers, I
can assure you that these are the most effective investments in our countrys future.

As for the trillion roubles, I would like to give a trillion or two to the regions, and we are
in fact discussing very actively the reform of financial relations with the regional and
local authorities. We need to balance the share of powers and responsibilities and make
sure they have their own financing sources.

Whether its a trillion, half a trillion, or 1.5 trillion this would need to be based on the
federal budgets real possibilities, which are limited at the moment by the problems in
the global and the Russian economies.

Of course, the goal we are working towards is for the local authorities, especially in big
cities of a million people or more like Novosibirsk, to have sufficient funds of their own
for carrying out the tasks before them.

The election time will come and you can show us your best qualities. I hope the election
will be open, honest, and competitive.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Mr President, the last question. Please choose.

REPLY: The wrestlers want to speak.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What are you wrestling with?

QUESTION: Im sorry for holding up my hand for so long, but I just couldnt give up
because I have been asked to speak for wrestlers from around the world. The Wrestling
World Championships are currently underway in Budapest, as you know. I want to
express our gratitude to you on behalf of the International Federation of Associated
Wrestling Styles and the Russian Wrestling Federation: thank you very much for the
contribution you made to ensuring that our sport, Greco-Roman wrestling and Freestyle
Wrestling remain in the Olympic programme and in the Olympic family.

All of us realise that this is thanks to your efforts. The children who started training again
have a light in their eyes. This is a big achievement and a great policy, and it was
completely down to you. Throughout the world, our wrestlers, Olympic champions and
even children, entered their training studios today in a better mood, with a new
determination to fight for Olympic medals.

Thank you very much.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

But that decision was made by the IOC; it was measured and balanced. It is true that
we have a lot of friends there. We try to work closely with IOC members. Indeed, we
welcome this decision. It would be hard to imagine the Olympic programme without the
sports that were at the heart of the ancient Olympic games track and field, running
and wrestling.

You know, I want us to finish on a positive note today, so I have a suggestion: why dont
I ask the audience that instead of addressing your questions me, you address them to
each of my colleagues on the stage, or as they say, on the panel. You can ask each of
my colleagues a question, and then I will answer one last question.

Right now, Germany is going through a very important period: the elections. Perhaps
someone has a question regarding this issue, about how the government will be formed
and who will be in the coalition? How the future Germany will build its relations with
Russia? It is our largest trade and economic partner after China. Unfortunately,
Germany is now second to China in trade volume. Perhaps these questions

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: A question for Mr Rhe?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes.

VOLKER RHE: Ill take your questions.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I dont doubt it.

VOLKER RHE: I think youll see the same Chancellor as a partner in the future.
Russian-speaking Angela Merkel, with about 40%.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: For the third time, now.

VOLKER RHE: I think she will not change. She will always be afraid of dogs. But
shell get 40% and more.

But the question is: which coalition partner? Its an open question if the liberals with the
foreign minister, whom you know, will get into Parliament. So this is why Mr Genscher, I
think, who was originally supposed to be here, didnt come. Because its really about the
existential situation of the FDP, the liberal party in Germany. If they get a little more than
5%, theres a chance for a coalition, like now, but I think more likely now will be a grand
coalition led by Angela Merkel and the Social Democrats.

But the Social Democrats last time had 23%, and its not easy for them to be a junior
partner again, because they are 150 years old, a very prominent German Party. And so,
I think they have to gain votes. If they go up on Sunday to 27-28%, they have enough
confidence probably to win the party over, to be a junior partner.

But I think as regards Russia, theres a big consensus in Germany that we want to work
closer, ever closer. I saw you were fascinated by the Greens and the Pirates. Im afraid
the Greens are in a crisis and the Pirates will have about 2%.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why?

VOLKER RHE: Because they have no programme. I mean, your opposition is very
concrete compared with the Pirates in Germany.

So I think you see a lot of continuity in German politics, but as I hope, for instance, that
Mr Steinmeier will be Foreign Minister again. I think he is very much engaged in the
German-Russian relations. And I am also feeling that we should start a new impetus.
And Im very much encouraged by how youve treated the opposition and what youve
told them here.

So I go home very optimistic. I will cast my vote next Sunday. And I think you will see a
stable Germany on Monday also a Germany, as Ive said earlier this week which
needs the European Union more than any other state. Just because it is so big, we can
look after our national interests best in this European context. And when there were
problems coming up, in the future, there will still be problems. I see a Germany that
doesnt try to Germanise Europe, which is a difficult thing. It would make Europe also a
very boring place, if everybody were like us, it would not be so interesting. We like the
differences. We like solidity, but also solidarity. And from my point of view, I think
solidarity among north and south in the European Union may play a bigger role after
these elections.

Thats my analysis. You can compare next Monday if its working.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

As for the decline in the popularity of certain parties, including new ones, as a result of
lacking a programme, a clear political and competitive programme. This is very
important for all nations, including Russia. This is part of the answer to certain questions
that I have been asked by the audience.

Lets ask Mr Fillon if he is going to run in the presidential election. (Laughter.) You can
answer briefly, in one word.

FRANCOIS FILLON (retranslated): I dont know why I should answer this question.
After all, you didnt answer it when you were asked directly.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I wasnt asked this question.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Yes you were.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Was I? I didnt hear it.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Nikolai Zlobin asked you.

FRANCOIS FILLON (retranslated): Let me reply one more time. I think my answer was
misinterpreted or misheard. I prefer not to answer this question, because you did not
answer it when you were asked directly.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: So will you answer if I do?

FRANCOIS FILLON (retranslated): Well see.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Im not ruling it out.

FRANCOIS FILLON (retranslated): Im not ruling it out, either.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Fillon and I worked together when he and I were both prime
ministers. I want to express my appreciation for him, in the best sense of that word. He
was a very reliable and constructive partner, always positive, professional and calm.
And when he said no, it never sounded insulting, it was always substantiated. But if he
said yes, we always carried our agreements to their logical conclusion. So I just want
to thank you for our work together. Thank you very much.

SVETLANA MIRONYUK: Mr President, I want to let you know that we [RIA Novosti]
release news updates on what you say as President, and today, since you have
succeeded as an interviewer, we are releasing the breaking news that Mr Fillon does
not rule it out.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Very well.

Romano, will Lettas Government hold its ground, will everything be all right? We are
counting on the stability of the Italian Government.

ROMANO PRODI: Absolutely. If you want to have a boring Europe, you need to impose
German values, but if you want to have a fun Europe, you should impose Italian values.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fun is more appealing, of course.

ROMANO PRODI: We could come to an agreement on this issue.

People are now asking: will Berlusconi remain in Parliament? I think either way, this will
not lead to a government crisis. The Government will continue its work, or at least fulfil
its previous promises regarding what is best according to political experts. Without a
doubt, anyone can face personal problems, and personal decisions can certainly disrupt
the situation temporarily. But right now, a split of sorts is underway between Berlusconi
and the Government.

The coalition is complicated. It does not resemble the German one, it consists of parties
that have common values, but they have their differences as well. Two coalitions that
currently form the Italian Government are certainly divided on many issues. But the
Prime Minister is working quite efficiently, wisely, and is truly achieving results and
movement in the right direction. So even if we cannot promise anything right now
concerning long-term prospects, we can promise stability in the short- and medium-
term.

I would like to share a brief observation. Im enjoying our meeting very much. It
resembles a circus. We are all like animals, talking here and performing. And we are
free animals. Moreover, there are not that many of us. This is exactly the right scale. We
can express a large number of viewpoints, and at the same time, we can speak one
after another. Its a good combination. And I want to ask you not to change anything,
because if there are many participants, like at other forums, then our ideas and the
essence of what is happening can be lost, whereas here we fully understand what is
happening. And this is a very useful experience.

And one last remark. We have been discussing the European Union and the world. I
want to say that we can act only with the help of the Security Council, but even in that
case, it is imperative to understand the consequences. If, for example, we consider the
war in Libya, it was started to prevent atrocities and widespread killing. But certainly, we
must move in the right direction, and it is imperative to understand which direction is the
correct one.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Here in Russia, we also wish Mr Lettas Government success. I

wont deny that he really surprised me at the G20 summit, when he suddenly
announced that Italy cannot support the plans for a strike against Syria. This was
unexpected for me. I can honestly say I was surprised by such an open, personal
position within the Western community, in spite of NATOs well-known solidarity.

ROMANO PRODI: He used to be my deputy secretary.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Its hard to agree that we are all animals here. But can I just ask
you, do you think we are herbivores or predators?

ROMANO PRODI: We are omnivores. (Laughter.) We eat all kinds of food; we have
diversity, including in our diet. Otherwise, we would contradict what we are saying.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

And one more question for our American friend and colleague. What will the United
States do about the budget deficit, the debt that has reached an incredible size? It is the
largest debt in the United States post-war history. How will the situation unfold moving
forward? This directly affects the global economy and is a real concern for everyone.

DIMITRI SIMES: First of all, we count on further cooperation with our Chinese partners,
that they will buy even more American financial obligations. I think you will see that over
the course of the next two weeks
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Just dont forget that Russia Mr Kudrin is sitting right there has
bought a bunch of your obligations. Mr Kudrin, how much did we buy?

FORMER RUSSIAN FINANCE MINISTER OF 2000-2011 ALEXEI KUDRIN: Mr

President, Russias Stabilisation Fund has been transferred into the Central Banks
foreign currency accounts. We do not buy securities; we simply hold currency in Central
Bank accounts. On the global market, the Central Bank invests about 50% in American
government bonds, which are included in the foreign currency reserves.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We currently have over 500 billion in foreign currency reserves, 40%
of which is denominated in US dollars; it was 50% when Mr Kudrin was minister, and
now its 40%. This, of course, is not the Chinese trillion, but nevertheless, it is still a
significant sum. It speaks to Russias trust in our American partners and our trust in the
policy being implemented by the US government I say that without any sense of irony.

People attacked Alexei Kudrin, particularly members of the leftist parties, for the fact
that the Central Bank holds a significant proportion of its reserves in securities
denominated in dollars. But nevertheless, we must give credit to our American partners;
when we needed money, we got everything, regardless of any internal problems within
the US economy, or any problems with the famous mortgage companies. In terms of
partnership discipline, our American partners fulfilled everything with great discipline.
But ultimately, what will happen next, in your opinion? With the Federal Reserve policy
and the enormous debt?

DIMITRI SIMES: You will see several very difficult weeks, perhaps even months, when
the House of Representatives votes against the budget proposed by Obama, unless
Obama decides not to finance his medical insurance programme, and that will not
happen. And you will see conflict between the House and the Senate, between the
Senate and Presidential Administration and the House.

I assume, given responsibility to you and Alexei Kudrin, the American currency will hold
out; I am almost certain of this, although there will be a few very nerve-wracking weeks,
or perhaps even months.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: On the one hand, we have always assumed that the monetary
mitigation policy must end at some point; but the first steps in this direction, even the
first words in this direction, have led to a certain destabilisation within developing
markets. It has affected Russia to a smaller degree, in terms of currency and outflows.
This is not related to the Federal Reserve policy; partially not related. But we very much
expect that our American partners will succeed in overcoming these difficulties, which
are evident as well, and the fundamental backbone of the American economy will prove
to be stable.

The last question, please. Mr Prokhanov.

PROSE WRITER, MEMBER OF THE VALDAI DISCUSSION CLUB ALEXANDER
PROKHANOV: Mr President, a great deal of financing is allocated to the military
industrial complex. I am familiar with the programme to develop high-speed transport; in
particular, I travelled the Moscow-Kazan route. There are plans to intensify development
of the Northern Sea Route, and to create innovation centres. Before you were elected,
you published a whole set of fundamental articles.

Is there a synthetic, integral project, a large project, a Russia project underway, or are
all these just symptoms of such a project, and the project is being assembled part by
part?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia is not a project it is a destiny. You know, its life.

Of course, we have plans for development. We have a development plan through to

2020; there are plans for developing the Armed Forces and they are very intense; we
have plans for developing infrastructure. We have agreed not to touch our reserves, and
the reserves are quite significant. We talked about the Central Bank reserves, but we
also have two reserves accumulated by the Government: the National Welfare Fund,
and the Reserve Fund.

I believe the first already contains $89 billion, and the second also has around $90
billion. We agreed that after reaching a certain reserve fund level, we will carefully allow
ourselves to begin investing in developing infrastructure. This gave birth to the project of
high-speed railways, in this case, to Kazan. In the first stage, we are going to organise
survey works, and then, of course, we will build it.

It is imperative to conduct a great deal of work to develop infrastructure. We know how

underdeveloped the infrastructure is in the Far East, in Eastern Siberia all this needs
to be done. At the same time, Alexei Kudrin and I have often argued: of course, we
need to have a fundamental backbone, of course, we are striving for these projects to
pay for themselves. We know that there are not that many efficient projects in the world.
Try to make some kind of road-building project in the Far East pay for itself entirely. You
know this, as an expert, right?

They immediately count the amount of traffic that will use this road and look into the
opportunity to utilise it as a toll highway, but according to the law, it can be a toll road
only if there is a parallel route, which there isnt. And it will not pay for itself in the next
few years. So what then, should we stop building roads at all? Then Russia would not
have a highway connecting the eastern and western parts of the nation. We only
completed one recently.

So I feel that we ultimately need to invest money in it, even if during the first stage the
first stage! it does not really bring quick returns. We should include funding from the
reserves, but carefully, so that we maintain a safety cushion.
The same is true of the Armed Forces. We do not have a militaristic budget. Ours is a
necessary budget; it is large, but we could never compare it with, say, the United
States. You are familiar with the figures. If we take all the military budgets of all the
nations in the world, they would add up to less than what the US spends on its military
needs. So our budget is very modest. We just have some equipment reaching
retirement age, figuratively speaking, our main combat systems: rocket technology,
planes, aviation equipment. One way or another, we simply need to replace them; they
are becoming outdated.

And, of course, if we replace them, we should replace them with modern, promising
models. We have plans in this domain as well. Now we must adjust them based on
budgetary feasibility and the capabilities of the industry itself. This is a natural process,
its normal. There is nothing remarkable about this. We will not make any sudden cuts.
As the experts say, we will move a few things slightly to the right. But, of course, we will
certainly do all these things.

But this is not a project. This is destiny. It is our destiny. It is our Fatherland, our nation.
We must develop it and we will do this for ourselves and future generations. I feel that
Russia has a great, powerful future, and that this is a very promising nation.

I have already recounted my first meeting with Chancellor Kohl several times. For me, it
was entirely unexpected I already said this but I will say it again because this
conversation had a very deep impact on me. When we were in Bonn, suddenly,
unexpectedly for me as a former Soviet intelligence officer, he began to say, Europe
does not have a future without Russia. And he began to lay out his reasoning. He is a
historian by training, and he began to develop this idea intelligently, calmly, without any
posturing.

You know, something changed in my mind. I understood that there are people in the
world, in Europe, who genuinely believe this. Unfortunately, in terms of practical policy,
it doesnt always work. But people like Kohl are always ahead of todays practical
politicians; compared to others, they are looking somewhat ahead. I think that we will
also gain some understanding, the Europeans will ultimately reach this insight, and we
will find common ground on issues more quickly. But Russia has a great future.

GERHARD MANGOTT: Mr President, my name is Gerhard Mangott, Im from Austria.

Im a professor of international relations at the University of Innsbruck.

Two brief questions. One on Syria: lets assume and hope that the permanent five
members of the Security Council find a consensus on the text of a new resolution. What
happens, however, if the Syrian government does not abide by its obligations? Your
foreign ministry has said yesterday that in such a case, the Security Council will get
seized of the matter again. Can you, as the Russian President, in such a case, think of
Russia supporting Article 42 measures?
And the second point I want to raise: I really admire the diversity of your country. Its a
great country. But of course, with a lot of diversity, you get a lot of contradiction of
values. And that requires respect among the people. Respect by the minorities for the
majority, but also respect by the majority for the minorities. And I personally would like
you to endorse the idea of the beauty of love, regardless of its expression and its form,
spread over all your country, without any harassment, without anyone having to fear to
get beaten or killed.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Lets begin with the second part of your question. We do not have
any harassment on a sexual basis. Russia does not have any laws punishing sexual
minorities for their for their what?

REPLY: For their orientation.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: For their orientation, right. So there is nothing to worry about here.

We have passed a law that forbids propaganda to minors. But I will tell you again: there
is a serious population problem in your nation, in all European nations and in Russia a
demographic problem. The birth rates are low, the Europeans are dying out; do you
understand that or not? Same-sex marriages do not produce children. Do you want to
survive on account of immigrants? You dont like immigrants either, because society
cannot take in such a large number of immigrants. Your choice is the same as in many
other nations: recognising same-sex marriages, the right to adopt, and so on. But allow
us to make our own choice, as we see fit for our own nation.

As for rights, I will repeat again: we are not limiting our sexual minorities rights in any
way. There are no limitations, we do not have laws limiting them in anything at all: at
work, or in other areas of activity. I have already said many times, I communicate with
these people, I present state awards to them, medals and so on, if they have earned
them by carrying out their work in the arts, at enterprises, and so on. This is normal in
our political practice. Lets not make baseless charges. These are unnecessary fears.

Some nations, by the way, still criminalise homosexuality; for example, it is still illegal in
some US states. And the Supreme Court is against this, it feels it is unconstitutional, but
has been unable to abolish it. But this exists, you understand? Why does everyone like
to put so much stress on Russia? Lets not make false accusations, there is nothing
frightening here.

Concerning Syria. You see, I feel it is wrong to talk now about what we will do if the
Syrian government does not fulfil its promises. They have already acceded to the
Chemical Weapons Convention and we currently do not have any grounds to believe
they will fail to fulfil the obligations they have taken upon themselves. If they dont, we
will look into it. But it is too early to discuss this.

I want to thank you all for our work together. I want to say I began by saying this, but I
want to say it again we are very pleased that there are many people in the world who
are interested in Russia and who have made studying Russia their profession. It is
pleasant and we recognise that it is very important. Your considerate assessments and
your critical view of Russias reality are important to us.

This will certainly help us develop our national policy; an outside perspective is always
important. And it will help us build relations with the nations you represent, because it
gives us a better understanding of the ideas guiding a particular nation in general and
with regard to Russia. This is very important and useful work. Thank you very much for
doing it and for finding the time to come to the Valdai Discussion Club.

Thank you.

September 19, 2013, 19:45Novgorod Region

Tags: foreign policy

News map: in the Russian regions / in the world

Add to blog

Direct link
Livejournal
Facebook
Twitter
Other services

Add Bookmark
E-mail
Subscribe
Print version

Send

Advanced search

News

APEC Economic Leaders Meetings November 11, 2014, 11:35

Vladimir Putin had brief meetings with a number of foreign leaders November 11,
2014, 10:30
Meeting with IMF Head Christine Lagarde November 10, 2014, 19:00
First day of APEC summit completed its work November 10, 2014, 16:00
Meeting with Prime Minister of Malaysia Najib Razak November 10, 2014, 14:00
Meeting with President of Indonesia Joko Widodo November 10, 2014, 13:00
All news

Home News Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club