OREANDA-NEWS. March 02, 2012. “We are pursuing a peaceful policy without any exaggeration or loud words, and we would like to see the world resort to force as little as possible when trying to settle complicated and even controversial international conflicts. (…)

“Our biggest problem today is the economic and financial divide in society and the fact that a large number of people still live below the poverty line. Still, over the past years we have reduced the number of people living below the poverty line by half. I believe that, all in all, this is not a bad result.”
Vladimir Putin
At a meeting with chief editors of leading foreign media outlets

Transcript of the meeting:

Vladimir Putin: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. You have probably heard that a number of articles have been written and published as part of the election campaign in Russia. The last one was published on Monday and is devoted to international issues.

In this regard, I would be glad to answer your questions on the issues covered in this article, or any other questions which you consider to be interesting and which have a bearing on developments in Russia, its economy, the social sphere or domestic policy. I could also answer questions about the election campaign in Russia.

That is all I wanted to say for now. I suggest that we move on to a simple and direct dialogue. Please, let’s get started.

Question: I have been instructed to ask the first question.

I would rather talk about international relations, but since this is the final stage of the election campaign I would like to start with this aspect. I believe that this is an unprecedented election campaign for Russia, very lively. And the first thing I would like to know is whether you were surprised by the protest rallies after the December 5 parliamentary elections, their scale and the way they spread across the country?

Vladimir Putin: There is nothing surprising in that. After all, you are not surprised by the millions of people who joined in the protest actions in the European capitals on how to overcome the crisis. So it is not surprising that now that the crisis is over, people in Russia have cast a fresh look at the performance of the government, the executive authorities, and made an assessment of the State Duma election campaign.

It is not surprising that criticism is directed at the party in power, which has been responsible for developments in the country for a long time. Personally, I am glad that this has happened, because it means that the authorities, including the executive and the legislative branches, have to respond promptly to developments in the country and the mood of the people, so they can meet their expectations. In short, the current situation makes the authorities more sustainable, forcing them to think things through, search for solutions and communicate with society. I think that this is a very good experience for Russia.

Question: I would like to clarify something. I am happy to be here of course, and I think it is an honour, the same as everyone else here probably. At the same time, Prime Minister, a question arises – are you certain you have invited the right people? Shouldn’t you have invited Russians so you could speak with them, have debates with them? Why haven’t you invited them to this table?

Vladimir Putin: I can tell you that, throughout my years of service, and especially during the election campaign – I want to emphasise this – I have consistently visited the Russian regions, almost once every ten days, or once every two weeks on average. I engage in direct dialogue not only with regional and corporate leaders, but also with trade unions and ordinary employees. I even stop to talk with people on the street. Let me emphasise this again – I do this on a permanent basis.

Therefore, I think that it would be logical, after publishing an article on international politics, to meet with those present here today and discuss foreign policy issues with them. However, if you are interested in other issues as well, we can certainly address those too.

By the way, the day before yesterday I made a trip to a region affected by a disaster – a domestic gas explosion in the city of Astrakhan. Part of a block of flats collapsed, killing several people, while others were left homeless.

I considered it imperative for me to go and look around the site of the disaster and meet the victims. I accompanied them to their prospective new homes. We immediately found new housing for them, two new buildings, and will eventually relocate all the residents from the affected building. So I gathered a large group of residents of this 120-flat building, we boarded a bus and drove to the new buildings. I showed them around and discussed some details of moving, including dates and formalities as well as the compensation they are entitled to.

So I would like to assure you that I have always viewed this as one of my strong points: my ongoing dialogue with the people.

Remark: I was referring to people who are not your supporters. As you know, one famous communist said that freedom means freedom for people whose opinion differs from yours.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. But when I rode on that bus with those victims of the disaster the day before yesterday, I didn’t interrogate them about their political preferences. I just thought of them as people who needed help with their situation. That’s what I was doing there, and I will continue doing this regardless of their political views.

So in the election on March 4, people will have to decide whether they like this approach and whether they share this view on the work of the executive authorities. In fact by voting they will be giving their assessment of the government’s performance and that of the other executive agencies. I think that’s the way it should be.

Question: I would like to add something. You say that you have been engaged in a dialogue with the people during the election campaign. At the same time you haven’t joined a single debate with any other candidate running for president. Why is that?

Vladimir Putin: You know – first of all, I have great respect for all of my colleagues, all the presidential candidates. Secondly, I have known them for years. And thirdly, I know their programmes off by heart.

When people spend years in opposition to the government, they naturally a) criticise the government and b) make promises. What they don’t do is give any  thought to the inevitable prospect of having to make good on their promises.

In my articles, which I have already mentioned, I proposed a set of measures for  the economy, education, healthcare, and demographic policies. All of these policies will require investment. Analysts have estimated the potential total spending on what I have proposed to do and have concluded that my programme requires the fourth largest expenditure. But their figures are wrong because I know how much these things really cost. We will use different resources to achieve the desired results, and not just direct injections of government money. Engaging in a debate peppered with populist promises simply isn’t right. That is the third point.

And fourthly, Russian law allows a presidential candidate to be represented in debates by their delegates, so your humble servant has remained a law-abiding candidate. Such debates are also interesting to watch because representatives on both sides are usually competent people perfectly capable of spelling out their candidate’s policies.

Finally, and most importantly: I think that in my position, debates and promises aren’t as important as the results of previous years. This is the criterion that has long been used to evaluate the level of confidence in a candidate like me, who has been leading the state and the government over a long period.

Question: Prime Minister, we have a wonderful opportunity to discuss democracy in Russia with you. All the forecasts show that you will be re-elected. However, you have encountered a powerful opposition movement for the first time.

What do you feel when you see slogans calling United Russia a “party of con artists and thieves?” Could you please give an honest reply?

Vladimir Putin: This is the opposition’s political slogan as part of its struggle against the ruling party.

This is what I would like to say. First of all, the leaders of the current opposition have been in power themselves. They have served as ministers, governors and leaders of parliament. They have held high positions, up to deputy speaker of the State Duma. They have also served as deputy prime ministers. In effect, they have been in power themselves. For instance, many of them oversaw the privatisation process in the regions and across the country. They have passed legislation which is now in force. Of course, the slogan saying that we are “a party of con artists and thieves” is quite scathing. If that is the case, however, then this polite society should encompass everyone, including quite a few members of our implacable opposition.

Some of them have worked and are in fact still working in government bodies, for example as governors in some regions. For instance, Mr Nikita Belykh is governor of the Kirov Region. He represents the Right Cause Party, which has moved almost completely over to the side of the current uncompromising opposition. Those people now holding rallies on our squares and protesting against official actions served as his advisers and deputies. They too bear responsibility for what is happening in the country and in the regions.

The region I mentioned, the Kirov Region, has posted no significant changes for the better. Mr Belykh is not the worst governor. On the contrary, I think that his performance has been quite good. But those people who worked for him and who are now holding debates on various squares, failed to push through any large-scale positive changes in this region in the course of their work. The region faced a lot of problems, and they are all still there. None of the big problems have been solved.

Therefore this slogan is nothing more than a way of launching an attack on the current government. But I repeat once again that members of the opposition are also linked with this government and have been involved with it in the past. And, more to the point, they do not yet offer any really interesting well thought-out measures for how the country should develop, at least not for now.

That is what I think about this.

Question: Do you not think that this exchange of positions between you and President Medvedev amounts to a kind of political oligarchy? Will Mr Medvedev become Russia’s next prime minister?

Vladimir Putin: I am very happy you asked me that. And what about Herr Kohl who served as chancellor of Germany for 16 years? Did he and his entourage constitute an oligarchy? Or the previous prime minister of Canada, the one before last, who served in this position for more than 16 years. Is that normal? That is considered normal. So why is it considered abnormal here if we exercise our rights under the current Constitution and Russian legislation? Why does this cause so many concerns?

If the electorate supports your most humble servant as presidential candidate, then I would consider it possible to offer the post of prime minister to Medvedev. What is so unusual about that?

As I have already said, if the prime minister of the United Kingdom decides to step down as party leader, then he or she automatically resigns as prime minister. The new party leader automatically becomes UK prime minister, without any elections. I would like to stress — this happens without any elections. Is this normal and democratic? Maybe internal party changes are an internal party matter. But if you want to head the government, then let’s ask for another vote of confidence from the electorate. The United Kingdom has not done this. They think that, technically speaking, they are meeting certain democratic standards. Well, that is what the United Kingdom thinks at any rate.

We are not doing this. We are holding elections, and honestly and clearly telling the country that we think that a certain person should run for president. We are also telling all the citizens of Russia in advance, without deceiving anyone, that, if elected, we will offer Mr Medvedev the post of prime minister. Have we deceived anyone? Have we confused the issue? Are there any disagreements? No. We have openly and honestly addressed the voters on this issue, and have given our citizens a chance to decide whether they agree with this proposal or not. What oligarchy are you talking about here?

Remark: And what about Medvedev?

Vladimir Putin: As I have already said, I will offer Mr Medvedev the post of prime minister, if the citizens of this country entrust me with the high position of president.

Remark: Why do you think that you are now better suited to be president than Mr Medvedev?

Vladimir Putin: Why have you decided that I think so? Did I say this? Did I say that I am better suited?

Remark: Well, your actions point to this because you are seeking to become president, and you are not allowing Medvedev to do so.

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean we are not allowing him? President Medvedev and I agreed that one of us would run for president, if our joint work produced positive results, and if the opportunity presented itself, based on the public mood and the opinion polls. President Medvedev has already said this himself.

I will remind you what he said. It became clear in late 2011 that the ratings of your most humble servant were somewhat higher than the ratings of President Medvedev. That is the first point.

And, secondly, as representatives of a single political force, we must pool our efforts in these circumstances and not allow personal interests to get in the way. As representatives of a united political force, we must make a reasonable assessment as to who has the greater chance, who will be trusted more by the citizens of our country, and who has the greater chance of victory and continuing the policy of national development. What is so unusual about that? Moreover, President Medvedev has spoken about this quite openly. Is that not so?

And, thirdly, a proposal to President Medvedev to head the government is, among other things, linked with the fact that he has, in my opinion, initiated a number of positive developments in the economic sphere, in the field of political reforms and the strengthening of democracy in the country. And the reforms he initiated as president, can be implemented by Mr Medvedev as part of the practical work of the government. So my proposal to him does not only mean that I want to stay in power, it also means that I would like to continue these transformations that have been started. I believe this is quite logical, and there is nothing unusual about it.

Question: Prime Minister, my name is John Harding. I represent The Times.

When Mr Blair resigned and was replaced by Mr Brown, we too thought that elections should have been called.

Just two points regarding your decision to run for president. Are you saying that the reason you accepted the nomination was that you were more popular than Mr Medvedev was last summer? I mean, it's not about the fact that you agreed many years ago that you would stand for a third term, is it? I mean, were you simply guided by the fact that your approval ratings were higher? Was it how Mr Medvedev performed as president that made you believe that it would be better for Russia if you took up the post again?

Vladimir Putin: Mr Medvedev and I agreed that one of us might run for president, but we would only do this if we saw that our performance enabled us to stand for election – either me or him.

Late 2011 is neither here nor there. The point is that your humble servant’s rating has been slightly higher throughout these four years. On the whole, there is nothing unusual about this because, as you may know, the number of people living in poverty declined by 50% and earnings went up by 140% during the eight years of my presidency. We put together a country that was falling apart before our very eyes. In effect, we established constitutional order throughout the country and revived the army. By and large, we had – I had – something to prove to the country and the citizens of the Russian Federation.

Aside from that, the government of the Russian Federation was directly responsible for how we would weather the crisis. It was the government that bore direct responsibility for formulating and implementing the measures to help us to deal with the global financial crisis, which hit this country like it did many others. I can say – and this is also the view of the experts – that Russia’s unemployment level was lower at the end of last year than it was before the crisis. We have restored the economy to practically pre-crisis levels. We have done everything we promised to do when the crisis set in.

The population saw a slight drop in earnings, that’s true. But this could not be avoided – we are not magicians. But we minimised the impact of the crisis. We were unable to help every individual citizen, of course, but we did our utmost and got through the crisis with minimal losses. This is also a result of our work – our joint work, to be sure – but, let me repeat it, the government of the Russian Federation bore and is bearing direct responsibility for the activities of the executive branch.

All of that has given us reason to believe that it would be more expedient if none other than your humble servant ran for president. It was our joint, informed and well-considered decision.

Question: Do you not think that considerable progress was achieved during the eight years of your presidency but that the last four years has seen a drop in economic growth rates and a deterioration in Russia’s international standing? Was that the reason you decided to come back and replace Mr Medvedev as president?

Vladimir Putin: No, I don’t think so. I can say even more. You said there has been a drop in growth rates during the last four years. Yes, that is true. Russia has slowed down economically. But what years were these? They were the crisis years, and some of our partners in Europe failed even to come close to Russia’s results.

Moreover, we became stronger, at least structurally, during these crisis years. The average economic indicators for 2011 show that Russia is among the best in the world: its GDP grew by 4.3%, which makes it number three in the world behind China and India. Our industrial production grew by 4.7%, which puts us in fourth place in the world after China, India and Germany.

Our inflation level is still high. But at 6% it is now at the lowest level it has been in the entire history of modern Russia and the lowest in the last 20 years. We have a minimal debt. While the total average debt in the euro zone currently stands at between 90 and 95% and will soon reach 100%, as we said earlier today, ours is at 10%, of which only 2.4% is foreign debt. We also have the world’s third largest gold and hard currency reserves, amounting to more than USD 500 billion.

We have, incidentally, fully restored our gold and hard currency reserves which are now at the same levels as before the crisis. We have two reserve funds: the National Welfare Fund, from which we are funding the pension system, adding more cash if it runs a deficit, and the Government Reserve Fund.

Moreover, not only did we not eat into these funds during the crisis, we have been adding to them for some time, as we did last year. Against this background we have been conducting a balanced macroeconomic policy, receiving additional revenues in 2011. We consumed only 10% of all the additional revenues that came into the budget, while the rest was added to the reserve funds.

There is one other important indicator. There are drawbacks as well. Last year, real earnings grew by only a small margin, and that, naturally, was linked to the crisis. But it was growth nonetheless. Earnings have grown by 1% in real terms, while European countries are cutting pensions and raising the retirement age.

We, by contrast, are not increasing the retirement age. In this country, women retire at 55 years of age, and men at age 60. 30% of pensioners retire ahead of time. We also increased pensions by 45% in one go for everyone in 2010. It's true. You are cutting pensions and we are raising them.

Yet another important factor is demography, which is a pan-European problem.

The demographic situation is affecting all European countries. But just think: despite the crisis, Russia has the highest birth rate in Europe over the last 19 years.

Remark: So what did Mr Medvedev do wrong? Why couldn’t have he been nominated as presidential candidate?

Vladimir Putin: Who said he did anything wrong?

I will repeat for the third time (the translation is clearly not coming across very well): he and I represent the same political force; we arranged that the presidency would be contested by whoever enjoyed the better standing and had the greater chance of winning. We took this decision jointly and in good time, and we put it into practice when it was the right time for us to do so. We agreed it between ourselves, we didn’t mess anyone around or mince our words. We told the people and the country what we were proposing to do in the future. The fact that the opposition has tried to take advantage of the situation, distort our intentions, and show things in a favourable light for themselves is none of our business. We believe we have done the right thing.

Question: Let's get back to the economic situation. I would like to ask you a question. If everything was all right, and Russia has successfully overcome the crisis, pensions have soared by 45% nationwide, and you have set ambitious goals during this campaign – they are far more ambitious than the ones you have already achieved – does this mean that you wish to join the group of five largest economies of the world? You are now in ninth or tenth place. You are slightly ahead of India, which, incidentally, is growing more quickly. But do you think that you will manage to achieve this ambitious goal, to become the fifth largest economy in the world? What needs to be done in order to accomplish this? And what will be the main steps towards attaining this goal?

Vladimir Putin: Most importantly, we must ensure high economic growth rates. The question is how to accomplish this task. We must certainly improve the investment environment and attract investment, including foreign investment. Of course, we still have a lot to accomplish in terms of improving the investment climate. We realise this, we understand that we must make substantial headway.

We have an entire business programme in this area, which we are actually drafting together with the business community. They are directly involved in drafting specific measures that will make it possible to improve the investment environment. We must adjust our tax system so as to create incentives for economic diversification in Russia. This will enable us gradually to relieve our dependence on crude oil and natural gas and to create a more innovative economy.

But I can tell you that our budgetary plans already provide for steady reductions in oil and gas sector revenues, as well as more substantial revenues from the economy's non-commodity sector.

The oil and gas sector now accounts for almost 50% of budgetary revenues. But there are some positive developments as well. Notably, revenues from the non-commodity sector accounted for a larger share of additional revenues last year. On the whole, our efforts are already producing positive results. However, as soon as oil prices start growing, the budget's oil and gas revenues grow accordingly. This is quite natural.

Remark: Government-owned oil companies should be privatised more actively.

Vladimir Putin: As regards privatization, of course, we will not repeat our experience from the 1990s. We will see to it that the state gets real prices for such assets during privatisation. I am well aware of the notion that assets can be sold for any price. Restructuring, rather than fiscal goals and budgetary revenues, is the most important issue during the privatisation because private business companies are always more cost-effective.

In general, I share this viewpoint. But we still don't want to sell state property for next to nothing. Consequently, we will coordinate our steps in the privatisation sphere in line with the real global market situation for those assets that are being offered for sale.

Question: May I interject? We have agreed on the sequence of our questions. Perhaps we should learn how to be more disciplined from you. First of all, we would like to devote this conversation to the political situation and to discuss economic issues later on. After that, if possible, we would like to discuss international and geopolitical issues. Then, perhaps you could tell us more about yourself, as you are the leader of this country. It's quite possible that not everyone has an adequate perception of you as a world leader. Perhaps you would like people to get to know you better.

If you are not opposed, we would like to suggest this procedure for our work.

Vladimir Putin: I'm at your disposal. The sequence of your questions and the topics to be discussed doesn't matter. We can switch from one issue to another and from one topic to another. Let's choose the option that you find most convenient.

Question: I would like to ask a question. You have mentioned Helmut Kohl, who served as Germany's Chancellor for 16 years. Some people say that you will govern the country for 24 years. Do you think this would be normal?

Vladimir Putin: It would be normal if things are going well and the people want this. But if the people don't like it, if things are not going well, if a leader clings on to his position and does not want to relinquish it, and is simultaneously violating the law, then this is not normal. But I don't know whether I want to serve for more than 20 years. I have not yet decided this for myself. We are now talking about electing the president of the Russian Federation for the next six years.

Question: But are you thinking about running for another term? Are you limiting yourself to one term?

Vladimir Putin: I haven't even thought about that yet.

Question: Mr Putin, you are supported in the provinces, in the regions and in rural areas. This represents one part of Russia, but the residents of large cities, the so-called new middle class, seem to be against you and have expressed their protest very actively. How do you plan to communicate with them?

Vladimir Putin: Have you seen the ratings, including in cities?

Remark: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: And you think that the majority of people there are against me?

Remark: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: There are simply fewer supporters there, but they still constitute a majority, if you consult serious surveys.

You said that urban residents are against me. They are not, but the number of my supporters in cities is smaller. This is true. But they still constitute a majority, my supporters, even in large cities. We should be objective, we should see what is, not what we want to see.

Question: You communicate less with these people, with those who represent a new Russia, who are able to modernise the country using new technology, and who have a solid education. In your articles, you write at length about the need to modernise the country, but it is the middle class that is the leading group in terms of modernisation.

How do you plan to address this issue? Is there any discrepancy between this fact and your attitude?

Vladimir Putin: No, there is none, and I think that you are mistaken in saying that I communicate less with certain groups of the population. This is not the case. I thoroughly consider the distribution of my time for communicating with all groups of the population, including with the group that you described as the middle class.

What does this communication consist of, and what form does it take? First, I regularly meet with business associations, including those that unite big and medium-sized businesses. They represent the middle class, which you have mentioned.

I also regularly meet with students, not only in large cities but also in the provinces. I do not agree that these people, and only these people, represent the new Russia – but this is another matter. What about those who live in rural areas? Are they not part of the new Russia?

Do you know that the Soviet Union was an absolute net grain importer, but last year Russia became the world’s third largest net grain exporter, after the United States and Canada? Our export grain potential has reached 28 million tonnes.

Five years ago, we imported 1.6 million tonnes of poultry meat, but the figure was only 150,000 tonnes last year. Our poultry meat production has grown nearly threefold. In other words, major change is underway in our agriculture.

There are still many problems there, a great many problems. But there have also been many changes. In the past few years, we have invested 1.5 trillion roubles in agriculture, where a new middle class is growing. It is another matter that the middle class about which you are speaking has higher demands, including from the authorities. They experience injustice, corruption and arbitrariness on the part of officials more often – this especially concerns small and medium-sized enterprises. I can understand them. Moreover, I share their concerns and complaints. This means that the authorities should respond to their requests, to their demands for the government more actively and more effectively. But we can see this happening.

It is happening not only in the economy but also in politics. By the way, President Medvedev has recently sent a package of proposals to the State Duma on political modernisation, and it was not timed to coincide with the meetings and public action, but rather, was planned beforehand.

So, we see everything and respond appropriately, as I have said.

Question: Mr Prime Minister, I have one more question regarding democracy. It is said that there have been deviations in Russia’s political life during the election campaign. Some fear that you may wish to take stronger action against the opposition following the election. What can you say to this? Do you share these fears?

Vladimir Putin: Fears of what, once again?

Remark: The fear that you might take harsher action against the opposition after the election.

Vladimir Putin: Why should I? On the contrary, President Medvedev has submitted a package of laws to parliament to liberalise our political system, to facilitate the establishment of parties, lower the requirement regarding the number of party members, and so on. The amendments have to do with new elements of the State Duma elections, and they tie party candidates to specific electoral districts. There are also other proposals.

I don’t know where such fears come from, considering that we are acting in the opposite direction. We are not planning anything of that kind. On the contrary, all our proposals are aimed at developing dialogue with everyone, including those who support us and those who criticise us.

Question: What about deviations from voting norms and election violations?

Vladimir Putin: Are you referring to violations during the State Duma election? But we have laws, and all our partners should act within the framework of the law, which stipulates that disputes should be settled in court. Moreover, I am aware of cases in which election results were reviewed in some electoral districts. I don’t know the details because I have not studied this issue closely. But I know that there are such precedents. In other words, some of the complaints have proved to be justified, and the voting results have been reviewed. I think this took place in St Petersburg. I don’t remember the details, but I know that it happened.