Official website of the President of Russia

Transcripts   /

Question: We have come here as Russia’s friends and of course we have many questions that are important to us. The central question is no doubt about your visit to Finland. We would like to hear from you about the upcoming visit, but we are even more interested to know your attitude towards Finland irrespective of this visit.

Vladimir Putin: The Finnish President and I agreed on my visit a long time ago and I am very pleased that these plans will shortly come true because, frankly, I have special and very warm feelings for Finland. This is not only because I have lived next door to Finland for many years, having been born in St Petersburg, but also because I was involved in Finnish-Russian relations for a long time with my work.

In Soviet times about 60% of Finnish goods were sold on the Soviet market. Today according to our rough but realistic estimate, about 50% of Finnish businesses are in one way or another linked with the Russian economy. During the past year, we have accomplished a great deal together. We have increased our mutual trade by 49%. From my data, Russia accounts for 7% of Finland’s trade. That is a lot. The figure for Germany, I think, is 12–13%.

Finnish businessmen know Russia well. We know that the Finns are highly reliable partners. Good knowledge of each other, the Finns’ experience of working in a market economy and a shared vision – all these are good prerequisites for broader contacts.

But there is something else that is very important and underlies this state of affairs. It was created by the previous generations of political leaders of Finland and Russia, in fact, of the former Soviet Union. I would describe this situation as a high level of mutual trust. That is very important. It created a very solid base, and we must be careful to preserve it.

Question: Do you have any wishes regarding Finland?

Vladimir Putin: I would refrain from expressing any wishes. I think that would be impolite, but I can make a suggestion.

As you know, we have the lowest income tax in Europe, a flat 13% regardless of the size of personal income. In Finland it is as high as 60%. We have just set a company profit tax at 24%, also one of the lowest in Europe. In Finland, the tax is over 40%. That is a good reason for locating production facilities in Russia.

I am aware that some Finnish businesses suffered as a result of the 1998 crisis. We remember that and are exerting the necessary efforts to prevent the same thing from happening again. And I should say that all our actions are geared to making Russia safe for investment, both Russian and foreign.

Question: How do you see Russian relations with the European Union? What is your assessment of the Northern Dimension and its potential for promoting cooperation?

Vladimir Putin: Russia is a European country and the European track of our foreign policy is a priority.

After World War II and the emergence of blocs, as a result of the Cold War, Russia suffered more than any other country from the division of Europe, from isolation. We have learnt these lessons well and of course all our actions today and in the future will be aimed at preventing any dividing lines from appearing in Europe.

As for the Northern Dimension, we support that Finnish initiative and think it is very sound. But I think we could do more together to invest it with substance in terms of developing specific projects and attracting capital.

We have been discussing the Northern Dimension for several years. All the right words have been said, but I think we should act more vigorously. Both Finland and Russia are interested in it. You know as well as I do what bureaucracy is like, not only in Russia, but also in Europe.

Question: Mr President, based on their historical experiences, the Baltic countries have set themselves the goal of joining NATO. Why does Russia have such a hard time coming to terms with that?

Vladimir Putin: NATO was born as a response to the Soviet threat. The Soviet Union no longer exists and there is no threat. We do not believe there is any objective reason for NATO expansion. In our opinion, it would make more sense to create a single security framework in Europe that would not establish new dividing lines.

What problems does NATO address? Against whom does it protect its members? The real threat today is terrorism, the spread of narcotics, organised crime and the illegal arms trade. These are the real threats, and we should fight them together. I repeat, we should create a single security framework that is equal for all the European countries. Only then will the main prerequisite for the development of the European continent as a centre of world power be in place, and that is trust.

Question: To create a single security framework, the exchange of opinions and debate is necessary. That in turn implies greater trust between Russia and its neighbours. I mean the Baltic States in this case. Is anything happening in that area?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. I think the biggest mistake would be to present claims to each other rather than conducting a dialogue.

I am very pleased with my meeting with the leader of Lithuania. I also had a very positive dialogue with the President of Latvia. When you start talking, you come to understand the real problems of your partners; you get better insight and understand possible ways of solving these problems. And you realise that the people who are interested in = the development of relations between states outnumber those who oppose it.

For Russians in the Baltic countries, we want nothing more than common European standards in the sphere of human rights. The Scandinavian countries set a good example, and Finland is a prime example for the use of ethnic minority languages.

So, if you think about what is happening in southern Europe, for example, in Macedonia, we see how acute these issues are. I think we should work together to come up with common European standards. There should not be different standards for southern Europe, for northern or eastern or western Europe if we are talking about a single Europe.

If a Muslim population of 20% demand proportional representation in the government, including in the police force, if they want the language of a minority to be recognised as the official language, and these demands have broad support in Europe, why is it that the Russian-speaking population in some Baltic countries has no right to present the same claims? What’s wrong with them? In Latvia, I think 30% of the population are ethnic Russians. And it is the same in Estonia. I don’t remember the exact figure, but it is a high percentage.

I am not saying that it is wrong when I talk about Macedonia. I am not making any value judgments. I merely say that there must be a common European standard. No one should advance exorbitant claims or create problems, and the government bodies, the authorities of European countries should have these common standards to guide them.

And another thing regarding the Baltic countries. Unfortunately, anti-Russian rhetoric still runs high. I think it would be counterproductive if once the Baltic countries join Europe, it finds its way into European institutions. Some day it must be stopped and constructive dialogue must be initiated.

Question: If I understand you correctly, solving the problems of the Russian minority in the Baltic states would greatly improve the relations between Russia and the Baltic states. Although I fully share your point about the need for uniform standards, the culture, history and living standards in countries differ so much that it will be a long time before such uniform standards can be applied.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but if we do nothing to introduce these standards, they will never be applied. Everybody will use the differences of culture and living standards and so on as an excuse. I find it hard to disagree with you, of course all this has to be kept in mind, but international law is usually not binding; it offers recommendations, and works out and proposes the principles for solving problems.

As for the position of Russian speakers in the Baltic countries, I would like to comment on that. I don’t want to turn it into an issue that impedes the development of inter-state relations because that would be bad even for the Russians who live in the Baltic countries. We will join forces with reasonable politicians in the Baltic countries who genuinely want to promote contacts with us.

We are aware of our inter-dependence in the economic sphere, above all in the transport sphere. Of course we are building a port in Primorsk, in Ust-Luga, and we can build a lot of other ports and become less dependent on the port infrastructure of the Baltic countries, but we have not set that goal for ourselves. We want our relations with the Baltic countries to be natural and mutually beneficial. We will not proceed from a position of strength or seek to create economic difficulties for them. No, we believe that if we engage in a normal dialogue, we will stand to gain from being part of the European division of labour, provided we structure our joint work correctly.

Question: Mr President, George W. Bush has been the President of the United States for six months now. You have met with him, for example, in Slovenia. What conclusions have you drawn about him and about the Bush Administration’s policy? And what do these conclusions spell for the future of Russian-American relations?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, the President of the United States is an important political leader. Of course he must proceed from the current international realities and from the economic situation in his country. In my opinion, he is a constructive and meaningful partner for dialogue and in tackling the most serious issues.

At the same time, we know the adage that “the king is played by his retinue”. Of course, he has the final word, but we have a feeling that his team has yet to make up their minds about some priorities. Once that is done and options for solving the issues of strategic stability and some other issues are presented to us, our dialogue will assume a substantive character. But the mere fact that we have agreed to hold consultations on all these complicated issues is a positive sign. And the very fact that it was Mr Bush who declared that he will not see Russia as an adversary or an enemy is important grounds for us to believe that this is the man with whom you can engage in a dialogue and come to an agreement, despite his tough stand on some issues.

Question: Some recent developments, notably the takeover of the NTV channel by Gazprom, have prompted speculation that the freedom of the press in Russia is shrinking. What do you think about these recent events?

Vladimir Putin: Major changes, indeed, historic changes in the former USSR became possible only because the boundaries of the information community expanded. So, the existence of a free press and its development is without any doubt a prerequisite for the preservation of democracy and freedom. It is a necessary condition.

And supporting the press, a free press, is one of our undoubted priorities. However, the press can only be genuinely free if it has its own economic basis. Corresponding economic conditions must be created for that.

However, if certain media outlets cater exclusively to the interests of individual oligarchs who have made their fortunes mysteriously or, let us face it, in semi-criminal ways, that has nothing to do with the freedom of the press. That has everything to do with the protection of their own economic interests.

As for the takeover of NTV by Gazprom, it’s very simple. The former owner of NTV incurred loans of over $1 billion dollars, about $1.2 billion. And he got the lion’s share of these loans either directly from Gazprom or against Gazprom’s guarantees, about half a billion, and he hasn’t paid back any of that money. By the way, the next instalment, in the amount of $200 million, is due. And the former owner has been running a criminal and unlawful system of paying some of his journalists. They received money in envelopes bypassing current legislation and evading taxes. Some members of the staff were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

This and the credit history are being investigated by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia. It has nothing to do with the freedom of expression. We will not allow anyone to blackmail us through the media or by other means, we will protect the interests of the state.

Question: Mr President, you once said that you regard Ludwig Erhard, a German, and Charles de Gaulle, a Frenchman, as model leaders. Have you perhaps changed your views? Perhaps Peter the Great is more relevant to Russia?

Vladimir Putin: You know, apart from Peter the Great, Russia had other outstanding leaders who did a great deal for the Russian state: for example, Catherine the Great and Stolypin. Europe too has many other outstanding figures who made great contributions to the development of their countries on the European continent, in addition to Erhard and de Gaulle. I think making an icon of anyone is a very dangerous thing, but we remember and will ever remember outstanding Russians. Of course we look at what they did and how they did it, but we are making adjustments for the requirements of the present day.

Our goal is to make Russia an effective modern state in the full sense of the word, a reliable and effective partner whose existence and development supports the European civilisation and creates conditions for a worthy life for its own citizens.

Question: Europe is worried about relations between Russia and the United States. It was once said that if Russia, or rather the Soviet Union, and the US were to build a bridge between them, Europe would be reduced to watching from the sidelines. This evening you have repeatedly stressed Russia’s wish to cooperate with Europe. I see a fundamental contradiction there.

Vladimir Putin: Where is the fundamental contradiction?

Question: If Russia and the United States build a bridge between them, as rumour has it, it would weaken the position of Europe.

Vladimir Putin: I don’t think so. You have said that Europe is somewhat worried about the relations between Russia and the US. I would like to reassure you. Russia will on no account do anything to complicate the international situation. Russia itself has changed dramatically and we stand nothing to gain from a complicated international situation. Russia’s main foreign policy goal is to create a situation around our country that will help us to solve our internal economic and political problems. And that means stability in the world, friendly relations with our neighbours and our main partners, who of course include the US.

Look at our foreign policy steps, especially in the security sphere. We have acceded to all the international obligations. We had for a long time been under pressure to ratify the START II. We have done so, but not our American partners. Today we say: “Weapons of mass destruction must not be placed in space”. There are currently no weapons of mass destruction there and no one should take that first and very dangerous step. We shall see how our American partners will respond.

We do not have the kind of computers that model nuclear explosions like the Americans have, and yet we have renounced nuclear tests. We do not intend to carry out nuclear explosions, at least as long as our partners, especially the Americans, do not. We have proposed to cut offensive weapons to 1,500 warheads, but let me stress that it only makes sense if confidence measures and verification on both sides are preserved; if it is impossible to reverse the situation. That is, one can remove a warhead and store it nearby and put it back at any moment. That should not happen.

We have not violated any of our obligations. We are satisfied with everything. We are told that some treaties such as the 1972 ABM Treaty are obsolete. But we are not saying it, they tell us this. We do not agree that the treaty is obsolete. Nevertheless we display good will and we are ready to negotiate.

Of course one can imagine an extreme approach, a very tough approach to any negotiations on the premise that America is so strong that it does not need any negotiations or any treaties. Well, in that case we can only shrug our shoulders, but even in that case we are not going to become hysterical.

I would like to stress that this is not so much about us, but about the international security framework. That needs to be understood, because we have enough missiles to guarantee our security for decades ahead; but I am absolutely convinced that for the international community and for Europe it is important that this sphere be transparent and understandable. Everybody must know what is happening in this sphere to feel more secure.

Question: Mr President, when you became Prime Minister two years ago one of your first objectives was the settlement of the situation in Chechnya. To what extent have you succeeded in doing that?

Vladimir Putin: I think that by now all the objectives set at that time have been achieved, not that I expected it to be otherwise. Everything that has happened and the current state of affairs was expected.

You know that Chechnya had turned into a criminal enclave because it came to be run by people who have nothing to do with the interests of the Chechens. Large militia groups have been eliminated, and social and economic reconstruction of the republic is starting. We cannot and will not press ahead until we have stamped out organised crime because it makes no sense to restore what will be destroyed tomorrow. Nevertheless the process has started and these efforts will be intensified.

I have said this on more than one occasion, but I would like to recap some of the basic things for the benefit of your readers. As we know, in 1996 Russia, while not officially recognising the independence of Chechnya, in fact granted it full independence. All the troops had been removed from Chechnya, all the government and administrative bodies, the police, the law courts and the prosecutor’s office had been dismantled. Their staff left Chechnya. The only thing Russia did in the period between 1996 and 1999 was to regularly send large sums of money to finance pensions in Chechnya. True, not a single rouble reached the pensioners. As the prosecutor’s office later found out, all the money, down to the last rouble, had been stolen.

Russia left a power vacuum in Chechnya, a political and ideological vacuum that was instantly filled by fundamentalists from some Muslim countries. The whole territory of the republic had been divided into pieces run by warlords. The economy and the social sphere were totally destroyed. The only source of livelihood was plundering neighbouring Russian territories and crime. Chechnya became a base for a criminal invasion of the Russian economy, drug trafficking, the production of narcotics and kidnapping.

Because Russia was afflicted by an ugly syndrome after the events of 1996, it did not react to these crimes in any way. All that of course encouraged and radicalised the ambitions of those who ran that territory, and in the summer of 1999 launched a large-scale attack on the neighbouring Republic of Dagestan under the slogan of severing more territories from Russia and creating a Muslim Caliphate from the Black to the Caspian Sea, the United Islamic States.

But the attackers had miscalculated because Muslims in Dagestan did not support them. In fact they took up arms and organised resistance. It became clear to us that these people – though their ideologists are abroad, many mercenaries from some Muslim countries are still fighting in Chechnya – that they would not leave us alone.

The important thing for us is to prevent that territory being used as a base for attacking Russia and destabilising it from within. Russia has experienced it before and will not be treated in this way again.

Many Chechens today support us. That is why the terrorists more and more often kill their own compatriots, especially those who collaborate or seek to become free.

To be sure, political issues can only be solved by political means. And we will move in that direction as the situation matures. Ultimately we should hold elections there, elect the head of the republic and parliament. I hope it will happen in the not too distant future.

We have just taken a decision and turned over municipal property to the republic in accordance with Russian laws, including schools, hospitals and other social amenities. We have disbursed funds for their restoration, maintenance and development. We will continue to involve the local population in government. We will transfer the levers of administration to the local people because the problem of Chechnya cannot be solved without Chechens.