The putin interviews, p.17
The Putin Interviews, page 17
VP: Yes.
OS: So that’s important to the concept of this day, May 9th.
VP: Yes, absolutely. In our country, serving in the army has always been received as a responsibility and duty, but also as a sacred right. As the authority of the Russian armed forces is growing, the number of those who want to serve in the army, who want to be trained in military institutions and universities has grown as well.
OS: What is the state of the Pacific forces?
VP: To a large extent, we have increased the number of our forces stationed there.
OS: Increased? Why?
VP: We have increased the number of our military as a whole. Our target is 1 million new who will serve. Right now we have 1.2 million people serving. But we have reduced to a large extent the numbers stationed in the Russian Far East. Given the size of Russia—Russia is still the largest country in the world—we need an armed force that is able to guarantee our security at any point all across Russia, and we are trying to do that, to achieve that. That is why we’re going to develop a network of our airports and our airbases—to increase the ability of our armed forces to deploy rapidly when necessary. We’re also going to develop transport, aviation—that’s what we’re doing right now—and also our naval fleet.
OS: What do NATO and the US think of these exercises today?
VP: I think you’ll have to ask them. I can say what I think about what they are doing. What are they doing? Last year they carried out at least 70 exercises within the close proximity of Russian borders, and that certainly draws our attention. And that means that we have to respond in some way. Last year we adopted a new national security strategy. There are no revolutionary themes. This is a document which is designed to help us build a security system. But our main task is not about confrontation or intimidation. This is about building conditions for co-operation on security in the areas which we believe are the most challenging, the most menacing to us and to our neighbors.
You asked about NATO and unfortunately it was not our initiative that back in 2014, NATO cut off all contact with us in the framework of the Russia-NATO council.135 And within the previous months, we’ve heard it said often that Russia was responsible for that, but we are not. We didn’t want to cut this contact and we’re not the initiators of that. And just recently, at NATO’s initiative, we had first contacts—I think it was at the level of ambassadors—and we have to follow up on that. We have to seek common ground, there are many conflicts, many challenges that we can rise up to together.
OS: Someone told me that two days ago there was some US training going on in Georgia—the US were training troops, I’m not sure what kind—were they NATO troops?
VP: Yes, that’s possible. Because on our borders, either there or in some other place, we’re always witnessing some intensification of military activity. I spoke in public about these matters and I also talked about that directly to my counterparts, and that is why I can tell you exactly what my attitude is to what NATO is doing. I think that NATO is a rudimentary organism left to us from the Cold War period. NATO was set up when there was a confrontation between the Eastern Bloc and the Western Bloc. And right now the Warsaw Treaty has faded into oblivion--there is no Soviet Union, no Eastern Bloc.136 And the question begs itself—why does NATO exist? And right now I have the impression that in order to justify their existence, NATO is in constant search of an external foe. And that is why there are some provocations to name someone as an adversary. [As I’ve told you before,] I remember in one of my last meetings with President Clinton. I told him that I didn’t rule out the possibility of Russia joining NATO and Clinton said, “Why not!” But the delegation of the United States was very nervous. Why? Because they need an external foe, and if Russia were to join NATO, then there would be no external foe and no reason for NATO to exist.
OS: Have you applied?
VP: Let me explain to you why the American delegation was so nervous about the possibility of Russia joining NATO. First, if that happened, then Russia would have a vote, and have to be taken into account when a decision was made. Apart from that, the very point of the existence of NATO would simply disappear.
OS: Can you join NATO and keep an independent force?
VP: Certainly. Right now the armed forces of NATO countries are not entirely integrated.
OS: It would be a good public relations coup for Russia to announce that it has applied for NATO membership.
VP: Our American friends would not even consider that. I think that in the current world, the current status quo, we have to follow a different path. We have to leave behind the Bloc versus Bloc mentality. We shouldn’t go about building up new blocs—the Eastern Bloc, the Western Bloc, NATO, the Warsaw Treaty organization. Security should be based on an international basis and also on equal footing
OS: So tell me—I mean, all these incidents like in Georgia where the US troops were there training advisors … Do you hear about them?
VP: Certainly we’re aware of what’s going on. So a certain country is demonstrating that they’re supporting a neighboring country of ours. But in order to build conditions favorable to establishing security, we need something else—not what’s going on right now. We do not need military exercises, we need to build up an atmosphere of trust. Just an example—Mr. Saakashvili, who incidentally has shamelessly renounced his nationality—right now he’s governor of Odessa137—which in my view is absolutely absurd. But he decided to take a chance and act opportunely and he attacked. He should’ve been dissuaded from taking this step. On many occasions, on the whole, we had a normal relationship back when he was president. On many occasions I told him that I understood how difficult it was to rebuild relations, but I told him that he had to have patience and that he should never take this terrible step of escalating the situation into a military conflict. And he responded, “yes”—he understood that, and said he would never take this step, and yet he did. When the United States talked about that a hundred times and I told them that we had to prevent a military conflict, and that we also had to rectify the situation and also rebuild relations. But they didn’t listen to us and what happened, happened. And we had to respond, because one of the first actions they took was to kill our peacekeepers from our peacekeeping battalion,138 and that’s why we had to react. If this had not happened, then we wouldn’t need any provocations or military exercises at all.
OS: Where is most of the activity? Are most of Russia’s defense/security forces in the north or the south?
VP: We have more or less equal distribution of armed forces all across Russia.
OS: Except in the Russian Far East.
VP: Yes, a little bit less in the Russian Far East, but right now it’s not really that important where they are stationed, because the modern weaponry doesn’t need military on the front lines. It’s not really important where, during peacetime, military forces are located and stationed. What’s important is the means of waging war—how defensive and offensive capabilities are employed, how the military responds. We’re even going to implement a new reform of stationing our armed forces so as to create more favorable conditions—not just for the military, but also the members of their families—so that their children could go to school on a normal basis, so that they live in civilized conditions.
ON SYRIA AND UKRAINE
OS: Quick updates on Syria and Ukraine—I’m talking about security on the borders of Russia. I was very impressed with the classical music symphony in Palmyra,139 but can you give me a quick update on Syria as it concerns Russian security and Ukraine?
VP: As far as Ukraine is concerned, I think you know what is going on. They have this crisis which, in a slackened form, is still going on. I think that the most important component of the Minsk Agreement140 is the political settlement, but regrettably it is up to the Kiev authorities to implement this part of the agreement, and so far they are not doing that. They should have amended the Constitution in accordance with the Minsk Agreement, and that should have been done before the end of 2015. But they didn’t do that. They were supposed to pass a bill, a law on amnesty. This law was adopted by the parliament, but it was not signed by the president, nor has it entered into force yet. There is another law that should be adopted and that should enter into force—that is the law on the special status of these unrecognized republics. The current Ukrainian leadership says the following: they say that since, at the line of conflict, there are still clashes, there is still violence, then they say the conditions are not yet in place to implement this political settlement. But in my view, this is only a hollow pretext because you can easily create a clash somewhere at the line of contact and then this is going to go on ad infinitum. The most important thing right now is to achieve a political settlement. Then there is a second course which explains why this is being done according to the Ukrainian counterparts. The Ukrainian leadership insisting that the Russian-Ukrainian border where the unrecognized republics are located, should be closed. And indeed the Minsk Agreements presuppose the closing of the Russian border by the Ukrainian frontier offices, but only after the key political decisions have been taken.
But until these political decisions have been taken and implemented, until people are safe in those unrecognized republics, the closing of the border will only mean one thing—that they are going to be encircled and later eliminated. We talked about that during the long night when we hammered out the Minsk agreements. We talked about that in great detail. And our Ukrainian counterparts first agreed to that, but right now they seem as if they do not understand what is going on. Right now we support a proposal set forth by President Poroshenko to reinforce the observer contingent on the line of contact. He is the one who initiated this proposal and I have supported it. Moreover, he suggested that the OSC observers should be equipped with arms and we support that as well. The problem is further aggravated by the fact that the economic and internal political situation in Ukraine has deteriorated dramatically. And right now, some of our partners—I’m not going to name them—are saying that the Ukrainian president is not capable of making these political decisions due to the difficult internal political situation in Ukraine. And a year ago, I suggested that President Poroshenko should hold early elections and thereby reinforce his position, so that, even though we had differences, he would be able to push through all the required political decisions. But back then, our American friends, our European friends told us that the prime minister—back then it was Mr. Yatsenyuk and President Poroshenko had to pull their efforts together, they had to work together and we know how it ended141—by a split up in the government and a very difficult political situation. And right now when I remind our partners of that, they simply shrug their shoulders. The question is, how does Russia fit into all this. And the United States and Europe keep coming up with new accusations, trying to accuse Russia of something new because they cannot publicly admit that they’ve made mistakes. That’s why they choose to blame Russia. We have quite a famous poet who wrote fables—his name was Krylov—and one of these fables features a dialogue between a wolf and a lamb. In this dialogue with the wolf, the lamb is trying to justify himself, saying that he is not to blame for anything. And once the wolf has run out of arguments, he decides to put an end to this discussion. And he says, “Dear lamb, you are only to blame because I am hungry.” [laughter]
OS: If this happens—you used the word “eliminated” I believe—what’s the worst-case? I mean, how many Russian-Ukrainians would be at risk?
VP: It’s not about the leadership of those unrecognized republics. You see, it’s that everyone who lives in those unrecognized republics—there are about three million citizens there—they participated in the election campaign, they took to the polls, and that’s why—in the absence of a law on amnesty—they can all be persecuted as separatists.
OS: Three million people at the great risk. So it could turn into another situation like in Serbia, Bosnia?
VP: Certainly, that’s what it looks like. We remember the tragedy of what took place in Odessa. More than 40 people—innocent, unarmed—were encircled and burned to death. And those who tried to get away were beaten to death with iron rods. And who was responsible? People adhering to extreme, radical views and such people can enter the territory of these republics and do the same thing there. When I talk about this issue with some of my Western partners, when I’m telling them that mass infringements of human rights can be transpiring there, do you know what they tell me? They tell me that these people have to go to human rights organizations to seek protection. They have to ask for help—different international organizations. Think of what took place at the trade union building in Odessa and ask yourself who is going to apply to an international organization after the massacre that took place there?
OS: I can’t imagine Russia standing by and watching that happen.
VP: Not in the least—certainly not. We are going to help, but we cannot do so unilaterally. Because the key decisions are to be taken by the Kiev authorities.
You asked about Syria—despite all of the military achievements we are witnessing there, the most important thing that has to be done in Syria is a political settlement. We have made a contribution. Through our actions we have reinforced the government institutions. And we have dealt a great deal of damage to the international terrorists, but let us bear in mind, [as I’ve said before], that ISIS comprises militants from 80 different countries. And let me tell you that ISIS is not just laying claim to Syria or to Iran, they are also laying their claim to Libya and other territories up to Medea, Mecca, and Israel. Certainly we’ve done a great deal of damage to these organizations [ISIS]. But Syria’s problems do not simply stem from international terrorism, they also suffer from internal political difficulties and they have to be settled politically by engagement with the opposition. In our view President Assad is willing to engage in such a dialogue. But what is necessary is that the other side is also willing to do that. We often hear it said that President Assad has to go, but when we ask, “What comes next?” no one is able to respond. There is no answer to that. So I believe that the best, most natural and democratic way forward is to adopt a new constitution to which President Assad has agreed. [As I’ve said], this new constitution would be used as a basis for early elections.
OS: It’s sad when you hear … I’m not sure who speaks for America. Obama says one thing and then Kerry says one thing and then Obama says, “Assad must go.” It’s confusing.
VP: Well, now you understand what’s going on in the United States. But the partners are also very difficult to deal with—there are many differences in the region itself. Certainly attempts have to be made to take into consideration the interests of all those who have participated in this process. The most important thing is to ensure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, of the Syrian people, and create conditions for refugees to be able to get back to their homes.
OS: It was a nice thing about Palmyra—what the Russians did in Palmyra.
VP: That was the initiative of Mr. Gergiev, the conductor.
OS: But clearing the landmines by the Russian troops—that was hard work.
VP: Certainly, but other things also had to be done such as securing safe passage to the airport in Palmyra. We also had to create conditions for them to be able to stay there overnight. And also we had to push back as far as possible the terrorists from the city. In certain places, the terrorists were only 25 km from the place where the concert took place. And the musicians could hear the artillery firing. In the sun, the temperature was plus 50-degrees Celsius and their instruments were not playing very well. It took courage and also a great deal of effort.
OS: Can we talk about Sochi for a few minutes? What is your feeling about Sochi personally? Your relationship to the city?
VP: You know, when we were preparing the Olympic project in Sochi, we had in mind turning Sochi into a sort of all-season resort. A resort at the international level. And when we first announced that, there were many who were skeptical, who were saying that this wasn’t possible. The transport infrastructure was not ready, they said, the energy infrastructure neither. The environmental considerations were also cited, the sewage system, there were not enough hotels. I’m not even talking about the sport infrastructure that back then didn’t exist there at all. And right now it is an all-season resort. In the winter you can go skiing and you can stay in a hotel on the coast at the seaside because there is a high-speed railroad connecting the mountain cluster and the seaside. There are two automobile routes and it takes around 20-30 minutes. And indeed Sochi has either turned or is now turning into a very good all-season resort at the international level.
OS: Would you live there, if you get to retire in peace?
VP: No, too hot.
OS: They say Russia spent $51 billion—is that right?
VP: I don’t want to give you the wrong number right now—I’ll tell you later. The question is about where the money went. We have built two gas pipelines—one under the sea and the other one through the mountainside. We have built a power plant and a sub-power plant. We’ve built bridges and tunnels, highways through the mountainside and a railroad circling Sochi, and 40,000 new hotel rooms.
OS: Your critics say that a lot of that money went to your friends—oligarch friends.
VP: [laughter] That’s absurd—it’s nonsense. Everything was decided on the basis of merit. And much of this money went to foreign companies which were contractors and they earned more than 1 billion US dollars. In some places we had international teams building tunnels, we had specialists working with us from Canada.
OS: Your defenders say that $44 billion of the $51 billion went to infrastructure.142
VP: I don’t remember the exact number or the exact figure, but probably that’s the case.
OS: Okay, we’re landing, but in Sochi you must have some kind of movie theater or screening room. I would like to show you at least 20 minutes of the film Dr. Strangelove.
