Perspective on current Russia

The Saker

February 03, 2020

by Alexey Mineev (Проект Кино telegram in Russian) for the Saker’s blog.

“It is the economy, stupid.” It is the corruption, stupid.

The reason that President Putin just undertook the major government shake-up axing PM Medvedev, his economy handling deputies and the minister, as well as several underperforming ministers, is undoubtedly the government’s failure to invigorate economic growth in last years. The plague of the country’s poverty is only the consequence of the government’s impotence in turning around the prolonged under-par economic growth.

Russia’s business environment has indeed made considerable progress evidenced by the World Bank’s ease of doing business rankings. In 2019 Russia made the 28th place, rising from #124 back in 2010.

Inflation went down from 6+% to lower than the targeted 4% level.

However, surprisingly the real growth did not pick up. Instead, the economy slowed down from longer-term annualized 2% real GDP growth to around 1% level.

Although one might attribute the economy’s underperformance to the Western sanctions, this is hardly the primary reason.

Admittingly, Russia had to pay dearly for the reuniting with Crimea. The Rouble lost 50% of its value at the end of 2014. However, inflation did not spike accordingly. It remained lower than 13% annually in both 2014 and 2015. The explanation is that newly built domestic manufacturing had already been in place, ready to meet the increased demand for the locally produced goods driven by the cutting down on expensive imported ones. Here comes the failure. Instead of building upon the improved ease of doing business and capitalizing on the advantage in the form of weak local currency for local manufacturing, Russia continued growing tepidly – lower than 2% annually.

Besides, the highly touted 26 T RUB. (~0.4 T USD) National Projects program turned out to be just minor if any help to the economy in 2019. The government had developed the six-year plan 2019 – 2024 to meet the economic targets, envisioned by President Putin in his annual address to the Federal Assembly in May 2018. The 2024 objectives are as follows:

  1. Stable population growth (As of December 2019, in 2020-2035 annualized 0.5% decrease as low case and still negative 0.2% for mid case in the Russian population is officially forecasted. The high case is estimated as +0.1% annualized growth);
  2. Increased life expectancy to 78 years from the current 74 years (As of December 2019 for 2024 low, mid, high cases officially are: 47.1, 75.5, 76.8 — still short of the target);
  3. A meaningful increase in real income and pensions (basically, the failure of the 20-year term of President Putin);
  4. Decrease twofold in the poverty level;
  5. Improved housing for 5 million households annually;
  6. Accelerated technological innovation;
  7. Digitalization of the economy and social services;
  8. Making #5 largest world economy and keeping inflation at lower than the 4% level;
  9. Creating the export-oriented sectors in the selected core industries of the economy by ensuring the availability and use of modern technology and top-notch professionals.

2019 was the first year of National Projects. The economy is not picking up.

No wonder, though. Because the federal budget remains flattish in real terms over ten years, indeed, we can hardly talk about any meaningful growth driven by government spending.

To this end, in December 2019, Alexey Kudrin, Head of Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation – government-sponsored auditor of the countrywide finances accountable to the Federal Assembly of Russia, eloquently articulated: “The execution of National Projects is not going to translate to the meeting of the national targets.” This clearly is indicative of a significant disconnect between, on the one hand, the 3+% target real GDP growth and the 25% off the GPD level for capital investments and, on the other, the current level of the budgeted government spending. This disconnect is the real cause of the replacement of the economic block of the Russian Federation government.

The negative slope of IHS’s Purchasing Managers Index (Manufacturing) over the last two years currently diving deep below the 50% level could also evidence the seemingly unreasonably swollen expectation of the effect on the economy from the National Projects effort.

The above discussion of the travails of the Russian economy by no means tells us about any upcoming recession. A lot of factors will likely be shoring up the GDP growth just above the 2% level:

  1. Ongoing infrastructure development countrywide;
  2. Inflation in check, improved access to finance;
  3. Likely improvement of meeting the budget spending targets (a current issue), and the implementation of KPI-based performance accountability for governors;
  4. Ample room for an increase in federal budget spending to meet the additional social measures promised by President Putin in the last address to the Federal Assembly on January-15th 2020;
  5. The expected extra effort to revitalize large-scale corporate investment programs (“the list of Belousov” — in the name of the newly appointed first deputy PM Belousov) through custom-tailored government support.

The above analysis leads up to the conclusion that there must be something more than the purely economic factors that have been in play all-time long, making Russia undergo clearly under-par growth last ten years.

The impotent government had been kicking the can down the road too long, doing little to fight corruption. In the meantime, the elites also grew impotent delivering scarcity of meaningful accomplishments in their homeland to be really proud of but enjoying hundreds of million dollars worth yachts, contently presuming that their money was good enough for the West. The abundance of second citizenship or green card among not only business elites but across all elites, including the top government officers, has become a national threat. However, geopolitics took over in 2014. In West’s books, Russia crossed the red line with the reuniting with Crimea and the military involvement supporting the rebels in Eastern Ukraine. The Russian elites were caught off guard. It is really excruciating now for the government to play a catch-up game wrestling the entrenched corruption.

The January 2020 reshuffling of Russia’s government has a clear economic underlying rationale — to turn around the years-long underperformance of the economy. However, looking forward, the country faces the problem that dwarfs the challenge of the ongoing structural economic revamp, which so far gains little traction with investors and entrepreneurs investments-wise.

It is corruption and the lacking-in of law enforcement that, in the long term, drag the economy down, providing breeding soil for groupthink in government ranks, self-censorship in media, brain drain, and messed up social values rather than just taking away from investments.

One might think that the change of Russia’s tack is part of the 2024 presidential election game. While this is undoubtedly the case, this all is merely part of ongoing Russia’s wakening and finally dealing with the economic policy execution issues.

More importantly, though, it is the end of the government’s impotence. Targeting 3+% GDP growth, the government is in dire need to strike a long-term deal with Russian businesspeople, making them start investing to reach the 25% off GDP target for capital investments. The government is to offer a substantial increase in government spending, effectively guaranteeing the investment returns.

In the way stands Russian-style “business as usual”- embezzlement. It will be dealt with, as this is a must. Yet, this is not enough. The eradication of corruption is the most significant moving part in the longer-term country’s fate-defining question about whether Russia manages to defend its sovereignty or, otherwise, Russia is bound to be subdued by the technologically more developed part of the world.

The New Russian Government

A much needed evolution but not a revolution


The suspense is over and we now know the names of all the members of the new Russian government. You can, for example, take this good summary published by RT.

What is important right now is not only what did happen, but also what did NOT happen. I will begin with two extremely important things which did NOT happen:

First, the Russian government has NOT remained unchanged. The naysayers had predicted that nothing at all would change, that the same folks who be sitting in maybe different seats, but that the changes would be primarily cosmetic. That did not happen. In reality 12 people kept their seats and another 9 were replaced.

Second, this was NOT a total gutting of the Atlantic Integrationist block. Most visibly, Anton Siluanov remained as head of the Finance Ministry. However, Siluanov was demoted from his position as First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia which has now been taken by Andrei Belousov, a huge change indeed. As for Medvedev, he was given a “golden promotion” to the largely technical position as Vice Chairman of the Security Council of Russia.

So what has taken place?

Most Russian observers notice two key things:

First, this is a highly competent, technically skilled, government. Truly, and arguably for the first time, each position in the new cabinet is now occupied by a professional whose expertise is recognized by all.

Second, this is very much a non-ideological government. This is not to say that the social and economic policies of Russia will not change, they will and the new government clearly indicates that, especially with the nominations of Prime Minister Mishustin and his First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov: these are both on record as very much proponents of what is called “state capitalism” in Russia: meaning an economic philosophy in which the states does not stifle private entrepreneurship, but one in which the state is directly and heavily involved in creating the correct economic conditions for the government and private sector to grow. Most crucially, “state capitalism” also subordinates the sole goal of the corporate world (making profits) to the interests of the state and, therefore, to the interests of the people.

In other words, goodbye turbocapitalism à la Atlantic Integrationists!

Russia has now made the fight against poverty a national strategic priority, something which the Russian people had wanted for years and which the previous “economic block” never considered a priority.

Furthermore, the entire Eurasian Sovereignists block of the government has remained unchanged. This indicates two things:

First, the Russian national security and foreign policy will remain unchanged.

Second, the Eurasian Sovereignists have finally weakened the Atlantic Integrationists to such a degree that a Medvedev nicely “boxed in” in the Russian Security Council or a Siluanov “boxed in” in the new Russian government have ceased to represent a serious threat to the future of Russia.

In other words – we can expect the new government to put even much more efforts into the ultimate goal of the full sovereignization of Russia (this goal is also reflected in the new Constitutional changes which will now place Russian national laws above any international treaty or agreements, another longtime goal of the Eurasian Sovereignists).

All I can say here is “finally!!”.

Another important thing which we can note is that Putin decided to work through evolution, not revolution. In fact, he has described this new government as a “balanced” one. There are many, including myself, who would have preferred not to see the names Medvedev and Siluanov again, but there are also many (possibly many more) who seeing these names still present might be reassured that Russia is not about to embark on a radically different political course. Frankly, I think that over the past century Russia has had enough revolutions, wars, big upheavals and terrible tragedies. There IS something to be said for stability and a gradual correction of course.

Furthermore, a new government which appears to have been formed purely on the merit of its individual members can probably generate much more support than a radically ideological one.

Where does all this leave Russia?

I would say that the Eurasian Sovereignists have finally secured their full control over the Russian state and that the demise of the Atlantic Integrationists is now a new fact of life. Since in this new government the only clearly identifiable group besides the Eurasian Sovereignists are the technocrats, this give Russia a much better chance to stand strong and united in the face of an AngloZionist Empire which has now clearly become unpredictable and therefore very dangerous (the murder of Soleimani is the best example of the actions of an Empire which has totally lost any sense of reality).

It is also interesting to note the reaction of the propaganda outlets for the Empire. Here are two of my favorite ones:

* * *

While the western “Russia experts” are usually folks who know close to nothing about Russia and the little they do not, they don’t understand, it is reassuring (and, let’s be honest here, heart warming) to see the impotent rage felt by the defenders of the AngloZionist Empire who clearly have lost control of Russia (in spite of being in TOTAL control of the Russia of the 1990s!).

Finally, the appointment of this new government leaves the Russian opposition – both the “official” parliamentary opposition and the so-called “non-system” opposition – in total disarray: the former only pretends to oppose the policies of the Kremlin while the latter is so terminally discredited that it can’t even make it into the Duma. This lack of any credible opposition might appear desirable, especially for those who, like myself, support the Kremlin, but in reality it is just another facet of a much deeper problem: Russia remains a country defined by one person, Putin, and not by a healthy and stable political system. The latest reforms did take a few very good steps in the right direction (the Duma’s powers and responsibilities have been increased), but Russia will remain “Putin’s country” for the foreseeable future.

Debunking the rumors about Russia caving in to Israel

The Saker

July 03, 2019

[this analysis was written for the Unz Review]

Debunking the rumors about Russia caving in to Israel

This Spring saw a sudden increase in the volume of articles in the so-called “alternative media and blogosphere” about Putin “selling out” Syria or Iran to the Israelis and their US patrons, or both. What was particularly interesting about this campaign is that it was not triggered by any kind of event or statement by Putin or any other senior Russian decision-makers. True, Israeli politicians made numerous trips to Russia, but each time they walked away without anything tangible to show for their efforts. As for their Russian counterparts, they limited themselves to vague and well-intentioned statements. Nonetheless, the “Putin sold out to Netanyahu” campaign did not stop. Every meeting was systematically interpreted as The Clear Proof that the Zionists control the Kremlin and that Putin was doing Netanyahu’s bidding. The fact that this campaign began ex nihilo did not seem to bother most observers. Soon I started getting steady streams of emails asking me to react to these articles. My reply was always the same one: let’s do the opposite of what these supposed “specialists” are doing and wait for the facts to come out and only then form an opinion.

Truth be told, I had already tackled that canard in my article “Why is Putin “allowing” Israel to bomb Syria.” I also had tried to debunk some of the most persistent and toxic falsehoods about Russia and Israel in my article “Putin and Israel: A Complex and Multi-Layered Relationship.” I also wrote an article entitled “Is Putin Really Ready to “Ditch” Iran?” trying to debunk that stupid theory. Finally, I even tried to compare and contrast the Russian approach towards Israel (which I qualified as “self-interest”) with the attitude of the “collective West” (which I qualified as “prostitution”) in an article entitled “Russia, Israel and the Values of “Western Civilization” – Where Is the Truth?”.

I was naïve to think that any of my arguments would elicit any doubts amongst the “Putin is a traitor” crowd. After all, if being wrong for years could not convince them otherwise, no rational argument would.

Then, news agencies began to report that General Nikolai Patrushev, the Director of the Russian Federal Security Service and the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, would travel to Israel to meet with John Bolton and Bibi Netanyahu. At this point, the steady stream of concerned emails suddenly turned into a deluge! After all, why would such a high-ranking (and rather secretive) Russian official travel to Israel to meet two of the worst and most evil politicians of the Anglo-Zionist Empire? Surely, he had something important to say, no? The consensus (of sorts) was that Patrushev would sell out Iran and Syria in exchange for some (entirely theoretical, quite unlikely and inevitably vague) “concessions” on the Ukraine, Crimea or sanctions.

My reply remained the same. Let’s wait until these folks actually meet and let’s see if their meeting brings about something significant (as a rule, I find getting facts an essential first step before engaging in any analysis; apparently, my detractors feel otherwise).

So, again, I decided to wait.

Then something weird happened: the meeting took place, it was even reported (albeit mostly in general terms), the participants issued their statements and… …nothing. The outcome of the “Jerusalem summit” was greeted by a deafening silence and a few vapid commentaries. My first hunch was that, as the Russian saying goes, the “mountain had given birth to a mouse” and that nothing of importance came out of the summit. Boy, was I ever wrong!

The official Russian position on Iran

The summit *did* indeed produce something of vital significance, but for some reason, the most senior-official statement on Iran that any Russian decision-maker ever made received very little attention. Unless you happened to be a Saker blog reader, you would never find out about it.

See for yourself and click here: for both the video and the transcript.

To my knowledge, this is the only full-length English language transcript of Patrushev’s statement. (Ruptly posted a video dubbed in English, but it was hardly noticed. As for the transcript, to my knowledge it was never reposted in full).

Which is too bad, since the following words have now been spoken by one of the most authorized and high-ranking Russian officials to date: (emphasis added)

“We have emphasized an importance of easing of the tensions for the country (Syria) between Israel and Iran, by the way of implementation the mutual approaching steps. We have made an emphasis that Syria must not be turned into an arena for geopolitical confrontation. We have also highlighted the need for the international community to help Syria to rebuild its national economy. Among other things, Syria should be free of illegal trade restrictions, unilateral sanctions, as well as sanctions on economic operators that help Syria to rebuild. They also have to be free from all sanctions.

We also turned everyone’s attention to the relations of Syria and other Arab states that should be normalized again. Syria is once again should be a full-fledged member of the Arab League. Also, we pointed out an importance of establishing the contacts of Syrian government with its Kurdish ethnic minority. We stated of importance to unite the efforts to eliminate all remaining in Syria terrorists. We called for immediate disruption of all channels through which terrorists might be able to obtain weapon grade chemical materials and their precursors.

Russia, the United States and Israel should join their efforts to help peace to return to Syria.

In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats,

This is why we believe that it is inadmissible to describe Iran as the major threat to the regional security and, moreover, to put it on par with the Islamic State or any other terrorist organization, Especially, since Iran contributes substantial efforts to bring peace to Syria and to stabilize the situation in Syria.

We have called on our partners to show restraint and readiness for reciprocal steps, which must serve as the basis for the consistent advancement towards the easing of tensions in the Israeli-Iranian relations”

To my knowledge, this is the very first time that Russia has officially declared Iran not only as a partner but as an ally! A few days later, President Putin confirmed that this was an official position which had his imprimatur when he stated in his interview to the FT that:

“We have established sufficiently good business-like relations with all regional countries, and our positions in the Middle East region have become more stable. Indeed, we have established very good, business-like, partner-like and largely allied relations with many regional countries, including Iran, Turkey and other countries”

This is absolutely huge, especially considering that, unlike Eltsin’s “democratic” Russia or western politicians, Putin does not abandon his allies (if anything, he sometimes defends them for too long even when they have been found guilty of dishonorable actions). Let me repeat this:

Russia has declared that Iran is her *ally*.

The official Russian position on Syria

Next, let’s parse the Patrushev statement once again for some specifics about Syria:

  1. Israel does not get to impose its will upon Syria. (“Syria must not be turned into an arena for geopolitical confrontation “).
  2. All sanctions against Syria must be lifted. (“Syria should be free of illegal trade restrictions, unilateral sanctions, as well as sanctions on economic operators that help Syria to rebuild. They also have to be free from all sanctions“).
  3. The Arab League must fully reinstate Syria. (“Syria once again should be a fully-fledged member of the Arab League”).
  4. All the remaining terrorists in Syria must be eliminated. (“unite the efforts to eliminate all remaining terrorists in Syria”).

It sure looks to me that Russia’s commitment to Syria’s integrity and freedom is as strong as ever.

Does that look to you like Russia and Israel are working hand-in-hand in Syria?

If so, please read the following for a quick reality check (excerpt from this article):

The initial AngloZionist plan was to overthrow Assad and replace him with the Takfiri crazies (Daesh, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS – call them whatever you want). Doing this would achieve the following goals:

  1. Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces, and security services.
  2. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a “security zone” by Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
  3. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
  4. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a “security zone,” but this time in Lebanon.
  5. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
  6. Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
  7. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
  8. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
  9. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional coalition of forces.
  10. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.

That was an ambitious plan, but the Israelis felt pretty confident that their US vassal-state would provide the resources needed to achieve it. Now this entire plan has collapsed due to the very high effectiveness of an informal but yet formidable alliance between Russia, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah. To say that the Israelis are seething with rage and in a state of total panic would be an understatement. Do you think I am exaggerating? Then look at it from the Israeli point of view:

  1. The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more capable than they were before the war started (remember how they *almost* lost the war initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally “plugging holes” in the Syrian frontlines and “extinguishing fires” on local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
  2. Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
  3. Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
  4. Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced refugees are returning home.
  5. Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left.

The simple truth is that Russia foiled *ALL* the Israeli plans for Syria. All of them!

This is an extremely important statement. It is also a somewhat ambiguous one since “ally” means different things to different people. The Allied Powers during WWII included the Anglo nations and the Soviet Union, which did not prevent the western powers to plot and conspire to attack and destroy their putative “ally” (who happened to have destroyed about 80% of the Nazi war machine).

[Sidebar: for those who need a reminder of how the West treats its allies, here is a small memento with three examples of how the West planned to “solve the Russian problem”:

  • Plan Totality (1945): earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
  • Operation Unthinkable (1945) assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers.
  • Operation Dropshot (1949): included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union’s industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.

I could also list all the so-called “allies” the West has ditched, betrayed and even murdered since WWII, but that would take too many pages]

So what does Russia mean exactly when she says that Iran is her “ally”?

Patrushev uses the words партнер (partner) and союзник (ally). Just as in English, the word “partner” evokes some community of interests and collaboration but is generally value-neutral. This is why Russian politicians sometimes even speak of countries hostile to Russia as “partners.” Not only are they sarcastic, but “partner” does not invoke any particular feeling or moral obligation on anybody’s part. Partner is just a polite word, nothing more.

The word “ally,” however, is a much stronger one which implies not only common interests but also a real, sincere friendship and a common stance against a common enemy. Unless it is used sarcastically, the term “soiuznik” strongly implies a mutual moral obligation.

It remains unclear what that really means in the case of Iran and Russia. Theoretically, having a common enemy attack one of the members of an alliance (“soiuz”) could mean that Russia would intervene and offer military support or even directly intervene herself. I doubt that Patrushev (or anyone else in the Kremlin) has this kind of intervention in mind, if only for one reason which is that there would be very little, if any, popular support for a war against the USA for the sake of Iran. A much more realistic interpretation of Patrushev’s words would be that:

  1. Russia will not “sell-out” Iran to anybody in any way, shape or form.
  2. If Iran is attacked, Russia will offer her total support short of any direct military intervention.

Total support short of any direct military intervention is what the USSR offered the DPRK and, even more so, to Vietnam, and in both cases, the West was eventually defeated. Also, “short of any direct military intervention” does not mean “no military aid”: sending military equipment and instructors, is also below the threshold of “direct military intervention,” as would be the case with political and economic support. Furthermore, Russia has formidable intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities which could play a crucial role in helping Iran resist an AngloZionist attack (look at what Russian radars, electronic warfare, and battle management systems have done to the effectiveness of US and Israeli attacks against Syria!).

Let’s also remember the nature of the Iranian theater of military operations: Iran is a huge country with a very large population (80M+). What this means is that Iran cannot be taken over in a ground invasion. That, in turn, means that the resistance of the Iranian people will never be crushed. And that, in turn, means that there is no need for Russia to prevent a military takeover of Iran. All Russia needs to do is to give Iran the means to effectively resist and the rest will happen naturally (just like Hezbollah did in 2006 against Israel when Iran did not intervene directly and militarily, but simply gave Hezbollah the means to beat back the “only Jewish democracy in the Middle-East”).

Besides, Iranians are fiercely patriotic, and they would probably not welcome any visible Russian military intervention in their country anyway (they won’t say “no” to covert aid, especially not the IRGC). This is a wise approach, especially when compared to cowardly little statelets which always want one occupier to boot out a previous occupier (think Poland, the Baltic statelets or the Nazi-occupied Ukraine nowadays).

Finally, Russia is not acting by herself or in a vacuum: the Chinese have made numerous statements (see herehere or here) showing that Iran also has their backing, which resulted in a state of consternated shock amongst MAGA fanboys. The fact that the US’s “European allies” seemed to be getting cold feet about this entire project (attacking Iran on behalf of Israel, blowing-up the entire Middle-East while bringing down the world economy) only adds to their distress.

[Sidebar: the USN should rent out a few transport/amphibious assault ships, fill them up with Polaks, Balts, Ukies, and Georgians and send them to fight for “the USA” (i.e., for Israel, of course). After all, these folks are locked in a desperate competition to see who of them can brown-nose the Empire the deepest, so why not give them a way to prove their unfailing loyalty to “western values” and the rest of the propaganda nonsense the legacy corporate Ziomedia feeds us (and them!) on a daily basis]

Will any of the above affect the “Putin is a traitor” or “Putin works for Bibi” crowd?

Facts? No! Who needs facts?

No, most probably not. What they will do is just ignore Patrushev’s very official statement just like they have ignored all the facts since they began predicting a “Grand Russian Betrayal” for no less than 5 years now, even if proved wrong every time: remember their whining about Syria “losing” its (utterly useless, dangerous and expensive to destroy) chemical weapons? What about their whining about Russia not doing enough for Novorussia? Or their whining about the Russians being “soft” on Israel after the Israelis caused the loss of a Russian recon aircraft? All these folks who present to us the “proof” that Putin, Bolton, and Netanyahu are “in cahoots”, and have predicted that Patrushev would “sell out” are now very busy looking somewhere else for evidence of Russia’s subservience to Israel.

At the time of writing (July 2nd), the Israelis have yet again conducted an airstrike on Syria, killing four people including a baby. The MI6 sponsored “The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” reported that “at least ten targets were hit in Damascus while a scientific research center and a military airbase were attacked in Homs.” Sounds quite impressive, no?

Actually, no.

For one thing, to evaluate the effectiveness of an airstrike, you don’t list targets, you make a bomb damage assessment (BDA) to ascertain what in reality sustained a hit, and how severely. Now, the Zionist propaganda always issues triumphant reports about how the invincible Israeli air force can make minced meat out of any Russian (or other) air defense system. Some, for example, have already concluded that the Israelis have “neutralized” the S-300 system while others go even further and claim that Russia either “approved” the Israeli attack or even “coordinated” it!

The Russian military has a saying “гражданский – это диагноз” which can be roughly translated as “civilian – that is a diagnosis.” In the case of these ignorant and even silly articles about the Russian air defenses in Syria (“the S-300 don’t work!!!”), that is precisely the case: these are civilians who have no understanding whatsoever of military matters in general, and even less so of air defense topics.

In my article “S-300 in Syria – a Preliminary Assessment,” I explained that:

Sooner or later, however, we can be pretty confident that both the Israelis and the US will have to try to strike Syria again, if only for PR purposes. In fact, this should not be too difficult for them, here is why: First, and contrary to what is often claimed, there are not enough S-300/S-400’s in Syria to indeed “lock” all of the Syrian airspace. Yes, the Russians did create a de-facto no-fly zone over Syria, but not one which could withstand a large and determined attack. What the combined Russian and Syrian forces have done so far is to deny some specific segments of the airspace above and around Syria to the AngloZionist aggressors. This means that they can protect some specific, high-value targets. However, as soon as the US/Israelis get a feel for what has been deployed and where, and how this entire integrated air defense network works, they will be able to plan strikes which, while not terribly effective, will be presented by the propaganda machine as a major success for the AngloZionists. (…) So, all the AngloZionists really need to do is to be very careful in their choice of paths of approach and choice of targets, use low-RCS aircraft and missiles under the cover of a robust EW engagement and then use a large enough number of missiles to give the appearance that the Empire has defeated the Russian and Syrian air defenses.

This is *exactly* what we are witnessing now. How do we know that? After all, we don’t have access to classified BDAs. True. What we can do is use Christ’s wise words and “judge a tree by its fruits” and notice that no amount of Israeli airstrikes in Syria have made any difference. Not only that, but we also know the kind of sustained air campaign which would be needed to meaningfully impact the Syrian armed forces, Hezbollah, the Iranians or the Russians. It sure ain’t what we have seen since the Russians beefed up their air defenses in Syria.

By the way, the SOHR article mentioned above also makes a mistake saying that a “scientific research center” was attacked. Why does this matter? Well, since we know that Syria has no nuclear, chemical or bacteriological research program or weapons, we can immediately conclude that whatever the “scientific research center” was doing (assuming this was not some empty building in the first place) was not something relevant to the Syrian war effort. In other words, this “scientific research center” was chosen as a symbolic target which, for all we know, might not even have been protected in the first place. However, “Israel destroys secret Syrian research center” sounds oh-so-triumphant and presents that it was well worth attacking that target. Heck, the SOHR article even mentions destroyed *orchards* (I kid you not!). I am sure that Hezbollah and the IRGC were both very impressed by the Israeli military prowess and totally heartbroken to have been deprived of their precious orchards 🙂

My question to the “Putin is a Zioagent” folks is: why in the world would you expect the Syrians or the Russians to defend empty buildings or orchards from Israeli airstrikes anyways?

Conclusion 1: Putin, the traitor? Hardly!

My regular readers will know that my support for the Kremlin is a sincere one, but also a critical one. Not only do I not believe in flag-waving (called “hat tossing” in Russian), but I do also believe that there is a very dangerous and toxic 5th column inside the Russian elites working to subordinate Russia to the Empire. So while I sometimes like to call myself a “Putin fanboy” or “Putin groupie,” I do that only in a tongue-in-cheek manner. In reality, I believe that Russia in general, and Putin specifically, actually need the criticism of those who want to see Russia truly become a sovereign nation again. So I am all for being critical of Putin and Russia. However, not all criticisms are equal or offered in a sincere spirit.

I have concluded that the folks at Langley (and elsewhere) have figured out that accusing Putin of being a journalist-murdering dictator or a nationalist freak who wants to restore the Russian Empire have entirely failed (especially inside Russia). So they switched strategies and have embarked on a major strategic PSYOP we could call “Putin the traitor”: instead of moaning about Putin being too much of a Russian patriot, they have now decided to paint him as a “not sincerely patriotic” and, truth be told, that new strategy has proven much more effective, especially against the background of the Medvedev government continuing to champion socially reactionary policies.

In fact, I suspect that Patrushev’s statement was, at least in part, designed to debunk the canard about Russia ditching either Iran or Syria. Not only that, but since the Director of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and Secretary of the Security Council of Russia has made the Russian support for Iran crystal clear, this will now force the 5th columnists to either shut up or face sanction.

Will the putatively pro-Russian “useful idiots” who spent so much energy trying to convince everybody that Putin was Netanyahu’s puppet learn their lesson? I doubt it. In fact, I don’t think that they will ever admit being wrong: they will explain-away Patrushev’s statement as “empty talk” or something similar and resume their mantras (which is the only thing which gives them “click-visibility” anyway).

Let’s sum up what we all could observe: Russia remains the single biggest “resistance nation” on the planet (the other contender for the top position would, obviously, be Iran). The “Putin betrayed” folks have been denouncing a Russian betrayal for at least five years. The fact that no such betrayal ever materialized has had no impact on those who are little more than useful tools for the Empire. Expect more “Putin the traitor” and “IDF defeats S-300s” articles in the future (the only way to stop them would be to stop clicking on their bait-titles which would force them to find a new source of revenue; I am not holding my breath on this one).

Conclusion 2: back to reality

In the real world the most interesting questions now are 1) how viable the current partnership between Russian and Turkey will prove over time and 2) how strong the Russian-Iranian alliance will become. It is also unclear what role the SCO will play or whether the SCO will grow more impressive military “teeth” (so far, at least as far as I know, no SCO member state has offered military help to Russia). And finally there is the big question of what China will do.

For the time being we see the Empire spewing a lot of hot air and making threats to an almost endless list of countries, while the Israelis engage in what I would call “murder psychotherapy” (which is all that IDF strikes really are) to keep their racist delusions afloat. And while the AngloZionists maniacally pursue these (pretend-)strategies, the rest of the world is building an alternative to the AngloZionist Hegemony. Will the leaders of the Empire prefer a massive war to a quiet (and rather pathetic) self-destruction of the Empire? Looking at the faces of Trump, Pompeo or Bolton, I can’t say that I feel very reassured. Yet I remain hopeful that I will see the day come when the USA, Russia and Palestine are all liberated from their oppressors and recover their full sovereignty.

The Saker


Lesson Learned: Russia Is Now Doing in Venezuela What It Failed to Do in Yugoslavia, Syria

Lesson Learned: Russia Is Now Doing in Venezuela What It Failed to Do in Yugoslavia, Syria
April 16, 2019

by Marko Marjanović (author of the new Checkpoint Asia site) for The Saker blog

Pushing for the US to start an air war against Syria in 2012 Hillary Clinton argued in her emails that Russia would not “stand in the way”, just as it had done “little more than complain” when the US and its satellites bombed Yugoslavia in 1999:

The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation.

Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council.

Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise.

In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.

Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes.

What Hillary failed to appreciate was that Putin was not Yeltsin, that comeback Putin who had returned to the presidency after a Medvedev abstention at the UN allowed the Empire to unleash an air war against Libya in particular was not Yeltsin, and also that even Yeltsin had done quite a bit more than just “complain” in 1999.

As the NATO-Yugoslavia war was concluding Yeltsin ordered the 300 Russian peacekeepers in Bosnia to make a dash to the Priština airport in Kosovo and occupy it before NATO troops moved in from the south which they did. Wesley Clark then ordered the British general Mike Jackson, and the only reason we do not remember 1999 as the biggest clash of Russian and NATO arms ever is because Jackson refused to carry out the order. Yeltsin then, realizing flying in reinforcements over pro-NATO countries would be near impossible, relented and conceded the airport anyway.

So yeah, in fact Russia did a lot more than merely “complain” in 1999. It attempted a disorganized and ill-conceived, but sincere last-minute move to secure a Russian occupation zone in Kosovo for the Serbs’ sake. It came up short, but that is distinct from not making an attempt at all.

As we know Russia did a lot more than just complain again in Syria. Contrary to Clinton’s expectations of three years before Russia in 2015 entered the war in Syria. I am the opinion that what made Russia’s intervention possible for Moscow was America’s own intervention against ISIS which started the year before. Since 2011 the CIA had been backing the Islamist rebellion against the Syrian government. But following the ISIS-rebel split of late 2013 and the rapid ISIS expansion into western Iraq in early 2014, America’s Pentagon entered the war against ISIS, first in Iraq and a few months later also to a lesser extent in Syria.

This allowed the Russians to present their intervention to themselves, to the world, and to the Americans as not being directly opposed to American goals, which indeed it was not. The Russian military, Moscow could point out, was there to do what America’s own military was doing, namely to fight ISIS, albeit the Russians would be more thorough and would also fight al-Qaeda and its allies. Instead of the Russian intervention being directly opposed to the American intervention it was — because there were in fact two separate US interventions working at cross purposes — instead at a 90 degree angle from what the US was doing.

In fact I think Moscow went into Syria as much to frustrate US regime-change plans as to force the US to engage and deal with it, and acknowledge Russia, no matter how resentfully as a partner in some limited respect. A strategy which showed some promise initially as Russia created some good will internationally by fighting ISIS as the latter hit Paris, and then again when Lavrov and Kerry in September of 2016 hammered out a deal to jointly expand the war against al-Qaeda, but which was then sabotaged by actors inside the Pentagon, specifically the Air Force. In retrospect this strategy of forcing the Washington to engage was never going to work, but it was worth a shot with the information available at the time.

Nonetheless, the fact was that Russian intervention did run directly against the efforts of the CIA (and to a much lesser extent also the Pentagon) in arming the rebels. It also went against the hopes and dreams of western cruise missile liberals who deceived themselves as eagerly as ever the jihadi rebels were worth supporting and an improvement over the secular government.

It is also a fact that Russians won this contest and that the jihadi-spearheaded regime-change was beaten back. Simultaneously ISIS was eliminated so that today Russia and Pentagon no longer share a common military goal, making the two forces much more clearly opposed to one another than they started out.

The difference between the Russian attempt to have a say in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Syria in 2015 was then not in then in their boldness. It was arguably more daring to try and block NATO from the airport and northern Kosovo than it was to start beating down on ISIS more than twelve months after the US had started to do just that.

The difference between success in Syria and failure in Kosovo was timing. Despite Hillary’s argument that Russians had “genuine political ties to Serbs” that simply wasn’t true. Belgrade and Moscow were not allied during the Cold War and were not allied during the 1990s as Yugoslavia spent the decade as a pariah and Yeltsin as a Washington stooge.

Any last-minute attempt in 1999 to frustrate NATO and do a solid for the Serbs was going to fail because there was nothing in place beforehand. An airlift over pro-NATO countries was never going to work. For Moscow’s dash to have a chance at all there should have been troop transporters already anchored in the Adriatic. But that would have required the kind of foresight and independence which did not exist among Yeltsin’s administration in the 1990s.

In Syria by contrast there was less urgency but also importantly unlike the fictional Russian-Yugoslav ties, Russian-Syrian ties actually existed. Both of these factors meant that Russians became involved while there was still plenty of time to turn things around.

Small, but crucial, Russian military presence

This is why I think the recent small Russian military mission to Venezuela is so important. In Yugoslavia Russia moved in after NATO had already done so and lost out because it was already too late. In Syria, Russia had likewise allowed the Empire to move in first but then nonetheless prevailed because the circumstances were different. However it appears that in Venezuela Russia has no intention of allowing the US to move in first. Instead this time the first military on the scene is Russian.

The Russians say this is a regularly-scheduled visit under a decade-old defense-industry agreements, but the Russian media cleverly pointed out that if that were true surely it would have been more usual to fly in civilian technicians from the defense companies, and not the Ground Forces, and temporarily even their Deputy Commander. More likely, military personnel was sent because this is a military mission.

I am certain that Russia will not extend any sort of war guarantee to Venezuela (like it did for Cuba in the 1960s), nor do I think it will send any number of combat personnel to prop up the Venezuelans against a possible US invasion, not the least because doing so would be completely in vain, as well as counter-productive.

But I think it is very possible that Moscow has decided to frustrate a direct US military assault, or even better, to help deter it, by backing up the Venezuelans the same way the USSR backed a number of African militaries during the Cold War. That is with a very limited number of skilled specialists to fill key force-multiplier non-combat roles.

The Americans themselves are guessing the Russian troops include cyber-specialists and S-300 repairmen. Electronic warfare and signals intelligence specialists are another possibility.

But more important than what role exactly the Russians are there to fill, is the fact that this time around they are there before the Americans. It doesn’t mean they’ll stay there forever. If things settle down, or the Russians feel the point has been made they may well leave, but what to take from this is that Moscow seems to have drawn a very important lesson from Yugoslavia and Syria — allow the Americans to move in before you do at your own peril.

This time around when considering a US air war or some such Mike Pompeo will not be able to share the illusion of his predecessor from 2012. He’ll know the Russians will likely be there in one role or another. And with a surprise or two up their sleeve like always.

Marko Marjanović is the former deputy editor at Russia Insider of four years. Before that he ran a blog on Eastern Europe for five. He now publishes the news site Checkpoint Asia which serves delicious Empire hatred!

Russia Slides Towards Internal Political Crisis (MUST SEE SouthFront video report!)


February 26, 2019

Saker note: a rather harsh criticism of the Russian Government and the Kremlin in this SouthFront analysis.  Sadly, I cannot say that I disagree with what they say.  In fact, I think that they are spot on and that all the “loyal” Kremlin-bots who deny that there is a serious problem in Russia are wrong.  Supporting Vladimir Putin’s struggle to truly make Russia sovereign again and built a new multi-polar world does not at all entail being blind to all the very real mistakes and even faults of the Russian government.  I can only say that I hope that SF is right and that the current lack of support of the Russian people of the government’s neo-liberal/capitalist policies will force Putin to correct the course and return to the kind of social policies the Russian people clearly want.  It is also high time for Russia to take a harsher stance on the Ukraine, if only because the situation in the Ukraine (political and economic) is a total disaster and because some kind of military escalation in the Ukraine seems inevitable.  All in all, yet another absolutely superb report by SouthFront who sober analysis contrasts favorably with what both flag-wavers and fear-mongers typically produce.


This is a critical look at the situation in Russia. The video is based on an article of one of our readers and additional data.

The Russia of 2019 is in a complicated economic and even political situation. Smoldering conflicts near its borders amid continued pressure from the US and NATO affect the situation in the country negatively. This is manifested in society and in national politics. The approval rating of the Russian government and personally of President Vladimir Putin has been decreasing.

According to VCIOM, a state pollster, in January 2019, Putin’s confidence rating was only 32.8%. This is 24% less than in January 2018 when it was 57.2%. At the same time, the confidence rating of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was 7.8%. The approval rating of his cabinet is 37.7% while the disapproval rating is 38.7%. Opposition sources show data, which is far worse for the current Russian leadership.

This tendency is not linked to the foreign policy course of the Kremlin. Rather, it’s the result of the recent series of liberal-minded economic reforms, which look similar to the approaches exercised by the Russian government in the mid-1990s. The decision to increase Value Added Tax amid the slowing Russian economy, especially in the industrial sector, and a very unpopular pension reform increasing the retirement age were both factors contributing to the further growth of discontent in the population.

Russia’s GDP increased by 2.3% in 2018 compared to 1.6% in 2017. However, the Ministry of Economic Development, in its document entitled “Economic Picture” stated that this is linked to “one-time factors” and is not “stable”. The ministry maintained its earlier forecast stating that GDP growth in 2019 will be 1.3%. It confirmed increasing capital outflow. In this case, the repayment of funds to Western creditors by the Russian private sector is one of the causes.

The Ministry of Economic Development also pointed out that the expendable income of the population decreased by 0.2%. Statutory charges, including the increased taxes, are named as one of the reasons. The document says that statutory charges grew by 14.8% in 2018.

Additionally, the population is facing an increasingly restrictive administrative pressure: new fines and other penalties for minor violations in various fields and additional administrative restrictions limiting the freedom of actions of citizens. Restrictive traffic management of big cities, increasing fees for using federal highways as well as policies that are de-facto aimed at small business and self-employed persons are among its landmarks.

Meanwhile the general population has no effective levers of pressure to affect or correct government policy. The public political sphere has become a desert. United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) is the only political party still de—facto existing in public politics. By now its ideological and organizational capabilities have become exhausted. Other “political parties and organizations” are just media constructs designed to defend the interests of a narrow group of their sponsors. It is hard to find a lawmaker in the State Duma or the Federation Council, who is not affiliated with the cliquish top political elite and oligarch clans.

In the media sphere, the government has failed to explain its current course to the population. A vast majority of the initiatives of Medvedev’s cabinet face a negative reaction from the population. A spate of scandals involving high and middle level government officials made the situation even worse. These cases revealed blatant hypocrisy and the neglectful attitude to duties of some Russian officials.

Some of the officials even became heroes of nationwide memes. Probably, the most prominent of these heroes are Minister of Labour and Employment of the Saratov region Natalia Sokolova and Head of Department for Youth Policy in the Sverdlov Region Olga Glatskikh.

Sokolova advised Russian pensioners to eat “makaroshki” [a derogatory term for maccheroni] to save money and to thus become able to survive on the subsistence minimum of 3,500 RUB [about 50 USD] per month.

“You will become younger, prettier and slimmer! Makaroshki cost is always the same!”, she said during a meeting of the regional parliamentary group on social policy in October 2018 adding that discounted products can be used to create a “balanced, but dietic” menu.

Glatskikh became a meme hero thank to her meeting with young volunteers during the same month. Commenting on the possible financing of youth projects, she told volunteers that the government did not ask their parents “to give birth” to them. So, they should expect nothing from the state.

In the period from 2018 to 2019, there were multiple arrests of officials caught exceeding the limits of their authority and being involved in corruption schemes. In comparison to previous periods, this number had increased by 1.5-2 times. The most recent detention took place right in the Parliament building on January 30. A 32-year-old senator, Rauf Arashukov, is suspected of being a member of a criminal group involved in the 2010 murders of two people and in pressuring a witness to one of the killings. On the same day, authorities detained his father, an adviser to the chief executive of a Gazprom subsidiary, Raul Arashukov. He is suspected of embezzling natural gas worth 30 billion rubles ($450 million).

However, these actions do not appear to be enough to change the established media situation. After a large-scale corruption scandal in the Ministry of Defense in 2012, which led to almost no consequences for key responsible persons including former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who even continued his carrier in state-linked corporation Rostec. The general public has serious reservations about any real success of anti-corruption efforts.

The aforementioned factors fuel the negative perception of the Medvedev government and Vladimir Putin as the head of state among Russian citizens.

The 2014 events in Crimea showed to the Russian population that its state is ready to defend the interests of the nation and those who describe themselves as Russians even by force of arms. This was the first case when this approach was openly employed in the recent history of Russia. Therefore, the population was enthusiastic and national pride was on the rise. However, the Kremlin failed to exploit these gained opportunities and did not use them to strengthen the Russian state. In fact, up to February 2019, the policy towards eastern Ukraine has been inconsistent. At the same time, Moscow continues to lose its influence in post-Soviet states. This can be observed in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. Even, their close ally, Belarus, occasionally demonstrates unfriendly behavior and focuses its own efforts on the exploitation of economic preferences granted by Russia.

Evaluating the current internal political situation in Russia and its foreign policy course, it’s possible to say that the Russian leadership has lost its clear vision of national development and a firm and consistent policy, which are needed for any great power. Another explanation of this is that the Russian leadership is facing pressure from multiple agents of influence, which stand against vision of a powerful independent state seeking to act as one of the centers of power on the global stage. One more factor, often pointed out by experts, is the closed crony-caste system of elites. This system led to the creation of a leadership, which pursues its own narrow clannish interests. Apparently, all of these factors influence Russian foreign and domestic policies in one way or another.

The aforementioned large-scale anti-corruption campaign, regarding the people’s show-me attitude towards its result, could be a sign of a new emerging trend, which would lead to a purge of the corrupt elites and to strategic changes in Russian domestic policy.

It is highly likely that Russia will face hard times in the next two years (2019-2020) and face various threats and challenges to its economy, foreign policy course and even to its statehood.

The Russian pension chicken is coming home to roost… (UPDATED)

The Saker

The Russian pension chicken is coming home to roost… (UPDATED)

January 18, 2019

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

According to RT, citing a Levada Center poll,

Over 50 percent of Russians are disappointed in the government of Dmitry Medvedev, which, they believe, is unable to curb growing prices and provide jobs for people, a new poll has revealed.  Some 23 percent said they were absolutely sure that the government must resign, with another 30 percent telling Levada-Center that they were also leaning toward this opinion.  This means that a total of 53 percent would like the country to have a new cabinet. Trust in the government has crumbled since September, when only 23 percent advocated its resignation. Meanwhile, the proportion of people who believed the government should stay in charge was 40 percent, with 14 percent expressing full confidence in the cabinet, and 26 percent saying that resignation wouldn’t be the best idea.

Source: Jan 15th 2019 (details here:

This was very predictable and, in fact, I did predict just that when I wrote “A comment I just saw on the YouTube chat of the inauguration was succinct and to the point: “Путин кинул народ – мы не за Медведева голосовали” or “Putin betrayed the people – we did not vote for Medvedev”. This is going to be a very widely shared feeling, I am afraid (…) Medvedev is unpopular and that most Russians hoped to see a new face. Yet Putin ignored this public sentiment. That is a very worrying sign, in my opinion“.  In a subsequent article I wrote that “it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin’s personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition“.

Think about it in this way: we know from ALL the past elections that the pro-Western segment of the Russian population is somewhere around 1-3% (that is why they cannot make it into the Duma).  But let’s generously give that hardcore, liberal, opposition 5%, for argument’s sake.  So if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if 5% of Russians are hardcore pro-Western liberals, then who are the remaining 48%?

Or in this way: if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if Putin’s approval rating is still somewhere in the 65% range, who are those Russians who like Putin but dislike the Medvedev government?

There is an easy cop-out argument which I´ve often offered to explain away this fact:

Levada Center is officially classified as a “foreign agent” under Russian law.  This makes sense: for one thing, Levada Center receives most of its financing from abroad, including the USA and even the Pentagon!  Furthermore, Levada is staffed by liberals (in the Russian meaning of the word which really means “pro-US”) whose biases are also reflected in their work.  However, while this is all true, Levada is still credible enough to be cited even by Russian officials.  Finally, the kind of results Levada publishes are often generally similar to the finding of the official VTsIOMpolling institution, not down to the percentage point, but often reflecting similar trends (check out the VTsIOM English language page here:  So the fact that Putin is much more popular than Medvedev or that the majority of Russian people are unhappy with the government really is not in doubt.

So regardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that the Russian government is only popular with those whom it allows to make a lot of money (corporations and various millionaires and billionaires) and that everybody else strongly dislikes it.

And yet, recently Putin was asked if he was happy with the government and his reply was “on the whole, yes“.

This type of political yoga is hard to sustain in the long term: if Putin is the champion of the interests of the common people, and if most common people feel that the government cares more for millionaires and billionaires, then how can the President say that he is “on the whole happy” with the government?

It is truly a crying shame that the basics of Marxism-Leninism is not taught in schools and colleges any more (even some self-described “Communists” are clearly clueless about what Marx, Lenin or even Hegel taught!).  Not because the solutions advocated by Marx and his followers are so universally effective, but because one can use the Marxist-Leninist conceptual toolkit to better understand the world we live in and, one can do this without necessarily endorsing the solutions offered by Marxism.  For example, in the West at least, very few people are aware of this very simple Marxist-Leninist definition of what a state, any state, really is.  According to Lenin, the state is simply an “apparatus of coercion and violence by which the ruling class governs the society“.  Specifically Lenin wrote:

In essence, the state is ruling apparatus created from the human society. When such a group of people appears, one which is only concerned with ruling over others, and which for that purpose needs a coercion apparatus which can force people to obey by means of jails, special units, armed forces, etc, – that is the moment when the state appears (Lenin, collective works, vol 39, page 69).

From a Marxist point of view, any state is always and by definition the dictatorship of the ruling class, which is a good thing, at least according to the Marxists, when this ruling class is the workers and people, and a very bad thing when the ruling class is the plutocracy.

In the post-modern West, where political discourse has been reduced to a particularly nauseating form of intellectual flatulence, the very notion of “class” and “class warfare” has been fully replaced with vapid (pseudo-) identity politics which completely obfuscate all the real issues and problems our world is dealing with.  Thus, by removing the concepts and categories needed to understand the nature of the struggle which is taking place internationally, but also inside each of the countries currently living under the AngloZionist yoke, the leaders of the Empire have deprived the people they rule over from the means to understand why and how they are oppressed.  All that nonsense about “gay” rights, gun control, #meetoo, the many sex scandals, the struggle for racial identity (White or Black or any other), abortion, drugs and all the rest of the crap we are fed on a daily basis by the AngloZionist propaganda machine are primarily a distraction to keep the eyes of the general population from the real issues.  In a way, this zombification and re-direction to fake topics serves exactly the same function as the red cape of the bullfighter: to keep the bull busy with trying to gore a harmless red piece of cloth while completely missing the real cause of his suffering and eventual death.

From that point of view, the Russian people are much better informed and have a much better understanding of what is going on.  For example, while in the West the people define “democracy” as “people power” (or something similar), in Russia the joke is that “democracy is the power of the democrats” which, in Russia, is a general codeword/euphemism for “pro-US wealthy liberal” who want to turn Russia into some kind of “bigger Poland” or something equally uninspiring.

Various pro-Western “intellectuals” like to say that this is an old Russian pathology: to say that the Czar (President) is very good, but his court (the Ministers) are bad and that this makes absolutely no sense. These are the folks who go as far as denying the existence of a struggle between what I call Eurasian Sovereignists (roughly Putin supporters) and Atlantic Integrationists (roughly Medvedev and the “economic block” of this government).

The folks who deny this remind me of something Berthold Brecht once wrote after the 1953 uprising in Berlin in a short poem entitled “The Solution”: (emphasis added)

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

This deep alienation from the Russian masses, this notion that the Russian people have, yet again, failed to heed the “wise words” of the “progressive intelligentsia” and other (mainly financial) “elites” has plagued the Russian ruling classes since Peter I and is still at the very core of their worldview.  Believe you me, the Russian “liberals” and the folks in the West who deny that there is any 5th column in Russia are psychologically and politically joined at the hip: neither one of them can accept this.  Furthermore, both the Russian “liberals” and the western believers in the values of “democracy” and “free market capitalism” share exactly the same worldview: they want the Russian people to become “Europeans” not in a geographical sense, of course (geographically speaking most Russian live in the European part of Russia), but culturally!  This is what the Popes wanted, this is what the French Freemasons wanted, this is what the Nazis wanted, and this is what the AngloZionists want.  That dream to turn Russians into Europeans while totally cleansing them from any “Russian-ness” is what united *all* the invaders of Russia over the centuries.

But the “stubborn” Russian people just don’t seem to “get it” and, for some totally mysterious reason, they always resist all these “benevolent” western attempts at “civilizing” them.

This is exactly what we see today: Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists try as hard as they can to *sovereignize* Russia; in other words, they want to make Russia *truly* Russian again.  Sounds basic, but that is categorically unacceptable to the Russian plutocrats and to their supporters in the West.  Thus any kind of defense of the Russian-ness of Russia is immediately and contemptuously dismissed as “national leftism”, “nationalism” or, God forbid!, “monarchism”.  And when the person trying to make the argument that Russia ought to be Russian uses Marxist concepts or categories, these arguments are also dismissed out of hand as an “outdated rhetoric of a system which has failed and discredited itself”.  What they fail to realize is to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due primarily/solely to the Marxist or Communist ideology is just as stupid as blaming the current collapse of democracy in the USA on the writings of the Founding Fathers rather than on the SOB politicians who are destroying this country day after day after day.  Tell me: when the USA finally bites the dust, will you simply declare that “democracy is dead” and that the “collapse of the USA proved that democracy is not a viable regime”?  So yes, the Soviet Union did indeed collapse, broken into 15 pieces by its own ruling elite (the Nomenklatura), but the ideas contained in the Marxist-Leninist ideology have not only not been “defeated” – they have not even been challenged (more on this issue here).

But, thank God! most Russians are still not willing to be incorporated into the “European cultural Borg collective“, at least not in the cultural sense.  And in spite of 300 years of oppression by various pro-western regimes (with various degrees of russophobia, not all were equally bad), the Russian people still want to remain Russian, not just by speaking a language, but by having a ruler and a regime in power which they feel defends their interests and not the interests of the ruling class. They want to live in their own civilizational realm, and not the kind of post-Christian intellectual desert the West has become.

Many decades of rabid russophobia by the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire have convinced the Russian people that they have no friends in the European or North American ruling elites and that true freedom comes through liberation, not submission.  That, and the appalling example of the consequences of the “Euromaidan” in the Ukraine.

At the end of the day, it is not about GDP or the availability of cheap consumer goods.  At the end of the day, it all depends on real, moral, ethical, spiritual and civilizational values.  This was true 1000 years ago and this is still true today.  At least in Russia.

It is very important to keep a close eye on this trend: the appearance of slowly but surely growing (truly) patriotic opposition (as opposed to the CIA-paid clowns in the Russian liberal camp).  As for the “official” opposition (LDPR, KPRF and the Just Russia), they might decide to grow a few teeth, initially small, baby teeth only, but if this trend accelerates, they might decide to look a tad more credible.  Until now the rather lame and ridiculous LDPR & KPRF parties are just a collective form of court jesters with no real opposition potential.  Just look at how the KPRF, thoroughly discredited by their crazy choice of the millionaire Grudinin for candidate, jumped onto the pension reform PR-disaster to suddenly try to launch a referendum.  This would never have happened in the past.

The political landscape in Russia is becoming more complicated, which is both good and bad.  It is bad because Putin’s personal political credit suffers, however modestly for now, from his continuous inability to purge the Kremlin from the 5th columnists, but it is also good because if things get bad enough Putin will have no choice but to (finally!) get rid of at least the most notorious 5th columnists.  But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption of the terminally degenerate “culture” such a choice implies), or do they want a “social society” (to use Putin’s own words) – meaning a society in which social and economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.

You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics.

The future of Russia, and much of the world, will depend on the outcome of this battle.

The Saker

UPDATE: well, just as I was mentioning that the fact that Levada Center and VTsIOM mostly agree, at least on trends, the Russian media is now reporting that the latter now also is reporting a drop in the popularity of Putin.  And just to make things worse, the Russian authorities have deported an (in-)famous anti-Nazi Ukrainian journalist, Elena Boiko, to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine in spite of the fact that Boiko had requested political asylum in Russia.  Now, Boiko is a very controversial person for sure (and, personally, not *at all* my cup of tea), but the sole fact that Russia would deport ANY anti-Nazi activist to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine is disgusting and revolting.  And, sure enough, the bovine-excreta is already hitting the proverbial fan as now members of the Duma, journalists and various personalities are demanding explanations for this absolutely stupid and deeply immoral act.  Sadly,  can only agree with Nikolai Starikov who speaks of a “liberal revanche” following the “Russian Spring” of 2014.  If this kind of nonsense continues we will see a further deterioration of Putin’s personal rating along with a gradual degradation of the Russian political environment.

President Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference December 20, 2018

December 20, 2018

President Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference December 20, 2018

President  Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference

December 20, 2018


President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues, friends.

Let us begin our traditional end-of-year meeting that we call a news conference.

As always, I will spend just a few brief seconds to sum up the results of the outgoing year. A lot has been said already, but I have the latest data reflecting the most recent results, some just a couple of days old.

In the first nine months of 2018, GDP increased by 1.7 percent, while the Economic Development Ministry expects the annual increase to total 1.8 percent. Industrial output was growing at a faster pace, totalling 2.9 percent in the first ten months of 2018, with the annual results expected at 3 percent, up from a 2.1 percent growth in 2017. In addition, processing industries have been growing at a somewhat faster pace of 3.2 percent.

In the first three quarters fixed capital investment increased by 4.1 percent. Cargo shipments and retail trade are on the rise, having increased by 2.6 percent. Consumer demand growth has been apparent. This is a positive factor. After a lengthy interval, the population’s real income has shown some, albeit very moderate, growth. According to the latest statistics, real incomes will increase by 0.5 percent. I hope that this momentum will be maintained, since real pay levels are on the rise, having grown by 7.4 percent in the first nine months, which is expected to give us 6.9 or 7 percent by the end of the year.

Inflation remains at an acceptable level, although it has increased a little in the past week, by 0.5 percent, I think. Therefore, we will be able to reach the Central Bank’s reference rate of 4 percent and will have an inflation rate of 4.1 percent to 4.2 percent – somewhere just over 4 percent.

The unemployment rate is going down, which is good news. If last year it hit a historical low of 5.2 percent, this year it will be even lower – 4.8 percent.

The trade balance surplus is growing. In 2017, if you remember, it was around $115 billion. Over the three quarters of this year we already achieved $157 million. As of the end of the year, we expect it to reach $190 billion.

Our finances are growing stronger. Our gold and foreign currency reserves have grown by over 7 percent. In the early 2018, they amounted to $432 billion while now they stand at almost $464 billion.

For the first time since 2011, we will have a budget surplus. We are about to reach the federal budget surplus of 2.1 percent of the GDP. The National Welfare Fund has grown by around 22 percent.

The average annual insurance component of the retirement pension stood at 13,677 rubles in 2017. By the end of this year, it will be 14,163 rubles.

Life expectancy has also increased slightly compared to 2017, from 72.7 to 72.9 years.

These are the general results that I wanted to mention in the beginning. Let’s not waste our time and proceed to your questions and my attempts to answer them.

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Let us begin by giving some priority to the Kremlin pool. Its members worked with us throughout the year, following the President both in Russia and abroad.

ITAR-TASS, the state news agency.

Veronika Romanenkova: Thank you.

The year 2018 arguably went by under the sign of new national projects that you launched with the May Executive Order. They are expected to cost an enormous amount of money. However, some experts, members of the State Council, as was mentioned in Yalta only recently, have questioned the feasibility of these national projects and whether they are needed. How well thought out are the performance assessment criteria for the national projects? For example, the Accounts Chamber Chairman said that there is no way to assess their effectiveness. What can you say to counter this?

Vladimir Putin: I will have to begin by saying a few words on whether these projects are needed, since you said that some question this.

I have said it on numerous occasions, and I will repeat it today. We need a breakthrough. We need to transition to a new technological paradigm. Without it, the country has no future. This is a matter of principle, and we have to be clear on this.

How can this be done? We need to focus the available resources, find and channel them to the essential development initiatives. How can these efforts be organised? By simply distributing money, and that’s it?

First, we had to find this money. It took us the entire year 2017 to articulate the objectives and find the resources. Both the Government and the Presidential Executive Office contributed to this effort. By the way, when some call for more changes within the Cabinet, we have to understand that it was the Government’s financial and economic block that developed the national development programme to 2024. For this reason, they are the ones who must take responsibility for the plans they made. There is no way around it.

So how should this effort be organised? By simply distributing money? After all, as much as 20.8 trillion rubles are expected to go into the national projects alone, and another 6.5 trillion will be invested in a separate infrastructure development plan. Of course, the allocation of these resources has to be set forth in documents of some kind on achieving breakthroughs. You can refer to these development plans any way you wish. We call them national projects. After all, it makes it clear that there are goals that have to be achieved. If there are no objectives, you will never achieve the final outcome, no matter how you manage these investments. It is for this reason that the 12 national projects were developed alongside an infrastructure development plan. Let me remind you of the main vectors.

Healthcare, education, research and human capital come first, since without them there is no way a breakthrough can be achieved. The second vector deals with manufacturing and the economy. Of course, everything is related to the economy, including the first part. But the second part is directly linked to the economy, since it deals with the digital economy, robotics, etc. I have already mentioned infrastructure.

Why did we have this meeting in Yalta, Crimea, to discuss with our colleagues from the Government and the regions how we will proceed in these efforts? Because there are questions on how to assess performance under these projects. We need effective controls, while making sure that all efforts by the federal centre to monitor what is happening in the regions are effective. It is true that there are challenges in this regard, but we are working on them. So what is the tricky part? The tricky part is that funding mostly comes from the federal centre, and this applies to all programmes, while most of the efforts are undertaken in the regions. The regions must be ready to work constructively. Instead of simply hiking up prices in response to an increase in the available funds, they must focus on achieving concrete results that will be clearly visible. This is the first point I wanted to make.

Second, we need to understand whether they will be able to succeed. This is a real question. Some argue that this would be impossible. But this is what we hear from those who must deliver. Instead of having these thoughts they need to work on delivering on these objectives, and if they feel that they are unable to do so, they have to clear the way for those who are positive about their ability to deliver and are ready to work. To tell you the truth, I have not seen anyone who did not want to do it or said that it was impossible. These messages come from outside observers.

Without ambitious goals we will never achieve anything. For this reason, I do hope that the federal centre and the regions will be able to work together in a consolidated and positive manner. Yes, some indicators have to be adjusted. Our colleagues from the regions have submitted their proposals to this effect, and I have high hopes that the Government will take them into consideration and adjust specific indicators so that we can move forward effectively.

Pavel Zarubin: Rossiya TV channel.

I would like to expand on a topic that has already been raised. Many economics experts, including Alexei Kudrin, assert that in reality, the Russian economy has been growing just by one percent on average over the past ten years, and if so, this is essentially marking time, or stagnation. You set the goal of making a breakthrough, a leap, but for this, even if we take the lowest estimate, the growth rate should be at least four to five times higher. The Government promises to achieve the goal, but that same Government acknowledges that in the next few years, GDP growth rates will not exceed even 2 percent. In this regard, here are my questions: what does the Government rely on in its forecasts, in the planning of its work? Is a breakthrough possible at all, in this context, or will the economy continue operating like this: we make some money on oil surplus, put it aside, then spend it when there is a need for it? In general, are you satisfied with the Medvedev team?

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, I would ask you please to respect each other – ask only one question each.

Vladimir Putin: Look, economic growth has been one percent per year for a certain period of time. But, first of all, it was while Mr Kudrin was Deputy Prime Minister, so you must not blame the mirror for showing a crooked face, as they say. This is the first point.

The second is, one should not just count mechanically. I have great respect for Mr Kudrin, he is my friend and a good professional, and as a rule, I listen to his recommendations. He is a reliable specialist, a good one. But look, from 2008 to 2018, the economy grew by about 7.4 percent. In simple maths – yes, it equals one percent, a little more. However, let us not forget how the economy developed. There were higher growth rates, alternating with recessions associated with the global crisis. In 2009, after the crisis in the global economy, not in ours – Russia was not the cause of the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, it came to us from the outside – the decline was about 7.8 percent. Then little by little, we were crawling out of it for many years.

Then, in 2014–2015, another meltdown occurred – a collapse in the oil prices, our main exports. That is why I am saying we should not simply count mechanically.

However, of course, the country’s GDP, the GDP growth rate is one of the main indicators. But we will not be able to achieve the GDP growth rates necessary for this breakthrough unless the structure of the economy is changed. This is what the national projects are aimed at, and why such enormous funds will be invested, which I have already said – to change the structure and build an innovation-based economy. The Government is counting on this, because if this happens, and we should all work towards this, then the growth rates will increase and there will be other opportunities for development.

By the way, you mentioned the projected 2 percent growth for the next two years. Yes, in the next years, 2019–2020, two percent each, but from 2021, the Government is already planning 3 percent, and then more. Therefore, I strongly hope that we will manage to do all this. Some fluctuations are probably possible, but, I repeat, the most important thing is that we need… Do you see what we need to do? We need to join another league of economies, and not only in terms of volumes. I think that taking the fifth place in terms of volume is quite possible. We used to rank fifth in terms of the economy, in purchasing power parity, and we will do it again, I think. However, we need to ascend to another league in terms of the quality of the economy. This is what our national projects are aimed at.

Pavel Zarubin: Are you satisfied with the Medvedev team?

Vladimir Putin: Overall, yes.

Question: Good afternoon.

Mr President, in my city of Volgograd we had a wonderful year. We celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad. You made it a federal holiday and we really appreciate it. You also paid us a visit.

We successfully hosted the World Cup and our region indeed began to breathe and develop.

There is a lot that still needs to be done. I think the economy will be extensively discussed. But Volgograd residents have a big wish and a great favour to ask. In 1998, the Kacha Higher Military Aviation School of Pilots, which had a very long history, was shut down.

It was established at the Tsar’s decree in 1910 and we were truly proud of it and want to be proud of it further. We want the military traditions to live on. Please consider re-opening it.

Vladimir Putin: In which year was it shut down?

Remark: In 1998, unfortunately. It had the Order of the Red Banner and a long history.

Vladimir Putin: You see, it is already 2018. It happened 20 years ago and I do not quite know what is left of this legendary school.

You are right, it was indeed a legendary school. But the Russian Defence Ministry plans personnel training resources based on whether there is a demand for specific types of personnel in the Armed Forces.

Therefore, we need to look at what can be done not only to remember it but perhaps to preserve the remaining traditions. I will make sure to look into this and consult with the Defence Ministry.

Maria Balyuk: Mr President, good afternoon. My name is Maria Balyuk, I represent the Prime news agency.

Mr President, the budget in the current year and the next year will have a surplus. However, starting January 1, a number of decisions are coming into effect that may cause a significant increase in prices of a wide range of goods and services.

For example, the VAT will increase to 20 percent, which has already triggered a two-stage increase in the housing and utilities rates next year. There is also the new tax for self-employed persons in pilot regions. Please tell us how these measures agree with the state’s economic policy.

Vladimir Putin: Housing and utilities rates in two stages, and what else?

Maria Balyuk: And, for example, a tax on self-employed people in pilot regions.

Isn’t this amount of new measures too much of a burden on Russians and the economy?

Vladimir Putin: You said about the surplus.

Yes, this is indeed a good indicator of the Government’s economic block performance. As I said in my opening remarks, for the first time since 2011 we will have a budget surplus of 2.1 percent. And this is good.

Let us not forget that as an oil producing country and a country that derives much of its revenue from selling oil and gas, we also have what is called a non-oil-and-gas deficit. This is what the country earns from selling products and services other than oil and gas.

Let me remind you that this non-oil-and-gas deficit was 13 percent in 2009, which is a lot. In the early 2000s, it was at about 3 percent, but the global economic crisis forced us to use our oil revenues to meet our social commitments and finance the Armed Forces, so we had to tap into the oil revenues.

In this situation, the non-oil-and-gas deficit surged into the double digits almost reaching13 percent, I believe. This was a very serious challenge for the Russian economy. We have now reduced it to 6.6 percent, and next year it is expected to decline to 6 percent and remain at this level for the next few years.

This is a very important indicator of economic resilience for the Russian Federation. Therefore, the increase in the VAT rate, among other things, is due to the need to maintain the non-oil-and-gas deficit at a certain level.

Second, in many countries VAT is 20 percent or even higher. It used to be higher in Russia as well, but we reduced it at a certain point. Now we have returned to a 20-percent tax rate.

However, the effective VAT rate for the overall economy will be below 20 percent since almost all benefits remain in place: for pharmaceuticals, children’s goods, and so on, including for IT companies. Many benefits have been preserved. With this in mind, the effective rate will be actually lower.

Finally, I do hope that the rate hike will be only a one-off measure with a possible slight increase in prices and inflation in the beginning of the year, after which the inflation will go down.

The Central Bank also seeks to prevent inflation from picking up. Only recently, the interest rate was increased by 0.25 percentage points.

While there are definitely both benefits and disadvantages to this decision, all this is done in order to prevent inflation and prices from growing. For this reason, I believe that the overall decision was correct and balanced, creating additional budget revenue and the possibility to deliver on our development plans as part of the national projects.

As for increases in housing and utilities tariffs, over the past years they grew by about 4 percent per year. It is true that next year there will be two hikes: the first one will be at about 1.7 percent, and the second one I think will be about 2.4 percent, but in total this still makes up 4.1 percent.

Why will the increase be spread out in two stages? The reason is that with a higher VAT, prices of some goods and services are expected to increase, and we need to make sure that the utilities sector does not come under stress.

For this reason, in order to shield companies in this sector from these developments and ultimately in the interests of the people, we decided to proceed in two stages. That said, the overall increase should not exceed 4.1 percent.

In some regions, where the utilities infrastructure requires major upgrades and bigger hikes are required, this can be done as an exception, and subject to federal Government approval.

Yekaterina Gagarina: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Yekaterina Gagarina. I represent the Rossiya TV channel in Novosibirsk.

The importance of the Akademgorodok 2.0 [Academic Town] project that you supported during your visit to Novosibirsk is obvious not only to Siberian scientists. This project is unique for the entire country.

But behind the technological component of this project there are a number of tasks of a similarly large scale. They include building housing, roads, kindergartens and schools. My question is what if our scientific ambitions crash at daily living problems? Will the scientists have somewhere to live?

Vladimir Putin: I would not want them to crash.

I understand that it is a very important part of the entire process. Of course, we will be working on this with the regional officials. When I visited Novosibirsk, I also spoke about this with my colleagues.

The first objective of the federal government is to honour its obligations related to the facilities which trigger the development of Akademgorodok – which, by the way, is the opportunity to earn money on these high technologies. The social component will definitely be carried out after this.

But if any additional action is required to resolve the scientists’ social issues, of course, we will try to do it. By the way, the mortgage sector has been growing lately. We will support it as well. It is growing very fast for everybody. The growth of the mortgage sector stands at over 20 percent.

But, of course, we will try to address these issues for Akademgorodok. If there is a critical need for a response from the federal government, we will discuss it.

Sergei Marov: Hello, Mr President. My name is Sergei Marov, Zvezda newspaper, Volgograd Region. I will start with small details and bring you to the bigger question.

I will give you a simple example. Next to our editorial office, there is a company which for nine years…

Vladimir Putin: A company?

Sergei Marov: Yes.

For nine years, it has been putting gigantic efforts into building a technological chain for full-cycle flax processing. Imagine…

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, for the full cycle of processing…

Sergei Marov: Flax.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Sergei Marov: From planting a seed to finished clothing. This is what they did.

It appears that the message from these industrial workers is clear. At the same time, when I was going to this conference, I had serious consultations with the company’s workers, and they said: “The last research institute dealing with flax is in the process of liquidation.”

The last training institute for executive personnel in the fibre flax cultivation is in the process of liquidation. We are receiving completely different messages from the industrial companies working on the product and from the government that is supposed to support these industries.

Therefore, I have a question. How do you assess the state of industrial production and its growth rate? Do you believe that at this stage the government provides sufficient support to Russian producers?

Vladimir Putin: Frankly speaking, I am not aware of the problems of this flax research institute. But in general, flax is one of Russia’s traditional industries. It has always been our signature product, our pride. I will look into this situation.

Usually the problem is worse than it appears from the outside. I just do not know the details of what is going on with that institute – although, of course, flax production, once again, has always been Russia’s pride. If the industry needs this institute, it may be preserved, but we need to understand how this can be done. I promise you to look into this.

Now over to industrial production. As I said, industrial growth in general is ahead of GDP growth at 3 percent. The processing industry has grown by 3.2 percent. This is a good performance indicator.

As concerns light industry, it is developing even faster. Over the ten months of this year, food production has grown by 13 percent, which is, by the way, confirmed by the consumption figures that are generally growing. Clothing and footwear industries posted a growth of 9 percent, a very good result.

Now, is government support sufficient or not? It is not. This is why we have mapped out a number of programmes to support specific production sectors. Overall, by 2024, this support will amount to 1.376 trillion rubles and will extend to the light industry, aviation, the defence industry and some other sectors.

We have individual programmes for major industries. Next year, they will receive 450 billion rubles in support. The year after, it will be 450 to 470 billion rubles. These are the indicators, the figures. The total funding stands at 1.376 trillion rubles.

Anton Vernitsky: Mr President, as Soviet-era children, all of us feared a nuclear war very much. As you remember, various songs dealt with this issue. One of them had the following lyrics: “Sunny world: Yes, yes, yes; nuclear explosion: No, no, no.”

Vladimir Putin: Are you not afraid today?

Anton Vernitsky: Forty years have passed, and major media outlets on both sides of the ocean are beginning to publish a scenario for a nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. The word “war” is sounding more and more often at household level, in kitchens.

Mr President, how can you calm down my little son who, just like me, also fears a nuclear war today? What words and actions can calm us all down?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I think you are right.

I just thought that all this, including the danger of such developments in the world, is now being hushed up and played down to some extent. It seems impossible or something that is not so important. At the same time, if, God forbid, something like this happens, it might destroy the whole of civilisation or perhaps the entire planet.

These issues are therefore serious, and it is a great pity that there is such a tendency to underestimate the problem, and that this tendency is probably becoming more pronounced. What are the current distinguishing features and dangers?

First, all of us are now witnessing the disintegration of the international system for arms control and for deterring the arms race. This process is taking place after the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that, as I have already noted a thousand times, was the cornerstone in the sphere of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and deterring the arms race.

After that, we were forced to respond by developing new weapons systems that could breach these ABM systems. Now, we hear that Russia has gained an advantage. Yes, this is true. So far, the world has no such weapons systems. Leading powers will develop them, but, as yet they do not exist.

In this sense, there are certain advantages. But, speaking of the entire strategic balance, this is just an element of deterrence and for equalising parities. This is just the preservation of parity, and nothing more.

They are now about to take another step and withdraw from the INF Treaty. What will happen? It is very difficult to imagine how the situation will unfold. What if these missiles show up in Europe? What are we supposed to do then?

Of course, we will need to take some steps to ensure our safety. And they should not whine later that we are allegedly trying to gain certain advantages. We are not. We are simply trying to maintain the balance and ensure our security.

The same goes for the START III Treaty, which expires in 2021. There are no talks on this issue. Is it because no one is interested, or believes it is necessary? Fine, we can live with that.

We will ensure our security. We know how to do it. But in general, for humanity, this is very bad, because this takes us to a very dangerous line.

Finally, there is another circumstance I cannot ignore. There is a trend to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. There are plans to create low-impact nuclear charges, which translates to tactical rather than global use. Such ideas are coming from Western analysts who say it is okay to use such weapons. However, lowering the threshold can lead to a global nuclear disaster. This is one danger we are facing today.

The second is the use of non-nuclear ballistic missiles. True, our US partners seem to have dropped this idea, but it still exists. What does it mean?

Suppose, a ballistic missile is launched, nuclear or non-nuclear. The missile attack warning system identifies the launch and the launch site, and, seconds later, determines the flight path and the possible warhead landing area. This is all on the verge of a possible error. It is terrible, and we cannot take it that far. Nevertheless, such an idea of using non-nuclear ballistic missiles exists.

Suppose, a submarine fired a ballistic missile from the World Ocean, but who the hell knows if it is nuclear or not, go figure. This is very dangerous. All of that is being widely discussed, which is dangerous.

However, I believe humanity has enough common sense and enough of a sense of self-preservation not to take these things to the extreme.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us go to this sector. I see the Ukrainian flag in the second row.

Vladimir Putin: You attend all our news conferences, correct? You are from Ukraine?

Dmitry Peskov: Yes, he is our colleague from Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Right, my colleagues told me it was better not to let him speak, because he would cause a scandal. Are you going to cause a scandal now?

Please go ahead.

Yegor Sozayev-Guryev: Yegor Sozayev-Guryev, Izvestia. My question is about the incident in the Kerch Strait.

Vladimir Putin: But Izvestia is not from Ukraine, is it?

Yegor Sozayev-Guryev: Well, my question is about Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Well, go ahead.

Yegor Sozayev-Guryev: I have a question about the precedent in the Kerch Strait, I wonder about the future of the captured Ukrainian military. What will happen to them? Do you think this provocation was a success?

I cannot help asking about the citizens of Russia imprisoned in the United States. I mean Butina and Yaroshenko. How can Russia protect their rights? Perhaps, we should look at our Chinese partners? A Chinese citizen representing Huawei was detained in Canada. In response, they detained several Canadian citizens. Perhaps, we could learn from that experience?

Vladimir Putin: With regard to your first question, you said: “Do you think this provocation was a success?” First, let us state that it was a provocation, and you agree with that. This is already a good start.

Now, whether it was a success or not, I believe provocations are a bad thing whatever way you look at them. Provocations seek to aggravate things. Why do our Ukrainian partners need things to go that way? Clearly, they are in the middle of an election campaign right now, and they want to aggravate the situation in order to raise the ratings of one of the contenders, I mean the incumbent president and the current government. Well, this is bad, it is ultimately bad for the interests of the Ukrainian people and state. However, it is possible to move forward without any provocations and do so calmly, as before.

Whether it was a success or not, I mean in terms of improving popularity ratings, maybe it was, as Mr Poroshenko’s ratings seem to have increased a little and he has moved from the fifth position to the second or third, where the figure fluctuates around 12 percent. Ms Tymoshenko, I believe, has 20 percent or even more, whereas Zelinsky, Boyko and Poroshenko have around 12 percent each. In this sense, yes, he probably achieved the goal. At the expense of the country’s interests, I believe. This is a bad way to boost ratings.

With regard to the future of the Ukrainian servicemen, they were sent on this mission and some of them were expected to die in the process. I can see that the leadership is very upset by the fact that no one died. They expected some of them to die. Thank God, this did not happen. An investigation is underway. Once it is over, we will know what to do with them.

Still, I will ask you to give the microphone to our colleague from Ukraine.

Roman Tsymbalyuk: Thank you. There will be no scandal. There never was a scandal actually.

Vladimir Putin: Thank God.That already is good news.

Roman Tsymbalyuk: Mr President, I would like to ask you how much money you are spending on the occupied Donbass? Under your leadership, people there are living in poverty. Let us face it, they have become slaves to Russia. You are concerned about the threat of a nuclear war and at the same time, you are preparing for a war against NATO, and, in fact, you are shooting at Ukrainian citizens. It was you as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief who issued the order to open fire at seamen. My question is what are the terms of the exchange?

And a question about the elections, if I may. You say that you analyse the approval ratings.

Vladimir Putin: Just a second. Terms of exchange?

Roman Tsymbalyuk: The terms of exchange of Ukrainian political prisoners and Ukrainian servicemen. You do need your Russian citizens back, don’t you?

And about the elections, if I may. You constantly analyse the ratings and one gets the impression that…

Vladimir Putin: I do not analyse them, I look at them inasmuch as you print them.

Roman Tsymbalyuk: … in this way you are meddling in the electoral process like you did in the United States. Doesn’t it seem to you that a direct dialogue between the presidents of Ukraine and Russia will never take place until you change your job?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the suffering of the people who live in Donbass. You are a Ukrainian citizen, aren’t you? And you consider the people who live on this territory to be the citizens of your country. Can you tell me who established the blockade between Donbass and the rest of Ukraine? Did Russia do it? The Ukrainian authorities did it: they imposed a total economic blockade of the territory they consider to be their own. They shoot at the people they consider to be their own citizens. People are killed there almost every day, peaceful civilians, by the way.

We do render humanitarian and other assistance and support to the people who live on that territory. But we do it only to prevent them from being finally crushed, devoured and torn to pieces, and we will continue doing it. Because attempts to solve these political issues by force – and we have seen this being done by the current Kiev authorities for several years – are doomed to failure. This has to be kept in mind.

Now concerning how to settle these relations and who will and will not remain in power. It is not about personalities, it is about the attitude towards people. We want to see peace and prosperity on the entire territory of Ukraine, including Donbass. We are interested in it because Ukraine remains one of our biggest trade and economic partners.

Trade between Ukraine and Russia, in spite of all the efforts of the current Kiev authorities, is growing, it has grown in the outgoing year, it has grown during the current year. Is it strange? No, it is not strange because these are natural ties. These natural ties will sooner or later make themselves felt. But as long as the Kiev corridors of power are peopled by Russophobes who do not understand the interests of their own people this abnormal situation will persist. Regardless of who is in power at the Kremlin.

We have attended to the issue of exchange all along. Mr Medvedchuk, on instructions from Poroshenko, by the way, has been constantly engaged in this. He came to Moscow just recently and raised the issue of the release of Ukrainian servicemen detained in the Kerch Strait, in the Black Sea to be more precise. Yes, Medvedchuk raised this issue. However, as I have said, these issues could only be tackled after the criminal case is closed.

Margarita Baulina: Good afternoon, colleagues, Mr President. My name is Margarita Baulina, I am from the Family, Society, Traditions publication.

Two years ago, a group of activists from my paper decided to take part in a social project to build a covered football pitch for disadvantaged children, as well as for kids from children’s homes.

For two years, we have been knocking on the doors of various committees, writing letters, holding meetings and still everybody is totally indifferent to our cause. I do not want to speak ill of my colleagues from other professional fields, but we are treated like we want to open a flower shop or a gas station, and nobody pays attention to the fact that we want to help the state perform its functions and carry out an important mission.

Vladimir Putin: Sorry, I did not understand you: what are you trying to do?

Margarita Baulina: We are trying to open a covered football pitch for disadvantaged children and children from children’s homes, to give them an opportunity to fulfil themselves for free, to find their true identity not in the streets through some harmful activities.

Vladimir Putin: Do you have a non-governmental non-profit organisation established, or what?

Margarita Baulina: We are registered as a limited liability company on the base of our publication.

Vladimir Putin: So it means this is a business?

Margarita Baulina: Currently, yes, because we cannot find other ways to implement our project.

Vladimir Putin: Who have you addressed?

Margarita Baulina: We are trying to address this issue with several committees in out city, such as the Property Committee, Sports Committee and the Committee for Youth and Social Policy. And each time we go from one committee to another, and exchange letters with them, etc.

Vladimir Putin: How much does your project cost?

Margarita Baulina: At the moment we need 11 million rubles.

Vladimir Putin: What was your city again?

Margarita Baulina: St Petersburg.

Vladimir Putin: I will speak with the Acting Governor. I am sure we can solve this problem.

Margarita Baulina: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I am sure.

Kseniya Golovanova: Congratulations on Counterintelligence Day, Mr President. This is observed today.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you and the same to you. I feel that you are quite closely connected to this sphere…

Intelligence, counterintelligence and information work are all the same. At the end of the day, they are all about information: you work with information, and so do the special services.

Kseniya Golovanova: Russian society, especially its younger part, have recently witnessed strange actions by the authorities that I believe can cause unnecessary conflict. One example is the case of the rappers – I think you are already familiar with this word. They come under pressure, with crackdowns on their concerts.

Vladimir Putin: Are you questioning my competency?

Kseniya Golovanova: Not at all.

Vladimir Putin: You said, “I think you are already familiar with this word.” Well, I knew it even before.

Kseniya Golovanova: Well, you tend to use it more often now.

Vladimir Putin: There were rappers among my authorised representatives. Take Timati, for example. Just look at this spectacular guy. By the way, he is a wonderful person and a brilliant artist.

Kseniya Golovanova: During the meeting of the Council for Culture, you said that if you cannot rein in a movement, you have to become its leader. Could you tell me why the state has to have a role in all this? Why not just leave it alone? Why did the people have to be dispersed? Who needed it? So they use obscene language in their songs – let them be.

There is a second question I wanted to ask that also deals with young people. A lot of people have recently voiced their misgivings over a legislative initiative on introducing tighter responsibility for negative statements regarding the state and authorities. This will also primarily target young people on social media. Aren’t you afraid that these initiatives could cost you their support?

Vladimir Putin: Let me start with the question on alienating young people or attracting them.

You know, in any discussion about the youth, I always remember ceratin tragic and heroic chapters from our recent past. Do you remember the airborne squadron of 96 young lads, 19 or 20 years old, who found themselves in the Armed Forces almost immediately after graduating from school? These 96 soldiers fought against 2,000. Only six survived. They fought for almost three days, at times fighting at close quarters, with shovels and knives. They are heroes, and they were young, 19 or 20 years old (Applause).

Take volunteers, for example. There are thousands and thousands of them. I think that as many as 35,000 worked at the World Cup. And what about those involved in battlefield archaeology? There are thousands of them as well. They are all young people.

People of this kind form a very substantial social stratum, a large social group. They are all young, they are the foundation of Russia’s present and future. There are also young researchers, talented artists and musicians, including rappers.

As for responsibility for desecration of the flag or other state symbols, it exists in almost every country. People must respect their country. There are rules that must be respected everywhere. If there is responsibility offline, it must also exist online.

In what way does online behaviour differ from offline activity? After all, these are still social interactions, especially since the internet has penetrated all areas of our lives. For this reason, there is nothing extraordinary about it.

As for these rappers being detained, I agree with you. This does not make any sense and brings about the opposite effect to what was intended, leading nowhere. That being said, there is nothing good in what you said about letting people use obscene language and not paying attention to it.

Recently, as you must have seen, I attended Yury Temirkanov’s birthday celebration; he turned 80. He said something very common and still absolutely correct: “Art does not exist to indulge base motives, base interests and low cultural profile. Culture is there to raise the level of those things.”

Of course, this is not something people should be caught, restricted or punished for. This would be wrong. But there are other things. For example, remember, I did not know it was broadcast live, where I told my interlocutor: “Let us all use foul language here at the Council on Culture meeting.” Everyone laughed. Why? It never occurs to anyone to do this. Why should we condone it? No, we should not do this.

But there are other elements. For example, drug propaganda. Do we want our young people to use drugs? Why should we condone the promotion of drug use? This is a degradation of society, a degradation of young people, and a degradation of the nation.

Do we want to degenerate? Someone wants to promote drugs – so let them. But we should not do this, and in no way should we encourage it, and we should not turn a blind eye either. Only, we need a different way of dealing with these trends.

Another example: it has become trendy to promote suicide among young people. So what do you say, let’s go now and hang ourselves, or what? Then you go first, not me. You do not want to, right? This cannot be allowed in the youth environment. That is what I said – you take the lead.

This is different from catching, restricting or telling someone to ”do as I do.“ No, this is not aviation. Here you have to act differently. Are there any different methods? Of course there are. We need to carefully and calmly build our case, convince people of the greater appeal of other values. But you cannot ban it outright, I agree with you.

Dmitry Peskov: Are there, in addition to the Ukrainian media, media representatives from other countries as well? Our Japanese colleagues from Kyodo Tsushin in the middle of this centre section, please, take the floor. Please, pass the microphone there.

Hirofumi Sugizaki: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Hirofumi Sugizaki: Hirofumi Sugizaki,Kyodo Tsushin, Japan.

It is natural that my question is, unfortunately, about the peace treaty that, as I understand, our countries are seeking to sign. After your meeting with Mr Shinzo Abe in Singapore, where you agreed to push the negotiating process forward on the basis of the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956, our public’s only concern is about how many islands we are going to get: nil, two, three or four – we do not know. On the other hand, as I understand, the Russians are also puzzled, as they mainly ask questions like, “Why should we return them?” Some people even approach us with a threat: “We will not yield an inch of our land.” And so on. The question is about the delimitation that we must carry out. But if our new treaty – a peace treaty – is confined to the delimitation of borders, this will not be enough and will not be interesting to our nations, and people will not understand this. What new idea do you think should be embedded in a treaty to bring our relations to a new level?

There is another question that I cannot fail to ask in connection with the above. Russia – and you yourself – has brought up security issues recently, I mean the deployment of the US missile defence system in Japan and the possibility of deploying American troops and military infrastructure on the islands should they be transferred to Japan. We are holding negotiations at an expert level, but in military matters Japan almost fully depends on the US. Do you think these issues can be resolved on a bilateral basis, or will you have to deal directly with the US? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Let us talk about the final part of your question so that we do not forget what you said. The issues of security are crucially important, including when signing a peace treaty. You spoke about the deployment of the US military infrastructure in Japan, but it is already there, the largest US base is in Okinawa, it has been there for decades, as we know.

Now, about Japan’s ability to take part in this decision-making. To us, this is an unclear, closed issue. We do not understand the level of Japan’s sovereignty in making such decisions. You know better than all other colleagues, and I know too that the Okinawa Governor is opposed to some decisions related to improving and expanding the base. He is against it, but he cannot do anything about it. People who live there are also against it.

There is a lot of evidence of that; there have been opinion polls and protests demanding the withdrawal of this base. And, in any case, they are opposed to strengthening the US Air Force part of the base that is there. There are plans to improve and expand it, and it is happening despite the fact that everybody is against it.

We do not know what will happen after the peace treaty is concluded, but without an answer to this question it will be very difficult to make any crucial decisions. And, of course, we are concerned about the plans to place ABM systems there. I told the United States this many times and I will repeat again that we do not consider this to be defensive weapons; this is part of the US strategic nuclear potential placed outside. And these systems, they are synchronised with the missile strike systems.

So there are no illusions and we understand everything. But nevertheless we are sincerely striving and will strive to sign a peace treaty with Japan. It is because I am confident, and Prime Minister Abe shares my confidence, that the current state of affairs is not normal. Both Japan and Russia are interested in a complete settlement of our relations, and it is not only because we need something from Japan in terms of the economy. Our economy is more or less developing.

Just this morning, Economic Development Minister Maxim Oreshkin reported on his trip to Japan. There is some progress, including an agreement on deliveries, on opening the Japanese market to Russian meat and poultry products. There are other improvements as well. Therefore, we are moving forward, and will continue to move forward, as it will be necessary. But the normalisation is important to us, both for Russia and Japan. It is a difficult process, but we are ready to move forward together with our colleagues.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. As you may know, British media regulator Ofcom has just found RT guilty of violating broadcasting regulations and is looking into the possibility of introducing sanctions against it. I saw an RT correspondent somewhere here. Let us give him the floor, as he is the main source of such information.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Ilya Petrenko: Thank you, Mr Peskov.

Good afternoon. My name isIlya Petrenko from the Russia Today television channel.

But I have a different question. First, I would like to inquire about a recent decision to simplify procedures for the people of Ukraine to obtain Russian citizenship. Our channel often dealt with this issue, as well as with bureaucracy. It goes without saying that this is an important step, but I would like to ask you to explain the logic of this from a purely political standpoint. If this is so essential, and if this is needed to help people in eastern Ukraine, why didn’t we do it earlier? Are you not afraid that bureaucracy will persist, and that papers will, from now on, be placed to the left, rather than the right?

I would also like to come back to the question from my Izvestia colleague. There is the Skripal scandal and the Western response to it. Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian journalist, was murdered, and this incident caused an entirely different response. Kirill Vyshinsky and Maria Butina, as well as Huawei Chief Financial Officer were arrested. And Donald Trump is saying openly that sheis a bargaining chip in a trade war. My colleague wanted to know if we would ever see this happening in Russia, when foreign citizens would be arrested under far-fetched pretexts and exchanged for someone else. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with the last part of your question. I do not want to comment on US-Chinese relations, who arrested whom and for what actions, etc. This is a very sensitive area, and we will not act according to the laws of the Code of Hammurabi here. The law of retaliation states, “An eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.” We need to act very cautiously here, and we need to be real. We will respond if certain people violate Russian legislation, regardless of their national and state affiliation. But we will not arrest innocent people simply to exchange them for someone else later on.

As for the fate of Russian nationals, we do care about them, including the fact that Butina is being forced to admit something over there. I cannot understand what she could possibly have admitted, since she was not following any instructions from the Russian Government or its agencies. I am saying this because I mean it, no matter what she says under the threat of being sentenced to 12 or 15 years in prison. It is understandable that together with her lawyer she is fighting to get out of prison. I do not quite understand why they put her there in the first place. There were simply no grounds for it. But now this is a question of saving face for them and finding a way out. I am primarily referring to the US justice system. We will see how it plays out. We do care, and we will keep an eye on this case and provide our support accordingly.

As for the Skripals and Khashoggi, no comment is required. Khashoggi was obviously murdered, and everyone acknowledged it. Skripal is alive, thank Heaven. Nevertheless, Russia was slapped with a salvo of sanctions in this connection, with no end in sight, which contrasts with complete silence in the second case. This is a politically-driven, Rusophobic approach. It serves as a pretext for attacking Russia once more. Without the Skripal case, they would have come up with something else. This is quite obvious to me. Their only goal is to contain Russia and prevent it from emerging as a potential competitor. I do not see any other end to it.

Regarding red tape on citizenship matters. You said “red tape.” How so? Red tape is perennial. You cannot defeat it. At the same time, you cannot live without it either, and this has to be said as well. It is true that there must be rules for this bureaucracy and governance mechanisms, etc.

Regarding naturalisation, this does not have to do only with what is taking place in southeastern Ukraine. Our initiatives do not target exclusively people living in these territories. The Government is currently working on amendments to the relevant law on citizenship and naturalisation. What for? These efforts are designed to show that we do not seek and will not support policies of division or the ones designed to alienate the peoples of Russia and Ukraine. What are the current [Ukrainian] authorities doing? What is their mission? What are they trying to achieve on the back of Russophobia they are promoting? They are practically admitting that they are pursuing a historic task of separating the peoples of Russia and Ukraine. This is what they are up to. And for that, they can get away with anything.

Your colleague from the Ukrainian media talked about the challenges faced by people living in Donbass and the Lugansk Region, and their poor living standards. But is it any better in Ukraine? The situation is quite similar compared to Donbass, and it is getting worse all the time. Anything can be forgiven within the country, and even more so outside it against the backdrop of war, hostilities and tensions. And they are getting paid for this. They are about to receive another IMF tranche. We do understand what this is all about: just enough to pay out pensions and salaries to social sector employees, and the future generations will have to foot the bill. For this reason the overall situation is quite unfavourable. I believe this to be the case for the economy, society and domestic political processes. But our nations are very close and share the same history, so we will do everything to move in this direction.

The law on citizenship is currently being amended, and it will be adopted in early 2019.

Yury Abumov: Yury Abumov, Khakassia newspaper.

Mr President, I would like to ask about the latest regional elections. It is no secret that in some regions, they were quite turbulent and tense, and sometimes even long, like in Primorye, where they have just ended, and Khakassia actually set a record of holding elections that went on for two whole months.

But the most important thing is that, as a result of the protest vote, opposition parties’ candidates won. In particular, a candidate from the Communist Party won in Khakassia, and candidates from LDPR won in Khabarovsk and in Vladimir Region. This raises some questions.

First, why do you think this happened? Second, why, contrary to the tradition you established, have you not met with the elected regional heads yet? And most importantly, how do you intend to build relations with the regions where the opposition parties won? Because there are concerns that the federal Government may cut their funding and support – there are such fears.

Vladimir Putin: Do not worry about it. It is strange that this question even occurred.

About the meetings. The elections in Vladivostok were held just last Sunday, and that is why there were no meetings. They will be, and they are scheduled for next week, I believe. We will have the State Council meeting, and, I have already instructed the Executive Office to schedule a separate meeting with the newly elected heads of the regions you have just mentioned. We had to wait for the voting results in Vladivostok. This is the first point.

Second. This is not the first time that representatives of opposition parties win elections, is it? For several years now, an LDPR representative has been heading Smolensk; in Omsk, there is someone from United Russia, I think, and in other regions, there are representatives of the Communist Party. So what? They are working; everything is fine.

I am not a member of any party. True, I created the United Russia, but the President is not a member of any party. And the main thing for me is that people in the cities and regions of the Russian Federation feel that life is changing for the better.

In fact, if they cast their vote for a specific person who does not represent the United Russia party, that is their choice. I will help in every way any elected leader of the region.

The only question is that the newly elected heads of regions themselves should rise to the challenge, should be able to fulfil the electoral promises they made to the people.

Yelena Glushakova: My name is Yelena Glushakova, and I am from RIA Novosti.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yelena Glushakova: I have also brought a picture, Masha and the Bear, that relates to the topic of my question. As my colleagues have said, Russia has been living under a huge amount of the most varied sanctions for the past few years. It can be hard to keep track at times, and, in some cases, they are vowing to introduce sanctions against cartoon characters.

But this is beside the point. My question is more serious. They are planning to introduce even more serious sanctions; for example, US lawmakers are preparing for this. And is Russia prepared for a new round of sanctions escalation? Does the Government have any plan for minimising their impact on the Russian economy? And what do you think the impact is, all the more so given the widely differing views expressed on it?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we have discussed sanctions many times. If you want to discuss this issue once again, that is okay with me.

Throughout virtually its entire history, Russia has faced various restrictions and sanctions. Really its entire history.

If you look at the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, you will see that the situation is always the same. You can read diplomatic correspondence dating to the 19th century and the early 20th century. Everything is the same. They urged Russian diplomats to quickly establish order in the Caucasus and to do many other things. Nothing changes.

How can this be explained? I have already discussed this, and I hope that an overwhelming majority of today’s audience also realises that it is related to Russia’s growing might and its greater competitiveness. A mighty and powerful player is emerging, one that has to be reckoned with, even if others would rather not.

Quite recently, they believed that a country like that no longer existed, but it turns out it does and it must be reckoned with. Our country has a population of 160 million. This is not just some wishful thinking on the part of its leaders, it represents the interests of the people that we are defending. By the way, we are carefully defending these interests with calm and restraint, nothing boorish. But we are going about our business, and we will continue to move in this direction.

Speaking of present-day sanctions, they have just mentioned the Skripals and Khashoggi incidents. So, is there any logic here? No, there is none. This is just a pretext for taking additional action to contain Russia.

Our economy, as it has been said many times, has adapted to these external restrictions. Look, in the beginning of this meeting I mentioned that after the 2008−2009 global crisis, our GDP dropped by 7.8 percent. There were no sanctions at the time. After the sanctions were imposed in 2014, the drop was 2.5 percent.

You asked how we assess this situation? We always assess it in our favour. But let us look at how our opponents see it – those who impose the sanctions. For example, the US Treasury Department believes that this 2.5-percent drop in 2015 was one-third due to the sanctions and two-thirds due to the collapsed prices on energy sources, mainly, oil. In fact, I think that one-third is too much. But all, right, they did affect our GDP.

The sanctions also affect those who introduced them. According to the European Parliament, the European economy lost around 500 billion euros due to the sanctions against Russia because they lost our market, they under-export and they under-import certain goods from us. The number of jobs has dropped.

It is significant for them because many EU countries suffer from a very high unemployment rate. In Spain, if I am not mistaken, it is still around 15 percent. We have 4.8 percent and they have 15 percent, you know. And the development of global trade, which lost over 400 billion, is also a result of such an unpredictable policy, including sanctions. This policy is harmful to everybody.

I will repeat once again, our economy has adapted to this. Yes, there are some adverse effects but look, there are also positive sides to these sanctions. What are they? The sanctions made us switch on our brains in many areas and Western experts also acknowledge this. The share of Russian transport machine building was 98 percent in 2017. Automobile production accounted for 85 percent. Several other industries, also key areas, accounted for around 80 percent.

This year, we spent 600 billion rubles on import substitution, including 125 to 128 billion from the federal budget. I will not even mention agriculture. We had to compensate for the imports in the market. Yes, unfortunately, this resulted in a short-term price increase in the domestic food market but right now, the prices have stabilised to a large extent in this sector of the economy and agriculture has made a breakthrough that we could not have ever imagined.

Since 2000, the amount of exports has increased 16-fold, which is just unbelievable except it is actually happening. There are negative and positive sides but in any case, we would like the world economy to develop without any shocks, unlawful measures or external restrictions, to develop naturally, for its own benefit.

Dmitry Peskov: Now, to our respected regional media. Chelyabinsk, please.

Vladimir Putin: Wait a second. I see a poster saying ‘KGB and children.’ Today is December 20, the day of the Cheka. What do you mean, there are children in the KGB? What is it? Please, hand them a microphone.

Remark: As my good friend said once, “We all are the children of the KGB, but life has taught us different things.”

Vladimir Putin: If you are the children of the KGB, why does life teach you? The KGB should do that.

Question: Mr President, society strongly demands social justice. According to Levada Centre, 66 percent of respondents feel nostalgic about the Soviet Union. And here is my question: do you think that a restoration of socialism is possible in Russia?

Vladimir Putin: I think this is impossible.

I believe that the deep changes that have taken place in our society make restoring socialism in the sense you mean impossible.

There can be social elements in the economy and the social sector, but expenses will always exceed profits, and as a result, the economy would be at a dead end.

But the just distribution of resources, the fair treatment of people who live below the poverty line, and a state policy aimed to lower the number of people who have to live like that, to provide the majority of people with healthcare services and education in acceptable conditions, if this is the socialism we are talking about, we are holding to the very same policy. Our national programmes that we talked about in the beginning of this meeting, are mostly aimed at all this.

Dmitry Peskov: If it is not about the KGB then please go ahead. You are from Chelyabinsk, aren’t you?

Yana Skonechnaya: Thank you.

My name is Yana Skonechnaya, I represent the Southern Urals State Television and Radio Company, the city of Chelyabinsk.

I have a question that concerns not only Chelyabinsk, but all of Russia. I am talking about waste management, waste sorting, in particular. Not a single city in our country has either the industry for separate trash collection, or a culture of waste sorting. I have a colleague who does separate trash collection, but her entire apartment is filled with trash bags, because she needs to collect a certain amount of it, then load it into her car, take it to the other end of the city and only then dispose of it. Of course, some regions have already begun building the appropriate infrastructure, but this is all a drop in the ocean. You raised this issue on many occasions. So why is it so hard to make it happen? Why can we not use international experience and have our waste properly recycled?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, the answer is fairly simple. The situation is complicated, but the answer is simple – we have never dealt with it. For decades, since Soviet times, we have been dumping garbage in pits, to put it colorfully. No one has ever engaged in its processing, unless minimally in certain areas, while we produce, I believe, 70 million tonnes of trash annually, and there is no place to dispose of it. The amount of waste tends to increase with the development of industry, including the development of the consumer goods industry. As chemistry progresses, the amount of plastic trash increases. In the Pacific, there are entire islands of it the size of France and several metres thick. Plastic tends to accumulate in these spots and there is nothing you can do about it. However, this is the Pacific, while we dump it all in landfills.

We need to address several key and top priorities. First, we need to eliminate illegal landfills. Second, we should create a waste treatment industry. What your colleague is doing is great, and is highly commendable, but this is a problem for environmentally conscious people. The state, first of all the regions, and then the municipalities, should create conditions for separate trash collection and subsequent recycling. I understand the people who oppose the construction of waste disposal plants. You have just mentioned international best practices. It is necessary to use them in our country. We often manage to do so. Here, we need to do the same. Some environmentalists and even some citizens object to building even waste incineration plants in the regions. These plants need to be of high quality and efficient, so as not to have to scrimp on the filters for them. They are the most expensive part of the processing and incineration plants. Everything has be done according to the corresponding technology and methodology.

In Tokyo (as our colleague will confirm, I think), waste incineration plants are located in central parts of the city. There is no smell, no problems whatsoever, because the process is adhered to. We need to do the same. We must build 200 waste treatment plants before 2024. I am not sure this will be enough, but we must have at least 200 such plants in our country.

Alexander Ilyin: Alexander Ilyin, Yakutia newspaper.

Mr President, my question is this. The Crimean Bridge has become a symbol of Crimea’s return to its homeland. The bridge over the Lena River can become a symbol of the development of Russia’s Asian part. I would like to ask you, should we expect this bridge to be built? If so, when? Because the Yakut people really need it. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I see. A symbol is always good; it is always a landmark of some stage of work that has been completed and a springboard for further progress. In this sense, the Crimean Bridge is both. I agree with you: it is both a symbol of Crimea’s reunification with Russia, and an opportunity for the peninsula’s development. It opens opportunities for development. It is very important.

The same applies to the bridge across the Lena River. You said it has to spur development. This needs to be calculated carefully. The cost of this project – and we have been talking about it for a long time, for several years – is very high. It is an expensive project. We need to look if it will simply stop at the city and that is it, or if there is a possibility of developing the region as a whole, the area on the other side of the Lena River: the local economy, infrastructure, access to mineral deposits. Here is what we need to decide. We need to match the costs against the end result for the economy of the region as a whole. If our colleagues at the Transport Ministry and the Economic Development Ministry agree, then of course we will implement this project.

Vladimir Putin: Let us go on. Nature, Motherland, people.

Remark: (From the audience.) We will soon run out of gas.

Vladimir Putin: We will talk about gas in a moment. We will not run out of gas. We have more gas than the rest of the world. We have 67 trillion cubic metres in Yamal alone.

Go ahead, please.

Sergei Lisovsky: Mr President,

Thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. Sergei Lisovsky, editor-in-chief of Society and the Environmentnewspaper. I have been publishing it in St Petersburg for 19 years now. Next year it will turn 20 – the oldest environmental newspaper in Russia, steadily published. Small but steady.

Vladimir Putin: We will celebrate.

Sergei Lisovsky: That is what I wanted to say, before asking a serious question, I would like to invite you to St Petersburg to attend a roundtable discussion on Russia’s development strategy, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Society and the Environment.

My question is as follows. We are working on the protection of the Neva River, the protection of forests, water resources, the protection of the Don River… And thank you so much for issuing instructions at the Russian Popular Front’s media forum on April 23 to report to you on the construction of the Bagayevsky hydroelectric dam, this dangerous facility the local residents are opposing.

Mr Kiriyenko at the RPF congress told me that your instructions remain in force. But local officials are reluctant to comply with them. Therefore, I would like to ask you to pay attention to the Don River – this is as great a Russian river as the Volga and the Neva. This is my first point.

And second, Mr President.

On December 15, you chaired a meeting of the Council for Culture [and Art] at the Constantine Palace. All the questions asked there were very good and correct, including about drug addiction. But Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky asked one of the key questions, and I would like to follow up on this issue after thinking it over.

He said that Russia now lacks an ambitious national development idea. The Russian Empire had the following triad: Orthodox Christianity, autocracy and nationality. The Soviet Union had the moral code of the builder of communism. Today, it is unclear what kind of society we are building, but it looks more like the amoral code of the builder of capitalism.

I came up with a triad of my own, and I would like to ask you to get our federal television channels, including Channel One, NTV and Rossiya, to hold a nationwide discussion of what kind of country and society we are building, after all. So, I suggest the following triad: nature, motherland and the people. Its three component – nature, motherland and the people – cannot exist without one another. And that is why we now watch shows about who left whom and who cheated on whom. That is, there is a kind of media lawlessness. And if we raise the issue of all television shows …

Dmitry Peskov: What is your question, please?

Sergey Lisovsky: Yes, is it possible to create a television show on strategically important issues related to Russia’s long-term development?

Vladimir Putin: It is always very interesting to speak with Andrei Mikhalkov-Konchalovsky. He is very insightful. He has his own opinions, which he is not afraid to express, whether you agree or not. He is not a conformist, and he speaks his mind. He is an insightful person.

I have repeatedly discussed whether we have an idea for building the state, the country – the foundation on which to build. I believe that patriotism in the best sense of the word, rather than the basest, simply has to be the foundation for strengthening our state in the broadest and noblest sense of this word.

As for our many channels on television and online that probably are not worth the air time they take up, you know, Daniil Granin (I believe that I mentioned this some time ago) discussed the matter at our last meeting.

We had a long private conversation, and I never saw him again, he passed away some time later. He said: “Look, you have to do something about this.” I asked: “What are you talking about?” “We are all tired of it,” he replied. “What do you mean?” I asked. “All the television channels are telling us about people who stole money, how much, how they did it. I am really sick and tired of it. Are there really no happy and positive events in life here?” I said: “Well, that is their programming choice.”

As I see it, things are actually gradually changing for the better, to some extent, the information is becoming more balanced perhaps, although I don’t go online or watch television very often just because I don’t have enough time.

I try to keep an eye on the media environment, and I get the impression that there has been some improvement. But there would certainly be no harm in discussing what you have suggested. I will need to speak with my colleagues.

They can hear you now, and I hope that they will respond.

The Chicago Tribune’s correspondent over there, you have the floor, please.

Rachel Marsden: President Putin, Rachel Marsden with the Tribune Publishing out of Chicago, United States.

Yesterday, President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of the American troops from Syria. He also announced that, in his opinion, the United States defeated ISIS in Syria, he made that very clear.

What is your position with respect to his statements, both on the withdrawal of the American troops from Syria and also with his statement regarding the defeat of ISIS by the United States?

And, secondly, do you have concern that the American troops will remain in some form? There has been much discussion, for example, around the presence, potentially, of contractors in other jurisdictions where the United States is either out of militarily or might want to be out of militarily but in a more discreet way.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: As concerns the defeat of ISIS, overall I agree with the President of the United States. I already said that we achieved significant progress in the fight against terrorism in that territory and delivered major strikes on ISIS in Syria.

There is a risk of these and similar groups migrating to neighbouring regions and Afghanistan, to other countries, to their home countries, and they are partly returning.

It is a great danger for all of us, including Russia, the United States, Europe, Asian countries, including Central Asia. We know that, we understand the risk fully. Donald is right about that, and I agree with him.

As concerns the withdrawal of American troops, I do not know what that is. The United States have been present in, say, Afghanistan, for how long? Seventeen years, and every year they talk about withdrawing the troops. But they are still there. This is my second point.

Third. So far, we have not seen any evidence of their withdrawal but I suppose it is possible, the more so because we are progressing towards a political settlement. The current issue on the agenda is building a constitutional committee.

By the way, when we met in Istanbul – I mean Russia, Turkey, France and Germany – we agreed to make every possible effort to create this constitutional committee and Russia, for its part, has done everything in its power for this to happen.

As strange as it may seem, we fully agreed on the list of members with President al-Assad, who designated 50 people and was involved in selecting 50 more from civil society. Despite the fact that he is not happy with everything, he agreed with this.

Turkey, which represents the interests of the opposition, also agreed. Iran agreed. We submitted the list to the UN and, as Minister Lavrov reported to me just yesterday, unexpectedly, prompted by our partners – Germany, France and the United States – UN representatives (Mr de Mistura) decided to wait and see.

I do not understand what is going on there but at any rate, I want to believe that this work is in its final stage. Maybe not by the end of this year but in the beginning of the next the list will be agreed and this will open the next stage of the settlement, which will be political settlement.

Is the presence of American troops required there? I do not think it is. However, let us not forget that their presence, the presence of your troops, is illegitimate as it was not approved by a UN Security Council resolution. The military contingent can only be there under a resolution of the UN Security Council or at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian Government. Russian troops were invited by the Syrian Government. The United States did not get either of these so if they decide to withdraw their troops, it is the right decision.

There is another very important component in this process. Despite all the disagreements, our specialists, our military personnel, security services and foreign ministries have established a rather constructive dialogue to address acute issues in combating terrorism in Syria. Overall, we are satisfied with our cooperation.

Remark: (From the audience) You will not forget about Gazprom, will you?

Vladimir Putin: How can I forget about Gazprom? Just a second.

Olga Ivanova: Good afternoon. My name is Olga, I represent the Selskaya Zhisn (Rural Life) newspaper. It marked its 100th anniversary last March. You congratulated our editorial board, and we are very thankful for that.

Here is my question. Judging by the current statistics, the growth rate of the agricultural sector has slowed down despite the absence of competition because of the sanctions and the terrific environment. How can you explain that? And does that bother you?

And another one: there are no national projects for agriculture, why is that?

Vladimir Putin: As for national projects and agriculture, agriculture has long been a national project in Russia. It receives state support worth hundreds of billions of rubles, and it will keep receiving it, both large and small farms, all segments of the sector.

As for the low growth rate. Yes, it is true. Are we worried? No. And the environment is far from being terrific, our agricultural producers work in difficult conditions.

First, there is still competition. Thank God, competition is developing inside the country, and this is very important for the development of this sector of the economy. There is also foreign competition. Not all countries imposed sanctions, which means we did not take counter-measures against them. We introduced such measures against the EU countries, the US and other countries that imposed sanctions against Russia at the instruction of the US. But the majority of countries in the world did not, and there are many of them. They supply us with their products and therefore there is competition.

Speaking of what is going on in agriculture, these are statistics and they relate to grain production. As you know, last year we had a record-breaking grain harvest of 135.5 million tonnes. This is the main factor influencing the statistics. This year, due to unfavourable weather conditions – and in 27 regions a state of emergency was declared – the harvest was smaller: 110.5 million tonnes. Therefore, as compared to last year, there is a decline. However, these 110 million tonnes rank third in terms of production volume in the past 25 years. It is a very good result. Combined with the reserves from last year, potential exports grew to 52.5 million tonnes. We will fulfil all obligations and contracts. So we are not worried at all.

In the agricultural sector, there are areas where we need to act and maintain our efforts. What are these areas? We need to improve our competitiveness, and expand the infrastructure, in order to boost exports, among other things. Incidentally, last year exports totalled 20 billion, and this year they will reach 25 billion. There was a time when these figures were hard to imagine. Russia exports 16 billion worth of arms, while agricultural exports are at 25 billion. We will continue to support agricultural and export infrastructure development; about 400 billion rubles will go toward these ends over the next few years. This includes developing ports, roads and so forth, and supporting exports with financial instruments. This is how we can enhance our competitiveness. Of course, professional training, selection breeding, etc. are also important. You know this better than I do.

Second, we need to promote high value-added production, including meat and meat processing.

For course, we also need to address matters related to the social development of rural areas. This programme will remain in place.

Artyom Artemenko: Good afternoon, Artyom Artemenko, Crimea 24 television network.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Artyom Artemenko: Mr President, you recently said that the restrictions Russia is facing from some countries have a direct bearing on the people living in Crimea who voted for reunification with Russia in 2014. Can you explain what you meant? How do we deal with this? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I did say this, even though I can hardly recall where I was at the time, but I can explain it. This is an interesting situation. What we hear from the outside is that Russia annexed Crimea. But what does annexation mean? It means a forcible takeover. If this had been an annexation and a takeover by force, the people in Crimea would have had nothing to do with it and would not be to blame. But if they came out and voted, this was not an annexation. So what is going on? After all, sanctions were imposed against them, against you. What are these sanctions? Restriction on mobility, restrictions on border crossings, visas, financial transactions, insurance companies, marine infrastructure use and the use of other facilities. These measures affect almost everyone living there. They were the ones targeted by these sanctions, and this is not just about singling out specific individuals like the government leaders in the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, but about targeting everyone. If they had had nothing to do with it, if it had been annexation, why were the people sanctioned? But if you were sanctioned for taking part in a specific vote, then they would have to admit that it actually took place. This is what this is about, and this is what I meant.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon. Alexander Yunashev, Life online publication.

Mr President, there is a state programme for supporting positive content in cinema and television, which is, in fact, funded with our taxes. Are such support measures possible and necessary for the Russian segment of the internet?

And the state channels will not ask: when are you getting married? And to whom? (Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: These are two completely different questions.

Are you married?

Alexander Yunashev: Yes, I am, and I have no regrets about it. I can recommend it.

Vladimir Putin: He is married, and wants me to be in the same boat. (Laughter.) Well, all right. Let us assume that I answered your second question, although as a gentleman I will probably have to do so at some point. (Laughter.)

Now, with regard to supporting the Russian segment of the internet. Yes, it is the right thing to do, and we are already doing so. We have grants, I am not sure about the exact amounts, but they are measured in hundreds of millions of rubles. These grants are related to content, and we are allocating, I believe, 144 billion rubles to this end. Overall, we officially allocate about 400 million rubles for this type of activity, so we are doing this and will continue to do so.

Let us continue with the Eurasian Women’s Community. It is an important follow-up to the question of marriage. Please go ahead.

Marina Volynkina: Eurasian Women’s Community, Marina Volynkina.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you for attending the Second Eurasian Women’s Forum. It was important for the women of the world.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Marina Volynkina: There was a panel dedicated to the media at that forum. After we conducted this panel, 15 memorandums on peace were signed by the participants about responsible media which joined our campaign and which support the idea that information in the world should be positive.

In this regard, I have a question for you: how important is it for you, as President, that all the journalists present here not just tell the truth, but also do their job objectively and responsibly, so that they act as a serious soft power, and not just as a medium to resolve certain business problems.

Today, for us, women, it is very important, amid aggression and tensions – and we are really afraid of war – for the soft power to work. Is there soft power in Russia and what is the role of responsible journalism?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the truth is not in power …

Marina Volynkina: The power is in the truth.

Vladimir Putin: The power is in the truth, that’s right. This formula includes what the media are all about. The power is in the truth, and this is the only way that the media can win the trust of millions of people.

Unfortunately, let us face it – our life is very much commercialised just as in the past in the Soviet era everything was politicised, which undermines media credibility with many people.

People are dividing everything they see or read by 100 or 1,000. Still, we must strive for this. Clearly, we must strive to be as objective as possible in matters that are vital for our country and the rest of the world.

This is important not just for me, but for all of us. I hope that this trend is still there, and I think it will continue.

Let us have the question about Afghanistan, as I promised.

Question: On December 6, Russia refused to support a UN General Assembly resolution on Afghanistan because of its disagreement with the position of some Western countries.

Vladimir Putin: Because of what?

Remark: Because of its disagreement with the position of some Western countries.

Vladimir Putin: What was that resolution about? Can you remind me, please?

Remark: Western countries.

They said the situation in Afghanistan was good, while Russia believed that…

Vladimir Putin: We believe that it is not good. What do you think about this?

Remark: I would like to know what you think.

Vladimir Putin: Do you want my opinion?

Question: At the same time, the US is conducting separate talks with the Taliban. In light of this, what will be the future of the Moscow format of consultations on Afghanistan, which were attended by delegates from 11 countries?

Vladimir Putin: The Moscow format?

Remark: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not recall the details of that draft resolution. But I think you will agree with me, and I am sure that the majority of those who live in Afghanistan will agree with me.

I do not know what our Western partners wanted to achieve with that resolution. If they wanted to declare that everything is fine there, this has little to do with reality.

What part of the country does the Kabul government control officially? Not more than one third, to be perfectly frank; do you agree? When elections are held, it takes months to add up the results. Is this how it should be? So what is there to approve of?

Talks are underway with the Taliban. This is probably unavoidable. But we must understand the subject of these talks and their possible outcome. If there is a force that controls the bulk of Afghanistan’s territory, its opinion must be taken into account, but this should be done openly and publicly, so it is clear what we are talking about.

I believe that this is probably the essence of our Foreign Ministry’s position at the talks. We are not against a settlement. Overall, we believe that the problem can be settled exclusively through an agreement between all parties to the political process in Afghanistan.

Until then, we will need to reinforce our military base in Tajikistan. We believe that the people of Afghanistan will eventually reach an agreement, and that all political forces and ethnic groups will reach a consensus.

We will facilitate this process as much as we can, including by promoting economic cooperation with Afghanistan and by taking part in various international projects, such as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline [gas trunk line], TAPI.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, let’s give the floor to Andrei Kolesnikov.

Vladimir Putin: You have not been called on for four years in a row. How can this be? Go ahead. It is [Dmitry] Peskov’s fault. We will punish him.

(Addressing Andrei Kolesnikov.) Andrei, please, let the young lady speak first. She has not been called on for four years in a row.

Remark: It is seven years for us.

Anna Vavilova-Dollezhal: Thank you very much for sparing me having to wait another year.

After the law on foreign agents was passed, there was an enormous uproar over human rights being violated and so on.

Vladimir Putin: One of my colleagues – I will not give his name – was asked during talks: “What is the situation with human rights in your country?” [Allusion to a Soviet-era joke.] He looked at his interlocutor and asked: “Who is the human being you are talking about?” I would like to ask you: who is the human being you are referring to?

Anna Vavilova-Dollezhal: In our country this primarily applies to legal entities, while Maria Butina was arrested in the United States as a private individual. This law [on foreign agents] has been in effect in the US since 1938. I would like to ask you if it makes sense to borrow from the experience of our Western partners here.

I have another question that is very important to us. I represent Tsargrad TV channel and we want to know what you think about the situation developing around Orthodoxy globally, given recent sectarian activities by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and Kiev. Perhaps, everyone is now beginning to realise that the United States is the main player here. So it turns out that religion is heavily dominated by geopolitics. Is that the case?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question, we have relied on international experience when we passed the law on foreign agents. This is not about bans. This law requires that any entity receiving funding from abroad to carry out its public political activities must be registered as a foreign agent. That is it. Incidentally, this type of activity is banned in the United States and here you have the result: under this law Butina was arrested and taken into custody and might be sentenced to 12 years in prison. We do nothing of the sort here. Our law only requires registration for entities receiving funding from abroad. There is nothing here to fear. Frankly speaking, I do not see any problems here, as far as law enforcement is concerned. However, we, of course, need to look into the matter.

When I meet with human rights activists, they point out certain drawbacks in this law, aspects actually related to charity rather than politics. And I think they are right. We need to pay close attention to what is happening in life and make adjustments where necessary. This must not interfere with our normal life and must not hinder the activity of honest and decent people who want to solve problems, including with the support of like-minded people abroad. There is nothing wrong with this. But political activity must, of course, be prohibited. Well, not prohibited but at least subject to law.

Second, the Orthodox church. The situation with the Orthodox church defies comprehension. This is direct interference of the state in religious life. This has not happened since the Soviet Union. But, unfortunately, it is happening in Ukraine now. They created this breakaway church of the Istanbul curacy. They did not like the Moscow curacy so let it be the Istanbul curacy.

Note that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy was completely independent. Perhaps few people know this but it was actually a completely independent church. They did everything independently, including the election of bishops. The only connection was spiritual as they mentioned the name of Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia during sermons. That was all. Now look at how dependent they are becoming on Turkey, on the Turkish Patriarchy. Many appointments and, most importantly, a lot of money. I think this is Bartholomew’s main impelling motive, to bring this territory into subjection and make money on it. I believe this is the main underlying motive – except for a tip from Washington, of course. The fact that the State Secretary called Kiev about this matter and discussed it is an outrage. Absolutely unacceptable. However, it is happening.

Of course, this is another indication of the fact that the measure is also related to the election campaign and is meant to further widen the gap between Russian and Ukrainian people. The rationale behind it is, without doubt, political, and it is not good news for religious freedom in general. This is a clear and flagrant violation of the freedom of religion. I am mostly concerned about the likelihood that property redistribution will follow. This is already happening. This redistribution could turn into a heavy dispute, if not bloodshed, God forbid. I am sorry for the people who are defending their interests. They are usually helpless and unarmed. They are usually seniors and women. But there is, of course, the risk of property redistribution.

Dmitry Peskov: You promised a word to Kolesnikov, Mr President. We have been on for two hours now.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon. Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

Mr President, the French protests against the fuel hike have, as everyone knows, morphed into a general protest against everything. President Macron has had to impose emergency social and economic measures. What is your take on the events in France? Are there any plans to raise fuel prices in Russia? There has been much talk about it recently. How likely do you believe it is that Russians would take to the streets, and what should the Government prioritise in that case? Its responsibility to protect the rights of the protesters or the need to uphold the rule of law?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: One does not exclude the other. Let’s begin with the final part of your question. We certainly must ensure our citizens’ freedom of expression, their right to voice their opinions including by holding public events. But such events, including public gatherings, must always remain legal. Activities that violate the law are unacceptable, and warrant the government’s response.

Let’s now turn to the events in France and to how they are seen from our shores. I believe that of course they have to do with the rise in fuel prices. But the hike was a trigger that sparked the unrest involving a large part of French society, and generally native French people. Recent data suggest that a significant proportion of the French, over 7 percent, support this. However, I do not believe it would be right to judge the French authorities’ response to this.

What is the difference between what we see in Russia and the situation in France with regard to fuel prices and the rest? The French Government was deliberate in its decision to increase the price of petrochemicals and fuel, which means that the Government did it. It was a policy move. This initiative was intended to redistribute resources, in this case, the resources of the population, and to use them to address other matters related to the energy policy. The funds that the Government expected to raise from gasoline, diesel fuel and motor oil sales were to go towards developing alternative energy sources such as solar energy, wind power, and so on. This was a deliberate move. The people did not like it, because they did not want to be the ones to pay for these changes.

What is happening in Russia? Gasoline prices have been growing since mid-2018 as the price of oil went up on the global markets. However, the Russian Government was prompt to take action in order to contain and even lower prices, and an agreement to this effect was reached with the main oil companies and refineries. That is the difference: over there the price hike was a conscious move, they were the ones who did it, while the Russian Government is fighting to ensure that prices do not go up.

Of course, no one likes it when prices go up, but the fact that the Government is acting this way is obvious. Whether it is for the better or for worse is another question, but this is what is going on. An agreement has been reached, and it covers a period until March 2019. Yes, an adjustment is possible when VAT goes up in early January, but I do not expect it to be substantial. This should be an adjustment in the order of 1–1.5 percent, not more, after which the Government will carefully monitor developments on the Russian and international markets.

I can share more details on this subject later on, but generally speaking this worked, even if we had to micromanage the situation, and I hope that it will also work in the future, so that the Government will be able to prevent any sharp surges in fuel prices next year.

Remark: (From the audience)

Vladimir Putin: What did you say? I cannot hear you.

Dmitry Peskov: This is about the potential for protest in Russia.

Vladimir Putin: I have already answered this question. I said that people have the right to express their point of view and to defend it, including in public, at rallies, but only within the limits of the law.

Alexandra Tinyayeva: Alexandra Tinyayeva, Ryazansky Krai TV company.

Mr President, digital television is fast approaching, and our region will be one of the first to get it. Analog television will be turned off as soon as February 11.

In this regard, the question is how do you assess the level of preparedness of all the regions for the transition to digital television? Will small towns and villages not be left out?

How to ensure the interests of those for whom buying even the cheapest console or any kind of equipment, for that matter, is a major expense? Of course, digital television of excellent quality and 20 free channels are a good thing. But what about regional media?

I think many colleagues will support me, because for us it means we should pack up and grab the want ads, as we will not be able to survive in analog television, and they will not let us into the multiplex.

Vladimir Putin: I am fully with you. My colleagues are aware of it. I am not pretending, or making up anything. When I discussed this matter with them, and when they insisted on moving ahead with digital, I agreed with them, just as I agree with you now – it improves the quality and the quantity of free channels.

Trust me, just like you, almost word for word, I asked them this question: “Is it possible that someone in a small village will be left without television?” That is the question. They say no. So, we agreed that we would proceed very carefully, in small steps.

Currently, Tver is undergoing such an experiment, then you. So far, there have been no complaints in Tver. The governor reported to me that he had gone to almost every village and is on top of things. They will help everyone in need of support in order to help them switch to digital, including the small devices needed to receive television of such quality. Then, another couple of regions, on and on …

Truth be told, there was a proposal to move fast and be done in six months. I said, “No, we cannot do that. We must act very carefully and monitor things on the ground and, of course, ensure the interests of the people who cannot afford these consoles, even though they are not expensive.” We will see how it goes in individual regions and then take small steps along this path.

Sergei Brilyov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

For understandable reasons, when international politics are discussed at this news conference, it is commonly about conflict, with the possible exception of China.

Today, on December 20, I wanted to mention a project I am working on with my British colleagues. This unprecedented project is on the history of cooperation between Soviet and British secret services during the Great Patriotic War, and the story of 36 Soviet agents that were sent to Nazi-occupied Europe. If you allow me, I will send the materials to you through Mr Peskov.

In this connection, I cannot help but ask you about the current status of Russian-British relations. Let us start with the small things. After the G20 summit, Dmitry Peskov told us that he did not know whether you had met with Theresa May, but you did meet with her. What do you think of these relations? And another interesting question: How, in your opinion, will Brexit impact Russia? What if it does affect us?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding these meetings, there are many meetings at events like the G20; you cannot even list them all because everyone is busy, and we meet, as they say, on the sidelines.

What does “on the sidelines” mean? We get up, we are walking near each other, you greet someone and say something to them. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I greeted each other in about the same way and said a few words to each other. In my opinion, Russian-British relations are at an impasse, and it is in the interests of both states to move beyond this impasse.

How will Brexit impact us? The impact will be minimal, but it will affect the entire European economy and the global economy, as well. Therefore, it will affect us indirectly.

Are we interested in restoring full relations with the United Kingdom or not? Yes, we are interested; besides, in my opinion, the United Kingdom, primarily its business community, is also interested in this.

We know the British work in our country – fairly actively, I can tell you. Flagships of the British economy like British Petroleum, one of the key shareholders in our leading oil and gas company, Rosneft, – they are working here, and continue to do so, actively operating in our market, and they want to continue, and not just them.

Now, in connection with Brexit – if this eventually goes through to the end, and, by the way, I understand the position of the Prime Minister, she is fighting for Brexit (let them decide this for themselves, this is none of our business, or else they might accuse us of wrongdoing again), but the referendum did take place. So what can she do?

She must implement the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, or that is no referendum at all. Some didn’t like it – and the whole thing goes around and around. Is this democracy? I wonder how the critics of this process will assess the situation if and when some spit on this Brexit deal and carry out all these events again until they satisfy someone.

So what is the point of holding a referendum and what is the meaning of direct democracy? Well, anyway, this is their concern, never mind. But, they are interested in our market, interested in direct partnerships. We did not discuss this with the prime minister, but we discussed it with our colleagues and friends; we have many in Britain, especially among the businesspeople.

You know, if you look at direct foreign investment, where has most of the direct foreign investment come from this year? From Britain – $22 billion. Germany is second, followed by Singapore. That says something, right?

True, this may be partly due to the repatriation of our capital, because they have somewhat scared it off over there, but all the same, there is huge interest in our agriculture (our export potential is enormous and keeps growing), industrial production and the energy sector. There are so many areas. And I hope that common sense will prevail.

What about the skis over there? I find it interesting; it’s winter now.

Svetlana Shaganova: Svetlana Shaganova, State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Karachayevo-Circassia. I have one simple problem for you: Putin plus skiing equals our region – Karachayevo-Circassia. You are certainly faithful to judo and sambo, but we would be happy if you visited our region, our new Arkhyz resort and enjoy the skiing there. Will you find such an opportunity in your busy schedule?

Vladimir Putin: I would very much like to do this. Either way, I congratulate you on the development of tourism. The republic is developing, these are competitive advantages for the republic – developing resorts like this. I’m sure this will develop further. If I can, I will come with pleasure. Thank you very much.

Remark: Regarding Gazprom, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Ah yes, Gazprom. Yes, one more question now, please, and then about Gazprom.

Goar Botoyan: Thank you.

AZG Daily, Armenia, Goar Botoyan. Thank you for letting me ask you a question for the fourth time already.

Vladimir Putin: I am listening.

Goar Botoyan: My question is, how will Russia restore its policy towards Armenia after the elections?

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean, restore? We have nothing that collapsed to the point of needing to be restored. Russia and Armenia have smooth relations, this country is our strategic partner in the region and the world in general; it is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Eurasian Economic Union. What is there to restore? We only need to build on the foundation that has been created by the previous generations of leaders. The Armenian people are the closest ally of the Russian people in Transcaucasia; that is the way it has been historically, the way it is today and the way it, hopefully, always will be. We need to proceed from the realities of the current situation in the world and the region, proceed from the needs and our capabilities. We will discuss this soon with Mr Pashinyan, who is to pay us a visit next week.

Goar Botoyan: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: What about Gazprom, what’s up? Why are you scaring us?

Viktor Smirnov: Viktor Smirnov,, Leningrad Region. I will explain why Gazprom has no more gas.

Vladimir Putin: Do, please.

Viktor Smirnov: A bit of an introduction first. As you know, the Nord Stream pipeline passes through Leningrad Region; Nord Stream 2 is underway as well. You are now launching the TurkStream project, it all sounds good. But many Leningrad Region residents, who see these pipelines pass through their territory, have not had any gas for many years. Just recently, on December 7, Gazprom went ahead and said that it had no gas for the new consumers residing on the territory of the entire Karelian Isthmus.

Vladimir Putin: The Karelian Isthmus, you say?

Viktor Smirnov: The Karelian Isthmus, yes, two Leningrad Region districts and a section of St Petersburg’s territory. They believe the reconstruction of some compressor station for supplying people with gas is unnecessary (either they do not have money to spare or have already allocated it someplace else).

Similarly (this is just for the record, though), a couple of years ago, a pipe was stolen there – simply stolen. It cost a total of 1.8 billion rubles. No criminal proceedings have been initiated since.

Vladimir Putin: I do not understand. Did someone dig it out and drag it away, or what?

Viktor Smirnov: No, it was not installed, but the paperwork was all in place. So it kind of exists, but kind of does not.

Vladimir Putin: You mean, the money was allocated, but no pipe was laid?

Viktor Smirnov: Right. No criminal proceedings were initiated either.

Vladimir Putin: Where did this take place?

Viktor Smirnov: Priozersky District. You have been there before, you have seen it.

Vladimir Putin: I have indeed.

Viktor Smirnov: On top of this, the deadlines for connecting the Leningrad Region users to gas grids are often missed, but in the gas monopoly they use the beautiful words “postponement and synchronisation,” annual. That is, the deadlines are missed, and missed, and missed again, but this is synchronisation.

And the fourth point I would like to mention. With all the problems in the gas monopoly and the problems of the residents who also suffer from these problems (some have had no access to gas since 2009), despite all this, the children of the board members, the specific individuals we wrote about, have no qualms about taking top management positions in subsidiaries. And they have no qualms about posting photos of luxury cars on the internet, and flying in business jets to watch football in Italy. How is that for national wealth, Mr President? Aren’t they going too far?

Vladimir Putin: Well, it always helps to keep track of expenses, on superjet flights, to look what they actually did there, and what kind of football they watched. After all, Gazprom, among other things, sponsors foreign football clubs, like FC Schalke 04 in Germany. But why does it sponsor them? Because it does a lot of work there, in Germany, and in Italy too. These contacts need to be maintained. As long as it is within in the bounds of common sense, all is well, and we must always watch this very carefully. So you are right to pay attention to this. I will also look what they fly on and where.

As for domestic gas supply, it is growing. True, our sales on the foreign market are growing also. This year, exports will top 200 billion cubic metres – this is a very good result, a historic high. This is what Russia needs, not Gazprom, it is what our national economy and the federal budget need, because the bulk of Gazprom’s revenues, which then flow into the budget, come from exports, as it should be.

As for internal issues and decisions on connection, I repeat once again, things are moving forward. It is not only about Gazprom, Gazprom lays the pipelines to populated areas, and then there is further distribution, and the so-called last mile, so this problem should be resolved with the help of the region.

Viktor Smirnov: Well, the region has built it.

Vladimir Putin: Built it?

Viktor Smirnov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Well, I will check it out. I do not know, I will check and see.

Of course, Gazprom is driven by considerations of economic feasibility, but in addition to economic feasibility, there are social issues, of course, including the provision of gas to households in a given area.

I will see how it is built. You know, in any case, very often there is a discrepancy between the statements of local authorities and the reality. I will definitely pay attention to this. Priozersky District is what I heard. Priozersky, right?

Viktor Smirnov: Part of Priozersky, part of Vyborg, and part of St Petersburg.

Vladimir Putin: Ok.

Viktor Smirnov: Gazprom says that their station is not ready.

Vladimir Putin: I assure you, I will definitely look into this and respond.

Everything is not smooth sailing with us, but things are more or less stable. Here is Novaya Gazeta, I am sure they will come up with something. Please go ahead.

Ilya Azar: Good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Ilya Azar: My colleagues and friends Alexander Rastorguyev, Orkhan Dzhemal and Kirill Radchenko died in the Central African Republic this year.

Vladimir Putin: This is a major tragedy, I agree.

Ilya Azar: What do you know about the circumstances of their death and, in particular, the possible involvement of private military company Wagner in this?

Secondly, do you think it is right that a businessman whom everyone calls your chef, Yevgeny Prigozhin, is believed to be involved in managing PMC Wagner?

In general, what do you think about private military companies? One gets the impression that you are somewhat embarrassed by or deny their existence. Perhaps, we should be proud of them, because they operate in Syria, Donbass, Central Africa and other countries.

And another short question. As you are aware, human rights activist Lev Ponomaryov, a 77-year-old man, was arrested and jailed for 15 days for a post on Facebook. What do you as a human being think about this? Is that a normal thing to do?

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with Wagner and chefs.

All my chefs are employed by the Federal Guard Service. They are servicemen holding different ranks. I have no other chefs.

This matter should be made clear once and for all so that we do not have to return to it in the future. If someone wants to label someone, they are free to do so, and there is nothing wrong with that. This is part of politicking in our country. There is even such a thing as “safe food.” For your information, we do not outsource this job, and the Federal Guard Service employees do all the work.

Now, on to Wagner and what these people are doing. Everything must remain within the law, everything. We can ban private security firms altogether, but once we do so, I think you will be flooded with petitions demanding to protect this section of the labour market. Almost a million people are employed there. If this Wagner group breaks any laws, the General Prosecutor’s Office will go ahead and give it a legal assessment.

Now, about their presence in foreign countries. To reiterate, if they comply with Russian laws, they have every right to work and promote their business interests anywhere in the world.

Finally, the tragedy that you mentioned. It was certainly a tragedy. These people died and left behind families and friends. In general, unfortunately, a lot of tragedies are connected with journalists. I think we should never forget them, including the journalists who died in southeastern Ukraine under fire, or were killed in gun attacks, practically assassinated. Please do not forget about them, either.

As far as I know, your colleagues travelled to Africa as tourists, not even as journalists, without notifying local authorities. According to the data available to date, some local groups are behind this attack.

As far as I understand, an investigation is underway. Unfortunately, there is no reliable information yet, but we strongly hope that it will be eventually obtained. We are on top of this situation through our diplomatic channels. I hope that at least at some point we will find out what happened there. My heart goes out to you, to all members of the editorial board and the families of the people who died there.

Sergei Milvit: Vladivostok!

Vladimir Putin: Okay, let us hear from Vladivostok. It is louder than the others…

Sergei Milvit: Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you very much for giving me the floor.

I would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of all residents of Vladivostok for your decision to make it the capital of the Far Eastern Federal District. Thank you very much.

At the last news conference I asked you questions about ecology, a waste incineration plant, Snegovaya Pad and forest clearance. Thank you very much for the closure of the waste incineration plant. I hope it will not be reopened.

The only problem is that there are some companies that would like to handle separated garbage but for some reason the regional operator does not allow it because it is leased and a land plot cannot be subleased and so on.

Recently we had elections and as you know of course, the pension reform was the main reason for protests. This is why the elections were drawn out, this was the main reason.

I would like to continue talking about environmental protection and the sports complex that has not been finished and house equity holders that have been cheated – their residential houses have not been finished. Dalkhimprom-Karyernaya is where our marines are deployed. There is also school #55 that was closed and now children have to go to faraway schools.

And one more thing. The lands of the forest fund are government property like the strategic Primvodokanal facility. What is happening currently? To this day forests have not undergone cadastral registration. They are being cut down and cottages are being built – nothing has changed.

Lakes and water reservoirs at Primvodokanal that should be government property are now privately owned. I would like to ask you to clear up this question.

Remark: Question!

Sergei Milvit: Ok. Excuse me please. We will move on to the next issue. If you could comment briefly on the pension reform.

It seems to me that you were likely deceived about the pension reform. I will explain why. It appears that the pension deficit for 2018 amounts to 257 billion, right?

And when there was some popular unrest, they decided to give them another 500 billion so as to provide some benefits. Don’t you think that it is worth paying attention to this and maybe it is better to cancel the pension reform?

We are spending a lot of money. We have a deficit but are still spending so much. I think generally I have said everything I wanted about the pension reform.

Wait a minute. I would like to say happy New Year to Mr President and wish him strength, every success and all the best.

And, sorry guys, I would like to make one last point. Mr Peskov said that there was some information and I would like to share it.

Instead of all the requests that journalists want me to make, I will speak about the most important issue.

Mr President, please help. Vladislav Shestakov has been sick for three years. He is from the Irkutsk Region, the city of Cheremkhovo. He simply needs to be transferred to Moscow.

People have raised money. Please help us resolve this problem. And please answer the questions that I asked.

Please take measures to return the forest fund to the state and lakes to Primvodokanal.

Vladimir Putin: Let us begin with the most sensitive issue.

I apologise to Novaya Gazeta – you asked me about Lev Ponomaryov. We discussed this issue at a meeting with human rights activists at a Council meeting. It is not because I want to dodge the question, I just skipped over it inadvertently.

With regard to Ponomaryov, the court ruled based on calls for an unauthorised rally. I do not want to question court decisions or the fairness of this particular ruling.

Now, regarding the sensitive issue of the pension reform. In the early and mid-2000s, and you are aware of my position, I said that I was strongly against raising the retirement age, and it was impossible to do so back then.

I still believe this was the correct position, because life expectancy was at a low of 65, and the number of workers (the workers/non-workers ratio) was different and more or less acceptable.

Now, things have changed dramatically. The point is not about the current shortages. The fact is that trends are such that the number of workers is declining, while the number of non-working pensioners is on the rise.

You are right, we can leave this issue unaddressed, and I said so in my remarks. We can forget about it for the next five to seven years; however, then the country will have to do it no matter what, but it will have to be done abruptly, without a transition period, or any easing of terms, including for women.

We will then have to act quickly, that is the problem. If I did not see these trends, I would have never allowed this to happen, but these are objective trends that cannot be ignored.

You know, I was well aware of how people would react. No matter what arguments one can come up with, when a particular person’s interests are at stake, no one is delighted with the prospect. I was well aware that criticism would be coming both from the right and the left.

We know what was done by the left. In their time, they dismantled the Soviet Union with their economic policy, and later, in the 1990s, almost destroyed Russia. We would not be living in the Russian Federation now. Instead, we would be left with Moscovia, or something like it. We managed to keep the situation in check. Moreover, the country is getting stronger and better.

This is an unpleasant and, clearly, not a fun thing to do, but it has to be done nonetheless. To reiterate, if I was not convinced that it would have to be done some time down the road, I would have never allowed it to happen.

Now, regarding the specific questions that you asked, including forest reserves, the school and the sports complex. This, as you understand, requires separate consideration, as these are separate issues.

I promise that I will definitely look into them. I hope that Oleg Kozhemyako will do so as well. I am sure he can hear me now. I want him to submit the corresponding information to me and report accordingly.

Regarding the transfer of the administrative centre to Vladivostok, [Presidential Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District] Trutnev raised this issue a very long time ago. Vladivostok is doing very well and is really the centre of the region and, to a certain extent, a centre of gravity, I mean with regard to neighbouring countries, so I think this is a well-grounded decision.

Sergei Milvit: More about the child…

Vladimir Putin: Where is the boy now?

Sergei Milvit: The town of Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk Region.

Vladimir Putin: What is wrong with him?

Sergei Milvit: He is ill.

Vladimir Putin: All right, we will definitely help him.

Dmitry Peskov: Our colleagues will take your contact information.

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead.

Anastasia Melnikova: Good afternoon, my name is Anastasia Melnikova,

Mr President, torture at some prisons, pre-trial detention facilities and special penitentiaries has been reported with frightening regularity lately.

I am now talking about the Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Orenburg and Saratov regions, Khakassia and the Trans-Baikal Territory. Then last summer, thanks to our colleagues at Novaya Gazeta, we learned about atrocious torture at the Yaroslavl prison.

At the same time we hear the story of serial killer Vyacheslav Tsepovyaz, who, while being held at a high-security prison, was allowed the pleasure of eating crab, caviar and the like.

Don’t you think the Federal Penitentiary Service desperately needs reforming – and this needs to be done right now? Since I am clearly not the first to alert you to this problem, can you tell us what is being done and who will be given this responsibility?

When will prisons in Russia stop being a place for recreation for some people and a place where other people are subject to medieval torture? Because this is really too much, I mean the things that are now happening at federal penitentiaries. This is really too much even for our country.

Vladimir Putin: The situation at the prisons must constantly be overseen by the prosecutor’s offices, first of all. Clearly, the incidents that are being reported are absolutely unacceptable.

Any violation of the law, to say nothing of torture, is a crime. Those who violate the law, who commit these crimes must be held responsible. Incidentally, this is what happens when these kinds of stories come to light, in part, thanks to the media.

But it would also be incorrect to say that we need to destroy the whole system. We should improve the system and bring public oversight to a new level – I completely agree with this.

In connection with this, I would like to remind you that we have established commissions that must work on this and which will receive support from the Government and the President. I expect them to play a positive role in resolving the problems that the system definitely has.

Rustam Falyakhov: Gazeta.Ru, I am Rustam Falyakhov, good afternoon.

Mr President, when you opened the press conference, you summed up macroeconomic results and it seems we are living increasingly better. Paris residents might just be very jealous if we believe the statistics.

Vladimir Putin: Native residents of Paris are moving to the suburbs for a number of reasons. This is why a hike in petrol prices caused such discontent, many native Parisians moved to the suburbs and higher petrol prices are very hard on their budgets. But this is a different issue.

Let us speak about housing construction.

Go ahead, please.

Rustam Falyahov: I have a question about the accuracy of statistics, the accuracy of the information used to measure the standard of living in Russia. If we believe the Government reports, incomes are growing, you also gave the number of half a percent.

Incomes are rising whereas prices are falling. When Russians see price tags on goods and services, they understand that government officials are just playing loose with the numbers. I am speaking about the statistics from the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Finance Ministry and others.

Experts are also bewildered as their numbers and their data do not conform to official statistical data, and apparently, desperate experts are already proposing to introduce a somewhat exotic happiness index, which would take into account the voice of the Russians.

My question is very simple – is it time to fine-tune official statistics? Otherwise, the May Executive Order will be fulfilled easily whereas the happiness index will stand at zero.

Vladimir Putin: I understand and partly share your concern, but only partly in the sense that it should be explained to people where the numbers come from and what they mean, and how they should be taken.

Because when pure numbers are presented and it is said that life has become better and happier whereas people see, as you say, real prices in the shops going up, it causes bewilderment and mistrust of the statistics. They are not perfect, by the way. If we can, if we do not get tired of talking for such a long tome, we can revisit the issue.

The statistics are not ideal but the point is not so much their quality, which needs perfecting, the point is also that people should be told that those are average figures.

We are talking about living standards. We are talking about salaries. I said that in the first ten months there was a 7.4 percent increase, and that by the end of the year it will be 6.9 percent. But people will see this and say, “I have had no such increase.”

This is an average. It concerns certain sectors and certain regions. Somewhere there is an increase in a certain sector, for example, for oil workers or steel workers. And in some cases, there is no increase. These are average figures. That’s the point.

Among the most important indicators are the disposable income of the population and retail sales numbers. This more or less conforms with the real state of affairs. And what is this like?

In 2015, we had an over-2-percent drop in the real disposable income of the population, in 2016 – minus 5.8, and in 2017 – 1.2, but also on the minus side. This is the disposable income of the population.

Incidentally, analysts certainly understand what I am talking about. But for the majority of people it’s unclear. Let me explain what it means and how these figures are calculated, it will take 30 seconds.

It is fairly easy to calculate people’s expenses: how and where they spend money and how much. In other words, if people spent money, they had it. Added to this are bank deposits and cash savings. This is, on the whole, a calculable sum, because it is more or less clear how much money people keep in banks. The Central Bank, which regulates the money supply, is aware of the total amount: how much is kept in banks, how much is in the hands of consumers. Cash savings in foreign currencies are harder to calculate. But this is basically clear. Then the taxes paid by an individual (personal income tax, or property tax if there is any property) are deducted, and then the figures are adjusted for inflation.

These are the disposable incomes of the population. Again, they had been falling in our country in these years. And only now, by the end of this year, we may have a 0.1-percent increase, but only if we do not take into account the lump-sum payments of 5,000 rubles to pensioners at the end of 2017.

So, the trend is generally positive, and it is backed up by other data. What data? Sales volumes – sales are picking up. Despite some problems in the auto industry itself, car sales have grown 27 percent.

As I said, the production of clothing and footwear has increased, food production is up 13 percent compared with the previous increase of 9 percent.

The volume of international air transportation has surged 46 percent, while domestic air travel has grown by more than 20 percent. These are all signs of growing consumer purchasing power. It is gradual and cautious, but it has been recovering.

It seems to me that if we explain this to people in normal human language and show it as a whole, it will become clearer where we are and where we are going. But this system undoubtedly needs to be improved, I completely agree with you.

It is difficult for me to decide… The one with the Russian flag – by all means.

Yelena Yeskina: Thank you very much Mr President, first of all from the cameramen because it appears that my flag was in their way. But do not worry, the flag was the longest but my question will be brief. My name is Yelena.

Vladimir Putin: The Russian flag cannot be in anybody’s way.

Yelena Yeskina: You see, camera operators. So, my name is Yelena Yeskina, and I am a journalist of the Dagestan State Television And Radio Broadcasting Company.

We live in a multi-ethnic country and this is wonderful, is it not?

Vladimir Putin: It is very good.

Yelena Yeskina: Here is my brief question. I will just add a little. I am indeed lucky because I live in a multi-ethnic country…

Vladimir Putin: Please say a few words about yourself. Go ahead please.

Yelena Yeskina: …in the multi-ethnic republic of Dagestan and plus in a multi-ethnic family. I am Russian and my husband is Avar, so our children do not really look Slavic.

Vladimir Putin: You yourself look like an Avar.

Yelena Yeskina: Really?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, a bit.

Yelena Yeskina: Must be all the years of living in Dagestan.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed. (Laughter)

Yelena Yeskina: After I had children, I started paying attention to what they show on Russian television. Very often, if not always, they show in ads beautiful children – so fair, with light hair, light eyes, big blue eyes.

And I started wondering where the other types, for instance Mongoloids, were. After all, Russia is multi-ethnic; we have about 200 ethnic groups. Let us take a regiment, the main regiment of the country– the Kremlin regiment and the guys there look Slavic. There is an unspoken requirement that Slavic guys should form this regiment. Do you not think so?

Vladimir Putin: No, I do not.

Yelena Yeskina: You do not. Then it just seemed so to me. Okay, Then I will just ask you…

Vladimir Putin: It just seems like that to you.

Yelena Yeskina: Probably it does, I apologise.

I have a request for you. This has nothing to do with seeming, and it is a big request. Please look into the investigation of the Gasanguseinov brothers’ case.

Two teenagers were shot in Shamil District in 2016. It turned out later that they were not militants and were not involved in illegal armed units.

Now the case has been reclassified and is being investigated under Article 105 Murder where the father is considered the injured party. This case has been transferred to Moscow but has not been brought to a close.

I would like to ask you to personally oversee the investigation of the case of the murder of the Gasanguseinov brothers and please rehabilitate them officially as soon as possible. I just feel so sorry for their parents.

Vladimir Putin: I must give corresponding instructions to Mr Bastrykin [Chairman of the Investigative Committee]. Consider it done. He will take control and report to me on what is happening there.

To be honest, this is the first I have heard of it, but I promise you that I will give it the attention it deserves and Alexander Bastrykin will receive corresponding instructions.

Turkey… Please pass the microphone.

Fuad Safarov: Fuad Safarov, journalist and analyst on Turkey, RiA Vesti (Russia and Azerbaijan Vesti) news website.

Mr President,

Recently, Turkey marked the anniversary [of the death] of the founder of the Turkish Republic Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I would like to know what you think of Ataturk as a person and his historic role in global policy. Looking back at Ataturk, how will you assess today’s progress in relations between Russia and Turkey?

Vladimir Putin: Ataturk is certainly an outstanding figure in Turkish history. He made an extraordinary contribution to the efforts to preserve and restore Turkey as a state, he did quite a lot to achieve this.

He was a great friend of Russia, we know this, and he cooperated with Russia, worked with it and we appreciate his input very much.

Ataturk created modern Turkey, having laid the foundation for the state. This is what I think of him.

As for the status of our relations today, I think we should be satisfied with the progress in the development of ties between Russia and Turkey in the economy and on security issues. Although our interests have not always coincided on some matters, we have managed to make compromise decisions on how to resolve the Syria crisis.

We respect the national interests of the Turkish Republic and the Turkish people in this area, and we see that our Turkish partners are willing to compromise and so together we make these compromise decisions to secure the development of a favourable situation in Syria and for the sake of fighting terrorism and strengthening our relations.

As for the economy, you can see yourself that our ties are growing stronger. Despite Turkey being a NATO member country, it delivers on its commitments, as far as we can see. At the same time, being a NATO member it is pursuing an independent foreign policy.

We appreciate this, as it creates conditions for maintaining predictable and healthy relations. Of course, in this sense, the role of the incumbent Turkish President is great. Hopefully, this trend will continue under the leadership of Mr Erdogan.

Dmitry Peskov: The CIS TV and radio company MIR, if you please.

Vladimir Putin: The next one will be for equity holders, okay?

Elina Dashkuyeva: Hello, Mr President. Elina Dashkuyeva, MIR.

You said at the Russia Calling! forum that the dollar is leaving Russia. First of all, what advantages and disadvantages can we expect from this? What currency will the Eurasian Economic Union countries now use to pay each other – will they adopt an interstate currency or use new digital technologies such as blockchain?

Vladimir Putin: A very important and interesting question. About dollarisation and weaning the economy off the dollar, including the Russian economy.

In general, according to the IMF, payments in dollars have slightly decreased around the world. The year before last, they were a little over 63 percent I think, and now slightly over 62. But for Russia, this figure is higher, 69 percent.

This is due to the fact that our main export products, primarily oil, are listed on world exchanges in dollars, and this is a large amount.

Our foreign exchange reserves in dollars are declining; only recently, we were holders of American securities quoted in dollars in the amount of $104 billion, now down to $14.4 billion. Payments in yen and pounds have slightly grown in world trade.

As for weaning Russia off the dollar, it will exclusively concern settlements between economic entities, but will in no way affect citizens.

When we were discussing today’s news conference yesterday, Mr Peskov told me that they are removing exchange rate ads in some cities, including Moscow, and people are wondering about the reason behind this, whether this may be connected with some restrictions on using dollars.

There is nothing of the kind, and it will not happen, I would like to reassure everyone. Advertising exchange rates on currency exchange offices is only connected with one thing: the fight against illegal money exchange businesses. This is about streamlining the sphere of finance, money circulation, and cracking down on grey businesses operating in this area, nothing more.

Regarding the ruble. Yes, use of the ruble as a reserve currency in transactions is growing, maybe not a lot, but it is growing, primarily in transactions between the EAEU countries and in the post-Soviet space.

For example, use of the ruble has grown significantly in transactions between Russia and Belarus, reaching, if I’m correct, over 60 percent, almost 70 percent in clearing transactions while the numbers in cash settlements are smaller. But the role of the ruble will certainly increase in this segment, that’s obvious.

It’s more reliable and does not involve extra costs, especially the costs associated with dollar transactions. Because you and I know perfectly well: wherever clearing operations are made, they all go through US banks.

And if there are restrictions, it makes you want to sidestep these restrictions which is a natural reaction. This is happening around the world, by the way, in view of instability with these transactions.

However, several issues must be resolved for the ruble to be used at least as a regional currency. First, cutting volatility. The exchange rate must be stable, and we have generally managed to maintain it recently.

This is related to the activities of the Central Bank and the Government of the Russian Federation. As you have seen, it is stable; it has somewhat lost its dependency on fuel and oil price fluctuations partly due to the introduction of a floating exchange rate for the ruble.

This is the first goal. But we have to ensure further stability and keep inflation low. This is an extremely important condition.

Then comes the next step – we have to develop the financial infrastructure for transactions in the ruble. It is clear what this means. We need to improve the settlement mechanisms between economic parties and financial institutions. We will be working on this.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr Putin, perhaps you will take a question from foreign media. I can see The Wall Street Journalhere.

Ann Maria Simmons: Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask you a question.

In the West, many politicians, experts and even ordinary people see Russia as a great threat. They even think that you, as the President of Russia, want to rule the world.

Vladimir Putin: Well, of course.

Ann Maria Simmons: I want to know if you really want this. Also, please, what is the real goal of your foreign policy? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: With regard to ruling the world, we know where the headquarters that is trying to do so is located, and it is not in Moscow. However, this is related to the leading role of the United States in the global economy and defence spending: the United States is spending over $700 billion on defence, while we spend only $46 billion.

Just think of it, we have 146 million people in Russia, whereas the NATO countries’ population is 600 million, and you think our goal is to rule the world? This is a cliché imposed on public opinion in Western countries in order to resolve intra-bloc and domestic political issues.

When I say intra-bloc, I mean that in order for NATO to rally countries around itself, it needs an external threat. It does not work otherwise. You have to have someone to rally against. As a major nuclear power, Russia fits the bill perfectly.

With regard to domestic political issues, unfortunately, Russophobia continues to flourish in many countries, especially in Eastern Europe. For what purpose? In order to use old historical fears to ensure their own domestic political well-being.

This is also harmful, because, ultimately, it is about exploiting the phobias of the past, which prevent us from moving forward. It is harmful for the countries and peoples whose leaders are trying to pursue such a policy.

In fact, the main goal of our foreign policy is to provide favourable conditions for the Russian Federation, its economy and social sphere, to ensure unfettered movement forward and to strengthen our country from the inside, above all, so that it can take its rightful place in the international arena as an equal among equals.

We are in favour of consolidating the system of international law, ensuring unconditional compliance with the UN Charter, and using this platform to develop equal relations with all the participants of international affairs.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you promised to talk about housing equity holders. Who wanted to ask about this?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please. This is an important question.

Alla Andreyeva: Good afternoon, Mr President! Alla Andreyeva, Ryazanskaya Oblastnaya Gazeta newspaper. Mr President, thank you very much for giving me the floor.

Vladimir Putin: You are welcome.

Alla Andreyeva: I am speaking on behalf of St Petersburg.

Vladimir Putin: St Petersburg?

Alla Andreyeva: Like you, I am from St Petersburg.

Vladimir Putin: St Petersburg again. A Ryazan newspaper from St Petersburg. St Petersburg is everywhere.

Alla Andreyeva: We both work in different places than where we were born.

Vladimir Putin: Totally different.

Alla Andreyeva: Mr President, I have a very big request for you: can you please pay more attention to housing equity holders that have been cheated: in St Petersburg, the Leningrad Region and all across Russia.

What is happening now? Unfinished buildings that do not comply with building equity contracts are being commissioned in St Petersburg just to report to Moscow that everything is fine. You see, during your Direct Line on June 15, 2017, Albin and Minenko, a federal inspector, stood in front of my house, which had not been finished; construction was ongoing, but they officially declared the building commissioned, thus committing a criminal offence. But, you see, activists like me are being bullied for taking this position. They are trying to open a criminal case against me, because I am trying to write the truth about the officials.

My husband was killed on October 6, 2015. The investigation has not made any progress. Over the first 18 months they have made my life a nightmare, as well as the lives of my family, because someone leaked information to mass media. My mother passed away when she heard about this from a television report. Can you see what is happening in St Petersburg? My car was burned before that. All of this is happening in our hometown, our St Petersburg. Please, I am begging you to look into this case, to look into housing equity holders not only in St Petersburg, but in the Leningrad Region and everywhere in Russia.

I do not know. Let us, together with you… We are just like you, we do not bite. Come to St Petersburg and meet our activists. We will tell you the truth. We will tell you everything as it is, without these fake reports and road maps, without these useless scraps of paper published by these officials on their websites all over the country. I communicate with equity holders practically from all regions. We have a large group of activists. I have a pressing request. This is not even a question but a cry for help: please help the cheated equity holders and on the investigation of my husband’s case.

Vladimir Putin: Do you think your husband’s murder was related to your activities to protect the interests of equity holders?

Alla Andreyeva: Yes, this is the only connection I can see.

Vladimir Putin: Is that so? I promise you to pay attention to this by all means. Do not have any doubts about this. This is the first thing I will say.

The second is about the problem you raised, it is very urgent indeed. This gives me an opportunity to speak in greater detail about the problem and the construction industry. You know, this will never end if we do not sort out the mess and switch to civilised ways of housing construction. Indeed, the real estate industry is faced with the task of building 120 million square metres of housing but we must stop the practice of attracting people’s money and irresponsibly spending it.

This is what happens: yes, we keep the cost of housing relatively low but at the expense of what? Because some people acquire this housing at relatively low prices. In particular, this is also done at the expense of the people whose money is taken but who do not receive anything – either money or housing. This is the root of the problem and all evil. So we must certainly switch to civilised ways of funding this industry even if this leads to a certain reduction in the construction sector and some increase in prices. But without this we will never be able to put things in order there.

We must switch to bank financing, to normal and civilised loans or else this will never end. The people who found themselves in a difficult situation because they paid the money but received no housing must certainly be helped. We should not shut our eyes to the scale of this problem. It is clear and I agree with you that even the figures that are now shown, the figures on cheated equity holders and their personal problems do not click with reality. In fact, the problem is even more urgent than these documents show.

As for the situation you described in your question, I do not know these buildings of course, but we will see. I will also talk to the Acting Governor of this region, Mr Beglov. He is a very experienced man and can figure this out. I hope the situation will improve. In any case, be sure that this will be a subject of my conversation with him. The first thing that will happen is that he will meet with you.

Colleagues, listen to me. If we want to go on a little longer, we must not turn our press conference into an unauthorised rally. OK? Let us not. So I ask you to calm down.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, let me authorise: Marina Kim, The Great Game.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Marina Kim: Good afternoon, Channel One.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask questions. By the way, regarding the question of whether there are non-Slavic faces on Russian TV, well, there are and Channel One shows me live on a daily basis.

Our question is: The Great Game show is about Russia-US relations. We would like to know if a meeting with Mr Trump is possible after he cancelled it himself, for example, in the immediate future. Are you ready for one?

And to quote Kipling, the 19th century, who said the Great Game is finished when everyone is dead. And it was a standoff of the Anglo-Saxon world.

Vladimir Putin: That’s great! “Would you like to meet?” “Will there be a meeting?” “Everyone will die.”

Marina Kim: I will explain. There was a standoff between the Anglo-Saxon world and the Russian world in the 19thcentury. Have the rules changed now or is it the same game? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, we see that many birthmarks of the past, as Karl Marx used to say, are still there, but I hope that some things will somehow be made right. Ultimately we will reach the bottom in our relations and will understand that we have to go up, to push off from that bottom, go up, take a lungful of fresh air and with a clear head start thinking how to proceed.

I do not know if we have a meeting or not, I said a number of times that we are ready. We believe there are issues that we have to discuss together. Work at the expert level on Syria, for example, is ongoing. We also have to speak about North Korea, and Afghanistan, a great many other situations in the world.

After all, we need to talk about bilateral relations; we are interested in this, as well as our American partners are, by the way. Of course, there is no super-global interest. Our mutual trade stands at a meagre 28 billion, or even lower now, less than 28, 25 to 27 billion maybe. This is nothing, zero. With China, we will reach 100 billion this year, and with the US, everything is in decline. Who is interested in this? No one, not even the President of the United States, who is promoting the idea of reviving the economy, as he says, in his quest to make America great again.

I certainly believe that working with Russia is important in itself, and this includes economic cooperation, at least bearing in mind that we play a key role in the global energy market; cooperation in the field of nonproliferation and global security also matters, among other things. We have a lot to talk about. But we see what is happening there. Now power will change in Congress. Almost certainly, 100 percent sure, there will be new attacks on the current President. Under these conditions, whether he will be able to achieve any kind of direct dialogue with Russia, I do not know; you will have to ask them.

What worries me though? You mentioned the Anglo-Saxon world, where some deep-rooted, tectonic changes are occurring. After all, please note, Trump won – this is an obvious fact no one seems to be arguing with, but they do not want to recognise his victory either. This actually shows disrespect for the voters – refusing to recognise his victory, doing everything to delegitimise the incumbent President.

The same applies to Britain: Brexit got the majority vote – but no one wants to implement it. What are they refusing to recognise? The referendum results. Democratic procedures are being dropped out of the equation, and destroyed; their value is being destroyed. That is what is happening there. This is a serious process. I have pointed out that Western analysts are already discussing this matter, both in the States, by the way, and in Britain. We must keep this in mind. But whatever happens, we still need to build bilateral relations. We are willing to. As soon as possible. As soon as the other side is ready, we will do this.

This one. [Sign] “How’s the health?” Did you mean your health, mine or someone else’s? Or did you mean the country’s healthcare?

Yekaterina Butkevich: Good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Yekaterina Butkevich: I’m Yekaterina from Ministry of Ideas TV channel. I was asking about your health.

Vladimir Putin: What is the channel’s name?

Yekaterina Butkevich: Ministry of Ideas. It is a private TV channel located in Yekaterinburg. The question is about your health. How are you feeling? How are you?

Vladimir Putin: Don’t hold your breath! (Laughter in the audience.)

Yekaterina Butkevich: I mean everyone is just asking their questions but no one is wondering how you are and whether you need help in some matters. (Laughter in the audience.)

Vladimir Putin: What is your name?

Yekaterina Butkevich: Yekaterina.

Vladimir Putin: Yekaterina, we will discuss it later. (Laughter in the audience.)

Yekaterina Butkevich: Mine is not a question but a proposal.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Yekaterina Butkevich: We all know that everything is based on ideas. Our life, our future and our country are also based on ideas. And our team proposes to establish a Ministry of Ideas of the Russian Federation.

Vladimir Putin: Establishing the Ministry of Ideas is a good idea.

Yekaterina Butkevich: I would like to hear your opinion on this matter. And we are ready to help establish this agency.

Vladimir Putin: I believe that our Ministry of Economic Development should fulfill this function, because it should generate ideas to promote development. But I am ready to discuss your proposal. We just need to understand the substance, what it means. You and your colleagues please think about it, explain what the “ministry of ideas” is, what it should do, how it will function, on what principles, and what the substance of its work would be.

As for my health, it really does not differ from anyone else’s. I mean, thank God, I do sports, and I am fine. I try to take care of my health. But just like everyone else, I can catch flu or something in the offseason. So far, everything is okay. Thank you very much for your concern.

Yekaterina Butkevich: Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you have not taken any sports-related questions so far. Will you take one from Sovietsky Sport?

Vladimir Putin: Fine. There is something about a pike. What is up with the pike?

Nikolai Yaremenko: Good afternoon, Nikolai Yaremenko, Sovietsky Sport.

There are many sporting events, but I have only one question. I will not mention the World Cup, which we hosted brilliantly (strangely, no one has mentioned it today), nor will I say anything about Mutko leaving football forever yesterday, or even the upcoming 95th anniversary of our newspaper and our hope to see you as a guest in our editorial offices.

I have a quick question about doping which is a longstanding issue. It appears that this has long since become a political matter. Similar to the sanctions, international sports organisations seem willing to take a bite at us whenever they get the chance.

On the other hand, this is a comfortable position for many of our sports officials as they can sit on their hands and blame everything on politics. Do you think we are now clean enough in this area to be able to say that everything is fine now?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, to a large extent, we ourselves are to blame for this situation, because our athletes did use doping.

It is a different matter that we were accused of authorising the use of doping at the state level. This is not true, and it has never happened and will never happen, because we must keep in mind not only the results, which, of course are important, but also the health of our athletes.

However, since this has happened, we must, first, acknowledge it and, second, admit our fault, which means that we were unable to properly control doping. This is the responsibility of the organisations and government agencies that were supposed to do this.

With regard to whether we have stopped this or not, probably not, not 100 percent. Enormous efforts were made, and a good framework was created to do it properly and to make sure it was done with integrity.

But this is not just our scourge; doping is used around the world. Nevertheless, we must strive to reduce it completely.

The WADA commission is currently working in our country. They are holding talks with the Ministry of Sport, including on access to related materials. But you are right about the political aspect of it, which I hope will be overcome completely as well.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, we have been working for quite a while, almost three and a half hours. And so I have a suggestion. There are three veteran journalists from the national level – Terekhov from Interfax, Gamov from Komsomolskaya Pravda and Kondratyev from NTV television channel. I suggest wraping up by taking three questions from them.

Go ahead, Mr Terekhov.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but let several other colleagues ask their questions too.

Dmitry Peskov: Since you are the most experienced you must express yourself in a few words.

Vyacheslav Terekhov: Absolutely.

In the very beginning you spoke about health, medications, healthcare and the like. In many respects our health depends on medications. Could you please tell us to what extent we are independent of foreign supplies as regards medications? How do our medications compare with their foreign counterparts in efficacy and who is responsible for the fact that our analogues are even worse than planned?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we must put things right here in many respects and counter the assertions you just made. You asked: Who is responsible for the inferior quality of our medications compared to their foreign counterparts? This is not true, they are in no way inferior, however we must combat certain things in several areas.

Doctors that prescribe these medications should cooperate less with producers and think more about their patients. Do you understand? Because when they cooperate with specific producers they say: “Ours are worse – take this imported one.”

But this does not mean that we should get rid of all imported medications. If a certain medication is required, it should be prescribed. This is a sensitive process but it is important to understand what the problem is in all respects.

Now I will say a few words about the scale. First, we have even started to export our medications. This year we will export 700 million worth of medications. This is not so much but still a considerable amount – 700 million.

If we look at price tags, 30 percent of medications are produced at home for the domestic market. They are 60 percent of the range.

As for our dependence or independence, everything is interrelated in this world. That said we produce, say, 80 percent of vital medications. Importantly, there are an increasing number of substances produced in Russia, not simply generics that are brought in from abroad. On the whole, this programme is working. I believe it was launched in 2015 and will be carried out until 2020.

As for the development of the pharmaceutical and medical industry, it is working. About 200 billion rubles are allocated for it and it is fairly effective on the whole. This is a very important area of our work and we will certainly continue it.

Alexander Gamov: Komsomolskaya Pravda website, radio and newspaper.

Mr President, frankly speaking, I feel sorry for President Putin because we have nice numbers, truthful numbers, they are real, they do not raise doubts among experts, I think. Meanwhile, ordinary people do not quite trust them because life is hard in Russia. This is my first point.

The second. There is no peace, I do not mean the situation itself, but in people’s hearts, souls, minds, and thoughts. In other words, people worry a lot about both you and the country. So why does this happen? I believe that the middle tier official, the top tier, ministers, governors – they are all afraid of Putin. You have appointed everyone, lined them up, there are basically all normal people. Whereas those officials who want to talk about an excise tax on sausage, or the Kremlin banning births or whatever, they muddy the waters and make it harder for people to believe Putin, the state and so on. I think some sort of reform is needed. We must do something with this middle tier. Let us retrain them, and let us help you.

To conclude, literally just before the press conference I got a telephone message, a very short one, “Gamov, ask Vladimir Putin if it is time to look into the disastrous gap between the incomes of top managers and ordinary people? When will the President finally make a clear statement about it?” Because you have revisted that topic several times.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: The point you are making is an eternal Russian argument: The Tsar is good while the courtiers are thieves and outlaws. You see, if something does not go well, it is everyone’s fault. This is my first point. And secondly, as I have already said, the point is not that the numbers are somehow wrong. The point is that they do not work well with the numbers. They do not explain the numbers to the people. Whereas you said that the numbers are good but they are not trusted. As if you failed to hear what I said in the beginning and in the middle, when I gave data related to a decline in the real disposable incomes of the population. What is good about that? I did not say it was good. Incomes fell in the country in 2015 while in 2016 they were down by 5.8 percent. What is good about that? And I did not say it was good, I said the trend is righting itself, thank God, and it is an objective factor. I do not think that people here do not believe it. These are truthful things, and I hope people do understand that.

Speaking about officials in general, you, of course, know that there are people who have no idea what they are saying. They are not where they should be and are not careful with their words. There are people like this. But this is what we all are, our environment. That kind of person was just someone yesterday and is an official now, so they can blab. They are not ready. This means they are simply not ready for the job.

And, of course, we must work with people, with all the officials. There are many good and active people among them, too. This is a fact, we should accept this. You see, it is impossible to close everything and then open the box to make it right. It is not a coincidence that Moses and the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years. Well, we cannot lead 146 million people across the desert for so long.

This is a process of growing up for the civil service. We are working with it; see, we are organising various contests for young people. We have a human resources contest, Leaders of Russia. We teach them later at our academy. I believe 12 or 15 graduates have already become governors, two are federal ministers and five or six are deputy ministers. Little by little we will be expanding this. It is a long process.

Alexander Gamov: You have not talked about the gap.

Vladimir Putin: Speaking about the gap. First, unfortunately, it does exist.

Second, which is also unfortunate, as rule, this is a global trend. In any case, this is what is happening in large economies. Look what is happening in the US. Our US colleagues are present here, they must read US analyses. The gap between those who earn a lot and those who earn very little is expanding by their estimation. By the way, the campaign of President Trump, the current president, noted this very clearly. They used this in their campaign and turned out to be right.

Of course we must take this into consideration. At the very least we must decrease the number of poor people. This is true.

Is that all?

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, we have a veteran to wrap things up.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, another veteran.

Vladimir Kondratyev: I will really be brief.

Mr President, speaking at an earlier press conference, you said something interesting, that you collect emotions. You collect emotions, and this is your wealth as the country’s leader. What kind of year was this in terms of emotions? Which event do you consider the biggest?

Vladimir Putin: Two events.

Vladimir Kondratyev: Two events?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Certainly, the presidential election, as this is important for the whole country. And the World Cup, which also turned out to be important for the whole country and the world.

Ussuriysk, please go ahead.

Yekaterina Kharina: Good afternoon, I am Yekaterina Kharina, Telemix TV Channel, Ussuriysk.

Mr President, last week you signed an executive order on moving the capital of the Far East from Khabarovsk to Vladivostok. I have a question about this: what plans does the Government have to strengthen the regions in the Far East and in particular, of Primorye Territory? Will we live to see the gasification of the entire region? And what do you think about the merging of our territory with Sakhalin Region?

Vladimir Putin: You see, the merging of any constituent entities in the Federation is a matter for the entities of the Federation themselves according to current law. If Sakhalin and Primorye Territory decide to unite, they can; they have to go through their respective procedures in parliament or hold a referendum, whichever is provided for in the regional legislation. But looking deeper, Sakhalin is a self-sustaining region, it provides a large share of its own budget, and the average income of the population is higher than in the Territory in general, but this is the internal business of the two regions. That is my first point.

The second concerns development. We have a complete programme, a package of measures to develop the Far East and Primorye Territory, a complete programme to establish favourable development conditions in the Far East. This includes the well-known Priority Development Areas, which is the ‘Far Eastern hectare’, the development of infrastructure, ports, airports, it is support for exports, including, and primarily, non-energy exports. We will do all this; it will never disappear. On the contrary, all of this will be actively pursued. There must be no doubt about it whatsoever. This will offer us an additional competitive edge.

We will definitely develop science and education; we will keep supporting the Far Eastern Federal University. We will certainly develop the shipbuilding sector and continue the construction of the shipyard in Vladivostok. And you know, the first steps have already been taken for this, and fairly big steps. Russia’s largest tonnage ships will be built in Vladivostok. We will build ships that are bigger than anything seen in the Soviet Union.

We will obviously continue our support for the aviation sector; plants will have contracts to keep busy, and research will be developed. And a totally new sector has emerged – aerospace, the new Vostochny Space Launch Centre. Marine biology, everything connected with fisheries – this will all be a priority for us. I have no doubt that we will achieve positive results.

I promised Euronews. Go ahead, please.

Galina Polonskaya: Hello, Mr President. Galina Polonskaya, Euronews TV channel. Thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. I will put down the sign, I have already become one with it during these four hours.

The UN adopted a resolution about Russia’s militarisation of the Sea of ​​Azov, Crimea, and part of the Black Sea. After what happened with the Ukrainian ships in the Kerch Strait, there were reports that Russia was sending military equipment to Crimea. Why should Russia reinforce its military presence in Crimea? Is Russia ready to declare the entire water area of ​​the Sea of ​​Azov its territory? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Look, in 2014, people living in Crimea came out for the referendum and ultimately voted for reunification with the Russian Federation. From that moment, after the relevant domestic procedures, Crimea became part of the Russian Federation, part of Russia. Therefore, we are entitled to and will continue to pursue our military policy on any part of our territory, as we see fit to ensure national security. Crimea is no exception. If the General Staff, if the border guards believe that we need to do something extra in some area, we will do it. Russia’s security in this area will certainly be ensured. We are not going to overdo it there, but what needs to be done, will be done. This is the first point.

Now about the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. We almost immediately announced that we intended to build a bridge to link up with Crimea, which we did. First we built an energy bridge, then a gas pipe, and now we are building two power plants there, in Sevastopol and in Simferopol, with a total capacity of 940 megawatts. We are building the Tavrida road, to be completed by the end of 2020. Next year, I think, the two-lane road will open, and by the end of 2020, a four-lane road.

We will develop the local infrastructure. That is, it is not only about reinforcing the military component, but above all, the civilian, infrastructure component. All this will certainly be implemented. We have a federal targeted programme for the development of Crimea. For the next two years, we have allocated 300 billion rubles for the development of the peninsula. All this will progress. Along with that, the military component will be strengthened, as far as we need it.

As for the Kerch straits, the situation is difficult, in terms of nature. These straits are very narrow and rather shallow. Their depth is about 13 metres. Let me emphasise that pilotage has always been conducted there. The construction of the bridge does not interfere with anything. Pilots escort ships as they used to.

Freight turnover is growing, in particular, in the ports of the Sea of Azov, this is true. But work there is organised and all participants in these economic activities know how this is being done. There is a queue there. Sometimes it is bigger and sometimes it is smaller. Just look at the number of vessels in front of the entrance to the port of Novorossiysk. There are quite a few of them.

I will have to repeat this once again: On September 11 of the past year Ukrainian vessels, including warships, fulfilled all requirements of passage through these straits and under the bridge and were calmly led by our pilots into the Sea of Azov and further on to their destination in the Sea. Nobody interfered with them – just helped.

This time everything was different. This is a deliberate provocation in the course of Mr Poroshenko’s election campaign. We have already shown in the media the logbook that contains the order to “enter secretly.” What does “secretly” mean? Nobody can say what might happen there without pilotage, all the more so when some politicians say in public that they are ready to blow up the bridge. Naturally, we cannot allow this to happen. This would be simply absurd for us, period. As for routine activities, nobody restricts them.

Now a few words about the regime in the Sea of Azov. We have a treaty dating back to 2003, I think. What does it say? It reads that there is a coastal area of five kilometres, not the usual 12 sea miles in accordance with the international Law of the Sea, but five kilometres off the coast. These are the territorial waters of a state, in this case of Russia or Ukraine, and the rest is common sea. Incidentally, our fishermen were once captured although they did not enter the five km zone. Nonetheless, they were seized and their captain is still detained. And your Euronews channel does not even mention this as if this is how it should be. The same is true of other Russian seamen: there is a dry-cargo vessel with its crew out there somewhere, but nobody recalls anything. Therefore, we should observe these agreements and abstain from announcing any unilateral actions.

As for warships, they should be in constant contact with our border guards. The border guards conduct their border mission. In conditions of martial law, I can hardly imagine warships going to and fro, but in general we would like to normalise the situation. We do not create any obstacles to vessels, including warships. Let me repeat that last September vessels were led by our pilot and nobody interfered with them, on the contrary we only helped.

This is a complicated problem, which we will certainly keep working on. You are right about this, I agree.

As far as the amendments to the Constitution are concerned, this is a matter for broad public discussion.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, there is a banner “Russians in Danger.” Please, tell us, which Russians are in danger? The last row. Show it, you raised it before.

Khamzat Batukayev: I am Khamzat Batukayev, Grozny TV Channel, Chechen Republic.

First, thank you for noticing the back row. The press conference has been going on for over three hours, and only the front rows and middle rows…

I have a personal request. We have guests from Latin America here. During each break they keep yelling “Latin America,” but no one is paying attention. If possible, will you please give them the floor after me; they have come a long way.

And now, properly, Mr President, just a second. I have already forgotten what I was going to say.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s talk to the people from Latin America then.

Khamzat Batukayev: This is a serious subject, in fact. I wrote “Russians in Danger” because thousands of our compatriots are still in Syria. They are there for one reason or another, but there are also children who are not there by choice.

Their parents have been sentenced to long prison terms, maybe even life terms. The children are left without parents, without care, and there are many such cases. How can we bring them back? We know your principled position on the issue, so the question is how can we proceed with this?

And, if I may, a second brief question. One of the first requests from the first president of the Chechen Republic, Akhmad-Haji Kadyrov, that was addressed to you regarded the construction of the airport in Grozny, the restoration, to be exact.

It was restored, but ever since it has been suspended in some technical phase, which means it was not completely finished. Currently the republic’s government is holding discussions with various ministries on the second stage and apparently, there are some problems.

How can this be completed? Objectively, Chechnya is still developing, but we host hundreds of thousands of tourists, and the airport capacity is not sufficient.

And the last thing. You know Mr President, we have a main avenue that is named in your honour. You might not be aware that we are currently building the Vladimir Putin Judo Palace.

You always receive one of the highest percentage of votes in the region, I can honestly tell you that Chechens have deep respect for you, this is why I would like to invite you there.

You have also received an invitation from Adygeya or Karachayevo-Circassia, so when you go there, you can also come to the Chechen Republic as a second leg of your trip.

Vladimir Putin: I cannot go to Chechnya on my way to or from. I must go there directly. And I certainly will. This is the first thing.

Second, regarding the children. I believe this is a priority. We are engaged in this; we have a programme for repatriating these children to their homeland, to Russia, Chechnya, to the Caucasus, wherever. And Ramzan Kadyrov is also involved in this. We are doing this and will continue with it.

Urals, there is a sign that says Urals.

Roman Zykov: Good afternoon.

My name is Zykov Roman, Urals television.

Mr President, you say that patriotism should be our national idea. Isn’t it time we codify this in law, amend the Constitution to stipulate that patriotism is the national idea? Right now, a national idea is prohibited by of the Constitution. This is my first question.

Vladimir Putin: It is ideology as a leading force that is prohibited, not patriotism. I hear you. This is a subject for a wide public discussion.

Roman Zykov: And the second question. We have spoken about active patriotism; now, I am worried about the environment.

A lot of money is being allocated for the purification of water, which then goes to consumers, but there is practically no money allocated to maintain the quality of the pipes that deliver it to consumers, and to ensure that the sewage does not pollute our nature.

Unfortunately, 30 percent of sewage water pollutes nature – experts confirm this. Could you look into the issue and possibly adopt some technical regulations so that the quality of the pipes that deliver water to consumers like you and me is higher and we do not pollute the surrounding waters?

Vladimir Putin: This is a question of technical regulations.

You are certainly right. We must look into what is being supplied. I agree with you. It is a problem. But the problem is not only the pipes.

The problem is in the discharge of wastewater, and its purification. This is an issue that affects the entire country. But the relevant decisions have actually been taken here. This also applies to industry.

Applicable law provides for a transition to the latest available technologies. Penalties are imposed for the discharge of untreated water, and, generally, for waste, on companies that do not comply with the environmental requirements.

As for the airport, when needed, it operates as an international airport. If something more is needed, Mr Kadyrov will come and tell me. I will see what needs to be done; I just do not see what else needs to be done. The airport is functioning, but if we need to do more, we will see. Will that do? And thank you for the invitation.

Friendship of Peoples – over there, a young woman is standing in a kokoshnik. Yes, please, give her the microphone.

Valeria Pavlyuchenko: Mr President, good afternoon! My name is Valeria Pavlyuchenko; I am a representative of the First Russian ethnic TV channel.

I believe you know about our TV channel, because it was established with the support of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations. I would like to expand on the topic raised by our colleague from Dagestan, who spoke about ethnic and interethnic journalism.

We are a young team, let us say, a developing channel, and we report about the achievements of the regions, and interethnic stories. We would like to ask for your assistance, we really want to become information partners in the implementation of ethnic policies. Can you help us with this?

Vladimir Putin: Look, we have the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations. I will definitely ask my colleagues to get in touch with you and find opportunities to work with you on this most important matter for our country.

I wish you all a Happy New Year. Please do not be mad at me, we really have to wrap up now. Thank you very much for your attention, and for your questions. I sincerely wish you all the best.

Thank you.

The Two Superpowers: Who Really Controls the Two Countries?

The Saker

June 30, 2018

by Paul Craig Roberts (cross-posted with PCR’s website with his special agreement)

Among the ruling interests in the US, one interest even more powerful than the Israel Lobby—the Deep State of the military/security complex— there is enormous fear that an uncontrollable President Trump at the upcoming Putin/Trump summit will make an agreement that will bring to an end the demonizing of Russia that serves to protect the enormous budget and power of the military-security complex.

You can see the Deep State’s fear in the editorials that the Deep State handed to the Washington Post (June 29) and New York Times (June 29), two of the Deep State’s megaphones, but no longer believed by the vast majority of the American people.  The two editorials share the same points and phrases.  They repeat the disproven lies about Russia as if blatant, obvious lies are hard facts.

Both accuse President Trump of “kowtowing to the Kremlin.”  Kowtowing, of course, is not a Donald Trump characteristic.  But once again fact doesn’t get in the way of the propaganda spewed by the WaPo and NYT, two megaphones of Deep State lies.

The Deep State editorial handed to the WaPo reads: “THE REASONS for the tension between the United States and Russia are well-established. Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine, instigated a war in eastern Ukraine, intervened to save the dictatorship of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, interfered in the U.S. presidential election campaign to harm Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, poisoned a former intelligence officer on British soil and continues to meddle in the elections of other democracies.”

The WaPo’s opening paragraph is a collection of all the blatant lies assembled by the Deep State for its Propaganda Ministry.  There have been many books written about the CIA’s infiltration of the US media.  There is no doubt about it.  I remember my orientation as Staff Associate, House Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, when I was informed that the Washington Post is a CIA asset.  This was in 1975. Today the Post is owned by a person with government contracts that many believe sustain his front business.

And don’t forget Udo Ulfkotte, an editor of the  Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, who wrote in his best seller, Bought Journalism, that there was not a significant journalist in Europe who was not on the CIA’s payroll. The English language edition of Ulfkotte’s book has been suppressed and prevented from publication.

The New York Times, which last told the truth in the 1970s when it published the leaked Pentagon Papers and had the fortitude to stand up for its First Amendment rights, repeats the lies about Putin’s “seizure of Crimea and attack on Ukraine” along with all the totally unstantiated BS about Russia interferring in the US president election and electing Trump, who now kowtows to Putin in order to serve Russia instead of the US. The editorial handed to the NYT insinuates that Trump is a threat to the national security of America and its allies (vassals). The problem, the NYT declares, is that Trump is not listening to his advisors.

Shades of President John F. Kennedy, who did not listen to the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff about invading Cuba, nuking the Soviet Union, and using the false flag attack on America of the Joint Chiefs’ Northwoods Project (look it up online).  Is the New York Times setting up Trump for assassination on the grounds that he is lovely-dovey with Russia and sacrificing US national interests?

I would bet on it.

While the Washington Post and New York Times are telling us that if Trump meets with Putin, Trump will sell out US national security, The Saker says that Putin finds himself in a similar box, only it doesn’t come from the national security interest, but from the Russian Fifth Column, the Atlanticist Integrationists whose front man is the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, who represents the rich Russian elite whose wealth is based on stolen assets during the Yeltsin years enabled by Washington.  These elites, The Saker concludes, impose constraints on Putin that put Russian sovereignty at risk. Economically, it is more important to these elites for financial reasons to be part of Washington’s empire than to be a sovereign country. 

I find The Saker’s explanation the best I have read of the constraints on Putin that limit his ability to represent Russian national interests.

I have often wondered why Putin didn’t have the security force round up these Russian traitors and execute them.  The answer is that Putin believes in the rule of law, and he knows that Russia’s US financed and supported Fifth Column cannot be eliminated without bloodshed that is inconsistent with the rule of law.  For Putin, the rule of law is as important as Russia.  So, Russia hangs in the balance.  It is my view that the Russian Fifth Column could care less about the rule of law.  They only care about money.

As challenged as Putin might be, Chris Hedges, one of the surviving great American journalists, who is not always right but when he is he is incisive, explains the situation faced by the American people.  It is beyond correction.  American civil liberties and prosperity appear to be lost. 

In my opinion, Hedges leftwing leanings caused him to focus on Reagan’s rhetoric rather that on Reagan’s achievements—the two greatest of our time—the end of stagflation, which benefited the American people, and the end of the Cold War, which removed the theat of nuclear war.  I think Hedges also does not appreciate Trump’s sincerety about normalizing relations with Russia, relations destroyed by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes, and Trump’s sincerety about bringing offshored jobs home to American workers. Trump’s agenda puts him up against the two most powerful interest groups in the United States.  A president willing to take on these powerful groups should be appreciated and supported, as Hedges acknowledges the dispossessed majority do.  If I might point out to Chris, whom I admire, it is not like Chris Hedges to align against the choice of the people.  How can democracy work if people don’t rule?

Hedges writes, correctly, “The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we [the American people] don’t count.”
Hedges is absolutely correct.

It is impossible not to admire a journalist like Hedges who can describe our plight with such succinctness:

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowlege, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and banks destroy the economy.”

Read The Saker’s explanation of Russian politics.  Possibly Putin will collapse under pressure from the powerful Fifth Column in his government.  Read Chris Hedges analysis of American collapse. There is much truth in it.  What happens if the Russian people rise up against the Russian Fifth Column and if the oppressed American people rise up against the extractions of the military/security complex? What happens if neither population rises up?

Who sets off the first nuclear weapon?

Our time on earth is not just limited by our threescore and ten years, but also humanity’s time on earth, and that of every other species, is limited by the use of nuclear weapons.

It is long past the time when governments, and if not them, humanity, should ask why nuclear weapons exist when they cannot be used without destroying life on earth.

Why isn’t this the question of our time, instead of, for example, transgender toilet facilities, and the large variety of fake issues on which the presstitute media focuses?

The articles by The Saker and Chris Hedges, two astute people, report that neither superpower is capable of making good decisions, decisions that are determined by democracy instead of by oligarchs, against whom neither elected government can stand.

If this is the case, humanity is finished.

Here are the Washington Post and New York Times editorials:

Washington Post
June 29, 2018
Trump is kowtowing to the Kremlin again. Why?
Ahead of a summit with Putin, Trump is siding with the Russian leader, with dangerous results.

THE REASONS for the tension between the United States and Russia are well-established. Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine, instigated a war in eastern Ukraine, intervened to save the dictatorship of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, interfered in the U.S. presidential election campaign to harm Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, poisoned a former intelligence officer on British soil and continues to meddle in the elections of other democracies. Yet on Wednesday in the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin brushed it all aside and delivered the Russian “maskirovka,” or camouflage, answer that it is all America’s fault.

Meeting with John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, Mr. Putin declared that the tensions are “in large part the result of an intense domestic political battle inside the U.S.” Then Mr. Putin’s aide Yuri Ushakov insisted that Russia “most certainly did not interfere in the 2016 election” in the United States. On Thursday morning, Mr. Trump echoed them both on Twitter: “Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!”

Why is Mr. Trump kowtowing again? The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia did attempt to tilt the election using multiple campaigns, including cyberintrusions and insidious social media fakery. Would it be so difficult to challenge Mr. Putin about this offensive behavior? A full accounting has yet to be made of the impact on the election, but Mr. Bolton did not mince words last year when he described Russian interference as “a true act of war” and said, “We negotiate with Russia at our peril.” And now?

Summits can be productive, even – maybe especially – when nations are at odds. In theory, a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin, now scheduled for next month in Helsinki, could be useful. But a meeting aimed at pleasing Mr. Putin is naive and foolhardy. A meeting aimed at pleasing Mr. Putin at the expense of traditional, democratic U.S. allies would be dangerous and damaging.

Just as Mr. Bolton was flattering Mr. Putin, Russia was engaging in subterfuge on the ground in Syria. The United States, Russia and Jordan last year negotiated cease-fire agreements in southwestern Syria, along the border with Jordan and the Golan Heights. In recent days, the United States has warned Russia and its Syrian allies not to launch an offensive in the area, where the rebel forces hold parts of the city of Daraa and areas along the border. The State Department vowed there would be “serious repercussions” and demanded that Russia restrain its client Syrian forces. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, saying an offensive would be unacceptable. All to no avail; Syria is bombing the area.

This is what happens when Mr. Trump signals, repeatedly, that he is unwilling or unable to stand up to Russian misbehavior. We are on dangerous ground. Either Mr. Trump has lost touch with essential U.S. interests or there is some other explanation for his kowtowing that is yet unknown.

New York Times
June 29, 2018
Trump and Putin’s Too-Friendly Summit
It’s good to meet with adversaries. But when Mr. Trump sits down with Mr. Putin, it will be a meeting of kindred spirits. That’s a problem.

It’s good for American presidents to meet with adversaries, to clarify differences and resolve disputes. But when President Trump sits down with President Vladimir Putin of Russia in Finland next month, it will be a meeting of kindred spirits, and that’s a problem.

One would think that at a tête-à-tête with the Russian autocrat, the president of the United States would take on some of the major concerns of America and its closest allies. Say, for instance, Mr. Putin’s seizure of Crimea and attack on Ukraine, which led to punishing international sanctions. But at the Group of 7 meeting in Quebec this month, Mr. Trump reportedly told his fellow heads of state that Crimea is Russian because everyone there speaks that language. And, of course, Trump aides talked to Russian officials about lifting some sanctions even before he took office.

One would hope that the president of the United States would let Mr. Putin know that he faces a united front of Mr. Trump and his fellow NATO leaders, with whom he would have met days before the summit in Helsinki. But Axios reported that during the meeting in Quebec, Mr. Trump said, “NATO is as bad as Nafta,” the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is one of Mr. Trump’s favorite boogeymen.

Certainly the president would mention that even the people he appointed to run America’s intelligence services believe unequivocally that Mr. Putin interfered in the 2016 election to put him in office and is continuing to undermine American democracy. Right? But on Thursday morning, Mr. Trump tweeted, “Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!”

More likely, Mr. Trump will congratulate Mr. Putin, once again, for winning another term in a sham election, as he did in March, even though his aides explicitly warned him not to. And he has already proposed readmitting Russia to the Group of 7, from which it was ousted after the Ukraine invasion.

Summits once tended to be carefully scripted, and presidents were attended by senior advisers and American interpreters. At dinner during a Group of 20 meeting last July, Mr. Trump walked over to Mr. Putin and had a casual conversation with no other American representative present. He later said they discussed adoptions – the same issue that he falsely claimed was the subject of a meeting at Trump Tower in 2016 between his representatives and Russian operatives who said they had dirt on Hillary Clinton.

It’s clear that Mr. Trump isn’t a conventional president, but instead one intent on eroding institutions that undergird democracy and peace. Mr. Trump “doesn’t believe that the U.S. should be part of any alliance at all” and believes that “permanent destabilization creates American advantage,” according to unnamed administration officials quoted by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic.

Such thinking goes further than most Americans have been led to believe were Mr. Trump’s views on issues central to allied security. He has often given grudging lip service to supporting NATO, even while complaining frequently about allies’ military spending and unfair trade policies.

The tensions Mr. Trump has sharpened with our allies should please Mr. Putin, whose goal is to fracture the West and assert Russian influence in places where the Americans and Europeans have played big roles, like the Middle East, the Balkans and the Baltic States.

Yet despite growing anxieties among European allies, Mr. Trump is relying on his advisers less than ever because, “He now thinks he’s mastered this,” one senior member of Congress said in an interview. That’s a chilling thought given his inability, so far, to show serious progress on any major security issue. Despite Mr. Trump’s talk of quick denuclearization after his headline-grabbing meeting with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, experts say satellite imagery shows the North is actually improving its nuclear capability.

While the White House hasn’t disclosed an agenda for the Putin meeting, there’s a lot the two leaders should be discussing, starting with Russian cyberintrusions. Mr. Trump, though, has implied that Mr. Putin could help the United States guard against election hacking. And although Congress last year mandated sweeping sanctions against Russia to deter such behavior, Mr. Trump has failed to implement many of them.

In a similar vein, should Mr. Trump agree to unilaterally lift sanctions imposed after Moscow invaded Ukraine and started a war, it would further upset alliance members, which joined the United States in imposing sanctions at some cost to themselves. Moreover, what would deter Mr. Putin from pursuing future land grabs?

Mr. Trump could compound that by canceling military exercises, as he did with South Korea after the meeting with Mr. Kim, and by withdrawing American troops that are intended to keep Russia from aggressive action in the Baltics.

Another fraught topic is Syria. Mr. Trump has signaled his desire to withdraw American troops from Syria, a move that would leave the country more firmly in the hands of President Bashar al-Assad and his two allies, Russia and Iran. Russia, in particular, is calling the shots on the battlefield and in drafting a political settlement that could end the fighting, presumably after opposition forces are routed.

What progress could be made at this summit, then? Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin may find it easier to cooperate in preventing a new nuclear arms race by extending New Start, a treaty limiting strategic nuclear weapons that expires in 2021.

Another priority: bringing Russia back into compliance with the I.N.F. treaty, which eliminated all U.S. and Soviet ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, until Russia tested and deployed a prohibited cruise missile.

Mr. Trump’s top national security advisers are more cleareyed about the Russian threat than he is. So are the Republicans who control the Senate. They have more responsibility than ever to try to persuade Mr. Trump that the country’s security is at stake when he meets Mr. Putin, and that he should prepare carefully for the encounter.


 South Front


Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review

Following the re-appointment of Medvedev and his more or less reshuffled government, the public opinion in Russia and abroad was split on whether this was a good sign of continuity and unity amongst the Russian leadership or whether this was a confirmation that there was a 5th column inside the Kremlin working against President Putin and trying to impose neo-liberal and pro-western policies on the Russian people. Today I want to take a quick look at what is taking place inside Russia because I believe that the Russian foreign policy is still predominantly controlled by what I call the “Eurasian Sovereignists” and that to detect the activities of the “Atlantic Integrationist” types we need to look at what is taking place inside Russia.

The Russian 5th column and its typical operations

First, I want to begin by sharing with you a short video translated by the Saker Community of one of the most astute Russian analysts, Ruslan Ostashko, who wonders how it is that a rabidly pro-western and vociferously anti-Putin radio station named “Ekho Moskvy” manages not only to elude normal Russian legislation, but even gets money from the gaz giant Gazprom, which is majority owned by the Russian state. Ekho Moskvy is also so pro-Israeli that it has earned the nickname “Ekho Matsy” (Ekho Moskvy means “Echo of Moscow” whereas “Ekho Matsy” means “Echo of the Matzo”). Needless to say, that radio has the unwavering and total support of the US Embassy. It would not be an exaggeration to say Ekho Moskvy serves as an incubator for russophobic journalists and that most of the liberal pro-western reporters in the Russian media have been, at one time or another, associated with this propaganda outfit. In spite of this or, more accurately, because of this, Ekho Moskvy has been bankrupt for quite a while already, and yet – it continues to exist. Just listen to Ostashko’s explanations (and make sure to press the ‘cc’ button to see the English language captions):

Interesting, no? The state giant Gazprom is doing all it can to keep Ekho Moskvy afloat and above the law. In fact, Gazprom has been financing Ekho Moskvy for years! According to the hyper-politically-correct Wikipedia: “As of 2005 Echo of Moscow was majority owned by Gazprom Media which holds 66% of its shares”. If Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state, and Ekho Moskvy is majority owned by Gazprom, then does that not mean that Ekho Moskvy is basically financed by the Kremlin? The reality is even worse, as Ostashko points out, Ekho Moskvy is the most visible case, but there are quite a few pro-western media outlets in Russia which are financed, directly and indirectly, by the Russian state.

So let me ask you a simple question: do you really think that Ostashko is better informed than the Russian authorities, including Putin himself?

Of course not! So what is going on here?

Before attempting to answer this question, let’s look at another interesting news item from Russia, the recent article “Pension reform as a fifth column tool to overthrow Putin” (original title “About a fair pension system”) by Mikhail Khazin translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard from the Stalker Zone blog (and cross-posted here and here). Please read the full article as it sheds a very interesting light on what the Medvedev government has been up to since it was reappointed. What I want to quote here are Mikhail Khazin’s conclusions: (emphasis added)

In other words, all of this reform is frank poppycock, a political joke aimed at destroying relations between the People (society) and the Authorities. The specific aim of this is to overthrow Putin, as our liberals are commanded to do by their senior partners from the “Western” global project. And it is precisely like this that we should treat this reform. It has no relation to economic reforms – neither good, nor bad. It not an economic reform, but a political plot! And it is from here that we have to proceed.

Having explained what is really going on, Khazin then goes on to openly state how such an operation is even possible:

Now concerning the media. It should be understood that at the end of the 90’s-beginning of the 2000’s practically all non-liberal media died. Completely. And of course, practically all non-liberal journalists definitely died (only a few dozen mastodons from the times of socialism remain). And the youth that grew from the faculty of journalism are in general totally liberal. They were a little bit suppressed in the middle of the 2000’s, but after Medvedev’s arrival to the president’s post they again blossomed. But then the attack of the State on everything that doesn’t reflect “the policies of the party and the government” began.

And then it so happened that now there are many “patriotic” publications in Russia that employ mainly liberal journalists. An enchanting sight. These journalists (in full accordance with the ideas of Lenin that they didn’t read) see their main task as supporting “theirs” – i.e., liberal-financiers, Nemtsov, Navalny and, so on, and to sully the “bloody KayGeeBee”! And it is this that they are involved in, meaning that, propagandising as much as possible the policies of the government, they optimally irritate the population by using Putin personally. There is just a need every time to act out some disgusting story (how an elderly man died on the way to the polyclinic or hospital, how children were taken away from a large family, how an official or a priest hit a pregnant woman and/or juvenile children with their chic car), to explain that this isn’t just the result of the policies of the liberal power, but the concrete fault of the President, who put on their posts the very ministers and law enforcement officers who encourage all of this.

Amazing, no? This is an attempt to overthrow Putin and it is covered-up by the (pseudo) patriotic press. What about Putin himself? Why does he not take action? Khazin even explains that:

Of course, the President is guilty, first of all, because he understands that if he starts to cleanse this “Augean stable”, then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won’t voluntarily give back their privileges. But the most important thing, and this is the essence: the liberal Russian elite today set for itself the political task of removing Putin. Why it decided to do this is an interesting question: if Putin himself and a liberal are flesh from flesh, then this task is stupid and senseless. Not to mention suicidal. But if he isn’t a liberal (it is probably correct to say not a political liberal) then, of course, this activity makes sense. But at the same time, for purely propaganda reasons – because people hate liberals, there is a need to hang the label of political liberal on him.

Now let’s connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled) faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes “liberal” economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called “patriotic media” is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding blood.

But let us assume, for argument’s sake, that Putin is really a liberal at heart and he believes in “Washington Consensus” type of economics. Even if this was the case, surely he must be aware that 92% of Russians oppose this so-called “reform”. And while the President’s spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, declared that Putin himself was not associated with this plan, the truth is that this process does also hurt his political image with the Russian people and political movements. As a direct result from these plans, the Communist Party of Russia is launching a referendum against this project while the “Just Russia” Party is now collecting signatures to dismiss the entire government. Clearly, a political struggle of monumental proportions is in the making and the traditionally rather lame internal opposition to Putin (I am talking about the major political movements and parties, not tiny CIA-supported and/or Soros-funded “NGOs”) is now transforming itself into a much more determined kind of opposition. I predicted thatabout a month ago when I wrote that:

“it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin’s personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition”

Those who vehemently denied that there as a real 5th column problem inside the Kremlin are going to have a painful wake-up call when they realize that thanks to the actions of these “liberals” a patriotic opposition is gradually emerging, not so much against Putin himself as against the policies of the Medvedev government. Why not against Putin?

Because most Russian instinctively feel what is going on and understand not only the anti-Putin dynamics at work, but also how and why this situation was created. Furthermore, unlike most westerners, most Russians remember what took place in the crucial and formative 1990s.

The historical roots of the problem (very rough summary)

It all began in the late 1980s when the Soviet elites realized that they were losing control of the situation and that something had to be done. To really summarize what they did, I would say that these elites first broke up the country into 15 individual fiefdoms each run by gang/clan composed of these Soviet elites, then they mercilessly grabbed everything of any value, became overnight billionaires and concealed their money in the West. Being fabulously rich in a completely ruined country gave them fantastic political power and influence to further exploit and rob the country of all its resources. Russia herself (and the other 14 ex-Soviet republics) suffered an unspeakable nightmare comparable to a major war and by the 1990s Russia almost broke-up into many more even smaller pieces (Chechnia, Tatarstan, etc.). By then, Russia was subserviently executing all the economic policies recommended by a myriad of US ‘advisors’ (hundreds of them with offices inside the offices of many key ministries and various state agencies, just like today in the Ukraine), she adopted a Constitution drafted by pro-US elements, and all the key positions in the state were occupied by what I can only call western agents. At the very top, President Eltsin was mostly drunk while the country was run by 7 bankers, the so-called “oligarchs” (6 of which were Jews): the “Semibankirshchina”.

This is the time when the Russian security services successfully tricked these oligarchs into believing that Putin, who has a law degree and who had worked for the (very liberal) Mayor of Saint Petersburg (Anatolii Sobchack) was just a petty bureaucrat who would restore a semblance of order while not presenting any real threat to the oligarchs. The ploy worked, but the business elites demanded that “their” guy, Medvedev, be put in charge of the government so as to preserve their interests. What they overlooked was two things: Putin was a truly brilliant officer of the very elite First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence) of the KGB and a real patriot. Furthermore, the Constitution, which was passed to support the Eltsin regime could now be used by Putin. But more than anything else, they never predicted that a little guy in an ill-fitting suit would transform himself into one of the most popular leaders on the planet. As I have written many times, while the initial power base of Putin was in the security services and the armed forces and while his legal authority stems from the Constitution, his *real* power comes from the immense support he has from the Russian people who, for the first time in very long time felt that the man at the top truly represented their interests.

Putin then did what Donald Trump could have done as soon as he entered the White House: he cleaned house. He began by immediately tackling the oligarchs, he put an end to the Semibankirshchina, and he stopped the massive export of money and resources out of Russia. The then proceeded to rebuild the “vertical of power” (the Kremlin’s control over the country) and began rebuilding all of Russia from the foundations (regions) up. But while Putin was tremendously successful, he simply could not fight on all fronts at the same time and win.

Truth be told, he did eventually win most of the battles which he chose to fight, but some battles he simply could not wage, not because of a lack of courage or will on his part, but because the objective reality is that Putin inherited an extremely bad system fully controlled by some extremely dangerous foes. Remember the words of Khazin above: “if he starts to cleanse this “Augean stable”, then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won’t voluntarily give back their privileges”. So, in a typically Putin fashion, he made a number of deals.

For example, those oligarchs who agreed to stop meddling in Russian politics and who would, from now on, pay taxes and generally abide by the law were not jailed or expropriated: those who got the message were allowed to continue to work as normal businessmen (Oleg Deripaska) and those who did not were either jailed or exiled (Khodorkovski, Berezovski). But if we look just below the level of these well-known and notorious oligarchs, what we find as a much deeper “swamp” (to use the US expression): an entire class of people who made their fortunes in the 1990s, who are now extremely influential and control most of the key positions in the economy, finance and business and who absolutely hate and fear Putin. They even have their agents inside the armed forces and security services because their weapon of choice is, of course, corruption and influence. And, of course, they have people representing their interests inside the Russian government: pretty much the entire “economic block” of the Medvedev government.

Is it really any surprise at all that these people also have their paid representatives inside the Russian media, including the so-called “pro-Russian” or “patriotic” media? (I have been warning about this since at least 2015)

Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money. Big financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or obfuscate some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media backing WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid, rabidly pro-Israel propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Satanovsky, Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.

And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: “there is no 5th column in Russia!! None!! Never!!”

This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the USA which denies the existence of a “deep state” or the US “Israel Lobby”.

And yet, many (most?) people in the USA and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that they are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them.

Putin’s options and possible outcomes

Sadly, in the USA, Trump proved to be a disaster who totally caved in to the Neocons and their demands. In Russia, the situation is far more complex. So far, Putin has very skillfully avoided associating himself with the Atlantic Integrationists. Furthermore, the biggest crises of the past decade or so were all associated with foreign policy issues and those are still controlled by the Eurasian Sovereignists. Finally, while the Russian government clearly committed some mistakes or promoted some unpopular policies (such has healthcare reform for example), they also had their undeniable successes. As for Putin, he continued to consolidate his power and he gradually removed some of the most notorious individuals from their positions. In theory, Putin could probably have most top Atlantic Integrationists arrested on corruption charges, but short of engaging in a massive and bloody purge, he cannot get rid of an entire social class which is not only large but powerful.

Some of my contacts in Russia expected a purge of Atlantic Integrationists right after the election. The logic here was “enough is enough” and that once Putin got a strong mandate from the people, he would finally kick Medvedev and his gang out of the Kremlin and replace them with popular patriots. That obviously did not happen. But if this pension reform program continues to further trigger protests or if a major war blows up in the Middle-East or in the Ukraine, then the pro-western forces inside the Kremlin will come under great pressure to further yield control of the country to Eurasian Sovereignists.

Putin is an exceedingly patient man and, at least so far, he has won most, if not all, of his battles. I don’t believe that anybody can predict for sure how things will play out, but what is certain is that trying to understand Russia without being aware of the internal conflicts and the interests groups fighting for power is futile. In her 1000 year long history, internal enemies have always been far more dangerous for Russia than external ones. This is unlikely to change in the future.

%d bloggers like this: