0 0

Moscow, 23 December 2021

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

I think that we can get down to work.

There is quite a distance between us, but I do hope that our technical staff have made all the necessary arrangements so that you can hear me well. I also hope that I will be able to hear you clearly.

Mr Peskov, I think that we can begin without any lengthy introductory remarks, since this would be more useful and interesting for everyone.

During this meeting, I will try to answer your questions, and, without any opening remarks, satisfy your curiosity and inform you on the outcomes of this year, as well as what we expect in the near future, and what we will strive to achieve in our work.

Mr Peskov, please.

Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office – Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Let us begin.

To start with, I would like to give the floor to the true doyen of the Russian journalistic corps – one of the Interfax agency leaders, Vyacheslav Terekhov.

Please pass the microphone to the first row.

Vyacheslav Terekhov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

The sound will be somewhat muffled, a mixed sound, as radio operators say.

You just said you will talk about further economic development – the world has been waging a global war on the coronavirus for the past two years, and now we will be fighting the Omicron variant, of course. How has this war affected the Russian economy? It has indeed affected almost everyone in some way. What are the ways out of this economic crisis, out of this pit, what drivers are there? Do we have to wait until everyone gets vaccinated before we can discuss the possibility of economic growth?

And the most important question, of course: how do you assess the work of your ‘general staff’ – the Government and the Central Bank – during this ‘war’?

Sorry, when I mentioned the Central Bank just now, I remembered that my questions have always referred to the Central Bank, during the past three or four news conferences, except the most recent one – it just happens.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: If I provide full answers to all your questions, even if I succeed in this task, I believe we could round up this news conference after that. These are very broad questions. In fact, they touch upon our main efforts, as well as those of the entire world, which, as you have mentioned, has been fighting the coronavirus.

This struggle continues, and we are aware of the dangers that Omicron, this new strain, poses. I think that we will have an opportunity to get back to this topic during today’s meeting.

As you may know, a group of Russian scientists and experts is now in South Africa, where their colleagues actually discovered this new strain. They are working there, and are quite successful at that. Once again, I would like to thank our colleagues from South Africa.

As for the impact this situation has had on the Russian economy, and what we are to expect in the near future, we have spoken about this, in general terms, many times.

Faced with the challenges posed by Covid-19 and the restrictions the economy and the social sector have had to face in this connection, it is obvious that the Russian economy has been better mobilised and prepared to withstand these shocks compared to many other developed economies around the world, if we look at the top five, six, seven or ten major economies, or even twenty. I will discuss this in more detail later during our news conference today.

The Russian economy declined by three percent, which is much better than many of the world’s leading economies, and we recovered faster than many others.

You know the numbers. Even last year, we could see the trends, and today I even have a chart here with me, and will share this information with you in order to be precise. GDP growth is expected at the level of 4.5 percent this year. It has added 4.6 percent as of the end of October, while manufacturing increased by 5 percent, and the processing sector grew by 5.2 percent.

Crop yields will be slightly lower in 2021 compared to the previous year, which is due to the weather. We had 133.5 million tonnes in 2020 and now have 123 million tonnes. Still, this is a very robust result which not only enables us to satisfy our needs, but also provides for a substantial export potential.

Fixed capital investment was up 7.6 percent as of November. We expect this indicator for the entire year to come in at 6 percent, up from a 1.4 percent decline in 2020.

The construction sector performed quite well, with a record high of 90 million square metres built. This is the first time we have achieved this figure in Russia’s contemporary history. I would like to congratulate all those involved in the construction sector, from the top executives to on-site construction workers, with this milestone.

Thank goodness, average wages have started to grow in real terms. There are also changes in terms of real disposable income. We had a 2 percent decline in 2020, but this year we expect this figure to rise.

Of course, we will talk about inflation. We expect the inflation rate to be 8 percent.

It is much higher than the forecast. But, even adjusted for inflation, real income has still increased by 4.1 percent. Our experts estimate that real income will show a 3.5-percent annual growth. Of course, this will not be true for all categories of citizens. Naturally, it is an average rate and I want to stress this once again, when people watch this and listen to this, they might say: it’s an average again. But we have to talk in average numbers since they serve as a certain benchmark. I think we will cover the topic of personal income in more detail today.

We set a goal of returning to the pre-pandemic unemployment rate – and it did go down. The unemployment rate before the pandemic was around 4.6‒4.7 percent. The current rate is 4.3 percent. It may go up a little to 4.4 percent by the end of the year. This is a very good indicator for the performance of the economy in general even though there are certain difficulties and challenges related to the labour market such as, for example, the number of people working at the construction sites we have just mentioned. It is a serious issue.

Now, I would like to speak about the trade surplus. Last year, despite all the difficulties, Russia’s trade surplus amounted to 94 billion [US$]. This year, the figure has almost doubled, reaching 184 billion, which is also an excellent result.

Russia’s foreign debt has slightly decreased. It is the lowest level of foreign debt in the world, around four percent.

What other important indicators speak for the quality of governance and the performance of the entire state, the Government and the Central Bank, in particular? Our international reserves have grown from US$595 to US$625.5 billion. The National Welfare Fund is growing as well and currently amounts to US$185.2 billion. All these figures are an indication of stability and good macroeconomic results.

There are issues that cannot but cause concern, including life expectancy, which has slightly decreased from 71.5 to 70.1 years. We will most likely cover this topic today as well. It is one of the negative consequences of the coronavirus pandemic.

Right. So, on the whole, I believe that both the Government and the Central Bank deserve – let us be modest – an acceptable score. The results are positive.

Now, about the growth drivers. Your question was about the potential growth drivers, and about vaccination – if we need to have the entire population vaccinated or not.

Look, we have already spoken many times about the growth drivers for our country based on the specific situation that has developed over a fairly extensive period. We can even consider the entire post-war period, since 1945. What are our challenges and what are the drivers, accordingly?

I have just spoken about an unfortunate decrease in life expectancy, an increase in mortality in our country, and in this regard, one of the most important problems, one of the most important challenges that we face is getting more acute – I am referring to demographics. It is a challenge both from a humanitarian point of view and from the geopolitical perspective as well, I mean the country’s population – 146 million for such a vast territory is definitely not enough; economically too, we have a workforce shortage.

As far as I know, the working age population is now just above 81 million. We must drastically increase this figure by 2024, by 2030. This is one of the factors of economic growth, let alone – I would like to emphasise this once again – the geopolitical and humanitarian components of this most important matter.

Therefore, preserving the people that Solzhenitsyn wrote about is becoming one of our most important tasks and one of the drivers of growth.

Second. What other growth drivers? The next driver is infrastructure, infrastructure development.

In this regard, I can say that we are making very strong efforts on this track. You know that we are channeling 500 billion rubles of federal funds directly towards the development of infrastructure. Then there are the National Projects; we started with 260 billion, I believe, then more than 400 billion, and next year, we will allocate 460 or so. We plan to allocate another 2.5 trillion rubles from the National Wealth Fund in the next few years – 2.5 trillion overall.

Of course, the third growth driver is increasing labour efficiency but this includes a whole set of programmes from education and digital transformation to healthcare, which we have already mentioned. This includes an entire set of programmes. Most of them are ready, so we know what to do. We have earmarked the resources needed to move in this direction, and we provide for regular allocations. The funds to this effect are available. All we need to do is set up this work properly and achieve maximum returns on every ruble we invest in delivering on these objectives.

Finally, one of your questions was about vaccinating the entire country. Unfortunately, in Russia the vaccination rate is low, just like in many other countries – take, for example, some European countries where the low level of vaccination is also a matter of concern. This is the case for Germany with its developed healthcare, but even there the healthcare system, one of the most effective in Europe, faces a lot of criticism.

What is the vaccination rate in Russia? As of today, or maybe yesterday, it was 59.4 precent. I had no doubt that this would be one of the main topics during today’s news conference, so I talked to Ms Popova and Ms Golikova. The figure of 59.4 percent is where we are in terms of achieving herd immunity in Russia. This includes both those who have recovered from the coronavirus infection, as well as those who have received the jab. Some 70 million people have received the first dose, and a little over 70 have had both.

This is not enough. We need about 80 percent of our population to be immune to achieve herd immunity. I hope that next year, at least by the end of the first quarter or in the second quarter, we will have reached this level. Some countries are already talking about the need for 90–95 percent to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity.

This is how things stand, more or less.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

Moving on, I suggest that we go through Russia’s major news agencies.

TASS news agency, please, go ahead.

Veronika Ichetkina: Good afternoon.

Veronika Ichetkina, TASS News Agency.

In a way, I would like to follow up on social spending by the state and the budget.

The state has recently increased its social spending. Judging by the budget for the next three years, as adopted recently, the state will continue doing so. It is curious that there was a lot of talk some time ago about social spending cuts next year.

Can you comment on these allegations? Overall, how would you describe the new budget? Can it be called a development budget or a budget with a social focus?

If you will allow me, I would like to finish my question. May I? Are any further increases in social spending possible during the pandemic? If this does happen, have you assessed the risk of inflation spiralling out of control, considering that it is already quite jumpy.

Thank you.

ladimir Putin: First, about the characteristics of the budget. Of course, it is a socially-oriented budget. Naturally.

I extensively discussed this matter with my colleagues from the Government yesterday. If you look at healthcare and social spending, the healthcare expenses, for example, are, obviously, growing. The federal budget expenditures, the compulsory healthcare insurance budget and the regional budgets amount to 1.5–1.7 trillion in total.

Moreover, I think we planned to allocate around 3.6 trillion for healthcare from two sources, the federal budget and the compulsory healthcare insurance system. This year we are about to reach 3.9 or 4 trillion in spending. Next year the plan is 4 trillion, and, obviously, the actual amount will be higher.

These are completely objective figures. And I did not include regional expenses, which vary from region to region and from year to year. They currently amount to 1.6–1.7 trillion, which is quite significant.

If we speak about the social sphere, there has been an apparent increase in spending. Even during the pandemic, when we were developing support measures for the most severely affected sectors of the economy (and the numbers were huge, 4.5 percent of the GDP last year and another percent of the GDP this year, which makes 5.5 percent in total), we did not just give away money randomly. Our support for the hardest hit industries focused on preserving jobs and supporting people with low incomes who are particularly vulnerable in these circumstances.

Who are these people? First of all, young families with children. I think I do not have to list all the measures, but I will mention some that are widely known.

We added more categories of families to those receiving state support – for example, all families with children aged three and younger.

We started paying maternity capital for the first child. Then, we began paying benefits to pregnant women who are experiencing hardship. We paid additional benefits for children aged three to seven. We paid one-time benefits of 5,000 and 10,000 rubles to different categories – primarily people facing financial difficulties.

It is an entire toolkit of measures – worth 4.5 trillion rubles last year, and we continued this kind of support into 2021. Again, we did it all to either directly support people, or support them through businesses – we provided financial support to companies that kept people on board and maintained a certain level of wages.

Among other things, as you know, we have recently increased the minimum wage and subsistence level. At first glance, this might not be a significant increase, but the idea is to have social benefits indexed immediately, and this affects millions of people. All social benefits are calculated on the basis of the minimum wage or subsistence level, and by the way, this also leads to indexation of certain pensions.

Therefore, without a doubt, this budget can be described as socially focused.

Answering your colleague’s question about growth drivers, I have mentioned some of our absolutely unprecedented, grandiose infrastructure development plans. Look at the massive resources to be invested: we plan to allocate 2.5 trillion from the NWF alone; 500 billion has already been allocated; and 460 [billion] will be additionally allocated next year.

We will also invest hugely in labour productivity and digitalisation in all industries, practically from top to bottom.

Therefore, as I am saying, this budget is socially focused, but it is also focused on development. This much is absolutely obvious if you look at the figures.

Veronika Ichetkina: May I clarify something?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, go ahead.

Veronika Ichetkina: I have also asked how higher social spending will affect inflation.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, right. Sorry.

You are absolutely right, and this is one of the key issues with maintaining macroeconomic stability, because many of the world’s leading economies have relaxed their macroeconomic policies and have significantly accelerated their money printing presses. This is an obvious thing, and it has led to a fairly high inflation in the leading economies – this much is also obvious. Everyone sees this – these are the numbers everyone can see.

Budget deficits are growing in all leading countries, all of them, higher in the United States, slightly less in the eurozone, but still, this is a significant and unusual change.

For example, the inflation rate in the world’s leading economy, the United States, is 6.1–6.2 percent, if memory serves, whereas the target figure was 2 percent. In other words, the inflation rate is three time above the target figure.

Inflation is high in Russia as well, 8 percent, while the target was 4 percent. Our inflation rate has grown twofold, whereas it has tripled in the United States. This is serious. I believe that the FRS [US Federal Reserve System] will have to do something about this.

This soft monetary policy is having an impact on macroeconomics and ultimately cancels out the positive goals of this policy, including support for the economy and the citizens. We have this problem as well, because 8 percent is too high, and we certainly need to attain the target rate of 4 percent.

Of course, we can criticise the Central Bank. I am aware of this, because I maintain daily contact with our colleagues from the real economy sector, and I know that they are criticising the Central Bank, and I know their arguments. Trust me, we meet nearly every day, although this is not reported on television. They sit three metres from me, and we discuss problems. Television only shows a small part of my contacts and meetings, when we work in front of cameras. I hold such meetings and conferences nearly every day. They just sit down further away from me, just about three metres away. But we discuss things every day.

I know that the real economy is not happy with increased interest rates. But if we do not do this, the situation will be like in Turkey. This is the problem. It is a serious matter and a major challenge. Of course, this instrument should be used carefully, but the Central Bank has an independent policy. This may seem strange to you, but I do not interfere with the Central Bank’s operations. However, I have a positive view of them, and I believe that we usually manage to find a middle ground.

Why? What are the risks of raising interest rates? This can hinder growth. We must grow faster that the world’s average, by 3.4–3.5 percent a year in the near future, not even as high as now – by 4.6 percent. The target of 4.4–4.5 percent would be great. But increased interest rates are decreasing the possibility of attaining this goal.

We cannot see this now, because the lending volume is not decreasing, and banking possibilities are growing. Sberbank will report 1 trillion rubles’ worth of profits this year. In other words, we have found a middle ground, by and large.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us move on.

I suggest that we turn to RIA, the third of Russia’s major news agencies. Mic to the central sector, please.

Yelena Glushakova: Yelena Glushakova, RIA Novosti.

Mr President, just now you were talking about social support measures, but the business side of the question is of no less importance.

In your opinion, how can we balance anti-COVID restrictions with the need to keep the economy going? Not only major corporations suffer from restrictions, but small businesses too: retailers, small restaurants, cafes, small shops, the cinema industry, and the entertainment sector.

If you allow me, I have a second question in this connection. How well did the governors perform? They received a lot of authority during the pandemic but used it in different ways, introducing various restrictions. In your opinion, how well did they perform? What grade would you give them for their efforts?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me start with the question on businesses and how we have been supporting them.

You said that major corporations are not the only ones to suffer, and that small enterprises suffer as well. In fact, it is primarily small businesses that suffer, even if major corporations also felt some negative consequences. We devised support measures for these sectors, in fact, for all major sectors of the economy, if you remember, for all major corporations. I specifically asked the Government last year, at the very beginning of the year, and the Government complied.

Our key industries and major corporations have clearly benefited from a number of measures. After all, they operated without any or virtually no interruptions, and in some cases even increased their output. This is the case for the defence industry, which reported higher production volumes.

As for small and medium-size enterprises – catering, gyms, cinemas, and even theatres, museums, etc., all the enterprises in the service sector – of course, they were the first to suffer. However, they were also the first to receive our support. There was a whole range of measures. I do not know whether I need to list them all. This included subsidised loans, direct support to save jobs and wages, reduced interest rates, loan payments in installments, lease subsidies, etc. By the way, some of these measures are still in place, and you know this.

We have allocated and continue to allocate large sums of money from the federal budget to this effect. The Government is doing this intentionally and understands what is going on. That said, it may well be that some things should have been done in a more sophisticated and responsive manner. Still, I would like to praise my colleagues’ work. After all, this is all happening in direct contact with the business community.

As you know, I recently attended events held by the Russian Union of Entrepreneurs and Industrialists and had meetings with the heads of other business associations, including those working with SMEs. Overall, these people have expressed their understanding and overall were quite positive about the Government’s efforts to support businesses.

Incidentally, the result was not bad at all. As I have said, we overcame the crisis faster than many other world economies. Our fall was not as bad and we came out of the crisis quicker. This is a result after all.

Now, as regards… what is the second part of the question?

Yelena Glushakova: About regional governors.

Vladimir Putin: Assessment of the heads of the regions.

You know, I have said many times and I would like to reiterate – I think you will agree with me: many countries have followed our path. Indeed, we were the first to say that ours is a large country and the situation in various regions is different and is developing in different ways. So, with overall guidance from the federal centre, and a government commission was set up for this purpose, we must still give the regions the opportunity to regulate the situation locally, considering the subtle nuances. Is it possible to compare, say, Chukotka and Moscow? They are completely different, and the epidemiological situation has been different from region to region because of our vast territory.

Let me repeat, like any complex issue, some things could probably have been done better and with more urgency, but in general, the heads of the regions showed the utmost responsibility and were not afraid to make difficult decisions.

In turn, the Government and the federal centre has always supported the regions that made the required decisions and needed assistance, say, from the federal centre. Assistance for the regions has been increased many times over.

Cooperation between the federal centre and the regions has produced positive results, the results we needed.

Dmitry Peskov: All right, let us go on.

Let someone from the regions speak. There is a girl in a yellow blouse there. It says: “A City for Life.”

Go ahead, please.

Lyudmila Danilkina: Good afternoon,

Veliky Novgorod, Lyudmila Danilkina.

Our city that you, Mr President, have visited more than once, is not big but it is very beautiful and has an ancient history. I am talking about the city for a reason because my question is part personal and part business, about the urban environment.

Which city would you personally choose to live in, except St Petersburg and Moscow? This is the first, personal part of my question.

The second part is about Novgorod Region. Our region is very fortunately placed between the two capitals, which is, of course, a plus for our territory. But we would develop much faster if there were a high speed railway not far from Novgorod. There is a lot of talk about it now at both the federal and regional levels.

I would like to know the prospects for the development or, to be more precise, implementation of this project on our territory.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for my place of residence, you said “other than Moscow and St Petersburg.” Why did you exclude Moscow and St Petersburg? These cities are part of the Russian Federation as well, and I was born in one of them. It is my hometown, so when you asked this question, my first thought was about St Petersburg.

Our cities, large and small alike, are developing at a fairly fast pace, although we should focus primarily on developing small cities. We have been discussing this lately and are making efforts to expand infrastructure, primarily, to ensure transport connectivity both by rail and road, as well as by air, sea and river transport. I have already spoken about this, it is one of the growth drivers in which we plan to invest enormous resources.

Much depends on connectivity, because one can and should be able to live in a favourable environment – I am not talking about myself – and to commute to work or change where you work. Increasing mobility of the population is one of our goals.

So, it is possible, and I would, of course, think of St Petersburg first and foremost as my hometown.

Krasnodar in the south of Russia is developing quite well. Look at how the coastal area and Crimea are developing.

Now, speaking of infrastructure, we are talking about developing the Eastern Operating Domain, but not only. Let us say, Moscow–Kazan, and we plan to extend it further to Tyumen and then make it a loop.

All of that makes the people feel they live in a favourable environment with easy commutes from their places of work to their homes, where they can meet with their friends and go to places catering to other aspects of life, such as cultural centres with internationally recognised museums, and so on.

I think we have many beautiful and worthwhile places where people can and should feel comfortable.

High-speed rail is a separate topic that is still in the works. First, if there is to be a high-speed railway, I think Veliky Novgorod should feel its presence, because even though it is high-speed rail, the train must stop somewhere. Veliky Novgorod is one such place where the train can make a stop. Moscow–St Petersburg air service will clearly cease to exist, because it will take just three hours to get from central Moscow to central St Petersburg, whereas now it can take up to 90 minutes to get to the airport in Moscow. So, air service on this route will no longer make sense.

We need to weigh everything, think it over and have a look at high-speed rail in other countries. For example, the People’s Republic of China has many such railway systems. Until recently, they were all operating at a loss, even in China with its population of 1.5 billion people. This is economics, and numbers must be taken into account.

This is important for our country and can provide a solution for traveling certain distances. Air travel is a better solution in some places. These things are still being studied at the expert level.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda, please.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you.

Mr President, thank you very much for coming here today. Dmitry Peskov said it was your idea.

If you do not mind, I would like to go back to the topic you and Mr Terekhov touched upon in the beginning.

You meet with our academicians and experts. In your opinion, what is the reason for the new COVID-19 waves? Every new wave seems to be worse than the one before it.

Just how confirmed is the effectiveness of vaccination really? How do scientists explain the fact that people contract this virus again even after vaccination and booster jabs?

Why is the mortality rate so high? I do not think that the number has been mentioned today. The fact is that around 1,000 people in Russia die of coronavirus every day.

I made a horrific discovery the other day. I looked at the global mortality rate, which was around 6,700 on that day. I realised that one in every six or seven deaths happened in Russia. Can we really allow this to continue?

Mr President, I am saying this because, for example, in democratic Austria there are fines for those who refuse to get vaccinated. Perhaps we should introduce some criminal charges for those who campaign against doctor visits?

You know, it occurred to me: you often say that Russia is having a hard time; that we are surrounded by enemies. I think we never could, and especially today, we simply cannot afford to lose one thousand people every day.

Thank you very much.

Perhaps, what we need is the political will of the country’s leadership. Mr President, we will support you. You know what I mean.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I know what you mean.

As for being surrounded by enemies, have I actually said that? True, there are military bases around us. To the east and to the south, and the north of Russia, new military systems have been installed, including at sea, to say nothing about the west. I think we will talk about this in the international relations section. Encircling a territory like ours is not an easy thing to do, although modern tools probably make it feasible in theory. Well, this is a separate topic.

Speaking about new coronavirus strains and waves, what causes them is the virus’s ability to mutate, nothing else. The answer is simple. Ever new strains emerge where there are problems in the healthcare system and low immunity. For example, in Africa, there is a high incidence of immunodeficiency, the human immunodeficiency virus – hence new coronavirus strains. It is not surprising at all.

This is why I keep saying it is important to mutually recognise vaccines and make them available around the world as soon as possible in sufficient amounts. Otherwise, we will not be able to tackle this problem on a global scale and humanity will always live with this virus and sustain huge losses. We even have a new term: excess mortality.

You know, this is simply terrible, but it is difficult to estimate the number of COVID deaths, and not because somebody is trying to hide the facts. Not at all. On the contrary, I have encouraged our healthcare system and the Government to keep everything as open as possible, clear and transparent, and also – I am absolutely sincere about this – because people must see the importance of vaccination. Why is the death rate so high? Vaccination coverage, herd immunity is quite low in the country, only 59.4 percent. Our neighbours are talking about the necessity of increasing the rate to 90–95 percent, while our figure is 59.4 percent, which explains the current situation.

Should we try to prosecute people? No, I don’t think so. The point at issue is not political will. The fact is everything has an equal and opposite reaction. When you apply pressure, our people, who are very ingenious, immediately devise methods to evade it, and they will do so in this case as well.

We must pursue an alternative. We must respect people, whatever their position, and we must patiently explain the importance of taking specific measures.

Take vaccination. You asked about the reason for COVID reinfection, etc. It is true that reinfection can and does happen. But do you know the reinfection rate among those who have recovered from the disease? People do get reinfected – your colleagues in this room, and our international media are writing about such cases. They write that those who have recovered from the virus can fall ill again. Yes, they can fall ill. But how many do? Only 1 percent of those who have recovered from COVID. And how many of those who have had the jab fall ill? Only 3 or 4 percent. And the number of vaccinated people in intensive care is much lower compared to non-vaccinated people. These are objective figures, and we simply need to tell people about them, to keep them informed.

I have mentioned this before, but back in the Soviet era nobody asked your permission for vaccination. They just gave you the shot, and that was it. Those who stood at the helm of our big country in the Soviet period and contributed to its dissolution are now among the leaders of the anti-vaccination campaign. They are doing this to increase their popularity among the part of our people who are questioning the necessity of vaccination. This is a dishonest position. If they are competent and clever people who act responsibly with regard to their electorate, whom they must protect, they must take a principled stand rather than sit on the fence and try to gain popularity on the nation’s health.

It we act in a principled manner, trying to explain the necessity of vaccination to the people consistently, intelligibly and respectfully, I believe we will attain the desired effect. Any other method will be counterproductive.

As for tightening accountability and so on, they are doing this in Germany, yet the vaccination rate is low. So, why do it?

We must fight crime rather than law-abiding people. For example, there are falsified vaccination certificates. Over 200 such cases have been initiated, most of them under two articles: forgery and malfeasance. I believe that over 270 such cases have been opened. This is what we must fight. But on a more fundamental scale, we must explain and persuade.

BBC, please.

Petr Kozlov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Petr Kozlov, BBC Russian Service.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Petr Kozlov: Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation and headquarters were designated as extremist organisations and disbanded this year. He is in prison now, after being poisoned, conducting an investigation into the poisoning and claiming to have identified the individuals involved.

Over 100 media outlets have been put on the foreign agents’ registry. Most of them were listed this year, actually, during the past six months.

What happened in Russia recently for the number of those who the authorities consider extremists, undesirable organisations or foreign agents to have grown so fast?

Let me say a few words about history. You often talk about history, and you know it. Probably, you remember that each time power in Russia was concentrated in the hands of one person in the absence of active opposition, when Russia was in a state of active, acute confrontation with the West, ultimately this situation prompted a response which plunged the country into the abyss of wars and revolutions. Do you not think that you, possessing all the power, are now laying the foundation, perhaps, for such wars and revolutions?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, speaking of history, as a reminder, our opponents have been saying throughout the centuries that Russia cannot be defeated, but can only be destroyed from within, which they successfully accomplished during World War I, or rather, after it ended, and then in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union was being dismantled from within. Who was doing it? Someone serving the interests of others that run counter to the interests of the Russian and other peoples of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation today.

You mentioned the person who was allegedly poisoned. The Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation has sent multiple official inquiries asking to provide at least some materials corroborating that he was in fact poisoned. There are none. How can this be explained? Not a single thing about Novichok or whatever you call it.

We suggested that our specialists go there and join the investigation. I spoke with the President of France and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, asking them to allow our specialists to come, take samples and verify things, so that we can at least have some grounds to open a criminal case. No response whatsoever. We ask them: how can this be explained? Silence. So, there is no need to discuss it, let us turn the page if there is nothing to say in response.

As for inmates, every country has always had them, and that is never going to change. Do not commit criminal offences under the guise of political activity.

Next, regarding the list of media acting as foreign agents and media outlets designated as foreign agents. I agree with you, it’s not good. But let me remind you once again that this law was not invented here; it was invented in a state that – you represent the UK here, and the UK is the closest ally of the United States – a state everyone considers to be the beacon of democracy.

The United States adopted this act back in the 1930s, but this is not the point. What is important is that it is in effect now. It is in force today. About 0.034 [percent] organisations have been labelled foreign agents there. Is this surprising now? We have the same share of foreign agents, 0.034, the same number. What is the difference? The difference is that in the United States, if you have not shut down, you face criminal liability, up to five years in prison. Even if you stop any activity and close the organisation it does not exempt you from criminal liability – five years.

We do nothing like that. We do not prohibit the work of these organisations; we just want organisations that are engaged in internal political activity in Russia to clearly explain and disclose the sources of funding for their operations. That is all, they can continue doing what they are doing. Our law is much more liberal. If you think this is not enough, if, like your colleague here, you think we need to introduce liability, administrative or criminal, for failure to get vaccinated – why don’t we introduce criminal liability for foreign agents’ operations if the organisation fails to close, like in the US? But we do not even demand termination of their operations – we just want them to be honest about their sources of funding.

There may be questions about the understanding of ‘political activity.’ I agree with you here. There may be questions about regulating this kind of activity. We have 74 organisations designated as foreign agents of 200,000 registered NGOs – that’s 0.034. Just like in the States, but we do not have such severe penalties, which include criminal liability.

Now, regarding keeping power in the same hands. We have distinct branches of power – the executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Clearly, the delineation of authority between these branches can have minor variations depending on the specific country at a specific stage of its development. We will strive to ensure that they are independent, so that the country is cohesive, efficient and forward-looking. And in the end, it will be up to the Russian people to choose their system of society and state, not up to those who you serve today.

Next, please.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us continue. I suggest giving the floor to the television channels

Vladimir Putin: Of course.

Dmitry Peskov: I see NTV, Irada Zeinalova. You do not need to introduce yourself.

Irada Zeinalova: Good afternoon, Mr President, colleagues.

Since we were talking about history, I would say that things are happening almost according to [Alexander] Gorchakov, who said, “Russia is focusing.” Of course, we would like to focus on our internal problems, to address our internal affairs.

However, over the past few weeks the global media have been fuelling tension, saying that the Russians are coming, Russia is planning to attack Ukraine and wants war. Serious people call you, and you talk with them and explain our position, but they do not calm down. As a result, we send our proposals, establish our ‘red lines’ and, roughly speaking, explain the rules of the game, which, you must agree, did not exist before. For the past 30 years, we have been living in a swamp and have been told that we do not meet certain standards.

We have set our red lines, and we know that we have outlined our security priorities and interests. But we also remember from history that any agreement reached during negotiations can remain on paper, the way it happened many times in the past. The smallest provocation after such talks can lead to a big war, and the agreements remain on paper or are forgotten again.

So, here is my question. Mr President, what should we prepare for? What is a realistic outlook, and since the word “war” has been said out-loud, have we estimated the probability of war even as the result of a provocation?

Vladimir Putin: You brought up Gorchakov and the end of his phrase, “Russia is focusing.” You may also recall that the first part of the phrase – in reply to a question about whether Russa was angry – was, “No, Russia is not angry, Russia is focusing.”

I will try to give a short answer, yet I will have to begin at the beginning. The aggravation began in 2014. Before that, even though the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and part of historically Russian territories with a historically Russian population, primarily in Ukraine, had found themselves living outside Russia, we accepted that as a fact of life and felt more or less comfortable about it. We even helped those new republics to get back on their feet, and we worked, were ready to work and are still working together with their governments, whatever their foreign policy priorities.

Suffice it to recall our relations with President [Viktor] Yushchenko and Prime Minister [Yulia] Timoshenko, who indicated, like the current Ukrainian leadership, their absolutely pro-Western position. But we worked with them anyway. It is true that we argued over gas, and there were conflicts, but eventually we came to an agreement, and we worked, and were ready to continue to work together, and we never even thought about doing anything about Crimea.

But what happened in 2014? A bloody coup, people were killed and burned alive. I am not talking now about who was right and who was to blame. Obviously, Ukrainian citizens were rightfully indignant and displeased at what was happening in the country. The then president, Yanukovych, had agreed to everything. Three foreign ministers – of Poland, Germany and France – guaranteed the peaceful development of the situation and the peace process. I talked with the US president at that time at his initiative. He asked me to support this process as well. Everyone agreed but then a coup took place in a day or two. What for? There is no answer. Why was it needed? President Yanukovych agreed to everything anyway. He was ready to give up power anytime. The elections and the victory of the opposition were inevitable. Everyone knew this very well. Why was it done then?

Then Crimea happened. But how could we turn down the request of Sevastopol and Crimea, the people who lived there, to take them under our protection, under our wing? It was not possible. We were simply put in a situation where we could not have acted differently. Or were we supposed to just look on passively at what was happening in the southeast, in Donbass, which has only ever thought of itself as part of Russia, even during the formation of the USSR in 1922–1924? But Lenin and his comrades wedged Donbass in there by force. At first, they decided to make it part of Russia and then said the decision had to be revised.

They revised it and created a country that had never existed before. We will not talk about it now, but this is what happened then. They crammed in there the historical lands of people whom nobody asked how or where they wanted to live. All right, this is what happened, we agreed. But we had to do something in 2014 and this led to the crisis that is unfolding today.

All right, the Ukrainian authorities twice attempted to resolve the Donbass problem by force although we persuaded them not to do this. I personally persuaded Mr Poroshenko: Anything but military operations! Yes, yes, he said and then resorted to force. What was the result? Encirclement, losses and the Minsk agreements. Are they good or not? I think they are the only possible way out. So, what is the problem? There is no desire to implement them. They adopted a law on indigenous people and announced that the Russian people who lived on this land, on their own land, were not indigenous. Incidentally, the same was done to Poles, Hungarians and Romanians. Hence the disputes in Ukraine’s relations with these countries. They exist. They do not get a lot of attention, but they are there.

Language came next. The Russians and the Russian-speaking population are being forced from their historical lands – that is what is happening. All right. Everyone says: Russia must abide by the Minsk agreements. We agreed. But they, the government suddenly submitted to parliament a law on a transitional period. How does it tally with the Minsk agreements? Instead of amnesty, this law provides for a ban on amnesty, all but criminal liability for amnesty. Instead of elections, this law introduces military government, and instead of amnesty – lustration. What is all this about? And they got it approved by the Venice Commission. So, how are we supposed to react to all this?

This is the domestic policy component. But then we hear: war, war, war. You could get the impression that maybe a third military operation is in the making. Moreover, they are warning us in advance: “Do not interfere, do no protect these people. If you do interfere to protect these people, certain sanctions will follow.” It may well be that they are preparing for this. This is the first option we need to respond to, and act, while keeping this in mind.

The second option is, in general, to create, as I said in my article, an anti-Russia of sorts on this territory by constantly stockpiling the latest weapons there and brainwashing the local population. Just imagine how Russia must live and carry on, from a historical perspective? Do we have to live, while constantly keeping an eye on what is going on over there, and what new weapons’ systems were delivered? Under the cover of these new weapons’ systems radicals may well decide to settle the Donbass issue, as well as the Crimean issue, by military means. Why did they support the Crimean Platform? On the sidelines they keep saying: “Fine, let’s forget about Crimea.” But no! They mean to get even there.

After all, we have to be mindful of our own security, not just for today and not just for next week, but in the short term. How is Russia to live with all this? Do we always have to stay on guard, watching what happens there and when a strike might come?

This is a serious matter. I have just spoken about our plans for infrastructure development, social policy, and healthcare. But what does it all mean if we end up in the conflict you are asking about? This is not our choice, and we do not want this.

It is for this reason that I responded to President Biden’s proposal, who suggested appointing responsible representatives to lead strategic stability talks. Stability and security, ensuring security on this territory and in this area is one of the key matters on today’s agenda. We must understand how to ensure our security. With this in mind, we spoke out clearly and directly against any further eastward expansion by NATO. The ball is in their court. They need to respond in one way or another.

In this connection, I would like to emphasise that the overall response we have been seeing has been quite positive. Our American partners are telling us that they are ready to launch this conversation by starting talks early next year in Geneva. Both sides have appointed representatives. I hope that the situation develops in this very direction.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take questions from regional media.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Peskov, allow me. I see China.

Dmitry Peskov: Xinhua, I assume?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know. It says “China.” Please.

Dmitry Peskov: Please, pass the mic. Xinhua, please raise it higher.

Vladimir Putin: I meant that person though. But alright. They are not giving you the floor.

Dmitry Peskov: I apologise.

Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, they are not giving you the floor. Bureaucracy is to blame.

Ao Li: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Ao Li: Xinhua news agency, China.

You recently held talks with President of China Xi Jinping via videoconference. You remarked that Russia‒China relations are a true example of cooperation between states in the 21^st century.

Today, in view of the current complicated international situation, how should we understand this description?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: That is exactly how you should understand it. There is no hidden meaning. Indeed, the relationship between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation has evolved to be as I described it. Perhaps you noticed that President Xi Jinping and I always address each other as “my friend.” And it is true: we have a very trusting personal relationship that helps our professional relationship as well.

In terms of the economy, first of all, Asia is a rapidly and successfully developing region, and China is the absolute leader of both the global and Asian economy. It is only natural that we are developing our economic relationship with China. Bilateral trade currently exceeds US$100 billion, which is above the pre-pandemic level. China is our biggest trade and economic partner with which we cooperate in many different fields.

In terms of energy, both China and Russia committed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. But before that deadline, we will be supplying all types of energy resources to China. We are willing to continue beyond the deadline because life will not stop in our countries in 2060, and there are many ways to achieve carbon neutrality, even while still using hydrocarbons, provided that they are used appropriately.

We continue to cooperate in nuclear energy, high technology and space – in almost every industry, including technology-intensive sectors.

Our people-to-people cooperation includes organising mutual years of youth exchanges, years of science, education, culture and so on. These initiatives, of course, bring people together at the most basic level, in humanitarian sphere.

We cooperate on security. The Chinese army is extensively equipped with the most advanced weapons. We even develop some technologically advanced weapons together. We cooperate in space and aviation, on both airplanes and helicopters. Finally, we promote cooperation between our armed forces through joint military exercise and international military games, joint maritime and air patrols. Ours is an overarching partnership of strategic nature that has no precedents in history, at least not between Russia and China.

This daily hard work benefits both the Chinese and Russian people. It is, of course, a strong stabilising factor in the international arena.

There is a sign saying “Children”, so we will not go further into international affairs. “Protection of children”.

Dmitry Peskov: Yes, the sign saying “Protection of Children.”

Shamil Guliyev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

I am Shamil Guliyev from Tobolskoye Vremya.

The problem of harmful content that children find on the internet remains a pressing one, as you have said before. This results in bullying at schools and various types of incitement, among other provocations.

Some time ago, the introduction of registration on social media with passport data was discussed. Could you please say if this will happen eventually? And what other measures might be taken to protect teenagers from potentially dangerous content that they might come across on social media?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I totally agree with you, Shamil. This is a problem not only for Russia.

Look, this topic is being debated almost in all countries, both in the media and in representative bodies of power. This issue is being debated in the US Congress, and representatives of these global networks and global platforms are summoned there.

What does this mean for us? Business above all and, unfortunately, money at any cost. It means evading national oversight, evading the need to give some thought to children, as your question indicated. The priority for them is making a profit. Hence all the negativity associated with it: the encouragement of suicide, the same tragedies in schools over and over.

Consider it, we have prevented over 100 cases of such serious crime at educational institutions recently. Unfortunately, these tragedies happen and we have to contend with a steady stream of them. However, more than 100 have been prevented; 127 if I am not mistaken. Of course, this is an enormous problem for the entire world, including us. And it naturally results in demands to “ground” these platforms so that they have to open offices here to comply with national laws.

Speaking about ending anonymity on the internet, this is also being debated in our society and all over the world. The internet is part of our lives, and an ever bigger part of it at that. So, everything happening on the internet must comport with the general rules of human life, both moral and legal ones. Of course, all that is required is to observe the golden mean, as in many things, not to suppress freedom of expression and freedom to distribute information on the internet, while also protecting our society from possible negative effects, which you have just mentioned.

I hope that the golden mean will be found and we will also continue to insist on working with global platforms so that they follow our laws. As you know, a lot of countries slow down traffic; there are also other ways, including essentially blocking them completely. We are very reluctant to take such extreme measures, but if we are forced to, we will have to make greater demands on those who work in this area and neglect the interests of the Russian society.

Dmitry Peskov: By the way, I saw some bloggers on the list of accredited journalists. Are you here? Show me please, if there are any bloggers present. Please introduce yourself.

Anya Khilkevich: Good afternoon.

My name is Anya Khilkevich. I represent a social network called Yappy. I heard what my colleague said, and I have a question. The development of all these digital services opens up enormous opportunities, including in education. Teaching and communicating information to young people is possible through entertaining and game-based content. Yappy is a convenient app for viewing and creating original videos, for trying creative ideas.

So my question is: what do you think about interacting with young people through this kind of environment? Or do you think the younger generation is degrading?

Vladimir Putin: Why degrading?

Anya Khilkevich: I mean they are not developing, evolving.

Vladimir Putin: Of course not. Humankind is always evolving and children are always better and smarter than their parents. It is an obvious fact because more information is accumulated and communication improves. People have more and more opportunity to be creative. They do not just run faster or jump higher but also think in less conventional and more creative ways. What is the core of education today, especially for younger children? Games.

Of course we must use the opportunities you are talking about. This is why, by the way, we are working to expand the broadband internet network to the entire country. We have a specific plan and funding. We are about to finish connecting schools to the internet and will soon start with rural areas. I believe we have allocated about 24 billion rubles for this project, and Russian Post will be involved. Despite the debate about whether a commercial organisation like Russian Post should be supported, I think it should. Then people living in rural areas will be able to use its facilities and enjoy the opportunities you mentioned.

This is not a problem. The problem is that the content should be useful. Young people should not become addicted to the internet. Browsing the internet from dawn until dusk should not be a substitute for real life. There needs to be some kind of movement, a full life, with sports, museums and theatres.

The internet opportunities you mentioned and the various networks must complement real life rather than cause people to plunge into a virtual world and live a virtual life all the time. That would indeed lead to degradation. To prevent this, representative government bodies, parliaments, public organisations and non-profits must work together to develop certain rules of behaviour.

Dmitry Peskov: Maybe we should give the floor to foreign media.

Sky News.

Diana Magnay: Thank you for taking my question. I am afraid it is in English.

You have talked a lot about security guarantees, and now we have seen your proposals. You also say you have no intention of invading Ukraine.

So, will you guarantee unconditionally that you will not invade Ukraine or any other sovereign country? Or does that depend on how negotiations go?

And another question: what is it, do you think, that the West does not understand about Russia or about your intentions?

Thank you

Vladimir Putin: Regarding your question about guarantees or whether things depend on the negotiations, our actions will not depend on the negotiation process, but rather on unconditional guarantees for Russia’s security today and in the historical perspective.

In this connection, we have made it clear that any further movement of NATO to the East is unacceptable. Is there anything unclear about this? Are we deploying missiles near the US border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home? What is so unusual about this?

What would the Americans say if we stationed our missiles on the border between Canada and the United States, or between Mexico and the United States? Haven’t Mexico and the US had territorial disputes in the past? Which country owned California? And Texas? Have you forgotten? All right, nobody is talking about this now the way they are talking about Crimea. Very well. But we are trying to avoid talking about the creation of Ukraine as well. Who created it? Vladimir Lenin did, when he established the Soviet Union. This is set out in the 1922 Treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union and in the 1924 Constitution. True, this happened after his death, but in accordance with the principles he formulated.

But the matter at hand concerns security, not history, but security guarantees. This is why it is not the negotiations themselves but the results that matter to us.

We remember, as I have mentioned many times before and as you know very well, how you promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly: there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and now the weapons systems I mentioned have been deployed in Romania and deployment has recently begun in Poland. This is what we are talking about, can you not see?

We are not threatening anyone. Have we approached US borders? Or the borders of Britain or any other country? It is you who have come to our border, and now you say that Ukraine will become a member of NATO as well. Or, even if it does not join NATO, that military bases and strike systems will be placed on its territory under bilateral agreements. This is the point.

And you are demanding guarantees from me. It is you who must give us guarantees, and you must do it immediately, right now, instead of talking about it for decades and doing what you want, while talking quietly about the need for security guarantees to everyone. This is the point. Are we threatening anyone?

Now to your second question. Repeat it, please.

Diana Magnay: What is it that you think that the West does not understand about Russia or about your intentions?

Vladimir Putin: Does the West understand or fail to understand something? You know, sometimes I get the feeling we live in different worlds. I just talked about things that are obvious. How can you not understand them? They told us: there will be no expansion, but they expanded. They promised us equal guarantees for all under several international treaties. But this equal security has failed to materialise.

Look, back in 1918, an aide to US President Woodrow Wilson said that it would be a relief for the entire world if instead of one huge Russia, that a separate state in Siberia and another four countries in the European part be created.

In 1991, we divided ourselves into 12, I believe, parts, and we did this ourselves. Still, it seems that this was not enough for our partners. They believe that Russia is too big as it is today. This is because the European countries themselves turned into small states. Instead of vast empires, they are now small states with 60 to 80 million people. However, even after the Soviet Union collapsed, and we were left with just 146 million, it is still too much for them. I believe that this is the only way to explain this unrelenting pressure.

Take the 1990s, for example. The Soviet Union did everything to build normal relations with the West and the United States. I have said this many times, and I will repeat it, so that your listeners and viewers understand. I do not recall what media outlet you represent, but this is not the point. We had representatives from American intelligence services at our nuclear, military facilities; monitoring Russia’s nuclear weapons sites was their job. They went there every day and even lived there. Many advisors, including CIA staffers, worked in the Russian Government.

What else did you need? Why did they have to support terrorists in the North Caucasus and use organisations of a clearly terrorist nature in attempts to break the Russian Federation apart? But they did this, and as former Director of the Federal Security Service, I know this all too well. We worked with double agents, and they reported to us on the objectives set for them by Western intelligence services. But why? They should have treated Russia as a potential ally, and made it stronger, but it all went in the opposite direction; they wanted to break it down even further.

And then they started expanding NATO eastwards. Of course, we told them not to do this, arguing that they promised not to. But they asked us: “Do you have any paper record? No? If not, go away, we don’t care about your concerns.” This continued year after year, every time we showed our teeth and tried to prevent something and voice our concerns. But no: they did not want to hear anything, saying that they would do what they considered necessary.

There were one, two, three, four, five – five waves of expansion. What is it they don’t understand? I don’t know. You can say that this is all abundantly clear. I do believe that it is clear as daylight: we want to ensure our security.

Dmitry Peskov: Regions. I see you, Kaluga.

Tatyana Zimushina: Good afternoon, I am Tatyana Zimushina from Kaluga Region, Nika TV.

I would like to go back to the topic of coronavirus. The danger this virus poses has already been mentioned here but other diseases have not vanished into thin air. Therefore, it is important to also think about regular healthcare. It is being affected by a shift towards designating more hospital beds for Covid patients, and there are also other restrictions. Regular healthcare is being cut and, judging by media reports in other regions, it was suspended altogether in some municipalities during the pandemic. Can we avoid this outcome? Or will we see more closures in the event of another serious new wave of the disease? Can this be rectified?

My second question is about post-Covid medical screening. It was announced last summer and it has also been launched in our region. Are you keeping track of it and are you being updated on its outcomes? Has this medical screening proved to be effective and did it help many people?

Vladimir Putin: As for regular healthcare, indeed, it was severely affected during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic. But it was expected, as we had to modify some hospitals and clinics to free up beds for Covid-19 patients. This is my first point.

The second, as it was necessary to have enough healthcare professionals, or doctors, some of them had to undergo retraining, including general practitioners and specialists, to learn how to fight Covid-19. They were also in short supply.

Now, in connection with this, the scheme of referring patients for treatment had to be changed, that is, if some healthcare institutions switched to Covid treatment, patients were referred to other hospitals or clinics to make sure that routine medical care is provided without interruption. Some clinics ended up closing for good, while others closed for cleaning after treating Covid patients. There were quite a few problems.

During the initial phase there was a shortage of masks, medical gloves and the necessary clothing. This put an even greater strain on the healthcare system.

I hope we have dealt with all the challenges. I hope we will no longer have any shortages, although we recently had some issue with oxygen. But the Armed Forces and industry have helped us with this challenge. Once again, I hope that none of this will happen in the future.

Volunteers have joined us, university professors and senior students, too. On the whole, we have rallied together and got a grip, to be able to effectively respond to these threats.

One thing we focus on besides preventive measures is post-COVID rehabilitation. We have allocated the necessary resources. How is this work going? Unfortunately, not as efficiently as we would like. I don’t remember whether I already said this or not – only 1 million Russians have taken advantage of this check-up system. This system should actually work steadily and systematically, unaffected by any COVID restrictions, difficulties or other challenges. But post-COVID rehabilitation, post-COVID check-ups are quite effective.

Here, too, there are certain difficulties and prejudices, maybe. People are often afraid to visit medical centres like this, afraid of new infections. I want to say that our specialists, doctors are doing everything they can to ensure the health safety of people who come in for rehabilitation, for a medical examination, as well as to provide help because people who have had COVID really need it very much. We all know that COVID hits all body systems – the vascular system, the internal organs – the heart, the kidneys, the liver and brain can be affected, so patients need rehabilitation. A very good system has been created and tested. I hope it will expand, I really do. The conditions have been created for this.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us continue. Channel One, please.

Pavel Krasnov: Thank you.

Pavel Krasnov, Channel One.

Mr President, the issue of gas is dominating minds, above all in Europe, of course. We are seeing an extremely acute gas crisis. However, when it broke out and prices soared, we started to hear endless accusations directed at Gazprom and Russia in general with ever increasing frequency. Another round of accusations on restricting supplies via the Yamal-Europe pipeline came the other day. Generally speaking, the accusations are contradictory: we are accused of monopolising the market, while also not supplying enough gas.

Yesterday, our Ukrainian neighbours made some news. Naftogaz again asked the European Commission for nothing less than to compel Gazprom to offer more gas for sale. This seems funny, of course, but the Europeans are not in a laughing mood. The situation in Europe is very difficult: gas prices set an absolute record – more than $2,000. This never happened before and was impossible to even imagine. But is Gazprom to blame for this?

Mr President, here is my question: is there at least a tiny grain of truth in these accusations against Gazprom?

Vladimir Putin: Certainly not. There is no truth to them. This is like trying to say that down is up.

Our colleague here asked what the West does not understand. They lie all the time. This is why they are muddying the waters. Gazprom supplies all the gas requested by our counterparties under their contracts. Moreover, it has even increased supplies by almost 12 percent, I think, or by about 20 percent if we exclude Russia’s immediate neighbours. Overall, it is increasing supplies to Europe as well.

In my opinion, this is the only country, the only global company that behaves like this. I have already said at many meetings, including international events, that American suppliers withdrew considerable amounts from Europe, from the European market, I believe. I think the total amounts to 14 million tonnes of LNG. They took it to premium markets, first to Latin America, to Brazil, and then to Asia: China, South Korea and Japan. Because they pay more for this gas. The Europeans thought they had premium markets, but no. It appears that these markets are in other places as well. Prices began to soar. There are many factors: bad weather, a long and cold spring last year, a shortage of gas in underground storage facilities and windmills failing to work. All this contributed to the shortage.

In the process, government authorities are harassing their oil and gas companies, which do not invest enough in expanding production as a result. This is how the shortage emerged. They did not pump enough gas into underground storage facilities and now they are taking it out in a big way. Of course, this is a problem. Now some Western operators are storing their gas in Ukraine’s underground facilities. They are actively withdrawing it and using it in their own countries. This is understandable since the gas from underground facilities is many times cheaper than on the market.

We were saying – and I want to repeat it – that there was no point in destroying long-term contracts. The European Commission was telling us: no, it is necessary to move to market relations, the market will set it right. This is how the market made its adjustment – over $2,000 for a thousand cubic metres. Take it. No!

You are correct, just yesterday they were shouting: help, this is Russia and Gazprom expanding and taking over the market. We are not taking over anything. Indeed, we supply a lot, but we are not the only suppliers to the European market. However, we are probably the only ones who are increasing our supplies.

We are being told to pump to cover the needs of the spot market, since they need to first meet the demand of their counterparties under long-term contracts.

Look at what is happening. Germany is our largest consumer in Europe. I might have my numbers off a little, but they take about 50–51 billion cubic metres a year. We supplied an extra 5.6 billion cubic metres there, which is more than 10 percent. Listen, this is a decent amount. We supplied an extra 4.4 billion cubic metres of natural gas to Italy.

You just mentioned the Yamal–Europe natural gas pipeline. I see Russia and Gazprom accused of Gazprom failing to book capacity for gas supplies to Europe via the Yamal–Europe route for the second or third day in a row. That is disgusting, how should I put it… Well, okay. This is just totally out of line. After all, it failed to book capacity, because its counterparties and companies, mostly German and French, who buy gas from this route, failed to submit bids for purchase. What is there to transit if Gazprom has not received purchase requests? What did they do then? They turned on this route in reverse mode and have been pumping gas from Germany to Poland for several days now.

I think everyone would find it interesting. Why? Because we supply gas to Germany under long-term contracts at prices that are three, four, six, or even seven times lower than on the spot market. Should you resell even 1 billion cubic metres of gas, you will make almost a billion dollars, 900 million plus. This is business. This is my first point.

They have stocked up on gas, having received from us 5.6 billion cubic metres on top of what is provided under long-term contracts, and are now reselling it. But there is more to it. After all, they are pumping gas in reverse mode, so how can it be supplied in the other direction? Gas cannot move in both directions in one pipe at the same time. So, they: a) failed to place an order; b) turned it on in reverse mode.

But this is only a portion of the information.

There is a connecting pipe that connects the Polish pipeline system with the Ukrainian system. The volume is about 3 million cubic metres per day. This is exactly the amount that Germany is supplying to Poland. I have every reason to believe that this gas is eventually supplied to Ukraine. Consumers in Europe and Germany should know what is really happening, and, perhaps, ask certain authorities to clarify their stance.

Instead of supplying gas to Poland and then to Ukraine in an effort to help someone tide over, it would be better to continue supplies to Europe, Germany, for instance, and to reduce the spot price, because the more product on the market, the lower the price. No, they began to pump in reverse. This is the problem. How is Gazprom involved in this?

So let them tend to their business and address their issues in time and not think that they are so smart and that God fell asleep on them. They should address the problems of their own making, and we are willing to help them do so, which is what we are doing. I think I just made a convincing case for it.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us continue in this sector.

Mir Channel, please.

Guzel Kamayeva: Good afternoon, Mr President. Good afternoon, colleagues.

Guzel Kamayeva, Mir Television and Radio Company.

Mr President, your meeting with the President of Belarus is scheduled for the end of this year. You are going to meet for the sixth time this year.

When will the citizens of Russia and Belarus feel some tangible results of the Union State roadmap? Free mobile roaming maybe, a unified document flow, as an option?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We actually have a long list of cooperation options to bring our economies closer together and to make them more competitive. There is more than just roaming, although it definitely should be on the agenda. I certainly agree with you – people should actually feel the changes.

But we have already done a lot, especially on social matters. I am referring to free movement, the labour market situation, and even social security in a number of areas.

At present, we are trying to synchronise taxes, customs procedures, and laws. This is extremely important to ensure a uniform understanding of how we should work together to achieve the best result. These are, in fact, fundamental things – the fiscal policy, laws and customs.

It has been a long and difficult process of coordinating our approaches. I must say that Mr Lukashenko and his entire team are not easy negotiators, but we have generally reached an understanding of the pace we should move at and the steps we should take in this direction. This concerns access to the procurement market for goods and services organised by the state, by Belarusian economic operators. This concerns transport and many other matters.

Therefore, I am sure that our citizens will feel it, feel the impact on their lives. You know, it is not going to just fall from the sky, like manna from heaven, all of a sudden. But there are obvious things that ensure our competitiveness.

We are building the Union State. But the level of integration is still far lower than in the European Union; it is simply incomparable. I am not even talking about a single currency, never mind that. Perhaps it will be a subject for the future if our respective economic services come to an agreement on this score.

But first, we need to synchronise our economic laws including antimonopoly laws, and tax and customs regulations. We have agreed on this; we have agreed, and now we will start working. I am sure that there will be results.

I see a sign that says “Rubbish.” It is such a mundane thing but it concerns millions of people, and we should talk about things that people are concerned about.

Kristina Burmakina: Good afternoon, Mr President,

Good afternoon, colleagues,

Kristina Burmakina, Online47, Leningrad Region.

Here is my question. The Leningrad Region is actively reforming its waste management system: local officials are shutting down landfills and selecting sites for waste recycling facilities. But there is a problem: the same activists who advocated shutting down landfills are now protesting against recycling plants. Whatever spot you show them on the map, they will say: “Anywhere else, on the Moon – but not here.”

So the question is: how can we persuade people and what should be our communication strategy?

Vladimir Putin: You should address this question to the governor of the Leningrad Region.

I want to say that overall, the so-called rubbish reform is moving forward, despite the difficulties. Of course, the main goal is to resolve this issue in general but one of the essential midway tasks is to set up operators. By now, they have been set up in almost every Russian region. They are operating and the number of sites has increased multiple times over.

One of the first steps was to ensure that different types of waste are collected and stored separately. In some regions, we are ahead of schedule on this task. The current progress is around 40 percent, according to the reports I have. This is ahead of schedule.

The same goes for waste recycling facilities. The same goes for new modern landfills. Rubbish has to be disposed of somehow. There are options such as recycling, burning and other methods of disposal. There is waste that is impossible to destroy at this point so it has to be kept in landfills – but these should be modern landfills that are properly equipped and are located far away from residential areas. We are working on all these options and working fast, ahead of schedule. It is not a bad result.

Of course, there is always the issue of explaining to people that building waste management facilities is a reasonable solution for economic and environmental considerations. We need to show people how these facilities operate. Modern waste recycling facilities do not have to be located far from St Petersburg or major residential areas in the Leningrad Region. They can be located in big cities. Take Japan, for example: their waste recycling plants are located in the middle of cities with millions of residents, with hardly any negative impact on the environment or living conditions.

We simply need to show this. Instead of doing it on the sly, explain it to people beforehand. There may be other advantages to it like more jobs and higher wages. This is the way to go and the way to reach consensus.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us hear from Volgograd, the very top.

Vladimir Putin: Wait, I see the FSIN [Federal Penitentiary Service] sign here. Let that lady have the microphone.

Kseniya Sobchak: Mr President, after it was published…

Dmitry Peskov: Please introduce yourself.

Kseniya Sobchak: Kseniya Sobchak, Ostorozhno Novosti.

Vladimir Putin: I cannot see you; you are too far away.

Kseniya Sobchak: That is why I am wearing red.

Vladimir Putin: Fine. Go ahead.

Kseniya Sobchak: After the Gulagu.net website made the archives of torture public, you fired the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service by executive order. My team and I have just returned from Irkutsk. We continue following the video archives, and people there are talking a lot about General Leonid Sagalakov, who is the head of the regional FSIN.

He was promoted to general not long ago. Clearly, you sign lots of executive orders like that, but I would like to know if you are getting objective information about these people? Because there is much evidence that this person took part in the torture, according to available testimony. Here, too, it is important who is bringing you files to build a case for promotion.

More recently, a draft law was introduced to the State Duma to expand the notion of “torture” and toughen punishment for practicing it. Mr Peskov has already said, I quote: “No presidential initiative is anticipated with regard to this draft law.” What does that mean? Do you agree that torture in Russian prisons has become systemic? How can we deal with this state of affairs?

You have seen or have been shown for certain or were told about these video archives. Do you have your own personal and emotional attitude towards this problem? The number of inmates who have been raped or tortured to death is high, more than 300 people at the most heinous SIZO-1 detention centre in Irkutsk alone.

The law enforcement officers whom we communicated with told us there are different ways to overcome this problem, one of which is to strip the pre-trial detention centres of the preliminary investigation function, because they are just torture chambers with developers assigned to them. The developers are people who should be convicted on serious felony charges, but have been instead making a home at these pre-trial detention centres for years and engaging in torturing inmates. Each of these torture chambers is assigned to a particular department in order to improve crime solving statistics from the Investigative Committee and so on.

Tell us about this; what will be done and will you personally supervise this issue?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding torture and, in general, degrading and cruel treatment of inmates, unfortunately, this is not just Russia’s problem. If you look at what is going on at correctional facilities in other countries, you will see that they have as many problems as we do. This is a worldwide problem. Probably, there are countries and facilities where things look problem-free. However, there are lots of facilities in Europe, France, for example, or the United States, which, I think, do not exist even in third world countries. This is my first point.

Second, we are talking about developing the penitentiary system and the construction of new facilities. Take the Kresty prison in the Leningrad Region; we did build new blocks. Incidentally, this was done, in part, after I visited it – a long time ago though – and issued instructions. This must be done, because even the exterior of prisons is important.

As for the essence of the question, what information am I using? I use information from various sources. Not that someone brings me a document that makes me happy and I sign it. No, I analyse proposals like this based on the information that comes from different sources – I would like to emphasise this, after which I put my signature on it.

Are mistakes possible? Yes, it happens sometimes; life is complicated and diverse, and nothing can change this. But in this case, and considering what you have told us, the assessment of this situation must be based on information acquired during an investigation. Seventeen criminal cases have been opened and are being investigated. You have mentioned one or two persons, but I believe that over a dozen people have been fired and are being investigated. Let us look into the matter and figure it out.

I can assure you that not a single investigator has a personal interest in that case. This is the reason we separated the Investigative Committee from the Prosecutor’s Office. They are not connected, these two organisations, let alone prisons, which are subordinate to the Justice Ministry, not even the Interior Ministry, although it has been said many times that the penitentiary system should return to its old place to ensure effective investigations.

Yes, there is a problem. We should work at it calmly with a scrupulous and comprehensive investigation, at least an investigation of crimes that have been committed, and what we are talking about is definitely a crime. And the investigation must be brought to its logical conclusion, so that everyone can see that punishment for such crimes is inevitable. I believe that in this case we can reach a positive result.

Of course, we must also use the capabilities of human rights organisations. These questions are always raised during my meetings with members of the Human Rights Council, and I try to respond to them accordingly. This includes prison conditions, healthcare in prisons, and treatment of inmates.

I would like to point out once again that of course, people in prisons are criminals, and the inmates in pretrial detention centres are suspected of having committed crimes, but they are Russian citizens, they are human beings and must be treated humanely.

Let’s work together to improve this situation.

Dmitry Peskov: This is to remind everyone that it is probably time to replace your facemasks. Let us follow doctors’ recommendations and replace our masks.

Ekho Moskvy, please.

Maxim Kurnikov: Maxim Kurnikov, Ekho Moskvy.

Mr President, I would like to continue with the topic that my colleague from Sky News began. She asked for some guarantees, and you said we would not give any guarantees. But you have already spoken with Biden several times, at least twice, as far as we know, and I want to understand how you see this situation. Do you have the same vision for the future of Donbass, and the future of the Minsk agreements? Because when later we hear statements from the White House, and statements from Mr Peskov, it sounds as if many things coincide, or seems to coincide, and yet the word ‘war’ is heard increasingly often.

Here we are, discussing the possibility of war. But at this very moment, Ukrainians are probably watching us and spitting at the screen, because war already came to their land in 2014, and they actually hold you and me responsible for it. They might not be aware of the details of who issues which orders, but they actually believe Russia is already at war with Ukraine.

You refused to give guarantees. How do you see it?

I received calls from listeners the day before yesterday, and we talked about how their families were discussing a possible war with Ukraine. And actually, it is shocking enough just to say the words. How do these thoughts appear inside your head, what do you think about this, is it possible? How can one give an order to a Russian soldier to shoot at a Ukrainian one, and vice versa?

And one more short remark. There are people who could not attend this news conference, and my colleague from Novaya Gazeta, Dmitry Muratov, a Nobel prize winner, gave me a question for you. I will read it out, so as not to miss a single word: “Mr President, do you personally know the names of those who ordered the murders of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov?”

Vladimir Putin: Let us start with the last part. I made every effort to see these cases solved; all the necessary instructions, directives and orders were given to every law enforcement and special service. As you know, people have been convicted and incarcerated for the crimes they have committed. Some say they are contractors, not the employers – the latter got left out of the equation, went into hiding or were given shelter, but investigative bodies have no knowledge of this. They have made every effort to expose the perpetrators of these crimes, and some of them died while being apprehended. I think you are aware of this.

And in general, I think that this score-settling is not just unacceptable, it does nothing but harm our country. So, I am absolutely sure that, even if there were some political motives, that can also be accommodated in the minds of those who do not understand what they are doing. But they must understand that the state will fight this kind of crime. We will continue doing everything within our power. If it was really ordered by someone that we do not know about, we will look for them. This is my first point.

To be continued.

News Source Russian President official Website, All items published as IBG NEWS listed with the esteemed office. All images videos copyright with the Official Website and their respective rights holders.

About Post Author

Editor Desk

Antara Tripathy M.Sc., B.Ed. by qualification and bring 15 years of media reporting experience.. Coverred many illustarted events like, G20, ICC,MCCI,British High Commission, Bangladesh etc. She took over from the founder Editor of IBG NEWS Suman Munshi (15/Mar/2012- 09/Aug/2018 and October 2020 to 13 June 2023).

[email protected]

https://in.linkedin.com/in/sumanmunshi

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %