- The following is a small excerpt of the June 4 G8 press
conference interview...
-
- KOMMERSANT: In my opinion, recently Russia's relations
with the West are developing at a catastrophic speed. If you examine them
then you see that everything is very bad and going from bad to worse: the
energy dialogue is frozen, no one is even talking about the Energy Charter,
the arms race is proceeding. And you acknowledge it yourself. Yesterday
you said that, yes, there is an arms race - you used precisely those words.
And there is a new word in your vocabulary that was not there before, the
word imperialism. That is a word from Soviet times. American imperialism
and Israeli militarism were both terms that you must remember. And they
were countered only by Soviet peace initiatives, as they are now countered
by Russian peace initiatives. I would like to ask: do you not think it
is possible to talk about certain compromises, to engage in compromises,
to look even occasionally, even for show, at public opinion in Europe,
in America and, finally, in Russia? Do you not think that this present
course is leading nowhere? It is becoming, even gaining new strength with,
this arms race, with these missiles of ours. To what purpose?
-
- VLADIMIR PUTIN: Frankly, I find this question quite strange
and unexpected. An arms race really is unfolding. Well, was it we who withdrew
from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already
told them two years ago, "don't do this, you don't need to do this.
What are you doing? You are destroying the system of international security.
You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps."
They said: "okay, no problem, go ahead. We are not enemies. Do what
you want to." I think that this was based on the illusion that Russia
would have nothing to answer with. But we warned them. No, they did not
listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons
and they are continuing to develop these charges. We understand in the
rocks where bin Laden is hiding it might be necessary to, shall we say,
destroy some of his asylum. Yes, such an objective probably exists.
-
- But perhaps it would be better to look for other ways
and means to resolve the problem rather than create low-yield nuclear weapons,
lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind
on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they are not listening to us.
We are saying: do not deploy weapons in space. We don't want to do that.
No, it continues: "whoever is not with us is against us". What
is that? Is it a dialogue or a search for compromise? The entire dialogue
can be summed up by: whoever is not with us is against us.
-
- I talked about how we implemented the ACAF, the Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. We really have implemented it; I wasn't
inventing anything. And there are inspection groups that come, they go
onsite, our western partners check and see everything. We implemented it.
And in response we get bases and a missile defence system in Europe. So
what should we do?
-
- You talked about public opinion. Public opinion in Russia
is in favour of us ensuring our security. Where can you find a public in
favour of the idea that we must completely disarm, and then perhaps, according
to theorists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, that we must divide our territory
into three or four parts.
-
- If such a public did exist, I would argue with it. I
was not elected President of the Russian Federation to put my country on
the brink of disaster. And if this equilibrium in the world is finally
broken then it will be a catastrophe not only for Russia but also for the
whole world.
-
- Some people have the illusion that you can do everything
just as you want, irregardless of the interests of other people. Of course
it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse
and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not
the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources
to this? And we are not jeopardising our relations with anyone. But we
must respond.
-
- Name even one step that we have taken or one action of
ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested
in that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and
energy dialogue around Russia.
-
- We already talked about how we subsidized countries,
the former republics of the Soviet Union, by providing them with cheap
energy for 15 years. Why did we need to do that, where is the logic, what
is the justification for this? We subsidised Ukraine for 15 years, by three
to five billion dollars a year. Just think about it! Who else in the world
does this? And our actions are not politicized. They are not political
actions.
-
- The very best example and proof of this - and I talked
about this recently at a press conference - is the Baltic countries that
we also subsidised for all these years. When we realised that the Baltic
states were engaging in honest economic relations with us and that they
were ready to transfer to world, to European pricing, then we met them
half way. We said: "fine. We are g oing to continue to deliver energy
to you at discounted prices. Let's agree on a timetable for a transition
to European prices". We agreed with them and signed the relevant documents.
Within three years they had gently overcome the transition to European
pricing. Even considering the fact that we did not have a border treaty
with Latvia and there was a serious political disagreement on this issue,
until last year Latvia received cheap Russian gas and, as a whole, the
gas Latvia received in 2006 was about a third cheaper then what it was
for, for example, Germany. Ask the Latvian Prime Minister and he will confirm
this.
-
- When the Ukrainian question arose then we were told that
this was a political decision and they accused us of supporting Lukashenko's
regime, a regime that western countries are not very fond of. We said :
"listen, first of all, we cannot simply declare war on all fronts.
Secondly, we are planning to transfer to market pricing with all of our
partners. The time will come when we do this with Belarus as well".
We did this. Yet once we had done so the noise began, including in the
western media: what are we doing there, why are we harming small Belarus?
Is this a fair and admirable attitude towards Russia? We switched to one
pricing regime with all the countries of the Caucasus: with Georgia - with
whom we do not have very good political relations - and with Armenia, with
whom we have excellent relations and a strategic alliance. Yes, we have
heard a lot of criticism including from our Armenian partners but at the
end of the day we were able to understand one another and find a way forward.
They could not pay the entire price with liquid and therefore are paying
in physical assets. With live, real assets and all of this is formalised
on paper. No one can accuse us of politicizing these issues. We are not
preparing to spend huge amounts of money subsidising other countries' economies.
We are ready to develop integration on the territory of the former Soviet
Union, but it must be integration on an equal footing. But you know, they
are coming closer and closer to our interests and everyone is increasingly
expecting that we are not going to defend these interests. If we want order
and international law to prevail in the international arena then we must
respect this law and the interests of all members of the international
community. That is all.
-
- KOMMERSANT: When I mentioned public opinion in Russia
I was referring to the fact that, as I understand it, public opinion in
Russia would be strongly opposed to a new arms race after the one the Soviet
Union lost.
-
- VLADIMIR PUTIN: And I am also against an arms race. I
am opposed to any kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your
attention to something I said in last year's Address [to the Federal Assembly].
We have learned from the Soviet Union's experience and we will not be drawn
into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond symmetrically,
we will respond with other methods and means that are no less effective.
This is called an asymmetrical response.
-
- The United States are building a huge and costly missile
defence system which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars.
We said: "no, we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will
construct systems that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome
the missile defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power
in the world." And we are going to proceed this way in the future.
-
- Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that,
despite our retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures
as a percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 per cent of GDP and
will remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for
the next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures
of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence expenditures
and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO member countries.
And we can use our competitive advantages which include quit e advanced
military-industrial capabilities and the intellectual capacities of those
who work in our military complex. There are good results and good people.
In any case, much of this has been preserved, and we will do everything
possible in order not only to maintain but also to develop this potential.
-
- CORRERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, two more points about
the strategic balance in Europe. I would like to ask you whether you think
that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is presently at
risk and if it could lose force judging by what happened to the ACAF?
-
- And the second point. You said that you do not want to
participate in an arms race. But if the United States continues building
a strategic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, will we not return
to the situation and times in which the former Soviet Union's nuclear forces
were focused on European cities, on European targets?
-
- VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. Of course we will return to
those times. And it is clear that if part of the United States' nuclear
capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider
that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate
retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe.
And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations
that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation
is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely
new system. I repeat that it is a matter of technology.
-
- ________
-
- You can read the entire news conference transcript here:
-
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=
viewArticle&code=20070611&articleId=5938
-
|
