#2
www.rt.com
September 29, 2015
Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams 'policies of exceptionalism and impunity' in UN speech

The export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions has continued, but has unleashed poverty and violence instead of the triumph of democracy, Russian President Vladimir Putin said addressing the UN General Assembly.

Attempts to push for changes in other countries based on ideological preferences have led to "tragic consequences and degradation rather than progress," said Putin in his speech to world leaders and policy makers gathered at the UN General Assembly's anniversary 70th session in New York on Monday.

"We should all remember what our past has taught us," Putin said. "We, for instance, remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union."

It seems however that some are not learning from others' mistakes, but keep repeating them, he said, adding that "the export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions continues."

"I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?" he asked. "But I am afraid the question will hang in the air, because policies based on self-confidence and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned."

He cited the example of revolutions in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where people have wished for change. However, instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, to which no weight is given."

"Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself," he said.

A single center of domination emerged in the world after the Cold War era ended, Putin stated. Those who were at the "top of this pyramid" were tempted to think that "if they were so strong and exceptional, they knew what to do better than others."

"Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'."

Russia believes that attempts to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations are "extremely dangerous" and could lead to the collapse of the entire system of international relations, the Russian President said. Speaking to the world leaders and policymakers gathered before him, he urged for unity in the further development of the UN.

'Stop playing games with terrorists, join under UN against ISIS'

Power vacuums in the Middle East or regions of North Africa have led to the emergence of lawless areas which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists, Putin said.

Islamic State militants (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), who gained a foothold in Iraq and Syria, are now seeking to dominate the whole of the Islamic world, he said.

"[Islamic State] ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown onto the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya - a country whose statehood has been destroyed as a result of gross violations of UNSC resolution 1973."

Some of the extremists have defected from the 'moderate' opposition in Syria, which has been supported by some Western states, he stressed.

"First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes," he explained.

He described it as "hypocritical and irresponsible" to turn a blind eye to the channels through which terrorists are financed while making declarations about their threat to the whole world.

"We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone arm them, is not only short-sighted, but 'fire hazardous.' This may result in a global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions of the world," he said.

IS trains militants from many nations, including Europe, and Russia is not an exception, he said. Putin urged for cooperation with Syrian government forces fighting terrorists on the ground.

"We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face," he said.

"We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and Kurdish militia are truly fighting Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria," he added.

Russia has been providing military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other states who lead the fight against terrorism in the region, he noted.

Putin proposed the joining of efforts and the creation of a broad international coalition against terrorism. He proposed discussions at the UNSC about a resolution aimed at coordinating forces to confront IS and other terrorist organizations, based on the principles of the UN Charter.

'Final solution to refugee crisis is recovery of Middle East'

If a comprehensive strategy of political and economic stabilization of crisis-struck countries is developed, then there will be a hope of tackling the problem of the refugee crisis, Putin stated.

"The flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally flooded the neighboring countries and then Europe," he said calling it a "new painful migration of peoples."

He stressed that the fundamental solution to the refugee crisis is rooted in restoring statehood where it has been destroyed, strengthening government institutions where they are weak and providing comprehensive assistance to the peoples' countries of origin.

'Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by arms'

Cold War thinking and the desire to explore new geopolitical areas are still present among some in the international community, said Putin.

"First they continued their policy of expanding NATO," he said. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, "they offered post-Soviet countries a false choice - either to be with the West or with the East. Sooner or later the logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a grave geopolitical crisis. This is exactly what happened in Ukraine where the discontent of the population with the current authorities was used and a military coup was orchestrated from the outside that triggered civil war as a result."

Putin once again called for the full implementation of the Minsk accords brokered by the Normandy Four in February. He said that the accords will guarantee Ukraine's development "as a civilized state."

"Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be ensured by threats and the force of arms. What is needed is the genuine consideration of the interests and rights of people in the Donbass region, [and] respect for their choice."

[return to Contents] 

 #3
Kremlin.ru
September 28, 2015
70th session of the UN General Assembly

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary meeting of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

The UN General Assembly is the United Nations Organisation's main consultative body and examines the principles for cooperation in ensuring international peace and security.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Distinguished heads of state and government,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay a solid foundation for the postwar world order. Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles defining interaction between states, as well as the decision to establish the UN, were made in our country, at the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The Yalta system was truly born in travail. It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars that swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let's be fair: it helped humankind pass through turbulent, and at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality. True, the UN has been criticized lately for being inefficient or for the fact that decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, especially among Security Council members.

However, I'd like to point out that there have always been differences in the UN throughout the 70 years of its history, and that the veto right has been regularly used by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. It is only natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was first established, nobody expected that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don't. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law.

We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don't need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.

That's why they say that the UN has run its course and is now obsolete and outdated. Of course, the world changes, and the UN should also undergo natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside.

What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future.

By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn't play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn't be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people's mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are "democratic" revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

I'm urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you've done? But I'm afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.

Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called "moderate" Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond. Their plans go further.

The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you'll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

I'd like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it's a big question: who's playing who here? The recent incident where the most "moderate" opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.

We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception.

Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can't allow them to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody wants that, right?

Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups. We think it's a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.

We should finally admit that President Assad's government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia's part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions - as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.

I would also like to address Muslim spiritual leaders: Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people targeted for recruitment by extremists from making hasty decisions, and those who have already been deceived and, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists, must be assisted in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.

In the days to come, Russia, as the current President of the UN Security Council, will convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose exploring opportunities for adopting a resolution that would serve to coordinate the efforts of all parties that oppose Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Once again, such coordination should be based upon the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery in the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more refugee camps. Today, the flow of people forced to leave their native land has literally engulfed, first, the neighbouring countries, and then Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now, and before long, there might be millions. It is, essentially, a new, tragic Migration Period, and a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist, or are being re-established, to provide comprehensive military, economic and material assistance to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to people who, despite all their ordeals, did not abandon their homes. Of course, any assistance to sovereign nations can, and should, be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. In other words, our Organisation should support any measures that have been, or will be, taken in this regard in accordance with international law, and reject any actions that are in breach of the UN Charter. Above all, I believe it is of utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone. Indeed, it is a challenging, complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no alternative.

Sadly, some of our counterparts are still dominated by their Cold War-era bloc mentality and the ambition to conquer new geopolitical areas. First, they continued their policy of expanding NATO - one should wonder why, considering that the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist and the Soviet Union had disintegrated.

Nevertheless, NATO has kept on expanding, together with its military infrastructure. Next, the post-Soviet states were forced to face a false choice between joining the West and carrying on with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a major geopolitical crisis. And that is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the people's widespread frustration with the government was used for instigating a coup d'état from abroad. This has triggered a civil war. We are convinced that the only way out of this dead end lies through comprehensive and diligent implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be secured through the use of threats or military force, but it must be secured. The people of Donbas should have their rights and interests genuinely considered, and their choice respected; they should be engaged in devising the key elements of the country's political system, in line with the provisions of the Minsk agreements. Such steps would guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, and a vital link in creating a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have deliberately mentioned a common space for economic cooperation. Until quite recently, it seemed that we would learn to do without dividing lines in the area of the economy with its objective market laws, and act based on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, which embrace free trade and investment and fair competition. However, unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter have all but become commonplace today. They not only serve political objectives, but are also used for eliminating market competition.

I would like to note one more sign of rising economic selfishness. A number of nations have chosen to create exclusive economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated behind closed doors, secretly from those very nations' own public and business communities, as well as from the rest of the world. Other states, whose interests may be affected, have not been informed of anything, either. It seems that someone would like to impose upon us some new game rules, deliberately tailored to accommodate the interests of a privileged few, with the WTO having no say in it. This is fraught with utterly unbalancing global trade and splitting up the global economic space.

These issues affect the interests of all nations and influence the future of the entire global economy. That is why we propose discussing those issues within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO and the G20. Contrary to the policy of exclusion, Russia advocates harmonizing regional economic projects. I am referring to the so-called "integration of integrations" based on the universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union with China's initiative for creating a Silk Road economic belt. We continue to see great promise in harmonizing the integration vehicles between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70-75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

However, I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way. What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. On January 10th, 1946, the UN General Assembly convened for its first meeting in London. Chairman of the Preparatory Commission Dr. Zuleta Angel, a Colombian diplomat, opened the session by offering what I see as a very concise definition of the principles that the United Nations should be based upon, which are good will, disdain for scheming and trickery, and a spirit of cooperation. Today, his words sound like guidance for all of us.

Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples. Thank you.

 [return to Contents]

 #4
Kremlin.ru
September 29, 2015
Answers to journalists' questions

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists following his participation in the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening! Or good night, if we're talking in Moscow time. Please, go ahead.

Question: Mr President, could you please share your first impressions of your visit? How do you like New York? What are your thoughts on the speeches by the world leaders?

Vladimir Putin: As you can understand, I didn't get to see New York at all; I went straight from the airport to the UN headquarters. During the drive, I was talking with our UN representative, so unfortunately, I did not see New York. It's too bad, of course - it's a large, great city.

As for the leaders' speeches, from what I was able to hear, I thought they were very constructive; the problems were raised in a timely, sincere and deep way. I think that although events like this are celebratory, they are nevertheless very useful for current global politics.

Question: Mr President, I suppose my question about your meeting with Barack Obama is not very original; the meeting lasted longer than planned. How would you describe the current state of relations between Russian and the United States? How do you assess the possibility of dialogue with the United States on Syria and Ukraine? And, accordingly, ahead of the October 2 meeting in Paris, do you feel it's possible for the United States to play a major role in settling the Ukrainian crisis?

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, the relations between Russia and the United States are at a fairly low level; this is clear without any comments from me. But it was not our initiative to cause such a slump in relations between Russia and the United States. That is the position of our American partners. Is it good or is it bad? I think it is bad - both for bilateral relations and for global affairs. But that is the choice made by the United States. We are always prepared to develop contacts and restore full-scale relations.

As for today's meeting, it was very useful and, what is particularly pleasant, it was very sincere. I think that our American partners explained their position quite clearly on many issues, including settling the situation in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the Middle East overall. Indeed, surprising as it may seem, we have many coinciding points and opinions about all these issues. We also have differences, which we have agreed to work on together. I hope that this work will be constructive.

As for the possibility of the United States' more active participation in settling the Ukrainian conflict, the US is already participating quite actively, although it is not at the forefront like the work by Russia, France and Germany in the so-called Normandy format.

Nevertheless, the United States stands behind the Kiev authorities to a certain extent and they are in constant contact with the Europeans. However, Russia and the United States have established good regular working contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the State Department. And today's consultations showed that our American colleagues are fully involved and they do, of course, have an impact on this process.

Question: Mr President, the United States, France and Australia are actively making airstrikes at ISIS, unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. Has anybody asked us to join in these airstrikes? Especially considering the reports that Russian aircraft are already in Syria.

Vladimir Putin: We did speak about this today: combat aircraft from Australia, France and the United States are dealing missile and bomb attacks not only at ISIS formations on the territory of Iraq, which is technically understandable from the point of view of international law because there was a request from the Iraqi Government.

Regarding Syrian territory, this is illegal; this is also something we spoke about today. There is neither a Security Council resolution on the issue, nor a corresponding request from the official authorities in Damascus. We have discussed this. As for our involvement, we are considering it. We do not rule out anything, but if we do act, this will be in strict compliance with the norms of international law.

Question: Mr President, you had many bilateral meetings today. It seemed to us many of them were not scheduled, or at least not announced. Could your talks today mean that the isolation that the United States had a hand in has failed?

And my second question: Petro Poroshenko demonstratively led his delegation out of the hall during your address. Could you have insulted him in any way? How would you comment on this?

Vladimir Putin: Firstly, I never get personal. Never, because practice and experience show that personal contacts can always come in handy when settling relations between states or in resolving issues that affect millions of people. Therefore, one should leave any personal ambitions to himself, for safekeeping. This is one thing.

 The other is that I did not notice that the Ukrainian President was absent during my address.

Third, it was not really that important for me to see everyone without exception there. Moreover, those who do not find it interesting do not have to be there.

You began with the failure. You know, from the start we have been saying that the policy of sanctions and isolation in general is ineffective in the modern world and does not usually reach its goals. This is practically impossible regarding a country like Russia. It is enough to simply look at its geographical map.

Question: Good evening, Mr President. It has been reported recently that Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria have set up an information centre in Baghdad to exchange information about their actions in the region. Could you tell us in greater detail about the purpose of the centre?

Could any other country join it? Did any of the leaders express such a desire during your meetings here at the General Assembly? Generally, could you expand on Russia's plans to cooperate or coordinate its activities with the United States, for instance, in Syria?

Vladimir Putin: We have already said that the information centre set up in Baghdad, in Iraq, is open to representatives of all countries that are interested in combatting terrorism. The purpose is to coordinate the efforts of the regional states in their fight against ISIS and other terrorist organisations.

What does this imply? It does not imply a command centre and combat action headed by it, of course, but at least coordination of efforts. Look what is happening: your colleague asked about airstrikes dealt at ISIS on Syrian territory by representatives of various states. These include Australia and the United States, and France has now joined them. What is the outcome? A few days ago, our military have calculated that US aviation made 43 strikes at Syrian territory within 24 hours. What is the result? Nobody knows if there is any.

If we set ourselves the target of resolving specific issues and achieving specific goals, this work should be coordinated in order to be successful. The centre was set up to coordinate efforts. I would like to repeat that it has been set up for all who are interested in combatting terrorism to join in.

We have just been talking about interaction between the United States and Russia on this anti-terrorist track, as diplomats say. We have an understanding that there is a need to at least enhance our bilateral efforts. We will now jointly consider the creation of appropriate mechanisms.

Question: Mr President, you said bilateral efforts - does this mean between Russia and Syria?

Vladimir Putin: Between Russia and the United States.

Question: How do you see Russia's actions in this situation in its joint efforts with Syria to combat the Islamic State and terrorist organisations: would these also be airstrikes or is there a need for land-based operations?

Iranian President Rouhani said, as you do, that airstrikes are ineffective and called for an operation on land. Is Russia ready to send troops there? Did you speak with Barack Obama about these aspects and some specifics of military cooperation in this region to combat this threat?

Vladimir Putin: President Obama and I discussed various aspects of a settlement in Syria in general and combatting terrorist organisations on that country's territory in particular.

As for Russia's participation in these efforts, we are considering what we could do additionally to support those who are on the ground, as it were, resisting and fighting terrorists, including ISIS. These are not many: on Syrian territory, this is primarily the Syrian army and Kurdish resistance units, as I said in my address.

We are considering what kind of additional support we could give to the Syrian army in fighting terrorism. I would like to stress that we believe that these anti-terrorist efforts should be made alongside political processes within Syria. No land operations or participation of Russian army units has ever been considered or ever could be.

Question: Since we are talking about Syria, I would like to ask you to clarify a few things. In their speeches here both Barack Obama and Francois Hollande said that for them the figure of Bashar al-Assad is absolutely unacceptable. You, in turn, said that this army is actually resisting terrorism and we should work with al-Assad not because he is good or bad, but because his army, his pro-Assad resistance is working. Have you eventually agreed on anything? What will happen to al-Assad next? Will Russia support him in any way? Are there any connections here?

And another question: you completely rule out land operations, but there is a feeling that we might take part in an air operation. Do you not fear what they call friendly fire, when all sorts of craft are flying around there, the French and so forth? Will there be some appropriate coordinating centre here?

Vladimir Putin: I have already said that coordination is necessary in any case, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that pursuant to the UN Charter and international law one can fly over a country's territory, moreover, conduct airstrikes, only either under Article 7 of the United Nations Charter and given a UN Security Council Resolution, or by invitation from the country's government. Therefore, any other actions, even taken to combat terrorist organisations, cannot actually be considered legal. This is one thing.

The other is, I repeat, that there needs to be some informational coordination in any case.

Regarding al-Assad. I have great respect for my colleagues - both the American President, and the French President - however, as far as I know they are not citizens of the Syrian Republic and therefore should not take part in determining the future of another state's leadership. This is the Syrians' business.

However, this is a deep conflict, and a bloody one, unfortunately, which is why I said that alongside support to the official authorities in their struggle against terrorism we would insist on political reform and a political process to be conducted at the same time. As far as I know, President al-Assad agrees with this. He said so directly in his recent interview with the Russian media.

Question: I also have a question on coordination. We have already mentioned countries here whose structures are coordinating efforts to combat ISIS. Quite a few of them have been set up in the past few weeks. Thus, you had talks with your Israeli colleague, President Netanyahu, and agreed that our military, in this case, would coordinate efforts at General Staff level. Will this structure with the Israelis be separate or will it be coordinated with the other mechanisms that are being set up now?

Vladimir Putin: First, this is not a structure, simply cooperation between military agencies, General Staffs, to be more specific. Israel is a regional nation in the sense that it is located in that region. We should, naturally, respect the interests of the Israeli state, and Israel cares what is going on in that country.

At the same time, there are things that cause certain concern, that have to do with the airstrikes at Syrian territory. This should all be considered by experts, and this will be done without setting up any bilateral structures.

Question: Mr President, in your address at the General Assembly today you spoke of a coalition to combat terrorists and compared it to the anti-Hitler coalition, which is naturally very important for our country. At the same time, you did not mention any country in this possible coalition. Would it be correct to say that when you spoke with President Obama now you discussed bilateral relations in combatting terrorism?

Vladimir Putin: So far, yes.

Question: However, speaking of regional nations, would you consider the possibility of Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt being part of this coalition? What set of countries do you think could join the coalition and would mainly be interested in it?

Vladimir Putin: Primarily these would be the regional countries, of course, and you have listed almost all of them: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan - all who are interested in combatting the terrorist threat.

As for the comparison with the Nazis, I believe this was no surprise to anyone. Look at what they are doing, at their atrocities: they are beheading people, burning them alive, destroying monuments of world culture and so forth. Doesn't a comparison with the Nazis come natural here? This is exactly what the Nazis did in their time. Therefore, there is nothing surprising here. I would very much like for us to understand this and bring as many countries as possible together to fight this threat.

Question: The last time you had proper talks with Barack Obama was in 2013. Two years have passed, and many things have happened in those years. If you compare the atmosphere at the talks then and now - how has it changed? Maybe it was more difficult to talk, or, on the contrary, considering you did not speak for two years, it was easier, more constructive? And my second question...

Vladimir Putin: Let me answer the first one. I do not remember the atmosphere in 2013. We are very busy. I don't think Barack remembers it either, you see.

However, our conversation today, as I said, was very constructive, businesslike and surprisingly very frank. We found many things we shared, but there are also differences. Generally, everyone knows them and there is no need to go over them. In my view, there is a possibility to work together on common issues.

Question: My final question, if I may. Only two days before your trip here a White House spokesperson said the Russian President, the Russian side was actively working to arrange a meeting with the US President.

Your aide Yuri Ushakov said this was not so. I would like to hear from you how the meeting with Barack Obama was arranged. Who was the initiator, how did it all happen?

Vladimir Putin: Our American partners suggested we have the meeting, as my aide said. I believe they suggested two possible time slots, and we chose one. That is all.

Remark: This was in September, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, just the other day.

Remark: So you did not request this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: She just won't let go. (Laughter)

You said the US President and I did not speak for two years or something. This is not so. We did speak: we had telephone conversations and met at international venues, met briefly, but discussed all the key issues of both bilateral relations and international affairs.

Therefore, the fact we did not have such publicised meetings does not mean we did not communicate. We never broke off contacts. There should be no concern over this and no speculations.

Question: Mr President, are you generally satisfied with the results of your visit?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it was very intensive and very useful, I must say. Such events are beneficial because you make many contacts, often of an informal nature, but they are very productive because there is no need to stick to protocol: you directly address issues of either mutual or global interest. In this sense, the visit was very useful.

Question: Not on politics: the UN has issued a photograph from the official luncheon hosted by the UN Secretary-General to mark the 70th anniversary. It is a photo of you and President Obama greeting each other with raised glasses. But Ban Ki-moon's chair is empty. What happened to Ban Ki-moon? Did he go away to leave you tete-a-tete? And what were you toasting? What did you raise your glasses to?

Vladimir Putin: You press people never stop too amaze me - I love your spontaneity (Laughter). The glasses were raised to a toast made by the UN Secretary-General, and he was at the stand. The President of the United States, being a polite person, simply raised his glass and we toasted the Secretary-General's health and the development of the UN.

Now you are trying to make something out of it that has nothing to do with reality. There was nothing behind it; this was a protocol event, that is all. The conversation we had, however, was, as I have said, very constructive, substantive and, in my opinion, very frank.

Thank you. All the best.

 #5
Putin's idea of coalition against IS focal issue at UN General Assembly - expert

MOSCOW, September 28. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin's idea of a wide international coalition for struggle against the terrorist Islamic State, voiced at the 70th UN General Assembly session, has become the assembly's focal issue, the head of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for International Security, Alexey Arbatov, told TASS in an interview.

"Regrettably, it will be hardly possible to unite different countries for resistance to terrorism in a coalition that would be equal in status and shape to the anti-Hitler coalition. In any case, Barack Obama has said once again that he will not recognize the legitimacy of Syria's President Bashar Assad," Arbatov said.

As follows from Obama's speech, the United States and the West will not support Assad, but at the current stage they are not going to undermine his positions, either. In other words, the United States and Russia will not interfere with each other's efforts to fight against terrorism. "The possibility Assad will stay for the transitional period may become a subject matter of talks behind closed doors. Their result will depend on how effective Russia's military-technical assistance to Syria is," Arbatov believes.

"Such countries as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan, too, will refrain from extending assistance to Syria's government troops. As for the other Islamic countries Putin called on for help in creating an international coalition, they are on his side anyway as key partakers in the struggle against the IS. Iran, Iraq and the Syrian army are pushing ahead with the ground operation against the Islamic State, in other words, they do the bloodiest and dirtiest part of the fighting," he remarked.

"On the whole, the tone of Putin's speech was very confident and assertive. Putin did not look at all like former Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev, who was banging on the desk at the UN General Assembly holding a shoe in his hand. Putin's speech was strict but constructive and aimed at protecting the United Nations and preventing violations of international law and unilateral sanctions," Arbatov said.

As for US President Barack Obama's speech, he believes that it sounded conciliatory.

"Obama was speaking in favour of a strong Russia and against another Cold War. He declared the intention to cooperate with Russia and Iran in resistance to the Islamic State," Arbatov said. "A further rapprochement of Russia and the United States is a subject matter for fundamental talks."

 [return to Contents]

#6
Joint command in fight against ISIL unrealistic, but efforts on the ground should be coordinated - Lavrov

MOSCOW. Sept 29 (Interfax) - At their meeting in New York, the Russian and U.S. presidents did not discuss a coalition to fight the Islamic State (ISIL) group in 'the classical sense of the word', any joint command is unrealistic, but activities on the ground and airstrikes require coordination, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said.

The Russian and U.S. leaders did not discuss such a coalition in 'the classical sense of this word', Lavrov said in an interview with the Russia Today television station.

The Russian minister also expressed his conviction that all those fighting against terrorist groups such as ISIL and others ought to coordinate their efforts. There should not be a joint command because it is unrealistic, and Russian President Vladimir Putin explained this to his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama when they met, he said.

But efforts on the ground and airstrikes should be coordinated because the coalition is fighting only with the help of airstrikes, while the Syrian and Iraqi armies, as well as Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq are combating ISIL and al-Nusra on the ground, he added.


 

 [return to Contents]

#7
Christian Science Monitor
September 28, 2015
At UN, Putin talks tough against IS. Will the West work with him?
The Russian president bluntly blamed the US for the chaos in the Middle East. But his plan for an alliance against IS may still find some listeners in the West.
By Fred Weir, Correspondent

Moscow-Vladimir Putin made the offer everyone expected when he took to the UN General Assembly podium on Monday.

He proposed that Russia and its allies join forces with the West in a grand anti-terrorist alliance, which he likened to World War II's anti-Hitler coalition, to focus on the single overriding goal of defeating IS and Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

But if anyone thought Mr. Putin might come to the UN in a conciliatory mood, they were disappointed.
Sochi, Soviets, and tsars: How much do you know about Russia?

In a speech that sounded more like a prosecutor's than a diplomat's, Mr. Putin laid blame for the current state of chaos in the Middle East at the feet of the US and the West - in a tone which Russian experts concede will likely undermine progress at a meeting with President Obama this afternoon.

But they also say they have seen signs that the US is softening on its previously resolute stand against Syrian President and Russian ally Bashar al-Assad. Moreover, Putin's hard tone may have been meant less for an international audience than to bolster support back home in Russia as the country prepares for its first military operation outside the post-Soviet sphere since the Afghanistan war in the 1980s.

'Zones of chaos'

Repeating accusations he has made before, Putin said that the West had destabilized the Middle East through a series of botched attempts to export democratic revolution to Iraq, Libya, and Syria. The resulting "zone of chaos" enabled the rise of extremist jihadism and triggered the wave of refugees now seeking safe haven in Europe.

The only way out now, he argued, is to bolster the forces that are actually fighting IS on the ground, which Putin listed as the governments of Syria, Iraq, and the Kurdish militias. "We believe it is a great mistake to reject cooperation with the legitimate government of Syria," he said. At the same podium, Obama earlier rejected such cooperation and labeled Mr. Assad a "tyrant."

Some Russian experts say that Putin's truculent tone will probably not help as he sits down with Obama to talk details of cooperation around Syria, nor when it comes to getting support for a Russian-authored Security Council resolution due to be put forward on Wednesday.

"The problem is not that Putin's views on Syria lack logic, but that they are put forward by a leader who has lost all credibility with the West," says Sergei Strokan, foreign affairs columnist for the Moscow business daily Kommersant. "He needs to be seen as a partner, and as long as he presents himself as an adversary, his words will have no effect."

Putin's grand plan

Putin offered no details of how an anti-terrorist alliance would work in practice. So far, Russia has stepped up its supplies of military hardware to Syria, and established a forward air base near Latakia, with a couple dozen ground attack aircraft and a marine defense force of 500 men. It has also created an "intelligence-sharing hub" with Iran, Syria, and Iraq, based in Baghdad, which experts say could form the core of a wider Russian-led alliance in the region.

"Right now we basically have two separate coalitions fighting IS, one led by the US and the other by Russia, and at the very least they should not conflict," says Mr. Strokan. "It's a really delicate moment, and it will require a lot of diplomatic wisdom to manage it."

Putin probably has several objectives, Russian experts say, the first of which is to position Moscow as a key arbiter of Syria's fate at a time when the regime is weakening. Russia has said all along that it is not wedded to Assad but is simply supporting the "legitimate government of Syria" against a terrorist rebellion, an argument Putin rehearsed Sunday in a lengthy interview with CBS.

Russia's draft resolution for the Security Council reportedly proposes a "two-track" process in Syria: one to defeat IS, the second to seek a negotiated settlement between the Assad regime and at least its moderate rebel opponents. Russian experts say that in recent days they have noticed a distinct change in European and US leaders' tones on Assad's future.

"I think Americans will have a hard time, psychologically, walking back some of the unequivocal things they said back when it really looked like Assad's days were numbered," says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a Moscow-based foreign policy journal. "But we see a lot of new nuances appearing, which gives the impression that they now realize that Assad will have to be part of any serious peace process, even if the expectation is that he will eventually leave."

Playing to a domestic audience?

Another Putin objective is to bring along the Russian public, who are tired of war in next door Ukraine, with what can be presented as a more clear-cut fight against forces of evil in Syria. All major Russian TV channels carried Putin's UN speech live, and he may have adopted his tough tone for the sake of that domestic audience.

"This will be very different from Ukraine, where Russia just denied its direct involvement," says Mr. Lukyanov. "Here Russia is engaging in a distant conflict for the first time in the post-Soviet era, in an effort to get back to the global stage. Moscow will definitely be emphasizing its role, stressing not just its words but that it has military facts on the ground in Syria."

Yet another concern is Russia's own Muslim community, and fears that a spreading IS could inspire local militants in the north Caucasus.

"Putin says that fighting IS in Syria is about defending Russia from international terrorism, and Russians do believe him," says Andrei Kolesnikov, an expert with the Carnegie Center in Moscow. "This has its PR aspect to it, but it's also a real problem. It's quite possible that Putin honestly does believe it's necessary to get involved in Syria in order to defend Russia."
 

[return to Contents] 

 #8
Russia Direct
www.russia-direct.org
September 28, 2015
Putin's UN speech: Big on ideas, short on details
Russian President Vladimir Putin laid out Russia's displeasure with the global order, but offered no specific solutions.
By Dmitry Polikanov
Dmitry Polikanov is Vice President of The PIR-Center and Chairman of Trialogue International Club. Author of more than 100 publications on conflict management, peacekeeping, arms control, international relations and foreign policy. Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the International Sociological Association, the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center Research Council.
 
Vladimir Putin's speech at the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28 wasn't a game-changer despite high expectations in the media and expert community. The UN delegates in New York expected concrete proposals not statements.

Today the world is facing grave security challenges, and Moscow is reclaiming its role in global affairs and heading the struggle against what Putin refers to as the "single-superpower hegemony." All these factors made many experts assume that Putin's address would be full of actionable proposals.

However, the Russian president chose once again to take a prudent approach towards any foreign policy innovations.

The major takeaway from his speech was the condemnation of the current world order without any new constructive suggestions on how to improve the situation.

Putin's skepticism concerning the impact of "exported revolutions," unilateral decision-making in the post-Cold War world, and the detrimental effects of failed statehood and sovereignty is fair and it is important to articulate this position shared by many countries.
 
However, this may also give additional arguments to the opponents of the Kremlin, who criticize it for blocking any international (read - Western) initiatives without setting forth any reasonable alternatives.

One third of Putin's speech was appealing to no one

Obviously, it would be politically incorrect to be harsh towards the United Nations while speaking at its headquarters. Nonetheless, the international community has been realizing for nearly 20 years now that the supreme role of the UN in maintaining global peace and security is no longer relevant.

Hence, it made little sense to repeat the old Russian mantra about the exclusiveness of this multilateral forum and its unique nature, especially taking into account the fact that Russia is also quite flexible in respecting the UN decision-making process when it comes to the protection of real national interests.

The world is waiting for a new program of reform for the United Nations and for a leader who will push this process forward rather than eternal statements about the UN's significance.

Thus, nearly one-third of Putin's speech was appealing to no one - the delegates expected proposals not statements.

Other thoughts were not specific either. Russia pretends to set up an international antiterrorist coalition and link it symbolically with the anti-Hitler alliance, which was successful 70 years ago.

The idea is great in its simplicity. However, indicating the framework is not enough - Russia has already done it several times at different events and even in the course of numerous negotiations of the last two months.

Everyone was looking for the specific plan and got... a suggestion to discuss the "coordination mechanism" at the next UN Security Council ministerial meeting.

The same thing with climate change - let's hold another international forum on climate.

The same with global trade rules - let's discuss the rules once again (even though in the previous paragraph of his speech Putin praised the WTO, so the rules are theoretically there and the only thing needed is their implementation).

Therefore, instead of specific solutions, Russia seems to ask the world to create another "working group" with endless discussions.

Communications in world affairs

The communications system in world affairs is certainly broken due to the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, but the process of its restoration should be accompanied with concrete steps forward.

The ideas of "integration of integrations" and comprehensive "indivisible security" are extremely noble and attractive. However, like in 2008 when Moscow set forth a draft of the European Security Treaty, they are no more than principles with a nice and correct wording, without any backing in real details.

The statement of principles is important, but they should be codified by the international community into a program of action instead of rhetorical questions about the role of NATO in the modern world.

President Putin's address to the UN General Assembly described the apprehensions and discontent of the Russian Federation with the current state of affairs, but provided no answers.

Re-defining international security for the modern world

One of a few important messages that might have passed unnoticed was the urge to provide for a unified interpretation of the key terms in international security and international relations.

This could be a starting point for building a new world order based on justice and mutual respect.

However, even here Moscow should be more specific in emphasizing the ways to commence such global dialogue.

Putin did not delight the world with initiatives, but he indicated the problems in a straightforward way appealing to many who do not dare to challenge the hegemony of the United States.

One can only hope that Russia will be much more successful in solving these problems in the course of bilateral talks and through specific conversations with the heads of states rather than via multilateral institutions.

 [return to Contents] 

 #9
Russia Insider
www.russia-insider.com
September 28, 2015
In UN Speech Putin Blasts US Foreign Policy
Wide ranging speech by Russian President directly challenges US claims to world leadership and criticises US for creating chaos in Middle East and war in Ukraine
By Alexander Mercouris
Alexander Mercouris is a writer on international affairs with a special interest in Russia and law.  He has written extensively on the legal aspects of NSA spying and events in Ukraine in terms of human rights, constitutionality and international law.  He worked for 12 years in the Royal Courts of Justice in London as a lawyer, specializing in human rights and constitutional law. His family has been prominent in Greek politics for several generations.  He is a frequent commentator on television and speaker at conferences.  He resides in London.

Putin's speech to the UN General Assembly has been mainly analysed for what he had to say about the Russian diplomatic initiative to end the Syrian crisis.

The speech was actually far more wide-ranging.  Though it made no departures from Russia's longstanding foreign policy positions, it expressed itself trenchantly, and was one of the most uncompromising speeches on foreign policy Putin has made in his whole career.

The speech began provocatively with a reference to the 1945 Yalta Conference.

As Putin correctly says, it was during this conference that the Big Three (the USA, the USSR and Britain) agreed to set up the United Nations.

However Putin knows, as did everyone else in the room, that the Yalta Conference was held in Crimea, and that in Western legend - though not in fact - it was the conference at which Stalin and Roosevelt carved up the world.

Putin's invocation of the Yalta Conference is therefore indirectly an endorsement of Crimea's unification with Russia, and of the principle of the balance of power as the means of securing world peace - in contrast to the US's rejection of that principle and of its claim to an exceptional leading status as the world's "sole superpower".

It is also a pointed a reminder of the USSR's - and therefore Russia's - role in creating the present system of international relations and of international law of which the United Nations forms a central part.

The speech follows with a strong defence of the United Nations in its present form, with a defence of the right of veto held by the permanent members of the Security Council, which the US has made known it wishes to abolish or dilute.

Putin's essential point - lost on no-one - is that the removal or dilution of the power of veto would render the United Nations - and by extension the whole system of international law - into an instrument of US foreign policy.

His point is that such a capture of the United Nations and of international law by the US would quickly lead to their loss of legitimacy and to their eventual collapse, as they came to be seen as serving the interests of one state rather than of the world community of states taken as a whole.

These comments, which directly challenge the pre-eminent position in international relations the US is claiming for itself, are bound to infuriate Washington.

The next part of the speech will have angered Washington even more.

It consists of a scorching denunciation of the practice and philosophy of "democracy promotion" and "regime change".

Putin not only condemns it as a violation of international law and a gross infringement of the sovereignty of states.

He also blames it for causing chaos in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine.

Putin implicitly blames the US for creating the Islamic State and for manipulating the justified grievances of the Ukrainian people to carry out an unconstitutional coup d'etat in Ukraine to further its geopolitical objectives.

Along the way Putin says outright - for the first time - that the US violated UN Security Council Resolution 1973 in order to overthrow the government of Libya, that the US war against the Islamic State is a fiction and that only the Syrian government and the Kurds are actually fighting it, and that US condemnation of terrorism is hypocrisy given the support the US routinely gives to terrorists as it tries -and fails - to manipulate them to further its objectives.

Against the aggressive and destabilising unilateralism of the US, Putin contrasts the positions of Russia and China, with their tolerance of diversity, their stress on diplomatic solutions to international problems, their respect for state sovereignty and the independence of states, and their commitment to international law and the United Nations.

He refers to the merger of the Eurasian Union and of China's Silk Road project, implicitly building up the new Eurasian community as a counterbalance to what he sees as the overweening ambition and aggressive conduct of the US.

Significantly - and undoubtedly by prior agreement with Putin - the Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a speech making essentially the same points - though more implicitly and in far more diplomatic language.

Given the circumstances in which Putin's speech was delivered, with the US finding itself forced to consider Russia's diplomatic initiative to end the Syrian conflict, the US leadership must be seething at the humiliation of being read out a lecture on its misdeeds.  

The US leadership must also find Putin's explicit rejection of the US's claim to world leadership - a claim the US leadership passionately believes in - both outrageous and infuriating.

No other world leader talks to the US in this way - and is able to get away with it.

The Chinese leader could do so, but the pressures on China being far less he has no need to, and as happened at the latest UN General Assembly session, he is therefore content to leave it to Putin to do the straight talking, whilst quietly making clear his support.

There is no doubt that many - and probably most - of the delegates in the room quietly agree with what Putin said.  This is so even of many delegates whose countries for pragmatic reasons have allied themselves to the US.

The US leadership of course knows this too, and it will make it even more angry.

The speech Putin has delivered to the UN General Assembly shows why for the US he has become such a hate figure.

The look of loathing Obama directed at Putin at a dinner following the speech - noticed by several people - tells its own story.

 [return to Contents] 

 #10
President of Ukraine
www.president.gov.ua
September 28, 2015
Statement by the President at the UN Peacekeeping Summit

Dear Mr. President,

Your Excellencies,

I am very grateful to President Obama, UN Secretary-General and the leaders of other hosting countries for organizing this important and timely event on strengthening of UN peacekeeping.

It is no secret that these days the world is gravely concerned about increasing turmoil of violence around the globe and reasonably expects more engagement of the United Nations in restoring peace and security.

I believe the UN must take this opportunity and tackle current security challenges through efficient reform of its peacekeeping capabilities.

Recent initiatives of the UN Secretary-General, in particular on comprehensive reviews of the UN peacekeeping and peacebuilding architecture, as well as the report of the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations, could provide a solid guidance for such a reform.

Should Ukraine gain a seat in the Security Council for the term of 2016-2017 at the elections to be held in just a few weeks, the issue of consolidation of UN peacekeeping will be among our key priorities.

We are pleased that a number of ideas in these papers underscore the relevance of Ukraine's initiative to boost the capacity of UN peacekeeping operations by filling its critical gaps, in particular an "aviation" one.

In addition, the priority attention should be paid to strengthening cooperation of the UN Security Council with troop- and police-contributing states as well as to ensuring security of "blue helmets".

The annual commemoration of the International Day of Peacekeepers, proclaimed by the UN General Assembly on the initiative of Ukraine back in 2002, is an opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the sacrifice of "blue helmets".

Excellencies,

Ukraine has well deserved its reputation as a "peacekeeping nation".

Since its independence (24 years) more than 34 000 Ukrainian "blue helmets" have participated in over 20 operations under UN auspices, bringing peace and security to war-torn regions. The courage of Ukrainian helicopter pilots in the UN Operations in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia has become legendary.

Ukraine remains one of the main contributors of military helicopters to the UN - the most needed and looked-after asset and enabler in today's complex missions.

We are ready to beef up UN operations with up to 6 Ukrainian military helicopters from Liberia and Côte d'Ivoire after the finalisation of UN operations in these countries.

I want to stress that we are doing that in an extremely difficult security condition when we are an object of aggression of the Russian Federation.

Moreover, recently Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania established the joint military brigade, which amounts of 2000 soldiers in general with 527 Ukrainian soldiers, with a view to, among other objectives, participating in international peacekeeping operations based on the UN Security Council mandate.

Dear colleagues,

In the Donbas Ukrainian Armed Forces and volunteers are desperately fighting against treacherous Russian aggression.

Regrettably, these days it is Ukraine who needs help of the United Nations.

I believe that we can find the common approach and success of our coordination and cooperation will be the best and inspiring signal to the world on efficiency of the Organization under the pressing security challenges.

Thank you.

 [return to Contents] 

 #11
Washington Post
September 29, 2015
Poroshenko: 'Ukraine is fighting...for global democracy and freedom'
By Lally Weymouth
Lally Weymouth is a senior associate editor for The Washington Post.

Petro Poroshenko is president of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday. Poroshenko talked to The Post's Lally Weymouth about Ukraine's conflict with Russia and what the West can do to help. Excerpts:

Q. Is the cease-fire holding?

A. August 29th I was in Brussels and was asked, what did I think of the [Russian] proposal to launch a cease-fire on September 1st? I said, "We were ready to launch it immediately." And they said, "Okay. Let's do it."

There is a positive and negative side to this process. The positive is that we have no artillery shelling - every day we have a few cases of using light weapons but [there is] no artillery or tanks.

What is negative? All the troops of the separatists are now fully controlled by Russia. Every single commander from the platoon or company level is an officer of the regular Russian army....

In the occupied territories of Luhansk and Donetsk, they don't have any uncontrolled armed units of separatists. That's why when [Russian President Vladi­mir] Putin gives an order to make a cease-fire, they do it.

All the other points of the Minsk agreement [have not been implemented], including releasing the hostages. There are hundreds of Ukrainian hostages kept in disastrous humanitarian conditions in both the Ukrainian occupied territories and in Russia.

Indeed, we don't have any results of the Minsk agreement except for the cease-fire - no withdrawal of heavy artillery and weapons from the battle zone, no withdrawal of Russian troops from the occupied territory, and we don't get back control of the Ukraine-Russia border. We should make a well-coordinated effort to push Putin to fulfill the obligations Russia agreed to. The Minsk agreement is now in danger because of Putin's plan to introduce illegal and fake elections.

Q: You are talking about the proposed elections in the Donetsk People's Republic. You have said that if they hold these elections in the occupied territory, this would be a red line for you. Is that so?

Absolutely. Either offensive actions on the front or these elections [would be a red line]. Last year, they had an illegal election on November 2nd which was not free and fair, and that killed the Minsk process. Now [Putin] wants to repeat once again this scenario.

Q: What do you hope to get from the West and the U.S.?

From the U.S., we need strong political support for the Ukrainian peace plan - the Minsk agreement. If Putin violates it, we need better coordination on sanctions and on efforts to return Putin to the negotiating table....If Putin crosses the red line, we need to increase sanctions and increase our defense cooperation. Putin should know that before, not after, the election.

Q: What do you seek in military assistance?

We do not need any lethal weapons. We now have British, American and Canadian instructors to train our army. We need defensive weapons which can increase the defensive capability of the Ukrainian armed forces. We need counter-battery radar, electronic jamming systems for electronic warfare, drones and secure communications equipment. We are fighting not only for Ukrainian sovereignty and independence but also for democracy and freedom.

Q: Has the response of the West and the U.S. been disappointing in regard to military aid?

We are coordinating with the U.S. administration and the Congress. We are waiting for the supply of electronic warfare [equipment] for Ukraine. From month to month we have better military and technical cooperation.

Q: Reportedly, the administration is giving you a hard time.

Every single month, we have positive news from the American administration, and they give us more opportunity to defend our country more effectively. Of course I expected [it] to do it faster, but politics is the art of the possible.

Q: What is Putin's aim in Ukraine?

From the beginning, he wanted to control nine regions of Ukraine, including Crimea, and actually break Ukraine. Russian-speaking Ukrainians started to defend their country. This was a big surprise for Putin. We broke his plan. His other idea was to control the entire Ukraine through changes in our constitution. He wanted to federalize my country and put in the constitution that the Ukrainian people should ask permission of the occupied parts of the country to integrate in the European Union and to have an effective defensive cooperation with NATO - he wanted the Ukrainian people to ask permission from Moscow. My answer is very decisive - never, ever. Ukraine is a sovereign European nation....

Putin wants to be a big player in global policy. That is why he sent his troops first to Crimea and then to Syria. Who knows where Putin will send his troops next. That's why we need global efforts to minimize the danger to global security from Russia. There are [possible] changes in the mechanism of the U.N. Security Council to withdraw the veto right [from Russia]. The veto right in the hands of an aggressor country is like a license to kill.
Click here for more information!

Putin is afraid of transatlantic unity between Ukraine, the U.S. and the European Union. He wants to break this coalition. He is also afraid of successful reform in Ukraine.

Q: People in the U.S. are very isolationist at this moment. How do you get them to care about Ukraine?

They should understand we have a very dangerous conflict in the center of Europe with the participation of thousands of Russian troops. We are doing our best to block Putin with political and financial support. We have stopped the Russian army. But we understand that at any moment the conflict can develop. My main message is that Ukraine is fighting not just for our independence but for global democracy and freedom. Every American should understand this. When it comes to military cooperation, this is an investment in the homeland security of the U.S. The same goes for Europe. Global security cannot be built without effective coordination to stop the aggression in this territory.

 [return to Contents] 

 #12
www.rt.com
September 29, 2015
Wherever US used force bypassing UN, countries suffered - Lavrov to RT

The US-led coalition is bombing Islamic State in Syria with no UN Security Council mandate or invitation by Damascus. Historically, whenever Washington used force with no UN consent, they did great harm, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told RT.

RT:President Putin has met President Obama. It was a much-anticipated meeting. Do you know if they agreed to work as part of one coalition?

Sergey Lavrov: Well they did not discuss coalitions in the classical sense of the word. What they did discuss was the possibility for the United States and Russia to cooperate closely on the most burning issues of the day - Syria first of all. And there we all agreed that our common goal is to defeat ISIL, not to allow ISIL to establish a Caliphate, which they are planning across a huge territory. They have already established themselves in large parts of Syria and Iraq, where they have introduced their inhumane rules and laws. And both Russia and the US are absolutely determined not to allow them to succeed.

We presented our view. And President Putin explained that we believe that we have to be pragmatic, and reasonable, and rational. And if this is the case than all those who detest ISIL, who fight ISIL must coordinate.

We understand fully that there is an American led coalition of some sixty countries, which was established and organized not exactly in line with international law, because the coalition announced its right to strike ISIL on the territories of Iraq and Syria.

They received the consent of the Iraqi government, they never talked to the government of Syria and they never came to the Security Council. We believe that had they done so, had they come to the Security Council, had they engaged not only Iraqi government but also the Syrian leadership, we could have a much more efficient group of countries, much more efficient basis for promoting our common goal and not allowing terrorists to succeed in this key region of the world.

At the same time we have a strong relationship with both governments of Iraq and Syria. We have been supplying them for some time with necessary weapons and equipment to increase their ability to fight terrorists. Both the governments of Iraq and Syria receive this assistance from us. We send our military specialists to help use this equipment.

And we believe that all those who fight on the ground against the terrorist groups, ISIL and others, must be coordinated. Not necessarily under a single command. This is not realistic, and President Putin made this very clear to President Obama when they met; but coordinating the actual action on the ground and the actual action from the air, because the coalition only engages in air strikes. And those who are functional and active on the ground against ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra and alike, they are the armies of Syria and Iraq, the Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq. And we would welcome the patriotic Syrian opposition who is on the ground to join this coordinated effort.

As a first step, we cooperated with the Iraqis, Syrians, and Iranians and we established what we call an 'Information Center' in Baghdad, which will be used to exchange information available to the countries - to the Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and Russians which might, and I think must, help to be more efficient in fighting terrorists on the ground. And we suggested the United States and the coalition led by the United States to calibrate their efforts and to make sure that whatever air strikes they contemplate against terrorist targets on the ground will be coordinated with the efforts of the ground forces.

And I believe that President Obama heard what President Putin had to say. It was a very constructive discussion. We did not agree on any specific steps. But what they did agree was to continue our cooperation, discussions between the foreign ministries, between the ministries of defense, in order to identify specific ways and means, which will make our common goal more achievable.

RT: When we hear US officials' statements, it sounds like they are okay with Russia doing the fighting, but not Russia helping Assad do the fighting. Do you think it is possible to effectively fight ISIS without helping the Assad government?

SL: Actually this was one of the key topics of the discussion. The Americans are very concerned that Russia helping Assad fight ISIL would mean strengthening the regime, which they believe does not have any future. And we explained our position. We don't have any attachments to anyone in the region. But we do have a very strong feeling that we cannot allow the state of Syria to fail. Because the alternative, if we look at this now, is an ISIL caliphate and we would say goodbye to the Syria we know now. Syria which has been home for Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, home for Christians, for Jews, for Armenians; Syria which has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional cradle of this dialogue of civilizations, a cradle of coexistence of civilizations.

So our position is that priority number one at this stage is not allowing the terrorists to ruin the Middle East as we know it, to ruin an area, which gave birth to three great religions. And at the same time to make sure that whatever political reforms are necessary must be promoted. But promoted in a way which would not repeat the mistakes of Iraq, the mistakes of Libya, when outside intervention with the purpose of 'democratization' of these countries turned out to be an invitation for chaos, an invitation of huge dangers risking the disappearance of these countries, and splitting these countries into three, four, and five smaller enclaves.

The Americans confirmed that it was absolutely their position that the territorial integrity, unity, and sovereignty of Syria, Iraq and all other countries in the region, is their priority. And on this basis we can cooperate.

In other words, fighting terrorism at the same time as promoting political reform, not imposing from the outside but encouraging the Syrians themselves - the government and all the groups of the opposition - to start the political process, to start discussing what the future of their country should be. And when they reach mutual consent, as required by the Geneva Communique of three years ago - in June 2012 we adopted the Geneva Communique which called for a political process in Syria, a political transition to be based on mutual consent between the government and the opposition - then I believe we will achieve the goal and will make sure that the people themselves determine their future.

RT:A good part of President Putin's speech was about how it was a mistake to try to undermine the credibility of the UN. Who do you think undermines that credibility and why?

SL: Whenever people act bypassing the United Nations, whenever they try to use force, not asking the Security Council to consider a special situation and to issue a necessary mandate, people undermine the UN authority. And this is something which happened in Iraq, happened in Libya, it happened in Yugoslavia before, and in all these cases, these countries did not benefit. Yugoslavia collapsed. Iraq is in crisis and there is a danger that Iraq might also split.

And we do everything to support the current Iraqi government - the efforts to promote national dialogue, to rectify the mistakes made during the American invasion 12 years ago when they just dismantled all the structures of the state based on the Sunnis, based on the Baath party.

Now the Americans themselves try to play this situation back. They are trying now to bring back the Sunnis into government structures, whom they themselves 12 years ago ejected from state institutions. And we also believe that these mistakes must not be forgotten. We don't want just to remind every day that 'you were wrong on that occasion'. But we want our partners to draw lessons from past mistakes, for these mistakes not to be repeated.

In Syria, we are convinced it is only a dialogue led by the Syrians themselves; dialogue based on all Syrian groups, the government and all opposition structures, which can help resolve this situation, which can make sure that all those who live in Syria - Sunnis, Alowites, Druzes, Armenians, Christians of course, that they must reach a deal on how their state should continue to exist. A deal that would guarantee security for all these ethnic and religious groups. And as soon as this deal is reached, then the issue of who is going to be in the government, who is going to be president, how the elections should be organized - this would be secondary. The main thing is to guarantee for all those who live in Syria that they are treated as equals and that they are safe and secure.

 [return to Contents] 

 #13
The National Interest
September 29, 2015
U.S.-Russia Relations: What Would Henry Kissinger Do?
As President Obama meets Russian President Vladimir Putin at the U.N., Obama should ask: WWKD - What Would Kissinger Do?
By Graham Allison
Graham Allison is director of the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans.

Over a public career that spans six decades, and now in his 93rd year, Henry Kissinger has been cautious about offering presidents advice in public.  But the outline of what he would say if Obama asked him about Russia is clear in the interview he gave to Jacob Heilbrunn in The National Interest's latest issue.  Drawing on decades of experience with successive Russian leaders during the Cold War, as well as many hours of quality face time with Putin, Kissinger's views about how the United States should manage its relationship with Russia could hardly differ more from the bipartisan Washington consensus and Obama administration policy.

First, Kissinger turns on its head the prevailing narrative about the impasse over Ukraine. In Washington, for Democrats and Republicans alike, Putin has been the prime mover in this drama, and his actions part of a grand geopolitical strategy to reconstitute the Soviet Union. In contrast, Kissinger insists that we start with the historical record: the sequence of events that led to the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in response to which Putin sent the "little green men" to Crimea. The most inconvenient of these facts is the coincidence of what happened in Ukraine and Putin's signature project of the year: namely, showing the world that Russia could hold a successful winter Olympics in Sochi.  As Kissinger notes: "It is not conceivable that Putin spent 60 billion Euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization."

Reviewing this history, Kissinger concludes that Putin was essentially reactive, responding to what he saw as a rush of events on the ground that would take Ukraine into the EU, and in time, NATO.  This began with an association agreement, which the EU offered Ukraine in late 2013 and which failed to take into account Moscow's reservations about damage that the free trade component of the deal would do to Russia's economy.  Yanukovych used this offer to negotiate an even larger aid package from Russia that would have tightened Ukrainian-Russian relations. Yanukovych's domestic opponents responded with an uprising in Maidan Square. These protests just happened to coincide with Russia's successful Olympic Games, where Putin was celebrating with more than 50 presidents and prime ministers from around the world (including the leaders of China, Italy and Norway).

As Kissinger notes: "No doubt in Moscow this looked as if the West was exploiting what had been conceived as a Russian festival to move Ukraine out of the Russian orbit."  In taking the initiatives that provoked Putin, the West failed to appreciate not only the depth of the Ukrainian economy's dependence on Russia, but also as Kissinger emphasizes, the fact that "the relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind.  It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional, sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from the Ukraine's."

U.S. and European leaders' insistence that Ukraine was free to ally itself with the EU or even NATO sounded good in the abstract. But it ignored Russia's views of its vital interests and Russia's capacity and readiness to act to protect those interests. Having been invaded by Napoleon and Hitler, Russians are neuralgic about threats from their western front.  Even more than two decades after the Cold War was consigned to the history books, the Russian security establishment sees NATO as a major threat that is always seeking opportunities to move closer to Russia's border. Against that threat, Russia's security establishment sees Ukraine as an essential buffer.

Second, after misinterpreting the drivers and dynamics of events in Ukraine, according to Kissinger, the United States responded in a way that was bound to fail. Its strategy began by setting an unachievable goal: an objective it could not possibly mobilize the means to accomplish.  In Kissinger's words, that goal is "breaking Russia." By that he means forcing Putin to submit to American interpretations of the U.S.-designed and adjudicated rules of international behavior. As Kissinger put it,  "the United States has put forward no concept of its own except that Russia will one day join the world community by some automatic act of conversion."

This conversion is unlikely to be forthcoming, since Russia not only sees itself, but is, a great power with the independent capability to act where it sees its core national interests threatened. Given the country's history, interests, and capabilities, no Russian leader would have stood by and watched Ukraine-including Russia's major naval base at Sevastopol (which was built by Catherine the Great)-slide into a military alliance with what its sees as its principal security threat.  While Putin's stunning approval rates among Russian citizens - now topping 80 percent - reflect in part the effectiveness of his government's propaganda, no one who talks to Russians can doubt that he struck a responsive chord in standing up for Russian interests.

Instead of trying to break Russia, Kissinger believes America's goal should be to  "integrate" Russia into the international order in a way that takes Moscow's interests into account. That would begin with recognition of the realities of Russian power and interests, treating Russia like the great power that it is, and on that foundation exploring "whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities."

On an array of pressing global issues, there is reason to believe that Russia's and America's needs can be reconciled. In dealing with the crisis in Ukraine, for example, Kissinger recommends searching for a formulation in which Kiev would be militarily non-aligned, thus satisfying Russian concerns about a buffer, but also assuring Ukraine its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which would require withdrawal of all Russian forces from Eastern Ukraine and Kiev's control of its borders.

Terrorism is another issue where Obama and Putin could find common ground, since both the United States and Russia agree about the threat posed by ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups currently operating in Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East. Russia's recent movement of air and ground assets into Syria, as well as its newly announced intelligence-sharing program with Iraq, Iran and Syria, serves as another stark reminder to members of both parties in Washington that Russia is a player that does not require our permission to act. At this point, the Obama administration has no alternative but to engage in deconfliction talks with Putin about airstrikes and military operations on the ground in Syria. Better still would be exploring the possibility of coordinating or even cooperating in the campaign against ISIS as part of a larger effort to negotiate a political settlement that would set the stage for a post-Assad regime.

Most Republicans running to be their party's nominee in next year's presidential campaign, as well as many in the Obama administration, find the idea of trying to work with Putin appalling. In their view, the Russian leader is inherently hostile toward the West, and only interested in acting as a spoiler on the world stage.  But there is reason to believe President Obama does not entirely share that view. In announcing that the nuclear deal with Iran had been concluded, Obama went out of his way to give Putin a shoutout, noting that "Russia was a help on this...and we would have not achieved this agreement had it not been for Russia's willingness to stick with us and the other P5-Plus members in insisting on a strong deal."

If the president were to ask "What Would Kissinger Do?"  and then follow America's greatest living statesman's advice, my bet is that he will find Putin ready to play a more constructive role than most of official Washington could imagine.

 [return to Contents] 

 #14
LobeLog
http://lobelog.com
September 27, 2015
Russia is Back. Get Used to it.
By Robert E. Hunter
Robert E. Hunter served as US ambassador to NATO (1993-98) and on the National Security Council staff throughout the Carter administration, first as Director of West European Affairs and then as Director of Middle East Affairs. In the last-named role, he was the White House representative at the Autonomy Talks for the West Bank and Gaza and developer of the Carter Doctrine for the Persian Gulf. He was Senior Advisor to the RAND Corporation from 1998 to 2011, and Director of the Center for Transatlantic Security Studies at the National Defense University, 2011-2012. He has been Chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies since 2002 and is a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy.

This coming Monday, President Barack Obama will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the UN General Assembly, their first meeting in 15 months. This will be no ordinary occasion, given Russian aggression in Ukraine, the West's sanctions, and a lot of bad blood between the United States and the Russian Federation. Maybe the two leaders will be able to agree on some process for trying to deal with these very real mutual problems. Or maybe they will just talk past one another. Obviously, the world's eyes will be on each twitch of the two men's eyebrows. What follows does not recommend a course of action for dealing with Russia-in-Syria. Rather it will make the case that, after nearly a quarter century of Russia being a second-rate power, its interests and ambitions must again be taken into account, even when we oppose them.

Russia's seizure of Crimea and its continued military action, direct and indirect, against other parts of Ukraine have now been joined by significant Russian military deployments to Syria. Other than the short conflict with Georgia in 2008, these are the first major Russian military ventures since the breakup of the Soviet Union, nearly a quarter century ago. For the West and particularly the United States, Russian behavior under President V. V. Putin is posing major challenges. But just how serious they will be and what should be done beyond steps already taken are questions still to be answered.

The collapse of the Soviet internal and external empires, along with Soviet and East European communism, produced a major victory for the West, both geopolitically and in terms of political-economic philosophies and practices. Indeed, there had never before been such an extensive transformation, without war. The magnitude of the change seemed to usher in a new era in great-power relations, including the conjecture (a bit premature, it proved) that this was the "end of history." Even without such hubris, there was indeed a chance to transform a millennium of European history and politics and finally end the Great European Civil War of 1914-1989 that had been unleashed by the Industrial Revolution, the rise of nationalism, and competitive views of social and economic organization end. This was encapsulated in President George H. W. Bush's wise and visionary grand strategy of seeking to create a "Europe whole and free" and at peace.

Containing Russia?

How long ago that now seems! The incoming chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph S. Dunford, has testified that "If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia." "Existential," of course, is a big word, meaning in this case a threat to destroy the United States-obviously gross hyperbole and raising serious concerns about the judgment of such a senior official. Virtually all of the candidates for the US presidency in 2016, in warning of a renascent Russian threat, are vying with one another in hyping the danger. The person at the moment most likely to be the next president, Hillary Clinton, has said that "I think Russia's objectives are to stymie and to confront and to undermine American power whenever and wherever they can"-ignoring, among other things, Russian cooperation with the United States on Iran's nuclear program and its help in defusing the crisis over Syria's chemical weapons. She has recommended that "...we have to do more to get back to talking about how we try to confine, contain, deter Russian aggression in Europe and beyond." "Confine, contain, deter" are also big words, with a Cold-War provenance. They don't add up to a policy that any serious US president would pursue without having first tried less risky and more sensible alternatives.

But before reaching conclusions based on this analysis and acting upon them, let's take a second look. If Russia, as principal legatee of the Soviet Union, has indeed become a major threat to the West, not just in Europe but now in the Middle East and perhaps elsewhere tomorrow, the logical implications are enormous and could require the revival of much of the intellectual, political, economic, and military apparatus of the old Cold War. That would be a major, fateful, expensive step, with risks for all. Before taking such a step, what's called for is not emotions but some cool calculations.

Obviously what Russia has been doing cannot be ignored. Certainly Russian aggression against Ukraine in particular needs to be countered, as NATO, the European Union, and individual Western states have been doing since 2014. But before a comprehensive, perhaps globe-spanning set of anti-Russian strategies are put together, we need to figure out how we got here and what role for Russia we should accept as legitimate.

In the early 1990s, anyone who honestly believed that Russia would continue to be a second-rate power, even after its economy revived and it adjusted to the new realities of being empire-less, was bound to be grossly mistaken. Some facts were always obvious: Russia is a huge country, it has more natural resources than any other, it has a basically well-trained and well-educated population, and it has a long history of taking itself seriously and expecting others to do so as well. It was never just going to "lie doggo." There was no chance it would passively follow the Western lead on all things, permit us to do all the defining of Eurasia's future, or, in one of the sneering comments made soon after the end of the Cold War, remain a "Guatemala with nuclear weapons."

Finding a Role for Russia

This is precisely why, in 1989, President G.H.W. Bush proposed his grand strategy for all of Europe, including Russia, and was assiduous in never stigmatizing the Soviet Union (Russia) for having "lost" the Cold War. The key lesson was obvious, if imperfect as all analogies are. Under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, especially its "war-guilt clause" (co-authored by John Foster Dulles!), Germany had been severely punished far out of proportion to its role in causing the Great War. Versailles fed German revanchism and was exploited to a fare-thee-well by Adolph Hitler.

President Bush, along with German Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl and a few other leaders, understood that, to maximize the chances of avoiding a similar growth of revanchism in Russia, it would have to be accorded a respectable and respected role in any new political, economic, and security order for post-Cold War Europe. Indeed, both NATO and what is now called the European Union did just that-for a time.

Thus Russia was included in NATO's Partnership for Peace. A NATO-Russia Founding Act (providing for 19 areas of Russia-NATO cooperation) was negotiated prior to NATO's first expansion, which was deliberately limited to three countries (Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.) The West, led by the EU, worked to help the Russian as well as Central European economies. And a tacit understanding was reached that Ukraine's future and final status in regard to both NATO and the EU would have to wait until other matters were sorted out, including Russia's future role in Europe and Ukraine's own progress toward democratization and internal reforms. At the same time, Ukraine was included in Western institutions, notably NATO's Partnership for Peace and a special NATO-Ukraine Charter and Council.

These sensible efforts all directly supported President Bush's grand vision. Whether they could have prevented Russia's recent actions, however, can never be told. Regrettably, the efforts were not continued. In 2001, the George W. Bush administration, inattentive to the needs of a "Europe whole and free," especially to try insuring against the day when Russia would no longer be a third-rate power, unilaterally abrogated the 1972 US-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. With the end of the Cold War and hence the "balance of terror," the ABM Treaty had little remaining practical utility. But it did confer something important on Russia: that it could claim still to be a major power, the "equal" of the United States in an important coin of military capacity and at least perceived status.

Under US prompting, NATO took in seven more countries in 2002. This expansion included the three Baltic states, which had once been part of the Soviet Union and which had historical and psychological reasons to justify their being given surety against the possible resurgence, however unlikely it then seemed, of a hostile Russia. But there was no security reason to take in the other four states or two more since then. Moscow began talking about Western plans to "encircle" Russia, even though, at the same time, NATO and Russia did agree to a modest improvement in their formal relationship.

Meanwhile, rather than doing all that was reasonable to help Russia's economy and thus give its people a reason to look to the West for a productive future-as was being done throughout Central Europe-the West rebuffed Russia's efforts to join the new World Trade Organization until 2012, on the grounds that it had not made necessary internal reforms. "Internal reforms" be damned: the objective was to give the Russian people a reason to think positively about relations with the West, not to meet some bureaucrats' standards. It also took until 2012 for Congress to repeal the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which limited Soviet and then Russian export access to the US, in order to punish the Soviet Union for restrictions on Jewish emigration, even though those restrictions had collapsed two decades earlier along with the USSR.

The failure to build on possibilities for cooperation was not all one-sided, however. Notably, in January 2008, Russia suspended its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE.) A Cold-War holdover of diminished relevance, the treaty was still useful in reassuring Central European states about the overall climate of security.

Georgia and Ukraine

In April 2008, NATO went a "bridge too far" in playing into Russian domestic propaganda about being "encircled," when the Alliance's summit in Bucharest "...agreed today that these countries [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO." This statement, a throw-away line, was inserted to mollify President George W. Bush, who wanted to put the two countries on the path toward membership in the Alliance. Most European allies, on the other hand, were dead set against it: they did not want to throw sand in Russia's eyes (Ukraine) or to take in a country (Georgia) of no strategic value to European security. But both the Russian president (Putin) and the Georgian president (Mikhail Saakashvili) judged NATO's statement at face value. Indeed, it could only mean one thing: that NATO was, at that moment, extending its membership to these two countries. The Georgian president, acting on what he believed to be a NATO security guarantee (and ignoring US government appeals for caution), provoked Russia, and Russia struck back. Yet not a single NATO ally came to Georgia's defense, showing the Bucharest summit commitment to be vacuous. (At the time, I expressed my worry that Russia might at some point in the future decide to make a similar "point" about Ukraine.)

Nevertheless, there was one more opportunity to avoid a breakdown of engagement between Russia and the West over the future of Europe. In November 2009, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who had been the favorite Russian partner of the United States, a seemingly complaisant contrast to Putin, proposed a European Security Treaty that would embrace all the countries, in the old phrase, "from Vancouver to Vladivostok." It would incorporate NATO, the EU, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the OSCE. Of course, this draft treaty would confer advantages on Russia related to its potential ambitions regarding contiguous countries, notably the following (Article 7/2):

    ...every Party shall be entitled to consider an armed attack against any other Party an armed attack against itself. In exercising its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, it shall be entitled to render the attacked Party, subject to its consent, the necessary assistance, including the military one...

Such a provision would have opened up possibilities for unilateral Russian military intervention that the West would naturally and rightly find noxious. But, significantly, the United States and the other allies were not even prepared to give serious consideration to the Medvedev proposal, thus confirming the Russian contention that Moscow was to be excluded from development of alternative approaches to creating a "Europe whole and free."

Indeed, when Russia later seized Crimea, in so doing violating the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1994 Bucharest Declaration, a common refrain was that it was also violating understandings on the post-Cold War structure of European security. That was certainly true-as seen in the West. But it ignored the fact that Russia had played virtually no part in reaching those "understandings," and thus they were not understandings at all. Further, regarding military action against Ukraine, the Russians have been vociferous in accusing the United States of a double standard, especially in view of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 (and also, with NATO, attacking Serbia in 1999). Although we may not like it, they have a point. Ukraine can thus be seen, in part, as one more negative fallout of the reckless US venture in Iraq.

The final "icing on the cake" prior to Russia's seizure of Crimea in early 2014 was the US attitude toward the Sochi Winter Olympics that February, which for President Putin was a major showcase, both for himself and for Russian pride. Top US leaders pointedly did not attend, and officials up to and including President Obama voiced their strong support for respecting LGBT rights at the Olympics. In terms of human rights, this was perfectly appropriate, perhaps even necessary, in the face of Russia's denial of gay rights. Nevertheless, it helped Putin complete his narrative about Russia's being consistently "dissed" by the West and especially by the United States.

Let me be clear: none of the foregoing is intended to justify what Russia has done, especially its aggression against Ukraine. It is rather to show how Western and especially US failure to follow through on George H. W. Bush's vision of a "Europe whole and free," certainly in regard to Russia, has been grist to Vladimir Putin's nationalist propaganda mill at home. Something similar has been true in regard to some actions the West has taken in response to Russian aggression. On the one hand, Moscow can hardly complain about NATO and EU efforts to reassure Central European states about their security. Given the relevant geography, Russia cannot legitimately claim that this is part of its being "encircled." But on the other hand, efforts to bring Ukraine more fully into the West did break the tacit understanding of the late 1990s. And sanctions against Russia have had one undesired (but foreseeable) consequence: they have reinforced Putin's message to the Russian people that Russia is being stigmatized for pursuing interests that differ from those of the West. We can reject this logic. But we should not ignore our role in helping to inspire it.

It shouldn't have been surprising, then, that Russia has been substantially increasing its involvement in Syria. Whether in the Middle East or someplace else, greater Russian assertiveness became inevitable. Moscow's message is clear: "We will be reckoned with." Of course, Russia is still far from again becoming a major power. In Syria, it is seizing on an opportunity created in major part by the lack of clarity, purpose, and strategy in Western policy, especially on the part of the United States. Although having achieved an historic breakthrough with the Iranian nuclear program, the Obama administration has still not developed a comprehensive approach to the Middle East as a whole. This is particularly true regarding the geopolitical competitions in the region, the contending interests of individual countries (including US partners and allies), and a host of religious, ethnic, economic, political, and cultural factors that we hardly understand, much less control, and that in some cases are being made worse by countries with which we are closely involved.

In the meeting Monday between the US and Russian presidents, they may simply "agree to disagree." But it is also conceivable that they can begin a process, as diplomats say, for finding a way to disengage from the controversies that have dominated Russian-Western relations and to keep differences of interest from escalating further.

But one thing is clear: whether President Putin chooses to be "part of the problem" or "part of the solution," Russia can no longer be ignored or its activities simply dismissed as illegitimate interference with some U.S. right to define the future of world order.

 [return to Contents] 

 #15
Reuters
September 29, 2015
When Kremlin candidate loses election, even voters are surprised
By Maria Tsvetkova

When Communist Sergei Levchenko beat the incumbent from President Vladimir Putin's party to become governor of Irkutsk region in Siberia on Sunday, even the voters who backed him were surprised: the Kremlin doesn't lose elections.

Levchenko resoundingly defeated incumbent Sergei Yeroshchenko to become the first politician to oust a candidate supported by Putin's United Russia party since the Kremlin allowed voters to choose regional governors in 2012.

"I'm shocked. My husband and I voted for Levchenko but couldn't imagine he would win," Vlada, an Irkutsk resident who declined to give her surname, told Reuters, as she pushed a stroller with her baby though a park.

"We don't support the Communists or Lenin," she said. "It's just that Yeroshchenko was so confident of his victory that we wanted him to understand that there were people against him."

In Russia's highly controlled political system, it is hard to say exactly what the result means.

The Communists, though Russia's largest nominal opposition party, strongly support Kremlin policy on many contentious issues like last year's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea peninsula. The Kremlin has been known to give quiet backing to Communist politicians elsewhere in the past.

Nevertheless, by most local accounts, Levchenko achieved his victory campaigning for genuine change, while the United Russia political machine supported the incumbent. Voters said they were fed up with the high cost of living and wanted to send a message to Moscow.

"United Russia used to win every time, people were fed up and wanted changes," Pavel Kupreyev, a 27-year-old Irkutsk resident, told Reuters.

SOAK UP SOCIAL DISCONTENT

Lev Gudkov, director of pollster the Levada Center, said the election in Irkutsk would not be a real challenge to the Kremlin's authority because the Communists, like other opposition parties in parliament, are tame.

"The systemic opposition is not an opposition, but different factions of the ruling party," he said. "They work to soak up social discontent."

"The situation hasn't changed. Discontent of people living in the regions has broken through. This was just down to the Kremlin's failure to manage elections."

Nevertheless, the apparent inability of United Russia to get its way suggests that the Kremlin political machine may be less monolithic than thought, which could have implications for parliamentary elections next year.

An economic crisis brought on by low international oil prices and U.S. and EU sanctions imposed over Russia's involvement in Ukraine means life is getting harder for most Russians for the first time since Putin took power in 1999.

Putin scrapped all direct elections for regional governors in 2005, but reinstated them for most regions in 2012 in a concession to public discontent that had spilled over in violent mass protests in Moscow.

Yeroshchenko was one of a number of United Russia governors who voluntarily resigned in May, triggering an election. Critics called it a cynical tactic to secure re-election before the economic crisis got worse. If so, it backfired.

"(My victory) is an example of how, if we unify various political forces, we can put up a fight, and defeat the ruling party," Levchenko told reporters on Sunday night.

In the background, a bust of Soviet leader Josef Stalin's head looked on as young activists manned a call-center and tried to check whether the count had been accurate or not.

The Kremlin said the rare defeat proved that Russian elections were legitimate and transparent.

"I think those parties who had expected pressure from the authorities have changed their mind now," Sergei Neverov, one of United Russia's leaders, said on the party's website.

The incumbent, Yeroshchenko, fell just short of outright victory in the first round with 49.6 percent of the vote, forcing a runoff with Levchenko who had placed second. Two days later, Levchenko and Gennady Zyuganov, the veteran Communist party leader, were invited to the Kremlin for a meeting.

"It was just to take a look at him, to see who Levchenko is," one communist lawmaker told Reuters. Levchenko confirmed the meeting took place but would not say what was discussed.

When the second round took place on Sunday, Communist activists said they still thought they would not be permitted to win. Even as counting was under way they felt the Kremlin was about to turn them over: initial results announced with just 3.8 percent of the vote counted put Yeroshchenko ahead.

The communists protested in the hall. When the final tally was announced, Levchenko had won in a landslide by 14 percentage points.

"We were prepared to go to war," said Ekaterina Anisimova, a Communist activist, who believes the authorities concluded there were too many votes for Levchenko to falsify the result.

"It was very hard for them. They had to falsify by 300 percent. This was arithmetically impossible. The turnout was too high, the protest vote was too high."

The election commission denied any falsification had taken place and said the early results differed from the final result because it reflected only a small number of polling stations.

 [return to Contents] 

 #16
Russia Beyond the Headlines/Voprosy Ekonomiki
www.rbth.ru
September 28, 2015
5 things Dmitry Medvedev wants to tell Russians
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has published an article titled "A New Reality: Russia and Global Challenges," in which, according to him, he has tried to "analyze the major changes taking place today in the global economy and directly affecting the situation in our country." RBTH cites the main theses of the prime minister's article.
Alexey Timofeychev, RBTH

The new normal

In discussing the current and future challenges of global development, the term "the new normal" began to increasingly be used. It emerged five years ago, after the acute phase of the global crisis, and quickly gained popularity. "The new normal," perhaps, could be explained as a "new reality."

It means key characteristics that will shape the global economy over the coming period - in fact, until the next major, structural crisis.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the leading countries of the world are beginning a new trajectory of growth. The question is not only in the new pace, but also in the quality of this growth - in the emergence of new sectors of production, in the new geography of their location. The update affects all spheres of society - technology, economy and the humanitarian sphere.
 
Relations with the West and the East

Despite the current critical nature of the relationship [with the West], the restoration of cooperation is still inevitable.

Russia is not going to leave the European continent either economically or politically or mentally. <...> The relationship may change in the future, but strategic direction will be inevitable - cooperation, partnership and, in the case of favorable developments, the formation of a single economic space.

The geographical and geopolitical position of Russia not only allows, but also, in a sense, requires us to further the active development of cooperation with the east. It is about both countries such as China, Vietnam, Japan, Korea and the Asia-Pacific region on the whole, and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) member countries, located in various parts of the world.
 
The printing press is not a source of growth

The key task now is to ensure not only the pace, but a new quality of economic growth.

The creation of a comfortable environment starts with macroeconomic stability. Low inflation and a balanced budget remain a priority for the country's sustainable development.
It is necessary to create modern mechanisms for financing economic growth and modernization. Undoubtedly, public investment should play a role here. Especially now, when it allows to compensate, to a certain degree, for the low activity of private investors.

But public investment cannot be the main source of growth for all time. The state also cannot turn the printing press into such a source: The freedom of the uncontrolled emission of money is one of the most dangerous freedoms. References to the Western experience of stimulating growth through money stimulation are untenable. The attraction of private investors should come to the fore in the activities of government at all levels.
 
Domestic savings

The most important source of investment should be domestic savings. This is a strategic challenge for the years to come, but we should move toward this goal.

We shall consider the question of efficient use of pension savings also in this context. The pension and then insurance system are the main sources of the formation of "long money" in the economy.

Despite the geopolitical complexity, sanctions and various constraints, we should not forget about the problem of attracting foreign investment. Underestimating them would mean that we accept the logic of isolation that is being imposed on us.

... The development of small and medium-sized businesses as a condition for sustainable economic growth and at the same time as a factor of social stability.
 
Competition and the non-oil sector

The stimulation of competition. One of the main reasons for weak competition is concerns for social stability in enterprises and the regions. Therefore, the development of a modern labor market is becoming both a social and economic problem. A pro-forma approach to its solution will prevent the accelerated creation of high-performance workstations.
The stimulation of the growth of non-oil exports (in absolute numbers and as a proportion of total exports). Among other things, this would be an indication that import substitution has actually started to work and begun to yield positive results.

Qualitative changes in the efficiency of public administration. It is necessary to establish a system of responsibility of different authority levels and bodies for their decisions.

The full version of the article is published in the magazine Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 10, 2015:
http://www.vopreco.ru/rus/redaction.files/10-15.pdf

 [return to Contents] 

 #17
CNBC.com
September 28, 2015
Worst is over for Russia economy: CFO
By Holly Ellyatt

Russia's recent economic turbulence, weakened ruble and high inflation could be coming to an end, according to the chief financial officer of the country's leading telecoms business.

Alexey Kornya, chief financial officer of Russian telecoms giant MTS, told CNBC Monday that "in terms of inflation and ruble devaluation, the worst has already passed," he said.

Russia's economy was hit by a 50 percent-plus decline in oil prices since June 2014 and sanctions imposed by global powers for its annexation of Crimean and role in the pro-Russian uprising in Ukraine.

The combination of both saw capital outflows from Russia increase and the ruble weaken greatly against the dollar, spurring on a rise in consumer prices.

However, analysts are starting to see life coming back to the beleaguered economy and the recession bottoming out. Inflation remains high, however, at 15.8 percent in August and the ruble remains weak against the dollar, trading at 65.6 to the greenback Monday.

Kornya from MTS, which is the leading telecommunications group in Russia and former Soviet countries, told CNBC Monday that his company was not too dependent on the currency fluctuations his country had seen over the last year as over 90 percent of its business was domestic.

As of June 30 this year, MTS serviced over 100 million mobile subscribers in Russia, Ukraine, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Belarus. In the second quarter, the group reported a 4.4 percent rise in total revenues in Russia, year-on-year, to 94.3 billion rubles ($1.43 billion).

"We see challenges from the devalued ruble experienced over the past year but at the same time we're not depending too much on macro volatility," he told CNBC, adding that he believed "the worst was over" for Russia.

"I think that the worst in terms of inflation and ruble devaluation is now past so now we need to find the new engines of growth in the Russian economy," he said.

"Generally, from what we observe in the market, we think the worst has already been experienced in terms of the fall in the oil price...but the question is how long this low commodity cycle will last," he added.

Russia's current economic crisis has highlighted how dependent its economy is on commodities for much of its growth, and Kornya said the country had to evolve away from its resource-reliant economic model.

"It is a challenge to see how other businesses in Russia that are commodity-oriented develop, especially in the environment where you have some inflationary pressures and where you're experiencing a devalued ruble," he said.

"We feel there is space for new businesses and new experiences for consumers however, it is still a challenge in the Russian economy to reduce this commodity dependence and to go into new sectors."

 [return to Contents] 

 #18
Bloomberg
September 27, 2015
Bank of America Seeing Life Signs in Russia's Foundering Economy
By Elena Popina
[Chart here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-27/bank-of-america-seeing-life-signs-in-russia-s-foundering-economy]

Bank of America Corp. is starting to see faint signs of an economic recovery in Russia.

The magnitude of a slowdown in capital investment is easing, while corporate profits have been increasing, a combination that Vladimir Osakovskiy, the bank's chief economist in Moscow, said could mark a turning point. The country's recession may have bottomed when gross domestic product shrank 4.6 percent in the second quarter, and considering that company spending will probably drive the recovery, that stabilization is likely to be more important for the broader economy than persistent weakness in consumer demand, he wrote in a report last week.

"Corporate profits in Russia are quite good year-to-date, and we look at robust growth in corporate profits as the main potential driver of stabilization and recovery in the near future," Osakovskiy said by phone from Moscow last week. "We might see that the main macroeconomic indicators will start to improve on a year-over-year basis later this year, but we obviously have to wait until the increase in corporate profits spills over to the pickup in investment."

Corporate profits increased 43 percent in the first half of 2015 compared with a year earlier and grew 38 percent from January to July, even as oil plunged further into a bear market, data from the Federal Statistics Service show. That means companies might soon look to use capital to focus on expansion, Osakovskiy said. Investment is the only way to stimulate growth in Russia's economy, Deputy Finance Minister Maxim Oreshkin said this month.

Bank of America remains neutral on Russian markets, while the price of oil, the country's biggest export, remains volatile, according to Osakovskiy. The country's stocks remains a risky buy in the near future, but their low valuations compared with equities in other emerging markets make Russia an attractive investment destination in the medium term, he said.

Capital Flight

Russia's Micex index trades at 5.2 times projected earnings, the cheapest among emerging-market peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The dollar-denominated RTS Index, which has historically been highly correlated with the price of oil, can rally to 930 in the next 12 months, an 18 percent increase from Friday's closing level, BCS Financial Group said.

Investors, who had been returning to Russia earlier this year following the world's biggest stock slump in 2014, have been backpedaling since May as the ruble resumed its retreat and swelling global inventories pushed Brent crude to less than half its five-year average price. Franklin Templeton, which oversees almost $900 billion of assets, liquidated its 20-year-old regional fund. French lender BNP Paribas SA exited its local fund-management venture six years after its acquisition.

Alfa Capital, Barclays

Andrey Shenk, an analyst at Alfa Capital in Moscow, said a turnaround in crude prices and signs that the worst of the economic slump is over could be all it takes to lure investors back again.

"Russia doesn't look like a rosy investment destination amid a recession and plunging oil, but the market is cheap and valuations can be attractive," Shenk said by phone. "Once we see oil going back up and the economy improving, Russia could be a good place for investors to consider."

Daniel Hewitt, an economist at Barclays Plc in London who forecasts Russia's economy to contract 4 percent in 2015 and 0.7 next year, doesn't see that happening any time soon.

"The economy declined about 5 percent in the second quarter and probably won't get much worse, but the main thing is that it's not going to get better," Hewitt said by phone. "It looks like bad times are here to stay."

Stock Slump

The Bloomberg Russia-US Equity Index slumped 4.2 percent in New York last week. The Market Vectors Russia ETF retreated 2.7 percent to $15.64. The ruble strengthened 1.7 percent against the dollar, posting the only weekly gain among 24 emerging-market currencies tracked by Bloomberg.

Brent crude, which has slumped from a peak of $115 a barrel in June 2014, sold for $48.60 at the close of trading Friday. Taking into account the ruble's 47 percent depreciation during the same period, the negative impact of lower oil prices on Russia's economy is mitigated, according to Renaissance Capital's Daniel Salter. When factoring in the currency plunge, the current oil price would be the equivalent of about $91, he said.

"We see no continued contraction in growth even with oil price averaging $50 per barrel," Salter said in a report last week.

 [return to Contents] 

 #19
Moscow Times
September 25, 2015
More Foreign Retailers Coming to Russia Despite Economic Crisis
By Anastasia Bazenkova

A dramatic decline in consumer spending in recession-hit Russia has not scared foreign retailers away from starting new business in the country, research published on Thursday found.

In the three months from July to September, 14 new foreign retailers have set up shop in Russia - two more than the number of newcomers in the same period last year - according to a report by real estate consultancy Knight Frank.

Since the start of the year, 32 foreign brands have opened first stores in the country, including Italian children's clothing retailer Bimbus, French cosmetics brand Ulric de Varens and German sports retailer Stellasport, the report said.

Two-thirds of the these new brands belong to the middle price segment, according to the report.

They are entering the market as high inflation and negative wage growth force Russians to slash their shopping budgets. Retail sales were 9.1 percent lower in August than in the same month last year, according to the Rosstat state statistics service.

Rather than banking on rapid sales, Knight Frank said foreign retailers were tempted to Russia by more lucrative conditions. Rental rates have dropped by 20-40 percent over the past year and most malls have switched to turnover rent leases, where the rent payable is not fixed but influenced by the tenant's actual turnover, according to Yulia Sokolova, director of shopping center leasing at Knight Frank.

The Moscow market also has large amounts of high quality vacant retail space, she said in the report. According to the RBC newspaper, vacancy rates in some Moscow shopping centers could exceed 10 percent in the third quarter of this year.

Knight Frank said it expected at least 12 more new foreign brands to open by the end of 2015, including KidZania, the famous children's edutainment chain.

It is not all good news however: Russia's new economic reality - the economy is set to contract by about 4 percent this year and shrink again in 2016 - has forced some retailers to leave the country or change their development plans.

According to Knight Frank, eight foreign brands have quit Russia since the beginning of the year.

 [return to Contents] 

 #20
Russia Beyond the Headlines
www.rbth.ru
September 28, 2015
Russia admits lack of technologies for offshore oil production
The Russian government has announced that it is seeking to source equipment for offshore oil production from new countries due to the impact of sanctions by the European Union and the United States. However, as experts note, the development of Arctic fields is being hindered by low oil prices.
Alexei Lossan, RBTH

Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Khloponin has admitted that Moscow was too slow to find alternative supplies of equipment for offshore oil production and needs cooperation with other countries that have experience in this area, the Interfax news agency has reported.

Due to the sanctions imposed to punish Moscow for its role in the Ukraine conflict, Russia's traditional partners - the U.S. and European companies - are prohibited from providing services to exploration and production on the Russian shelf at a depth of over 150 meters.

However, Khloponin said on Sept. 22, there are many countries with experience in offshore drilling that have not imposed sanctions on Russia. According to the forecast of the Ministry of Energy, by 2035, Russia will produce a total of 50 million tons of oil on the shelf, i.e. 9.5 percent of total production.

"The development of offshore fields has been stalled not only by sanctions, but also by a sharp drop in oil prices. With the current state of the energy market, expensive development in the Arctic is simply unprofitable," said Ilya Buturlin, managing director of trust management company Hedge.pro.
 
Main causes

The problem of carrying out the so-called "import substitution" of equipment for offshore drilling emerged in 2014, when the U.S. and the EU banned imports of technology for use in Russian Arctic projects.

By that time, Russia's largest oil company Rosneft and the American ExxonMobil had discovered the Pobeda oil field in the Kara Sea and drilled a well, but after the introduction of sanctions foreign partners had to suspend their participation in the project.

"Offshore drilling equipment has been never produced or even designed in Russia," says Freedom Finance Investment Company's head of operations in the Russian stock market Georgy Vashchenko.

"For its production and use to be economically viable compared to imports, it must be produced in large quantities, including for deliveries abroad."

According to Vashchenko, only three customers can provide the demand for the equipment in Russia at the moment - Rosneft, the gas monopoly Gazprom and the private company Lukoil, which produces oil on the shelf of the Caspian Sea.

According to Pyotr Dashkevich, an analyst with investment company UFS, the actual impact of sanctions on the development of offshore fields is not as significant as the effect of the fall in oil prices.

"Many of the projects announced were attractive due to high energy prices," he said.

At the same time, according to Dashkevich, contracts with Western partners had been signed before sanctions were imposed and, accordingly, do not fall under the restrictions, but almost all of these projects have been delayed or abandoned.
 
Search for partners

At the beginning of 2015, the Ministry of Industry drafted a plan for import substitution in the oil and gas industry, but according even to this document, it is planned to reduce the share of imported equipment for offshore projects to 60-70 percent only by 2020.

"Before the introduction of sanctions, Russian companies had cooperated with the American, Norwegian and Italian suppliers, but now China and South Korea are also being named among the potential partners," said Ilya Buturlin.

Moreover, according to him, companies such as General Electric are now ready for the localization of individual equipment for Russian offshore drilling vessels.

However, according to Dashkevich, it is companies from Europe and the U.S. that are most interesting for borrowing the technologies, as they have the experience of working on the shelf and specifically in the Arctic, while Asian companies are likely to have had only "local experience," though they may "be interested in supplying equipment and providing subsequent maintenance."

 [return to Contents] 

 #21
www.rt.com
September 29, 2015
39% of Russians approve Putin policies on Syria

Currently 39 percent of Russians approve of Moscow's support of Syrian government, with the share of those who disapprove being at just 11 percent, the latest opinion poll has shown.

The research was made by independent agency Levada-Center in the third week of September and analysts released the results on Tuesday.

Thirty percent of those who took part in the poll said they think by supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad Russia wants to protect its own interests in the Middle East. Twenty-eight percent of responders hold that Moscow's ultimate objective was to fortify its leading position among world nations. About 22 percent said that support for the Syrian government was launched in order to counter the Islamic State terrorist group and the spreading of radical Islamism in general.

Moscow has supported Bashar Assad's government since the start of the Syrian civil war, both with supplies of military hardware and diplomatic efforts. In his speech on Monday before the UN General Assembly, President Vladimir Putin called upon the international community to stop "playing games with terrorists" and help the Syrian government as the only legitimate power in the country that can confront Islamic State.

Russia has also delivered about 30 aircraft loads of humanitarian aid to Syria during the past two years and has evacuated hundreds of refugees out of the war-torn country, both Russian and foreign citizens.

Earlier this month, Russian specialists completed and opened the first foreign-built refugee camp in Syria.  The camp is in the city of Hama (Hamah) and it consists of 25 army tents fully equipped for living, a field kitchen, a canteen, showers, two mobile power generators and a water-storage facility.

 [return to Contents] 

 #22
The Real News Network
http://therealnews.com
September 28, 2015
Obama Versus Putin at the U.N.
President Obama and President Putin address the UN on their strategies for fighting the Islamic State

Vijay Prashad is the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History and Professor of International Studies at Trinity College. He is the author of sixteen books, including The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013), Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK, 2012), (co-edited with Paul Amar) Dispatches from the Arab Spring (2013), and No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (Leftward Press, 2015). Vijay's latest book is Letters to Palestine: Writers Respond to War and Occupation. Vijay is the chief editor at Leftward Press, and writes regularly for The Hindu, Frontline, Jadaliyya, Counterpunch, Himal and Bol.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.

In New York at the United Nations on Monday morning various leaders of the world spoke. We're going to focus mostly in this session on President Obama and President Putin. They both spoke about various things, but perhaps the most important thing they spoke of was the conflict in Syria. First, here's President Obama.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Nowhere is our commitment to international order more tested than in Syria. When a dictator slaughters tens of thousands of his own people that is not just a matter of one nation's internal affairs. It brings human suffering on an order of magnitude that affects us all. Likewise, when a terrorist group beheads captives, slaughters the innocent, and enslaves women, that's not a single nation's national security problem. That is an assault on all our humanity. But while military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to resolve the situation in Syria.

Lasting stability can only take hold when the people of Syria forge an agreement to live together peacefully. The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict. But we must recognize that there cannot be, after so much bloodshed, so much carnage, a return to the pre-war status quo. Let's remember how this started. Assad reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that in turn created the environment for the current strife. And so Assad and his allies can't simply pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing.

Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out ISIL. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader. And an inclusive government that recognizes there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild.

JAY: Now joining us from Northampton, Massachusetts is Vijay Prashad. He's the George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History, professor of international studies at Trinity College. His latest book is Letters to Palestine: Writers Respond to War and Occupation. Thanks for joining us again, Vijay.

VIJAY PRASHAD: My pleasure.

JAY: So what do you make about President Obama's comments? We can kind of sort of take them in order. He at the beginning feels a need to justify the sovereignty argument. What did you make of--did he justify it?

PRASHAD: Well, you know, there was something very tired about Mr. Obama's statements about Syria. You know, he could have been saying or making the same comments in 2012. it's almost as if there's been no change, no shift on the ground between 2012 and 2015. Except when he says that he is ready now to work with Russia and Iran. That's the real takeaway from his speech. Everything else is pretty much trying to hold on to the American narrative, which suggests that the main culprit in Syria is Bashar al-Assad. The fact of the matter is that if Mr. Assad was something in 2012, he is something quite different in 2015. So the phrase Assad must go in 2012 no longer makes sense in 2015.

So the real significant shift, or the new part of Mr. Obama's statement, is when he said that the United States is now willing to work with Iran and with Russia on the Syrian question.

JAY: Right. And we can get into that a little further. But I thought it was interesting that he talks about the justification for American involvement now is Assad slaughtering tens of thousands of people. And of course, Assad has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. But most of that slaughter--certainly not all, but most of it came about because of intervention in Syria by outside powers. And most of those outside powers are allies of the United States and direct--I should say indirect U.S. involvement itself, in terms of funding all kinds of Islamic groups to try to overthrow Assad, which widened this war way beyond repression of some kind of civilian unrest or uprising.

PRASHAD: Well, sovereignty is a very complicated idea in the present era. You know, this notion comes to us from the Treaty of Westphalia, the idea that each state must be given its due respect in the world order, and that only the governments of that state should be able to determine the procedures, the policies, et cetera, within that state. In our times, when climate change unites the world, when economic policy impacts countries despite the policies of their own managers, when war spills over across borders, it's very hard to sustain the argument for a Westphalian type of sovereignty. Today Premier Xi of China spoke again about the importance of state sovereignty.

But if you look at the Syrian conflict the idea of sovereignty was dissolved a very long time ago. I mean, when Mr. Assad decided to globalize the Syrian economy in the 19--in the 2000s, it drew in Turkish capital, which essentially helped displace very large numbers of people from small, productive activities. When the drought hit Syria in 2006, and for the last eight seasons has continued, this is the longest drought that Syria has suffered. That displaced a million people at least from their homes. This is long before the civil conflict begins in 2011.

So the idea of sovereignty of a state I think has slightly been overtaken by the kind of global pressures. The issue is whether you can place the enormity of Syria's crisis on the head of one man or not. That's what it comes down to. But the rest is--.

JAY: But hang on. The issue of sovereignty here, there was a--in terms of outside powers interfering in the civil unrest in Syria, I mean, that was an affront to the sovereignty of Syrians, clearly exaggerated the problem there. I mean, there was--there were, if I understand it correctly, relatively peaceful uprisings to begin with. Assad cracked down on them. There would have been a fight between the people that opposed Assad and otherwise. But when the Saudis, the Turks, the Americans and others start pouring money in to fund opposition groups, clearly that's not an acceptable violation of sovereignty, is it?

PRASHAD: I mean, that itself is a violation of sovereignty. But I'm even making a more general claim, which is that when tens of thousands of Syrian farmers were flocking into Aleppo, into Homs, you know, after 2006, there was no global call for their betterment or for their wellbeing. In fact, they were neglected by everybody. So yes, there's been a great violation of the sovereignty of the Syrian people by economic policy, by climate, and certainly by foreign intervention of various kinds.

So the idea that Syrian sovereignty is something that has to be maintained, or whatever, is really far from where we are now. There's been so much intervention in Syria that perhaps it might take a different kind of intervention to help sort out some of the problems.

JAY: Now as you say, President Obama says he's willing to work with Russia and Iran. But he couldn't help take a swipe at Russia over Crimea again. It seems, I wonder why he's still riding the Crimea horse when he actually seems to need Russia in Syria. Here's a little bit of what Obama said.

OBAMA: That same fidelity to international order guides our responses to other challenges around the world. Consider Russia's annexation of Crimea, and further aggression in Eastern Ukraine. America has few economic interests in Ukraine. We recognize the deep and complex history between Russia and Ukraine. But we cannot stand by when the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation is flagrantly violated. If that happens without consequence in Ukraine it could happen to any nation gathered here today. That's the basis of the sanctions that the United States and our partners impose on Russia. It's not a desire to return to a cold war.

JAY: What did you make of that?

PRASHAD: Well firstly, this is the goose and the gander kind of argument. Saudi Arabia, major ally of the United States, is currently bombing Yemen, violating its sovereignty, its territorial integrity, but that didn't earn any statement from the American president.

I want to say that each head of government is given 15 minutes to speak at the UN General Assembly, and President Obama spoke for half an hour. He spoke for twice what anybody else spoke for. And in that half an hour he attacked not only Russia, actually, but also Iran. One of the more memorable statements was when he said that the chant 'death to America' doesn't create jobs. He laid into both Russia and Iran at the same time as he said he's going to need them not only in Syria, but also in West Asia and other parts of the world.

So what's interesting here is it seems like there's a recognition by Mr. Obama that American power cannot work unilaterally. It will need to have partners to deal with the pressing problems, particularly in West Asia. But at the same time the United States cannot help but behave tempermentally, put out the view that it is the first among equals. You know, it cannot partner with Russia and Iran without at the same time attacking them.

JAY: He even goes further. If the Americans are at all serious about fighting ISIL and this form of terrorism clearly they need Russia's cooperation. Yet he brags about the effects of the sanctions over Crimea. Here's a sentence where he seems very happy about the consequences.

OBAMA: Sanctions have led to capital flight. A contracting economy. A fallen Ruble. And the immigration of more educated Russians.

JAY: So he's actually bragging about destabilizing Russia at the very time he says he wants to cooperate. And frankly he seems to need them, because it does--it's not, at least if I'm missing something. I don't think the United States has any ISIL policy at all in Syria.

PRASHAD: No, it doesn't. I mean, I thought that that was a little crude, the crowing about the effect, the negative effect, of the sanctions on the Russian people. But yes, the United States doesn't have an ISIS policy at all. Its air war has failed. By the claim of the United States intelligence community, about 30,000 ISIS fighters have entered this year. In other words, more fighters are entering than the United States has been able to kill from the air.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have a plan that they put forward. It's on the table. The Russians have carried that plan forward to Damascus. The idea that Mr. Assad is going to leave is no longer at the table. I think it's important to recognize that the Assad government now is nowhere as strong as it was in 2012. In other words, it is a different Mr. Assad that is dealing with Iran and Russia. And the United States has come to recognize that this approach by the Russians and the Iranians might be the only way forward. The difference is about so-called leadership. And this is more about the arrogance of nations than the problem of Syria. I mean, the Russians have proposed that the UN Security Council try to pass a resolution on the fight against ISIS. The Americans would much rather do this by a conference on the side, a go-it-alone kind of strategy.

If only the arrogance of nations could be set aside so that the people of Syria could have their needs put first and foremost. That's what one would hope from the United Nations, but it's not likely that that's what one will get.

JAY: It seems like the, as we've said in previous interviews, the only real American policy in Syria so far seems to be in sync with the Israeli policy, which is let the Syrians slaughter each other and see if everyone can come out of it weaker. Of course that means hundreds of thousands of refugees and a destroyed society. But perhaps the best criticism of the American role and policy in Syria actually is President Putin, and here's what he said Monday morning at the United Nations.

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include four more Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. My new recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1973, and now the ranks of radicals have been joined by the members of the so-called moderate opposition supported by the Western countries. First they are armed and trained, and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable, secular regimes.

Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding into other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there. And its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous. In these circumstances it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them. Or in other words, [liquidating] them.

We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just shortsighted, but they are hazardous. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face.

We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces and the Kurdish militia are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.

JAY: So what do you make of Putin's critique or comment on U.S. policy?

PRASHAD: Well, largely it's factually correct. I mean, it's factually correct that the group called ISIS is a product of the Iraq war. The illegal invasion of Iraq. It's true that the destruction of Libya opened the door there for ISIS to grow. It's also factually correct that ISIS received funding from at least individual Gulf Arab [states], if not directly from any of the monarchies. It's also factually correct that there's been a great deal of collusion across the border between various regional countries, perhaps Turkey, and ISIS.

These things are all correct. He didn't say that the West's real campaign, which was to be the death blow of ISIS, has not succeeded at all, and that therefore an alternative approach is needed. And the Russians, of course, are proposing and have put in place an alternative approach which is not directly--is not about directly confronting ISIS. This is something interesting. Their bases are situated at the borderline where the Turkish proxy, the Saudi proxy, et cetera, are operating. In some ways I feel like the Russian intervention into Syria is less about a military strategy immediately against ISIS and more about putting a kind of political pressure on Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Qatar, because their proxies they would not like to see come into direct confrontation with the Russian military.

So this is the kind of game that the Russians are playing now in Syria. Whether this will succeed while the American air bombing has failed is to be seen. It's an open question.

JAY: I mean, part of what Putin's saying here is, maybe not directly, but that Russia has its own very serious national security interest here. It's not just about supporting Assad for its own sake. There's a very large Muslim population in Russia, and certainly in states that border Russia. Former states that were--states that were part of the former Soviet Union. And this is already an issue in these states. And not only that, this idea that he accuses the Americans and the West of using these kind of groups and manipulating them for their own purposes, and then in theory you can liquidate them later. But the idea of using Islamic groups to destabilize Russia is not something new.

PRASHAD: No. That goes back to 1962, to the creation of the World Muslim League, which was backed by the CIA, founded by Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. And indeed the World Muslim League's, one of its charters was to combat communism in the Muslim lands, the so-called Muslim lands of the Soviet Union, which included Soviet Central Asia, Dagestan, Chechnya, et cetera. And it was this process of the World Muslim League that incubated the groups that would emerge with the fall of the Soviet Union in Uzbekistan, that is the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, in Chechnya, and in Dagestan. But some very, very dangerous customers appeared with the fall of the Soviet Union.

That's certainly a very important piece of what must be motivating Mr. Putin. He said something interesting. He said that, you know, people accuse Russia of having ambitions here. Well, other countries also have ambitions and interests. It's not merely about worry of the Muslim populations inside and around Russia, but also the Russians have some serious geopolitical interests in Syria. They have a naval base there, one of the few naval bases outside Russia itself. And as well, there's a sense in Russia that this alliance system that they have must not be allowed to be destroyed.

One of the great tragedies of Syria is that its own social dynamic and social process has been eclipsed by geopolitics. And that cannot be walked back from. You know, however much you want Syrian social processes to triumph, there is no question that they've been suffocated by geopolitics. And until the geopolitics are sorted out Syria itself is going to be in stasis.

JAY: Now there's one part which--I mean, Obama says, and it's certainly not just him--but the idea that Assad has to stay, and this is Assad's army, and so on. I mean, there was a real uprising against Assad. There was a genuine revolutionary people's uprising. Now, the armed struggled seemed to have completely now been taken over by Islamic groups and the undermining of what was a more popular uprising by the Sauds, the Turks, the Americans, and everyone who got involved. All that being said, if one really wanted a broad front of Syrians against ISIL, or ISIS, you would manage the transition of Assad out of there. It's very difficult to get Syria united in this fight against this kind of extremism as long as he is in power.

PRASHAD: But you know, Syria is a very divided country. And for a considerable size of the population, a considerable section of the population, Mr. Assad is their bonafide leader. And worse than that, actually, if he is removed this section of the population will feel betrayed.

So it's very hard to manage the transition in Syria. I agree entirely that given the kind of catastrophic years that Syria has witnessed it is perhaps better for the Syrian people to have something of a fresh start. But you know, that's not going to be easy, because the removal of Assad will be seen as a political blow against that section of the population. And that is not going to be taken lightly. So I think that a soft touch is necessary. I think that this language of Assad must go should disappear. I think that the idea of a unity government is important. I think a process has to be created rather than to mandate an end goal.

And I think the error of the Western approach in Syria has been from the beginning they've taken the conclusion or the end goal as the first step. The end goal can never be the first step. It should remain the end goal and the process should be respected.

JAY: Now, the statements we're hearing from John Kerry and President Obama, objecting to this increased military, Russian military presence in Syria and so on, do you think that's at all genuine? Or are they just saying that for domestic political opinion, and in fact do they kind of welcome it? We know the two militaries are talking to each other now, American and Russian. As I said earlier, the Americans actually don't really have any strategy right now. They really do need the Russians. So is that rhetoric kind of just for domestic opinion?

PRASHAD: That rhetoric is I think anachronistic already. On Sunday the armies of Iraq, the political leadership in Iraq, said that they are going to share strategy and intelligence with the Iranians and the Russians. This is a big blow, a political blow to the United States, because in many respects the current government in Iraq was beholden to the United States. But its turn to having open conversations with the Russians I think was quite a shock to Washington, DC. So not only in the question of Syria but in the wider part of West Asia there seems to be a new openness to the Russian entry. More open discussion with the Russians about military strategy.

So I have a feeling that the West will make statements like this for the next few days, maybe a few weeks, and then it will disappear. Already John Kerry has said that the future of Syria--and he used this word, and it's important--he said is a secular Arab republic. That word secular has come to define--I mean, unfortunately it's come to define the government of Bashar al-Assad. And I was quite surprised to hear John Kerry use that expression when he was with the Russian foreign minister Lavrov discussing the process in Syria.

JAY: All right. Thanks very much for joining us, Vijay.

PRASHAD: Thank you so much.

JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.

 [return to Contents] 

 #23
Moscow Times
September 29, 2015
Can Russia Unite Iran, Saudi Arabia on Syria?
By Samuel Ramani
Samuel Ramani is an M.Phil. student in Russian and East European Studies at the University of Oxford.

Russia's ability to maintain cordial relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran is a uniquely valuable strategic asset. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been on opposite sides of the Syrian civil war since its inception, and the divergent opinions of these two regional actors have impeded a potential resolution of the conflict.

Bridging the gap between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a daunting task. Alexei Malashenko, a leading expert on Russia-Middle East relations at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said recently that the depth of Russia's relationships with both Iran and Saudi Arabia might be overstated.

He believes that Russia's leverage over Iran has diminished since the nuclear deal, because prior to the agreement, Iran depended on Russia as a bridge between itself and the West. He also expressed doubts over the durability of the Russia-Saudi partnership, due to the links between Saudi Arabia and Sunni extremists in Syria that Russia is trying to eviscerate.

Despite these obstacles, Russia can effectively create common ground between Iran and Saudi Arabia by invoking the fear of chaos and mass violence that would accompany an Islamic State takeover of Damascus. Iran would view this outcome as the worst possible scenario, because the Alawite community would likely face genocide or ethnic cleansing if the Islamic State took over Syria.

Saudi Arabia is increasingly concerned by the organization's recruitment capabilities.

Russia has a golden opportunity to convince Iran and Saudi Arabia to cooperate on an Islamic State containment strategy. Russia's willingness to deploy ground troops in Syria will appeal more to Islamic State hawks in both countries than the West's exclusive reliance on air strikes.

Convincing Saudi Arabia to at least temporarily shore up support for Assad will be a much more complicated endeavor for Russia. On Aug. 11, after bilateral talks with Russia, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir reiterated that Assad was "not part of the solution in Syria." Saudi Arabia regards Assad's relentless repression of the Syrian rebels as the primary catalyst for the radicalization of Syrian Sunni opposition factions.

In order to co-opt Saudi Arabia into joining its anti-Islamic State coalition, Russia needs to soften its rhetorical support for Assad without compromising its vital strategic interests in Syria. Russia must continue to emphasize that it is only supporting the Assad regime because there is no other reliable anti-Islamic State force in Syria. Putin could also state that Russia does not desire a return to the pre-2011 status quo in Syria, but instead regards Assad as the legitimate ruler of an autonomous Alawite republic.

If Russia succeeds in gaining support for Alawite autonomy, Putin would be able to keep Russian military leverage over Syria intact and also appease Iranian fears of Shiite extermination in Syria.

As Turkey and Germany have accepted the idea that Assad might have a role to play as Syria transitions away from civil war, Saudi Arabia could accept this compromise if the alternative is endless chaos. The burgeoning refugee crisis provides tangible proof that Syria will be a failed state for a prolonged period of time unless an aggressive anti-Islamic State campaign is launched.

Saudi Arabia has faced criticism for accepting very few Syrian refugees, and pressure on the Saudis to loosen their immigration policy will mount if the situation in Syria becomes even more chaotic.

Putin's speech to the United Nations comes at a time when Russia has a unique opportunity to spearhead a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis.

Unfortunately, the temptation of an expedient unilateral military intervention might prove too great, and Russia could miss out on pursuing a multilateral strategy that would more effectively achieve its ends in Syria.

 [return to Contents] 

 #24
New York Times
September 29, 2015
Editorial
Putin and Obama Have Profound Differences on Syria

Speaking at the United Nations on Monday, President Obama and President Vladimir Putin of Russia affirmed the need for international cooperation. But those sentiments are undermined by profound differences on the nature of the Syrian crisis - differences that provide little hope for resolving a conflict that has killed more than 250,000 people.

Mr. Putin's increased aggressiveness in Syria could result in a new era of Russian-American competition and a larger role for Russia in the Middle East. The announcement on Sunday that Mr. Putin had reached an understanding with Iran, Syria and Iraq to share intelligence about the Islamic State was the second time in recent weeks that the Obama administration was caught off guard by a Russian initiative. Before that, Mr. Putin had moved to bolster the weakened military forces of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by pouring Russian tanks and combat aircraft into the country.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin agree that the Islamic State, which is trying to establish a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and has by some accounts grown to tens of thousands of fighters, is a major threat. Beyond that, their two visions are radically at odds, and each used his speech to blame the other for the catastrophic war and the refugee crisis it has unleashed.

Mr. Putin said it was "an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face-to-face," conveniently ignoring the fact that Mr. Assad's main target has always been his domestic opposition, not the Islamic State. He portrayed Mr. Assad as a force for stability and said the only solution "is to restore their statehood where it has been destroyed."

Mr. Obama correctly argued that in 2011 Mr. Assad "reacted to peaceful protests by escalating repression and killing that, in turn, created the environment for the current strife," which the Islamic State has been able to exploit. He said Mr. Assad and his allies "cannot simply pacify the broad majority of a population who have been brutalized by chemical weapons and indiscriminate bombing," and Mr. Obama reiterated his call for a "managed transition" away from Mr. Assad to a more inclusive government.

In theory, at least, there should be grounds for a political compromise. As the American invasion of Iraq showed, destroying state institutions leads to chaos. Every effort should thus be made to ensure that institutions in Syria continue to function once Mr. Assad is moved out of the government. Mr. Obama told the United Nations he was willing to work on Syria with Russia and Iran, which had previously been excluded. But there is little reason to believe that any compromise between the Assad government and the opposition fighters, or Washington and Moscow, will happen soon.

In an obvious attempt to seize the initiative from Mr. Obama, Mr. Putin proposed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would create "a genuinely broad international coalition" to fight the Islamic State. That was presumably meant to supplant the American-led coalition that has been bombing Islamic State militants for over a year with one that includes Mr. Assad.

On Monday night, Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin held their first formal meeting in over two years, but there was no indication of progress. Their personal antipathy was clear in their speeches when they took jabs at each other with pointed language over Ukraine, Iraq and democracy, as well as Syria.

Mr. Putin enabled the Assad government early on, and he has no particular strategy to contain the Syrian conflict. With Russia grappling with sanctions, lower oil prices and a weakened economy, it is unclear how much he can afford to invest in a dead-end war in Syria. Mr. Obama, who did not create this catastrophe, doesn't have the answer, either. Bombing alone won't defeat the Islamic State, and American attempts to create a proxy force to do the ground fighting have failed.

In the meantime, millions of Syrians have been killed, maimed or forced to flee to Europe, and countries of the region are being further destabilized by the endless violence.

 [return to Contents] 

 
#25
Washington Post
September 29, 2015
Editorial
Both Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama are wrong on Syria

HAVING BOLDLY deployed troops and planes on behalf of Syria's bloodstained dictatorship, Russian President Vladi­mir Putin mounted the podium of the U.N. General Assembly on Monday and called on the nations of the world to join him in a broad coalition to defeat the Islamic State and similar groups across the Middle East. Like the World War II "anti-Hitler" alliance, Mr. Putin observed, such a coalition would unite governments of all varieties: democracies, dictatorships and theocracies alike. Only by shoring up existing governments - including undemocratic ones like that headed by Bashar al-Assad in Damascus - and restoring the principle of "state sovereignty" could the threat of revolutionary upheaval be banished and international stability restored, Mr. Putin asserted. He invoked the bygone days in which the "Yalta system" kept the peace.

May the nations of the world resist this siren song. What Mr. Putin leaves out of his little tale is the fact that the United States and its allies were fighting not only against fascism but also for democracy. The alliance with Stalin's Soviet Union was a necessary evil; and the peace kept by Yalta (as mendaciously implemented by the Soviet dictator) was a poor, liberty-less one for half of Europe. As the events of 1989 were to prove, that order was, in fact, quite unstable due to its sacrifice of human liberty.

Mr. Putin is just as wrong to blame all the troubles of Syria, and, seemingly, the world on Western pro-democracy meddling. To the contrary, as President Obama ringingly declared in his speech to the General Assembly, the mass killing in Syria began when Mr. Assad brutally crushed a peaceful pro-democracy uprising of domestic origin. There can be no lasting peace in Syria or anywhere else on the basis of tyranny restored. "Catastrophes, like what we are seeing in Syria, do not take place in countries where there is genuine democracy and respect for the universal values this institution is supposed to defend," he said. Mr. Obama's vision, in short, was not only morally preferable to Mr. Putin's but also, as a statement about humanity's long-term needs, more realistic.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama lacks any strategy to back up this vision or to counter Mr. Putin, who is backing his words with a show of military "hard power" and a flurry of alliance-building in Syria, Iraq and Iran. Mr. Obama failed to lend timely, effective support to Syria's rebellion before extremists took it over. Then he laid down a blurry "red line" against Mr. Assad's chemical weapons use, threatening to enforce it with airstrikes before backing down in return for a Russian-brokered disarmament deal that kept Mr. Assad in power. At the United Nations, Mr. Obama now offers to cooperate with Russia, and Iran, on a "compromise" solution to Syria whose goal - "a managed transition" to a post-Assad government - is incompatible with Russian and Iranian principles to the extent it doesn't violate Washington's own.

"Plan beats no plan," as former treasury secretary Timothy F. Geithner used to say. Shortsighted and cynical as it may be, at least Mr. Putin has a plan for Syria. After all this time, Mr. Obama still does not.

 [return to Contents] 

 
#26
http://ask.fm
September 28, 2015
What do you think is the single biggest difference between Russians and Anglo-Saxons?
By Anatoly Karlin

Books can be written about this, and have been, so I'll be brief and answer in one word: Honesty.

Specifically, I refer to honesty in relations between strangers. This expresses itself in such behavior as the maintenance of clean public spaces. The impulse to punish bad behavior, even if doing could potentially rebound against yourself. Thanks to this, Anglo-Saxon societies work much better at the micro level, enabling distributed self-government that is both organic and effective. This is impossible in most of Russia. Trying to recreate Anglic systems leads only to nepotism and chaos. You need a "power vertical" to get anything done, and hope that the Tsar is a clever, competent guy who has the nation's interests at heart and isn't too psychotic.

 [return to Contents] 

 #27
The Unz Review
www.unz.com
September 28, 2015
The West Isn't a Friend to Russia. Neither Is Islam.
By Anatoly Karlin

I do not dispute all the points in The Saker's recent piece Russia's "Civilizational Choice." [http://www.unz.com/tsaker/russias-civilizational-choice/] The malevolent influence of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism on traditional Islam throughout the world is a real phenomenon that is indeed much better known in Russia than in the West. That is because Western elites view it as a useful geopolitical tool whose goals largely align with their own and thus tend to pressure their mainstream media to portray Islamic fundamentalists in non-Western countries from Syria to Egypt to Chechnya as "democrats" and/or "freedom fighters." So far as conspiracy theories go, this is one of the most credible ones.

Nor, of course, do I at all mean to imply that Russian and "Muslim" interests (Muslim being a very wide group) are always opposed. The Russian Empire reached accomodations with the elites of annexed Muslim territories, leaving them in place, unchanged, in return for them pledging fealty to the Tsar. In the Middle East today, generally speaking, Shi'ite Islam, Orthodox Christianity, and secular forces are in an alliance of convenience against the Sunni Islamist wave. So long as Kadyrov remains Putin's faithful vassal, the Chechens probably make a net positive contribution to the Russian state, contributing troops to Russian foreign adventures in return for big subsidies from the federal center (a perennial bugbear for Russian nationalists). But would any of this hold in the currently remote but not impossible prospect that the "checkerboard geopolitics" that currently favor a Russian-Shi'ite alliance vanish (as Putin himself said, Assad before his current troubles visited Paris more frequently than he did Moscow), or if the Russian state weakens to such an extent that whoever rules Chechnya becomes free to go rogue? History and common sense suggest "no," which invalidates the whole idea that there is some kind of civilizational "special relationship" between Russia and Islam.

There is a relationship there, alright. Ultimately, all countries, religions, and ideological factions have some sort of relationship to each other. Russia and Judaism also have a relationship, though I don't suspect someone who uses the term "AngloZionist" half a dozen times in each of his articles is going to wax poetically on it anytime soon. To take an even more extreme example, there are a few women in the West who seriously argue that wearing the niqab is an expression of feminism; if you say so, dear, but I doubt many Muslims would agree with you.

In short, just the mere existence of some loosely defined civilizational "relationship" or "affinity" does not necessarily mean that it is deep, positive, or sustainable.

To illustrate why its worth taking the time to "fisk" that article in some detail:

"This event, however, has a significance which much exceeds just the local lack of space. The truth is that most Muslims who prayed in the Moscow city center wanted more than just a bigger building - they wanted an official acknowledgement of their existence and of their importance for Russia.:

They have had this since 1904.

"Historically, Russia has been the product of three main factors: Russians take most of their ethnic stock from the ancient Slavic people who lived in what is today called the Ukraine, their religion and worldview from the Orthodox Christianity inherited from the Eastern Roman Empire (mistakenly called "Byzantium" in the West), and their statehood from the Tatar occupation which unified various small principalities into one unified state."

This brings to mind a witticism I heard once:

Russian liberals, "Russophobes," and svidomy Ukrainian nationalists: The Muscovite Russian state is an outgrowth of Tatar despotism... and it's awful!

Russian "Eurasianists" and "Russophiles": The Muscovite Russian state is an outgrowth of Tatar despotism... and it's great!

Unfortunately, the actual theory on which both positions are based has nothing to do with reality. Russian literary tradition traces its origins exclusively to Rus, or the "Russian Land" (otherwise known as "Kievan Rus," a literary term that appeared much later and has been ideologically hijacked by Ukrainian nationalists). The centralizing impulse, which reached an apogee in Muscovy, had antecedents as early as the 12th century, when "democratic" veches were replaced by strong princely rule across the Russian principalities. The Golden Horde's system of kurultays, involving the "elections" of new khans - typically with many different candidates, with no guarantee that all of them would accept the decision - differed cardinally from the centralizing processes ongoing across contemporaneous Rus', and which happened to be occuring most intensively in the principality, Vladimir-Suzdal', that would later became Muscovy.

"Still, less than 20 years after two wars in the Balkans (Bosnia, Kosovo) and two wars inside Russia (both in Chechnia) very few had predicted that Muslim Chechens would fight in defense of Orthodox Christians in the Donbass, while Putin would inaugurate the biggest mosque in Europe just a mile away from the Kremlin. The reality, of course, is that these wars did not pitch Russia against Islam, but Russia against a very specific form of Saudi-backed Wahabi Islam which, itself, was organized and controlled by the AngloZionist Empire."

Islamic radicalism remains a big problem in the Balkans, most recently in Macedonia. And Chechnya is mostly kept loyal through cash infusions (not that I'm a "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" type: I acknowledge its the least worst of all possible policy options).

Note that even while Chechens did fight in Donbass (they have since withdrawn), there are at least just as many of them fighting for the Ukrainian junta - so much so that even the New York Time has acknowledged their presence in a full feature article. And this is to say nothing of the hundreds of Chechens fighting for the Islamic State, where they have acquired an impressive reputation for cruelty and fanaticism even by ISIS standards.

"In contrast, relations between Orthodox Christians and Muslims have by and large been peaceful. The notable exception to this was the Ottoman Empire which has always viciously persecuted Orthodox Christianity, but that kind of behavior was always an Ottoman characteristic, not a Muslim one."

So far as "exceptions" go that is a pretty damn big one. Like, a cardinal one.

Nor have relations with Shi'ites always been quiescent. Russian diplomats to Persia were butchered by a mob in 1829, the victims including the brilliant Russian writer Alexander Griboyedov. Soviet diplomats to Lebanon were the victims of Hezbollah assassinations in the 1980s.

Sure, in gross terms Muslims have killed much fewer Russians than did Western Christian Europeans, but this was merely a function of distance and technological competency.

"In fact, the two religions share a lot of common views, especially on daily social issues. It is not a coincidence that the same city which now will host the biggest mosque in Europe also banned 'gay pride' parades for the next 100 years."

Russians are basically 1970s-era Americans on LGBT issues. They don't want gay marriage, homo parades, or any other cultural Marxist crap from the West. But otherwise they just don't care all that much.

In most Muslim countries, pluralities or outright majorities support the death penalty for homosexuals, as well as for apostasy and adultery.

I would not describe that as "a lot of common views."

In Chechnia most Muslims are Sunni, Iranians and Hezbollah are Shia while the regime in Syria is Alawi. As for the country closest to Russia - Kazakhstan - most of its people are Sunni Muslims. Russia is even exploring, albeit with difficulty, the possibilities of forging closer contacts with Turkey, even though the Ottomans used be the second worst enemy of Orthodox Christianity (after the Papacy, of course).

This is inane. The theological and doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are minor, an order of magnitude less even than those between Catholicism and Protestantism. The differences between Christianity and Islam are fundamental and unbridgeable.

Kazakhstan's friendliness towards Russia has zilch to with Islam and is, in any case, overstated. Commerce-focused neutrality predominates there, and Russian nationalism is repressed.

"While in the West most political leaders chose to deny that the West's current conflict is one pitting the "West" against "Islam", the western propaganda machine (Hollywood, TV, print media, etc.) is clearly demonizing Islam and Muslims in general."

Orlly.

Of course when Islamists are bombing your cities every other year and more British Muslims fight for the Islamic State than the British Army it's hard to maintain a 100% positive outlook. Though that doesn't prevent them from trying.

Nonetheless, the West has (all else equal) been far more friendly to Islamism than to secular Arab nationalism or even Arab Communists.

"French racists chose to blame it all on 'Islam' completely overlooking that Christian Romanians and Gypsies also could not integrate the French society either."

Dem wacists. Christian RomaNIANS integrate in France just fine. Gypsies don't integrate anywhere because of their low IQs and propensity towards petty criminality.

"In fact, the rules of modesty are almost the same ones in Islam and Orthodox Christianity, as is the preference for men to have beards. What you will never see amongst Orthodox Christians are the Niqabs or Burkas, not even for monastics. But that is not a practice amongst Russian Muslims either."

Yes, traditional Russian society (i.e. in decline for 100 years, and now close to non-existent) isn't all that cardinally different from traditional Muslim society.

The key problem is one of divergence under modernity. The Saker can fume against Saudi and AngloZionist sponsored Wahhabis all he wants. I even agree with most of it. But Wahhabi infiltration and its success is an actually existing reality and elegant proclamations of Russian-Muslim brotherhood are not going to make it go away.

We know from the Balkans that even Slavic groups who convert to Islam effectively become lost to the wider Slavic Christian civilization. They start claiming themselves to be their own archaic ethnic groups, or to be Turks who had merely become linguistically Slavicized. In the absence of a strong, self-confident state to manage them, their loyalties naturally drift towards Istanbul or Riyadh.

"The inauguration of the new Cathedral Mosque in Moscow is a symbol of a much larger and deeper phenomenon - the slow but steady rapprochement between the Orthodox and the Islamic world, it is the expression of a Russian civilizational choice which has finally given up any illusion about being part of the "West" and which is turning south (Middle-East), east (Siberia and China) and north (Siberia and the Arctic) and, in doing so, returning to the true historical roots of what I call the "Russian civilizational realm" - those parts of the Eurasian continent which were affected and influenced by the Russian culture and people."

I think this really strikes to the root of what drives such commentaries: The fear of being alone.

Disguised in the language of geopolitics, at least amongst more sophisticated commentators, very bizarre ideas about who should be "friends" and who should be "enemies" are advanced across the political spectrum. Dugin wants to ally with Iran, Germany, and Japan - the latter two somehow enticed in by giving them back Kaliningrad and the Kurils - against the US and its Atlantic allies, and to break up China (how? why?). The Russian nationalist Egor Prosvirnin, for all his dislike of Duginists, wants to reconcile with Europe because that is where Russia truly belongs (even if that's the case, and it's not because "Europe" is just a geographical expression, - how?), break off support to Armenia so as to gain Azerbaijan's favor (why would they return it?), and - yes - break up China as well (some very vague and bizarre allusions to Manchurian separatists). I suspect The Saker is following similar lines, proposing absolute alliances and civilizational commonalities and contrasting them against eternal, not very well defined enemies like "AngloZionists" and "The Papacy" on the basis of muh feelz over realz.

That will not get him anywhere.

To the extent that Russia has any sort of big, semi-friendly, and actually useful "partner" on the international arena, it is China. It is not outright hostile like most of the West, nor is it parasitic on its money and energies like those friendlier-for-now sorts of Muslims. But even China is very far from being an ally, let along being some kind of pillar of Russian civilization.

The only really solid pillars of Russian civilization are Orthodoxy and nationality, and its only reliable allies are its Army and Navy.

 [return to Contents] 

 #28
www.rt.com
September 28, 2015
Russian-Polish tension: Anger at bitter truths
By Dmitry Babich, political analyst at the Sputnik radio station

Poland's media has recently been indignant about Moscow's ambassador to Warsaw "putting a part of the responsibility for unleashing the war in 1939 upon Poland." But what did the Ambassador really say and what was the context?

Jaroslaw Gowin, formerly the number two in the ruling Civic Platform party, echoed the phobias of many of his colleagues, when he saw in the ambassador's words "Moscow's strategy aimed at having a free hand from the West in its actions against Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries."

Ambassador Sergey Andreyev was summoned to the Polish Foreign Ministry in a sign of Warsaw's anger over his comments in a TV interview on Friday.

But what was the full text of the Russian ambassador's phrase that made the Polish politicians so angry? And what was its context?

Speaking to the Polish television channel TVN24, the Russian ambassador described the feelings stirred in Russia by the recent desecration of tombs of Red Army soldiers fallen in the fight with the Nazis in 1944-1945, in the town of Milejczyce in north eastern Poland. The indignation of Russians is easy to explain: over fifty tombstones were damaged or simply cut to pieces; the attackers took special aim at Soviet symbols like the red stars.

Communist symbols are banned in Poland by law, but in the case of many monuments to the Red Army's soldiers in Poland, the red stars, hammers and sickles are simply a part of historic reality - they were carried on the uniforms of more than 600,000 Soviet soldiers who died driving the Nazis out of Poland in 1944-1945. Quite naturally, such actions anger Russians, including communists and anti-communists.

So, commenting on the situation, the Russian ambassador Sergei Andreyev said Russo-Polish relations were at their worst since 1945. He added that, despite the condemnation of the events in Milejczyce by a short tweet from a Polish spokesman on social networks, Russia would never forget the Polish "war on monuments," especially the recent removal from Poland of the monument to Soviet General Ivan Chernyakhovsky - the commander of a group of Soviet armies in what was East Prussia in 1945 (now thanks to him it is Polish territory).

The Army General died in 1945, after being wounded in combat. Chernyakhovsky is accused by today's Polish authorities of armed actions against the Home Army - the most revered Polish armed force of World War II in today's Poland. In 1945, the Home Army was often at odds with the Red Army since the Home Army was steered by the anti-Soviet government of pre-war Poland, which then found itself in exile in London. Countering the usual Polish arguments about the "stab in the back" from Stalin in 1939 (to which Chernyakhovsky had no relation), ambassador Andreyev said:

"It was among other things, the foreign policy of pre-war Poland that led to the disaster in September 1939, because during the 1930s Poland by its actions on many occasions blocked the creation of an anti-Hitler coalition not only with the Soviet Union, but also with other countries."

Andreyev did not say anything about the "partial responsibility" of Poland for the war, so widely reported in the Polish media. His words are a bitter truth about the actions of the pre-war Polish government, which in no way diminishes the heroism of the Polish fight against the Nazi occupiers in 1939-1945.

As for Poland's foreign policy BEFORE World War II, Sergeyev's words can be backed up by some of the admissions of modern Polish politicians and historians. For example, in the early 2000s Poland excused itself from participating in 1938 in the division of Czechoslovakia - then the first victim of Nazi aggression in Europe. Poland then used the destruction of an independent Czechoslovak state for its own advantage, chipping off the region of Zaolzie, populated by many ethnic Poles.

All of that does not excuse Stalin for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 and the secret protocols to it, which divided East European territories pretty much in the same way Czechoslovakia had been divided between Germany, Poland and Hungary in 1938 (in both cases, these divisions were made along ethnic lines and were left intact after 1945). That is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its secret protocols were condemned by a special resolution of the Soviet parliament in 1939 for their immoral character.

This character, it should be added, reflected the terrible spirit of the times - safeguarding one's own security at the expense of others. However, since the late 1980s the Soviet Union and Russia never presented their historic record as spotless and never adopted a "holier than thou" attitude, so typical of the Polish "historic policy" now. "Even children in Poland know that neither Ribbentrop nor Molotov were Polish," Poland's Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz said, criticizing the Russian ambassador for "not fulfilling his role of promoting bilateral relations" by his interview.

But then again, what is the big deal about the ethnic origin of the signatories of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (whose real driving forces were in fact a native-born Austrian and an ethnic Georgian)? And also, what exactly did the Russian ambassador say? Here is the full text of Sergei Andreyev's interview:

"In 1939 the Soviet troops entered the territory of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, when the outcome of the war between Germany and Poland was already apparent. Before the deployment of Soviet troops [on September 17, 1939] it became clear that Britain and France would not send their troops to help Poland. In that situation, all the Soviet Union could do was to guarantee its own security."

What is there in the words of the Russian ambassador but a bitter truth? The anti-Soviet Poland, which had been created in its 1939 shape by the then already dead Marshal Josef Pilsudski (whom Hitler openly praised), turned down Soviet offers of military aid in the 1930s, but proved unable to defend itself in 1939, with British and French allies staying on the sidelines. This is a fact that all serious Polish historians do not dispute: on the Western front, the Polish defenses cracked long before the Soviet troops entered Polish territory from the east, which were then populated mostly by ethnic Ukrainians and Byelorussians.

In 1944-1945 these territories, together with all of Poland, had to be wrestled from the hands of Nazi Germany - with a lot of Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Jewish (add here all the nations of the former Soviet Union) blood spilled for this holy cause. In fact, American, British, French and a lot more noble blood was spilled for that same cause on the other side of Europe - at that very moment. So, destructive actions against the monuments to Soviet soldiers in Poland - these are blows to the memory of the American, British, French, Indian, Chinese and many other allies too.

In recent years, "revisionist" voices in the Polish media went to the lengths which make Andreyev's statement sound very innocent.

For example, a young "historian" Piotr Zychowicz published a book "Ribbentrop-Beck Pact," which was a fantasy about the happy life Poland could have had if it allied itself with Nazi Germany in 1939 and if the Polish army attacked the Soviet Union together with the German Wehrmacht the same year. This book, which is a lot more insulting to Poland's anti-fascist spirit than Andreyev's interview, was declared "the book of the year" in Warsaw in 2012.

In 2010, Slawomir Debski, the then director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, wrote that until the middle of 1939, "Hitler planned to attack Russia after his victory in the west of Europe." And in this attack, Debski wrote, "Hitler did not exclude cooperation with Warsaw." So, the terrible fantasies of the young Zychowicz could become a reality in 1939 and were probably thwarted only by the much-maligned Molotov-Ribbentrop plan in August 1939.

Unfortunately, decades of anti-Russian propaganda in the style of Zychowicz's book had their impact not only on Polish politics, but also on Polish public opinion. When Russia expressed its indignation over the removal of the monument to Chernyakhovsky, the forums of Polish newspapers, including the one of the nominally liberal (but not to Russia) Gazeta Wyborcza, became filled with insults not just to the Russian state or its president, but to Russians in general. Several readers even asked the moderators of Wyborcza why they usually delete the anti-Semitic comments, but give a free hand to the Russophobic ones. The question remained unanswered.

In fact, the modern Russophobia has a lot in common with the old East European anti-Semitism - it is equally inclined to conspiracy theories, irrational, aggressive, quite apt at finding enemies even in their complete absence. And just like anti-Semitism in the 1930s, Russophobia often enjoys complete impunity now.

A Polish visitor to TVN24's forum nicknamed Delta121e hit the nail on the head commenting on the news about Andreyev's possible expulsion from Poland: "I have been asking myself for the past two days: who is twisting the minds of the young Polish people? Who is teaching them hatred, Russophobia, anti-Semitism, etc.? Who is doing that? The school, the family, the media? Or do they all share in this? The majority of Polish youth has not seen in their lives a single Russian, Jew or Arab in flesh and blood. But they are already prepared to hate... They start from destroying monuments and tombstones, then they pass to the next stage with arsons. What will be the following step? Suicide bombings? This is truly scary."

One could not agree more. After the mass beatings of Russian soccer fans in Warsaw 2012, after the pogrom of the Russian embassy in 2013, after the calls to dispatch "volunteers" to fight Russians in Ukraine in 2014, what will be the next stage? Not only hooligans and extremists involved in all the three above mentioned "actions". There were always "decent" politicians in tailor-made suits and ties, with nicely trimmed beards and "European" credentials, who supported the aggressive actions or at least expressed their "understanding." These politicians carry the greatest responsibility.

 [return to Contents] 

 #29
www.rt.com
September 29, 2015
'We have no obsession that Russia must be a superpower' - Putin

Russia has no "imperial ambitions," and the image of "bare-chested man on horseback" is not meant to cultivate the image of strength, but rather to promote a healthy lifestyle, Russia's leader Vladimir Putin told CBS's '60 Minutes.'

"We have no obsession that Russia must be a superpower. The only thing we do is protecting our vital interests," Putin told CBS's Charlie Rose. "Nuclear weapons and other weapons are the means to protect our sovereignty and legitimate interests, not the means to behave aggressively or to fulfill some non-existent imperial ambitions."

Russia's president met with the American journalist in the state Novo-Ogaryovo residence near Moscow. While thanking Putin for inviting "us to your home" on a "lovely Russian afternoon," the reporter touched on the president's love for his country's culture and history.

"Moscow has fewer of the major sights and landmarks compared to St. Petersburg, but they are all of exceptional significance to Russia," Putin, whose native city is Russia's "northern capital," said. "I am sure that the vast majority of Russian citizens have great love and respect for their motherland," Russia's leader added, saying that the national culture and history are worth being proud of.

"There is something that unites me and other citizens of Russia. It is love for our motherland," Putin told CBS, explaining his popularity rating in the country.

When speaking about the country's heritage, the president delved into personal history while talking about World War Two. His family "suffered heavy losses" during the Great Patriotic War, Putin said, explaining that four out of five brothers in his father's family were killed, with the situation being "much the same" on his mother's side.

"Russia suffered terribly. No doubt, we cannot forget that and we must not forget, not to accuse anyone but to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again," Putin said, adding that all sacrifices suffered by other allied nations are also remembered in Russia.

"Our joint struggle against Nazism will still be a good basis to cope with the challenges we are facing today," the Russian leader said, reminding the reporter that it was in Russia where "the decision to establish the United Nations was taken ... at the Yalta Conference."

The American journalist talked to the president in light of his visit to New York and address at the UN General Assembly, as well as his tete-a-tete with US President Barack Obama - the first one in a long while.

While Rose said that Putin was "very much talked about" in the US, mentioning that Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio had called him a "gangster," while others called him a tsar, the Russian leader was less eager to label his American counterpart.

"I do not think I am entitled to assess the President of the United States. This is up to the American people. We have good personal relationship with President Obama, our relations are quite frank and business-like. And this is quite enough to do our job," Putin said, adding that "there is a dialogue and we hear each other."

When told that he was seen "first of all, as a strong leader who presents himself in a strong way" by Americans, the Russian President said that "any man in my place should set a positive example for other people."

Having mentioned his passion for sports, Putin said that he believed that "a healthy lifestyle is an extremely important thing which underpins the solution to numerous important problems, including the health of the nation."

"Healthy lifestyle, fitness and sports should become fashionable," he said, adding that "it is impossible to solve the health problems of millions of people with the help of pills."

 [return to Contents] 

 #30
Kremlin.ru
September 29, 2015
Interview to American TV channel CBS and PBS. (Complete transcript including parts not broadcast)

Vladimir Putin gave an interview to American journalist Charlie Rose in the run-up to his address at the UN General Assembly's 70th session.

CHARLIE ROSE: I want to thank you for inviting us to your home on what I would have described as a lovely Russian Sunday afternoon. You call it Old Wives' summer.

We will do our interview, it will be broadcast on Sunday, and the next day you will speak to the United Nations in a much-anticipated address. It will be the first time you have been there in a number of years. What will you say to the UN, to America, to the world?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Since this interview will be aired prior to my speech, I do not think it reasonable to go into much detail about everything I am going to speak about, but, broadly, I will certainly mention some facts from the history of the United Nations. Now I can already tell you that the decision to establish the United Nations was taken in our country at the Yalta Conference. It was in the Soviet Union that this decision was made. The Soviet Union, and Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union, is a founding member state of the United Nations and a permanent member of its Security Council.

Of course, I will have to say a few words about the present day, about the evolving international situation, about the fact that the United Nations remains the sole universal international organisation designed to maintain global peace. And in this sense it has no alternative today. It is also apparent that it should adapt to the ever-changing world, which we discuss all the time: how it should evolve and at what rate, which components should undergo qualitative changes. Of course, I will have to or rather should use this international platform to explain Russia's vision of today's international relations, as well as the future of this organisation and the global community.

CHARLIE ROSE: We are expecting you to speak about the threat of the Islamic State and your presence in Syria that is related to that. What is the purpose of your presence in Syria and how does that relate to the challenge of ISIS?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I believe, I am pretty certain that virtually everyone speaking from the United Nations platform is going to talk about the fight, about the need to fight terrorism, and I cannot avoid this issue, either. This is quite understandable because it is a serious common threat to all of us; it is a common challenge to all of us. Today, terrorism threatens a great number of states, a great number of people - hundreds of thousands, millions of people suffer from its criminal activity. And we all face the task of joining our efforts in the fight against this common evil.

Concerning our, as you put it, presence in Syria, as of today it has taken the form of weapons supplies to the Syrian government, personnel training and humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. We act based on the United Nations Charter, i.e. the fundamental principles of modern international law, according to which this or that type of aid, including military assistance, can and must be provided exclusively to legitimate government of one country or another, upon its consent or request, or upon the decision of the United Nations Security Council. In this particular case, we act based on the request from the Syrian government to provide military and technical assistance, which we deliver under entirely legal international contracts.

CHARLIE ROSE: The Secretary of State John Kerry said that the United States welcomed your assistance in the fight against the Islamic State. Others have taken note of the fact that these are combat planes and manpad systems that are being used against the conventional army, not extremists.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is only one regular army there. That is the army of Syrian President al-Assad. And he is confronted with what some of our international partners interpret as an opposition. In reality, al-Assad's army is fighting against terrorist organisations. You should know better than me about the hearings that have just taken place in the United States Senate, where the military and Pentagon representatives, if I am not mistaken, reported to the senators about what the United States had done to train the combat part of the opposition forces. The initial aim was to train between 5,000 and 6,000 fighters, and then 12,000 more. It turns out that only 60 of these fighters have been properly trained, and as few as 4 or 5 people actually carry weapons, while the rest of them have deserted with the American weapons to join ISIS. That is the first point.

Secondly, in my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter. We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only.

In this connection, we have proposed cooperation to the countries in the region, we are trying to establish some kind of coordination framework. I personally informed the President of Turkey, the King of Jordan, as well as the Saudi Arabia of that, we informed the United States too, and Mr Kerry, whom you have mentioned, had an in-depth conversation with our Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on this matter; besides, our military stay in touch and discuss this issue. We would welcome a common platform for collective action against the terrorists.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are you ready to join forces with the United States against ISIS and is it why you are in Syria? Others believe that it might be part of your goal, that you are trying to save President al-Assad's administration because they have been losing ground and the war has not been going well for them, and you are there to rescue them.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: That's right, that's how it is. We provide, as I have said twice during our interview and can repeat again, we provide assistance to legitimate Syrian authorities. Moreover, I strongly believe that by acting otherwise, acting to destroy the legitimate bodies of power we would create a situation that we are witnessing today in other countries of the region or in other regions of the world, for instance, in Libya, where all state institutions have completely disintegrated.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing a similar situation in Iraq. There is no other way to settle the Syrian conflict other than by strengthening the existing legitimate government agencies, support them in their fight against terrorism and, of course, at the same time encourage them to start a positive dialogue with the "healthy" part of the opposition and launch political transformations.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, some coalition partners want al-Assad to go before they can support the government.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to advise or recommend them to forward this suggestion not to al-Assad himself, but rather to the Syrian people. It is only up to the Syrian people living in Syria to determine who, how and based on what principles should rule their country, and any external advice of such kind would be absolutely inappropriate, harmful and against international law.

CHARLIE ROSE: We have already discussed this earlier, but do you think that President al-Assad, who you support... Do you support what he is doing in Syria and what is happening to those Syrians, to those millions of refugees, to hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed and many - by his own force?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And do you think that those who support the armed opposition and, mainly, terrorist organisations just in order to overthrow al-Assad without thinking of what awaits the country after the complete destruction of state institutions are doing the right thing? We have already witnessed that, I have already mentioned Libya. That was not so long ago. The United States actively contributed to the destruction of these state institutions. Whether they were good or bad is a different question. But they were destroyed, and the United States suffered grave losses after that including the death of its ambassador. Do you understand what this leads to? That is why we provide assistance to the legal government agencies precisely, but - and I would like to stress it again - we do it hoping that Syria will launch political transformations necessary for the Syrian people.

Time and again, with perseverance worthy of a better cause, you are talking about the Syrian army fighting against its people. But take a look at those who control 60 percent of Syrian territory. Where is that civilised opposition? 60 percent of Syria is controlled either by ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra or other terrorist organisations, organisations that have been recognised as terrorist by the United States, as well as other countries and the UN. It is them and not anyone else who have control over 60 percent of Syrian territory.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are worried about what might happen after al-Assad. You are worried about anarchy; you look at the threat of ISIS. Are they different? Are they unique as a terrorist organisation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It has become unique because it is going global. They have set a goal, which is to establish a caliphate on the territory stretching from Portugal to Pakistan. They already lay claims to the sacred Islamic sites like Mecca and Medina. Their actions and their activities reach far beyond the boundaries of the territories under their control.

As for the refugees, Syria is not their only country of origin. Who is fleeing Libya? Who is fleeing the countries of Central Africa where Islamists are in charge today? Who is fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq? Do the refugees come from Syria only? And why do you think that the Syrian refugees flee only as a result of President al-Assad's actions to protect his country? Why don't you think that the refugees flee from the atrocities of terrorists, from ISIS, who decapitate people, burn them alive, drown them alive and destroy cultural monuments? People flee from them too, they flee mainly from them. And from the war - this is clear. But there would be no war if these terrorist groups were not supplied with arms and money from the outside. It seems to me that somebody wants to use either certain units of ISIS or ISIS in general in order to overthrow al-Assad and only then think about how to get rid of ISIS. This task is difficult and, in my opinion, practically impossible.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you fear that they may come to Russia? Do you fear that if it does not stop now they may come to Russia from Europe or even to the United States and that is why you have to step in because no one else is doing what's necessary to lead the charge against ISIS?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Indeed, few actors take serious steps to combat this threat. Few actors take serious effective measures. We learned about the effectiveness of the actions of our American partners during the Pentagon report in the US Senate. To tell the truth, their effectiveness is low. You know, I am not going to speak ironically here, or pick or point at anyone. We propose cooperation, we propose to join efforts.

Are we afraid or not? We have nothing to be afraid of. We are in our country and we are in control of the situation. But we have undergone a very difficult path of combating terrorism, international terrorism in the North Caucasus. That is point number one.

Point number two is that we know for certain that today there are at least 2,000 and may be even more than 2,000 militants in Syria who are from Russia or other former Soviet republics and, of course, there is the threat of their return to Russia. And this is why it is better to help al-Assad do away with them there than to wait until they come back here.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, but you say that you stepped in because you did not think that the job was being done well and you listen to what is going on in the American Senate, you heard the results and you said that Russia must act.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are already acting and we have always acted this way. We have cooperated with many countries and we continue to cooperate, including with the United States. We constantly send to our colleagues through special services' channels the information necessary for the American special forces in order to make our contribution to ensuring security and safety, including safety of American citizens both in the United States and beyond. But I think that this level of coordination is insufficient today; we need to work more closely with each other.

CHARLIE ROSE: In your opinion, what is the strategy that you are recommending, other than supporting the al-Assad regime?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have already said, we should help President al-Assad's army. And there is no one else at all who is fighting ISIS on the ground, except for President al-Assad's army. So, I want you, your audience to finally realise that no one except for al-Assad's army is fighting against ISIS or other terrorist organisations in Syria, no one else is fighting them on Syrian territory. Minor airstrikes, including those by the United States aircraft, do not resolve the issue in essence; in fact, they do not resolve it at all. The work should be conducted on the spot after these strikes and it should all be strictly coordinated. We need to understand what strikes are needed, where we need to strike and who will advance on the ground after these strikes. In Syria, there is no other force except for al-Assad's army.

CHARLIE ROSE: Would Russia deploy its combat troops in Syria if it is necessary to defeat ISIS?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia will not take part in any field operations on the territory of Syria or in other states; at least, we do not plan it for now. But we are thinking of how to intensify our work both with President al-Assad and our partners in other countries.

CHARLIE ROSE: What does it mean?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It means that our armed forces will not take part in hostilities directly and they will not fight. We will support al-Assad's army...

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you mean airstrikes?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I mean war, combat operations on the territory, the infantry and motorised units.

CHARLIE ROSE: What else will be required? As we come back to the problem of many people considering that al-Assad is helping ISIS, that his terrible attitude towards the Syrian people and the use of barrel bombs and other actions are helping ISIS, and if he is removed, the transition period would be better at some point for the purposes of fighting ISIS.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In secret services' parlance, I can say that such an assessment is a blatant act by al-Assad's enemies. It is anti-Syrian propaganda, there is nothing in common between al-Assad and ISIS, they fight against each other. And I repeat once again that President al-Assad and his army are the only force that actually fights ISIS.

CHARLIE ROSE: But there were reports earlier saying that you were getting ready to provide support to them, and that what you wanted to see was a negotiated political transition.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We think that the issues of political nature should be solved in any country, including in Syria, primarily by its people - in this case by the Syrian people themselves. But we are ready to provide assistance both to the Syrian authorities and the healthy opposition for them to find some points of contact and agree on the political future of their country. It is for this purpose that we have organised a series of meetings between the representatives of the opposition and al-Assad's government in Moscow. We took part in the Geneva Conference on this issue. We are ready to further act in this direction, urging sides, the official authorities and the opposition leaders, to agree with each other exclusively through peaceful means.

CHARLIE ROSE: The Washington Post wrote today: "Into the vacuum of American leadership has stepped Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has dispatched troops and equipment to Syria in an effort to force the world to accept his solution to the war, which is the creation of a new coalition to fight the Islamic State that includes the Assad government". It is interesting that they say you have stepped into a certain vacuum of American leadership. This is what The Washington Post writes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are not stepping into the vacuum of American leadership, we are trying to prevent the creation of a power vacuum in Syria in general because as soon as the government agencies in a state, in a country are destroyed, a power vacuum sets in, and that vacuum is quickly filled with terrorists. This was the case in Libya and Iraq; this was the case in some other countries. The same is underway in Somalia, the same happened in Afghanistan. And challenging American leadership is not at stake.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, a vacuum is an issue. It seems that you are a little irritated by one point: you are talking about a strong centralised government being Russia's DNA and you have a huge fear that there is no strong government in Syria and in other countries, that there is some sort of anarchy.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not saying that there is no strong government there. I mean that if there was no government at all, there would be anarchy and a vacuum, and the vacuum and the anarchy would soon evolve into terrorism.

For instance, in Iraq, there was a famous person, Saddam Hussein, who was either good or bad. It was at a certain stage (you might have forgotten, haven't you?) that the United States actively collaborated with Saddam when he was at war with Iran: weapons were supplied, diplomatic and political support was provided and so on. Then the US fell out with him for some reason and decided to do away with him. But when Saddam Hussein was eliminated, the Iraqi statehood and thousands of people from the former Baath party were also eliminated. Thousands of Iraqi servicemen, who were part of the state's Sunni elite, found themselves thrown out into the street. No one gave a thought about them, and today they end up in the ISIS army. That is what we stand against.

We are not against a country exercising leadership of any kind anywhere, we are against thoughtless actions that lead to such negative situations that are difficult to rectify.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, Iran's representative General Soleimani has recently visited Moscow. What role will he as well as the Kurdish forces play in Syria? And what needs to be done in this respect?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I have already said, I think that all countries of the region should join their efforts in the fight against a common threat - terrorism in general and ISIS in particular. It concerns Iran as well, it concerns Saudi Arabia (although the two countries do not get along very well, ISIS threatens both of them), it concerns Jordan, it concerns Turkey (in spite of certain problems regarding the Kurdish issue), and, in my opinion, everybody is interested in resolving the situation. Our task is to join these efforts to fight against a common enemy.

CHARLIE ROSE: This wording is very broad, among other things, it can mean new efforts by Russia to take up the leadership role in the Middle East and it can mean that it represents your new strategy. Is it really a new strategy?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we have already mentioned why we increasingly support al-Assad's government and think about the prospects of the situation in the region.

I have already said it, you asked about it yourself and I replied. There are more than 2,000 militants in Syria from the former Soviet Union. So instead of waiting for them to return back home we should help President al-Assad fight them there, in Syria. This is the main incentive that impels us to help President al-Assad.

In general, we, of course, do not want the situation in the region to somaliarize, we do not want any new Somalias there because this is all in close vicinity of our borders; we want to develop normal relationships with these countries. We have traditionally, and I want to stress it, traditionally been on very friendly terms with the Middle East. We expect it to stay this way in the future.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are proud of Russia and it means that you want Russia to play a more significant role in the world. This is just one of the examples.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is not an end in itself. I am proud of Russia and I am sure that the vast majority of Russian citizens have great love and respect for their Motherland. We have much to be proud of: Russian culture and Russian history. We have every reason to believe in the future of our country. But we have no obsession that Russia must be a super power in the international arena. The only thing we do is protecting our vital interests.

CHARLIE ROSE: But you are a major power because of the nuclear weapons you possess. You are a force to be reckoned with.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I hope so (laughing), otherwise what are these weapons for? We proceed from the assumption that nuclear weapons and other weapons are the means to protect our sovereignty and legitimate interests, not the means to behave aggressively or to fulfil some non-existent imperial ambitions.

CHARLIE ROSE: When in New York, will you request a meeting with President Obama?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Meetings of this kind are arranged in advance. I know that during such events every second, let alone minutes, of President Obama's day are scheduled, there are many delegations from all over the world, so...

CHARLIE ROSE: You think he will not have a spare minute for the President of Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, it is up to him. We are always open for contacts of any kind: at the highest level, at the level of ministries and agencies, at the level of special services, if necessary. But I would be happy if President Obama finds a few minutes for a meeting and then, of course, I would appreciate such a meeting. If for some reason it would not be possible for him, never mind, we will have an opportunity to talk at the G20, or at other events.

CHARLIE ROSE: You know, if you'd like to see the President, you can say: "I have a plan for Syria, let's work together. Let's see what we can do. Not only let's work together on Syria, let's see what we can do on other things."

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, the thing is that these are difficult issues; they can be finalised only at the top level between the presidents, but before that preparations are needed with preliminary consultations between foreign ministers, defence ministries, and special services. This means a lot of work and if this work is ready to be completed, then it makes sense to meet and complete it. If our colleagues have not approached the final stage, President Obama and I can meet, shake hands and discuss current issues, we - and I am personally - are always ready for such contacts.

CHARLIE ROSE: But we are talking about leadership and if you are going there to make a big speech you want the President of the United States to fully be on board as much as he can. Once you pick up the phone and call him and say... Same as you did after our conversation in St Petersburg, you called the President. You said, "Let's make sure we meet and discuss some issues. The issues that are too critical and the two of us can do better than one of us."

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, I have done so, I have called President Obama, and President Obama called me on various issues. This is part of our regular contacts, there is nothing unusual or extraordinary about it. Let me repeat once again: any personal meetings are usually prepared by our staff. I tell you for the third time that we are ready, but it is not just for us to decide. If Americans want to meet, we will meet.

CHARLIE ROSE: Your need to prepare is none because you deal with these issues every day. You need no preparation to see the President of the United States, nor does he. This is a diplomatic nicety you are suggesting. But I hear you; you are prepared to meet him.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: For how long have you been a journalist?

CHARLIE ROSE: For more years than I want to remember.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is difficult for me to advise you on what you are ready or not ready for. Why do you think that you can advise me on what I am ready or not ready for, as this is not my first term as President? But this is not the most important thing. What is most important is that Russia - the President of Russia, its Government and all my colleagues - we are ready for these contacts at the highest level, at the level of governments, ministries, agencies. We are ready to go as far as our American partners. Incidentally, the UN platform was created precisely for this, to seek compromise, to communicate with one another. So it will definitely be nice if we make use of this platform.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do you think of President Obama? What is your evaluation of him?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think I am entitled to assess the President of the United States. This is up to the American people. We have good personal relationship with President Obama, our relations are quite frank and business-like. And this is quite enough to do our job.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you think his activities in foreign affairs reflect a weakness?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why? I do not think so at all. The point is that in any country, including the United States, may be in the United States even more often than in any other country, foreign policy is used for internal political struggle. An election campaign will soon start in the United States. They always play either Russian card or any other, political opponents bring accusations against the current head of state, and here there are a lot of lines of attack, including accusations of incompetence, weakness, of anything else. I do not think so and I will not meddle in America's internal political squabbles.

CHARLIE ROSE: Let me ask you this question: Do you think he listens to you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think that we all listen to each other when it does not contradict our own ideas of what we should and should not do. But, in any case, there is a dialogue and we hear each other.

CHARLIE ROSE: You said Russia is not a super power. Do you think he considers Russia an equal? Considers you an equal? Which is the way you want to be treated?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (Laughing) Ask him, he is your President! How can I know what he thinks? I repeat we have peer-to-peer interpersonal relationships, we respect each other in any case and we have business contacts at quite a good working level. And what do the American President, the French President, the German Chancellor, the Japanese Prime Minister or the Chinese Premier of the State Council or the Chinese President think, how do I know? We judge not by what seems to us, but by what people do.

CHARLIE ROSE: Of course. You enjoy the work, you enjoy representing Russia, and I know you have been an intelligence officer. Intelligence officer knows how to read other people; that's part of the job, right?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It used to be my job. Now I have a different job and for quite a while already.

CHARLIE ROSE: Someone in Russia told me, "There is no such thing as a former KGB man. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man."

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know every stage of your life has an impact on you. Whatever we do, all the knowledge, the experience, they stay with us, we carry them on, use them in one way or another. In this sense, yes, you are right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that. (Laughing)

CHARLIE ROSE: Think out loud for me though, because this is important. How can the United States and Russia cooperate in the interest of a better world? Think out loud.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We think about it all the time. One of our objectives today is very important for many people, for millions of people on our planet - it is joining efforts in the fight against terrorism and other similar challenges: countering drug trafficking and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, fighting famine, preserving environment and biodiversity, taking efforts to make the world more predictable, more stable. And, finally, Russia...

CHARLIE ROSE: Stable where?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Everywhere, in all parts of the world. You mentioned yourself that Russia and the United States are the biggest nuclear powers, this leaves us with an extra special responsibility. By the way, we manage to deal with it and work together in certain fields, particularly in resolving the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme. We worked together and we achieved positive results on the whole.

CHARLIE ROSE: How did it work? President Obama has often thanked you for the assistance that you gave in reaching the final accord. What did you do? What did you negotiators contribute, your Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The thing is, however strange it may seem, that the interests of the United States and of the Russian Federation do coincide sometimes. And in this case, I just told you that we have a special responsibility for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, our interests certainly coincide. That is why together with the United States we worked hard and consistently on resolving this problem. Russia was guided not only by these reasons but also by the fact that Iran is our neighbour, our traditional partner, and we wanted to bring the situation back on track. We believed that this settlement will help to improve the security situation in the Middle East. In this respect, our assessments of what happened on Iran's nuclear programme almost fully coincide with the assessments of our American colleagues.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, the Republicans are likely to win the elections. There is a big debate as for the Iran's nuclear deal. What would you tell them?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have just said it. If you need me to repeat it, I can. I am confident that the agreement we have achieved meets the interests of international security, strengthens the situation in the region, puts serious obstacles to proliferation of nuclear weapons because this situation is under a full and all-round control of the IAEA, and improves the situation in the Middle East on the whole, because it allows to build normal business, commercial, partner and political relations with all countries in the region.

CHARLIE ROSE: The popularity rating you have in Russia, I believe, makes every politician in the world envious. Why are you so popular?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is something that unites me and other citizens of Russia. It is love for our Motherland.

CHARLIE ROSE: It was an emotional moment at the time of the [World War II Memory], because of the sacrifices Russia had made. And you were staying with a picture of your father with tears in your eyes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, my family and my relatives as a whole suffered heavy losses during the Second World War. That is true. In my father's family there were five brothers and four of them were killed, I believe. On my mother's side the situation is much the same. In general, Russia suffered heavily. No doubt, we cannot forget that and we must not forget, not to accuse anyone but to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again. As a matter of fact, we treat veterans with much respect and that includes the American veterans. They were at our Victory Parade on May 9, this year. We remember the sacrifices that suffered other allied nations, Great Britain, China. We do remember that. I believe that this is our common positive memory. Our joint struggle against Nazism will still be a good basis to cope with the challenges we are facing today.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is that what you would like to rekindle, the sense of partnership with America against common enemies?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Not against common enemies, but in each other's interests.

CHARLIE ROSE: As far as we know, you are very popular, but, forgive me, there are many people who are very critical towards you in Russia. As you know, they say it is more autocratic than democratic. They say that political opponents and journalists had been killed and imprisoned in Russia. They say your power is unchallenged. And they say that power, an absolute power corrupts absolutely. What would you say to those people who worry about the climate, the atmosphere in Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There can be no democracy without observing the law and everyone must observe it - that is the most basic and important thing that we all should remember.

As for those tragic incidents as losses of lives, including those of the journalists, unfortunately, it happens in all countries around the world. But if it occurs in Russia, we take every step possible to ensure that the perpetrators are found, identified and punished. We will work on all issues in the same way. But the most important thing is that we will continue improving our political system so that people and every citizen will feel that they can influence the life of state and society, they can influence the authorities, and so that the authorities will be aware of their responsibility before those people who gave their confidence to the representatives of the authorities in the elections.

CHARLIE ROSE: If you as the leader of this country insist that the rule of law be observed, if you insist that justice be done, if you because of your power do that, then it could go a long way eliminating that perception.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: A lot can be done, but not everyone immediately succeeds in everything. How long has it taken the democratic process to develop in the United States? Since it was founded. So, do you think that as regards democracy everything is settled now in America? If this were so, there would be no Ferguson issue, right? There would be no other issues of similar kind, there would be no police abuse. Our goal is to see all these issues and respond to them timely and properly. The same applies to Russia. We also have a lot of problems.

CHARLIE ROSE: The people who killed Nemtsov will be prosecuted to the fullest?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I said it at once that this is a disgraceful chapter of our contemporary history and that the criminals must be found, identified and punished. And despite the fact that the investigation has been underway for a long time, it will eventually be concluded.

CHARLIE ROSE: You know that I admire Russia and the Russian culture very much, its literature, its music. It is a large country, a big country. Many people, including Stalin, have said Russia needs a strong, authoritative figure. They worship what Stalin said was that kind of figure. Was Stalin right?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No. I don't remember him saying that so I cannot confirm these quotes. Russia, as well as any other country, does not need dictators, but it needs equitable principles of organizing the state and society: just, effective, flexibly responding to changes inside and outside the country - that is what Russia needs.

CHARLIE ROSE: But there is a tradition of strong leadership here.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look, there is parliamentary democracy in most European countries, there is parliamentary democracy in Japan, there is parliamentary democracy in many countries, but in the United States, for some reason, the State is organized differently, there is quite a stringent presidential republic. Each country has its own particular features, its own traditions that find their reflection today and will find it in future. There are such traditions in Russia but it is not a question of a strong figure, although a strong figure is needed in power, it is a question of what is implied by this term. It is one thing if it is a person with dictatorial tendencies. But if it is a fair leader, who acts within the law and in the interests of a vast majority of society, who acts coherently and is guided by principles, it is a completely different matter.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, some have called you a tsar.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: So what? You know, they call me different things, you know what they say in Russia...

CHARLIE ROSE: Does this title fit you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, it doesn't. You know what they say in Russia: "Hard words break no bones". It is not what your supporters, friends or your political adversaries call you that matters. What is important is what you think you must do in the interests of the country, which put you in such position, such post as the Head of the Russian State.

CHARLIE ROSE: Are there people in Russia who are fearful of you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not think so. I assume most people trust me, if they vote for me in elections. And it is the most important thing. It places great responsibility on me, immense responsibility. I am grateful to the people for that trust, but I surely feel great responsibility for what I do and for the result of my work.

CHARLIE ROSE: As you know, you are very much talked about in America.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do they not have anything else to do? ( Laughs.)

CHARLIE ROSE: Or maybe they are curious people? Or maybe you are an interesting character, maybe that is what it is? They see you, first of all, as a strong leader who presents himself in a strong way. They know that you were the KGB agent, who retired and got into politics. In St. Petersburg you became deputy mayor, then moved to Moscow. And the interesting thing is that they see these images of you, bare-chested man on horseback, and they say there is a man who carefully cultivates his image of strength. I am asking is this image important to you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am sure that, after all, any man in my place should set a positive example for other people. In those areas where he can do so, he must do so. In the 1990s and early 2000s, there was a grave social situation in Russia; our social protection system was destroyed; numerous problems emerged which we have not been able to cope with effectively yet, to get rid of them, in health, sports development. I believe a healthy lifestyle is an extremely important thing which underpins solution to numerous important problems, including the health of the nation. It is impossible to solve health problems of millions of people with the help of pills. People need to put it into practice, have passion for it; healthy lifestyle, fitness and sports should become fashionable.

That is why I believe it is right when not only me, but also my colleagues - the prime minister, ministers, deputies of the State Duma - when they, like today, for example, participate in two marathons, when they visit football matches, when they themselves take part in sport competitions. That is how, inter alia, millions of people start feeling interest in and love for fitness and sports. I believe it is extremely important.

CHARLIE ROSE: I hear you and it is important. But may I suggest that you do like the image that you present bare-chested, on a horseback. The image of a strong leader. That's who you want to be seen as, for your people and for the world?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I want everyone to know that Russia in general and the Russian leadership, it is something effective and properly functioning. That the country itself, its institutions, leaders are represented by healthy, capable people who are ready for cooperation with our partners in every single area: sports, politics, fight against modern threats. I have nothing but a positive feeling about it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, people believe that you are a strong leader, because you have a strong central government and you can suggest what will happen if you do not have that. Are you curious about America more than simply another nation that you have to deal with? Because they are curious about you as I suggested. Are you curious? Are you watching the republican political debates?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you ask me whether I watch them on a daily basis - I would say no. But it is interesting for us to know what is happening in the US. It is a major world power, and today it is an economic and military leader - no doubt about it. That is why America has a strong influence on the situation in the world in general. Of course, it is interesting for us to know what is happening there. We closely follow the developments in the US, but if you wonder whether we follow the ups and downs of their political life on a daily basis - I would rather say no than yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: Well, Donald Trump, you know who he is, said he would like to meet you, because, he said, you would get along.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Oh, yes, I have heard about it. We welcome any contacts with the future US president, whoever he or she will be. Any person who gains trust of the American people may rest assured of our cooperation.

CHARLIE ROSE: Marco Rubio is running for a Republican nomination and he says terrible things about you. This is a political debate, a political campaign, of course, I understand that. But he said you were a gangster, he was attacking you and he was attacking Russia.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How can I be a gangster, if I worked for the KGB? It is absolutely ridiculous.

CHARLIE ROSE: What do you like most about America?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: America's creative approach to solving the problems the country is faced with, its openness and open-mindedness which make it possible to unleash the potential of the people. I believe that largely due to these qualities America has made such tremendous strides in its development.

CHARLIE ROSE: Russia had Sputnik, your country got to space before the United States. Russia has extraordinary astrophysicists. Russia has extraordinary achievements in medicine, in science, and in physics. Do you hope that what you can do is restore Russia's leadership and create the same kind of innovation, that you just admired America for? And will you do that?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We should not lose what has been created over the previous decades, and provide precisely those conditions that I have mentioned to unlock the potential, the full potential, of our citizens. Our people are very talented, we have a very good basis, as you have mentioned. You said you love Russian culture, which is also a great basis for the inner development.

You have just mentioned Russian scientific achievements. We need to maintain them and create opportunities for people to develop freely and fulfil their potential. I am sure, I am totally convinced, that it will ensure sustainable development of science, high technology, and the entire economy of the country.

CHARLIE ROSE: In America, as you know, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of homosexuality. In America the Supreme Court discussed a constitutional right for same sex marriage. Do you applaud America for that? Do you think it is a good idea to make it a constitutional right for same-sex marriage?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know that it is a diverse group of people. For example, some homosexuals oppose adoption of children by these couples, oppose themselves. Are they less democratic than other members of this community, gay-community? No, probably not. This is simply a point of view of some people. The problem of sexual minorities in Russia has been deliberately made controversial in Russia. There is no such problem in Russia.

CHARLES ROSE: Please, explain it to us.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me explain. It is well known that homosexuality is a criminal offense in the United States, in four US states. If it is good or bad, we know the decision of the Constitutional Court, but this problem has not been dealt with yet, it is still being addressed by the legislation of the Unites States. It is not the case in Russia. In the post-Soviet Russia...

CHARLES ROSE: Do you condemn it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, I do. I think that a person cannot be criminally or otherwise prosecuted, his or her rights cannot be infringed upon the grounds of nationality, ethnicity or sexual orientation in the modern world. It is absolutely unacceptable. And it is not the case in Russia. If I am not mistaken there was Article 120 in the Penal Code of the former RSFSR that prosecuted homosexuality. We have abolished this provision; people aren't prosecuted for it anymore. Homosexuals in Russia live in peace, work, are promoted, receive national awards for their achievements in science, art or any other sphere, medals are awarded to them, I have awarded them myself.

What was the question? The question concerned the ban on promoting homosexuality among minors. To my mind, there is nothing undemocratic about this legal act. Personally, I think that children should be left alone, they should be given an opportunity to grow up, to become aware of themselves and decide themselves who they are: men or women, if they want to have a traditional or homosexual marriage. I do not see here any infringement on gay rights. I think that some people intentionally speculate about this issue to represent Russia as an enemy. It is one of political instruments to attack Russia.

CHARLES ROSE: Who commits those attacks on Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those who do this. You just look who does this.

CHARLES ROSE: There is as much recognition of gay rights and gay marriages as they have in the US? Is that your position?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We do not only recognise, but ensure their rights. In Russia all people enjoy the equal rights, including homosexuals.

CHARLES ROSE: Ukraine, we have already discussed it. Many people believe that as a result of what happened in Crimea the United States and the West imposed sanctions. And those sanctions have hurt Russia. And that you believe [that by re-emerging and] that by trying to be a positive force around the world and in Syria you might somehow lessen the focus on Ukraine.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You mean to divert attention from the Ukrainian issue? Our actions in Syria are aimed at diverting attention from Ukraine...

No, it is false. The Ukrainian issue is a separate huge issue for us, I will tell you why. Syria is another issue; I have already told you that we are against disintegration, the terrorists coming to the country, the return of people who are fighting there for terrorists to Russia. There is a whole range of problems there. As for Ukraine, it is a special issue. Ukraine is the closest country to us. We have always said that Ukraine is our sister country and it is true. It is not just a Slavic people, it is the closest people to Russia: we have similar languages, culture, common history, religion etc.

Here is what I believe is completely unacceptable for us. Addressing issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called coloured revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government. That is absolutely unacceptable. Our partners in the United States are not trying to hide the fact that they supported those opposed to President Yanukovych. Some claimed to have spent nearly several billion dollars.

CHARLIE ROSE: You believe the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, when he had to flee to Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN.: I know this for sure.

CHARLIE ROSE: How can you know for sure?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is very simple. We have thousands of contacts and thousands of connections with people who live in Ukraine. And we know who had meetings and worked with people who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, as well as when and where they did it; we know the ways the assistance was provided, we know how much they paid them, we know which territories and countries hosted trainings and how it was done, we know who the instructors were. We know everything. Well, actually, our US partners are not keeping it a secret. They openly admit to providing assistance, training people and spending a specific amount of money on it. They are naming large sums of money: up to $5 billion; we are talking about billions of dollars here. This is why it is no longer a secret; no one is trying to argue about that.

CHARLIE ROSE: Doyou respect the sovereignty of Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. However, we would like other countries to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine, too. Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government. All these things should be totally prevented.

CHARLIE ROSE: How does the renewal of the legitimate power take place in your judgment? How will that come about? And what role will Russia play?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: At no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government. I'm talking about something else right now - when someone does this, the outcome is very negative. Libya's state is disintegrated, Iraq's territory is flooded with terrorists, it looks like the scenario will be the same for Syria, and you know what the situation is in Afghanistan. What happened in Ukraine? The coup d'état in Ukraine has led to a civil war, because, yes, let's say, many Ukrainians no longer trusted President Yanukovych. However, they should have legitimately come to the polls and voted for another head of state instead of staging a coup d'état. And after the coup d'état took place, someone supported it, someone was satisfied with it, while others were not. And those who did not like it were treated from the position of force. And that led to a civil war.

CHARLIE ROSE: I repeat, what are you prepared to do regarding Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me tell you. If that is your question, then I think that both Russia and other international actors, including those who are more actively engaged in the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis (that is the Federal Republic of Germany and France, the so-called Normandy Quartet, certainly, with close involvement of the United States, and we have intensified our dialogue on this issue), we should all be committed to the full and unconditional implementation of the agreements that were achieved in Minsk. The Minsk Agreements have to be implemented.

CHARLIE ROSE: That is what John Kerry said yesterday after his meeting with the British Foreign Minister. He mentioned Ukraine after Syria. He said: "We have to have a full implementation of the Minsk Agreements". Does it mean that you and John Kerry agree on this issue: to implement the Minks Agreements?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, we fully agree. Would you now exercise your patience and listen to me for two minutes without interruptions? I ask you not to censor this information. Can you do that? Do you have enough authority for that?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes, I do.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The implementation of the Minsk Agreements involves several issues, but I will get to the core points. Nothing matters for a drastic change in Ukraine more than political transformations.

Firstly, the Constitution should be amended as stipulated in the Minsk Agreements. And the most important thing, Minsk Agreements say that it must be done in coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. It is a matter of principle. Right now Ukraine is in the process of amending its Constitution, the first reading is over, yet no one had discussed a single point with Donetsk and Lugansk, and nobody intends to either. That is the first point.

Secondly, (and it is clearly stated in the Minsk Agreements) the law on the special order for local self-government in these regions, which has already been adopted in Ukraine, has to be implemented. The law has been adopted, but its implementation was postponed. It means that the Minsk Agreements have not been implemented.

Thirdly, an amnesty law needs to be adopted. Do you think that it is possible to have a dialogue with the representatives of Lugansk and Donetsk if they all are being prosecuted and subject to criminal proceedings? That is exactly why the Minsk Agreements establish to adopt an amnesty law. However, it has not been adopted.

There is a number of other points. I mean conducting local elections, for instance, the Agreements say clearly to adopt a law on local elections in coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. The law on local elections was adopted in Ukraine, the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk forwarded their proposals on this law three times, but no one ever responded, though the Minsk Agreements say clearly: "by agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk." You know, I respect and even like John Kerry, he is an experienced diplomat, he told me once, that he opposed Star Wars at some point, and he was right. Perhaps, if it was he who had to decide on the ABM, now we might have had no conflict regarding ballistic missile defense. However, he slants as far as the situation in Ukraine is concerned. The one side, Kiev, says that it has done a lot and implemented the Minsk Agreements, but it is not the case, since these actions should be agreed upon with Donetsk and Lugansk. However, there is no coordination at all.

As to the implementation of the already adopted law on the special order for local self-government in these regions, the Minsk Agreements state that it should be done "within 30 days". Nothing has been done, the implementation has been postponed. That is exactly why we stand for the full and unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements by both sides, in strict accordance with the Agreements' language, rather than its biased interpretations.

CHARLIE ROSE: I gave you four minutes and I did not interrupt, did I?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I could see that you tried hard not to interrupt. I am very grateful to you for that.

CHARLIE ROSE: You are right, I enjoyed your speech.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In fact, I am telling you the truth.

CHARLIE ROSE: Americans are going to see you the way they have never seen you. You are more conversational and expressive. It is good, indeed.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you. In fact, everything that I have said is absolutely true. Do you understand it? The Minsk Agreements will not help to solve the issues if Kiev acts unilaterally all the time, though the Minsk Agreements state "by agreement with Donbass". [There is no coordination.] It is a matter of principle.

CHARLIE ROSE: Do you really think so?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is not much to think about, everything is written, the only thing to do is to read it. It is stated "by agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk", just read the document. I am telling you, there is no coordination there, that's it. It is stipulated: "to introduce a law on the special status within 30 days". But it has not been introduced. The question is: who does not implement the Minsk Agreements?

CHARLIE ROSE: You have mentioned the Secretary of State; he also said that it is important not only to implement the Minsk Agreements but also for separatists to give up the idea of independent elections. John Kerry said that yesterday.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am familiar with the position of our American friends, and this is what I have to say. I have just said that, but it seems that I have to repeat. This is what the Minsk Agreements say about local elections: "To pass a law on local elections by agreement with Donetsk and Lugansk". What happened instead? Kiev passed the law on its own without any kind of discussion with Donetsk and Lugansk whatsoever and completely disregarding the draft project they had sent three times. There was no dialogue at all; they just passed the law without consultations. Moreover, the law adopted by Kiev states that no elections are to be held in Donbass. Now, what kind of law is that? In fact, they have prompted the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk to hold elections of their own. That's it. We are ready to discuss these issues with Mr. Kerry, but, first of all, we have to ensure that both sides implement their written commitments, instead of trying to pass their own initiatives off as something good.

CHARLIE ROSE: I hear you, but I wanted to repeat this, because Secretary Kerry emphasized separatists' elections. Yes, I really hear you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: In this case, the Secretary of State Kerry is dodging as a diplomat, but that is fine, this is his job. All diplomats dodge, and he is doing the same.

CHARLIE ROSE: You would never act like that, would you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would not do that. I am not a diplomat.

CHARLIE ROSE: Who are you? How do you see yourself?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am a human being, a citizen of the Russian Federation, a Russian.

CHARLIE ROSE: You also said that the worst thing that happened in the last century was the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Soviet empire. There are those who look at Ukraine and Georgia and think that you do not want to recreate the Soviet empire, but you do want to recreate a sphere of influence, which, you think, Russia deserves because of the relationship that has existed. Why are you smiling?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (Laughing) Your questions make me happy. Somebody is always suspecting Russia of having some ambitions, there are always those who are trying to misinterpret us or keep something back. I did say that I see the collapse of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy of the XX century. Do you know why? First of all, because 25 million of Russian people suddenly turned out to be outside the borders of the Russian Federation. They used to live in one state; the Soviet Union has traditionally been called Russia, the Soviet Russia, and it was the great Russia. Then the Soviet Union suddenly fell apart, in fact, overnight, and it turned out that in the former Soviet Union republics there were 25 million Russians. They used to live in one country and suddenly found themselves abroad. Can you imagine how many problems came out?

First, there were everyday issues, the separation of families, the economic and social problems. The list is endless. Do you think it is normal that 25 million people, Russian people, suddenly found themselves abroad? The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays. Is that not a problem? It is not a problem for you as it is for me.

CHARLIE ROSE: How do you want to solve this problem?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We want to, at least, preserve the common humanitarian space within the modern civilized framework, we want to ensure that there are no national boundaries, so that people could freely communicate with each other, and we want the joint economy to develop using the advantages that we inherited from the Soviet Union. What are they? They include the common infrastructure, railway transport, road network, power system and finally, I dare say, the great Russian language, which unites all former republics of the Soviet Union and gives us clear competitive advantages in promoting various integration projects in the former Soviet Union area.

You have probably heard that we had established the Customs Union first and then transformed it into the Eurasian Economic Union. When people communicate freely, when labour force, goods, services and funds move freely as well, when there are no state dividing lines and when we have common legal regulation, for example, in the social sphere - all that is good enough, people should feel free.

CHARLIE ROSE: Did you have to use the military force to accomplish that objective?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Of course, no.

CHARLIE ROSE: Russia has military presence on the borders with Ukraine, and some argue that there have been Russian troops in Ukraine itself.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do you have a military presence in Europe?

CHARLIE ROSE: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The US tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe, let us not forget this. Does it mean that the US has occupied Germany or that the US never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed the occupation troops into the NATO forces? That is one way of seeing it, but we do not say that. And if we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, you see it is a crime?

CHARLIE ROSE: I did not say it was a crime.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: All the processes that I mentioned, the natural economic, humanitarian and social integration, do not require any armed forces. We have established the Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Union not by force, but through a compromise. It was a challenging, complicated, multi-year process based on agreement, compromise and mutually acceptable conditions in the hope of creating for our economies and for our people better competitive advantages in the world markets and in the world as a whole.

CHARLIE ROSE: So, why are we talking about this? Tell me about the Baltic states and your intentions towards the Baltic states.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We would like to build friendly and partnership relations with them. Many Russians have been living there since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are being discriminated there, their rights are being violated. Do you know that many Baltic states have invented something new in the international law? What citizenship-related notions did the international law have before? The answer is: a citizen, a foreigner, a stateless person and dual nationals, or people with dual citizenship. The Baltic republics have invented something totally new. Do you know what? They use the word 'non-citizens' for people who have been living for decades in the territory of Baltic states and have been deprived of a number of political rights. They cannot participate in the election campaigns; they have limited political and social rights. Everybody keeps quiet about it, as if this is the way it should be. Of course, this cannot but cause a certain reaction. I assume that our colleagues from both the United States and the European Union will proceed from current humanitarian law and ensure political freedoms and rights of all people, including those who are living in the territory of Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As for economic relations, we have sustainable and highly developed contacts with these countries.

But, you know, there are some things that confuse me (to put it mildly).

CHARLIE ROSE: Confuse you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: They perplex me and disappoint me. We all say that we need to bring together our views, to pursue economic and political integration.

For example, the Baltic countries (I have already mentioned that since the Soviet times we have common power supply and power system) were, naturally, a part of the common energy grid of the Soviet Union. What are they doing now? Everyone seems to be talking about the convergence of Russia and the European Union. But what is really happening? Nowadays, there are plans to separate the Baltic states from the common power system of the former Soviet Union and to integrate them into the European system. What does it mean for us in practice? In practice, it means that a number of zones will emerge between several regions of the Russian Federation, where we will have no power transmission lines, since previously we used to have a loop transition through the Baltic countries. And it means that we will have to reform the system, spending billions of dollars, as well as our European partners who will also have to spend billions of dollars to integrate the Baltic countries into their power grid. What for? If we really seek some kind of joint work and integration, not just by words but also by deeds, what is the use of all this? And this is the case in many areas - they do the opposite of what they say.

In my opinion, these all are growth-related problems and I believe that common sense - in this or other area - will prevail in the end. We all are interested in an open development, without any prejudice; this refers particularly and, perhaps, primarily to the Baltic countries, for them it is more important than for Russia. Take, for example, Lithuania. Do you know, what was its population in the Soviet times? It was 3.4 mln people. It was a small country, a small republic. And what is it now? I have looked though the recent statistics, today the population of this country is 1.4 mln people. Where are the people? More than half of the citizens have left the country. Can you imagine a situation when more than half of the Americans left the territory of the United States? It would be a catastrophe! What does it mean? It means that the broken ties, first of all, in the economy, adversely affect all of us, including Russia. So, I am deeply convinced that we should abandon the phobias of the past, look forward into the future and, while acting on the basis of international law, establish good-neighbourly and equal relations.

CHARLIE ROSE: And, of course, we have to lift sanctions.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If somebody prefers to work by means of sanctions, he is welcome to do so. But sanctions are a temporary measure. Firstly, they contradict the international law. Secondly, tell me where this policy of sanctions proved to be effective. The answer is nowhere; and sanctions against such country as Russia are unlikely to be effective.

CHARLIE ROSE: Since the sanctions were imposed, even your friends are worried about the Russian economy, because of the sanctions first, but also because of declining oil prices. Is that a huge challenge for you? Is that a troubling global economic reality?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, the sanctions, as I said, are illegal actions, destroying the principles of the international global economy, the principles of the WTO and the UN. The sanctions may be imposed only by the decision of the UN Security Council. A unilateral imposition of sanctions is a violation of international law. Well, whatever, let's put aside the legal aspect of the matter. Of course, they do damage, but they are not the main reason for the slowdown in the growth rates of the Russian economy or other problems related to inflation. For us, the main reason is, of course, the decrease in prices in the world markets of our traditional export goods, first, of oil and, consequently, of gas, and some other products. This is the core factor. Sanctions, of course, have a certain impact, but they are not of crucial and fundamental importance to our economy.

CHARLIE ROSE: Will you survive sanctions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Naturally, beyond any doubts, it is even out of discussion. Sanctions even have a certain advantage. Do you know what is it? The advantage is that previously we used to buy many goods, especially in the area of high technology, with petrodollars. Today, amid the sanctions, we cannot buy or we are afraid that we will be denied access to hi-tech goods, and we had to deploy large-scale programs to develop our own high-tech economy, industry, manufacturing and science. In fact, we would have to do this anyway, but we found it difficult as our own domestic markets were filled with foreign products, and we found it very difficult to support our local manufacturers within the WTO regulations. Now, with the sanctions imposed and our partners having left our market voluntarily, we have an opportunity to develop.

CHARLIE ROSE: There are two more questions. You were President, Prime Minister and once again President. How long do you want to serve and what do you want to be your legacy? This is one question.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The period of my service will depend on two conditions. Firstly, of course, there are rules stipulated by the Constitution, and I surely will not infringe them. But I am not sure whether I should take full advantage of these constitutional rights. It will depend on the specific situation in the country, in the world and my own feelings about it.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what do you want your legacy to be?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Russia should be an effective and competitive state with a sustainable economy, developed social and political system flexible to changes domestically and globally.

CHARLIE ROSE: Should it play the main role in the world?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I said, it should be competitive, be able to protect its own interests and influence the processes that are important to it.

CHARLIE ROSE: Many say that you are all-powerful and they believe you can have anything you want. What do you want? Tell America, tell the world what Vladimir Putin wants.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I want Russia to be the way I just described it. It is my greatest desire, I want the people here to be happy and I want our partners around the world to seek to develop relations with Russia.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you. Thank you, it was a pleasure.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

 [return to Contents]