Guest Column from Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
Guest Column from Vladimir Putin, President of Russia
At the final plenary session of the 12th Annual
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club on October 22, Russia’s
President Vladimir Putin said that Washington relies not on diplomacy,
discussion, and compromise, but on lies and coercion and treats its allies not
as allies but as vassals. Putin described the folly of Washington’s plan to
“fight terrorism” while using the terrorists to overthrow governments that
refuse to be Washington’s vassals.
Every time I read a Putin speech, I encounter a highly
intelligent and moral person who is trying to lead the world to peace and away
from war.
You can read his Valdai address
here: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
Meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club
Vladimir Putin took part in the final
plenary session of the 12th annual meeting
of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
October 22, 2015
20:45
Sochi
Meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club
This topic of this year’s Valdai conference is Societies
Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict in Tomorrow’s
World. In the period between October 19 and 22,
experts from 30 countries have been considering various aspects
of the perception of war and peace both
in the public consciousness and in international relations,
religion and economic interaction between states.
* * *
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,
ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to greet you here at this regular
meeting of the Valdai International Club.
It is true that for over 10 years now this has
been a platform to discuss the most pressing issues
and consider the directions and prospects
for the development of Russia and the whole world. The participants
change, of course, but overall, this discussion platform retains its core,
so to speak – we have turned into a kind of mutually
understanding environment.
We have an open discussion here; this is
an open intellectual platform for an exchange of views,
assessments and forecasts that are very important for us here
in Russia. I would like to thank all the Russian
and foreign politicians, experts, public figures and journalists
taking part in the work of this club.
This year the discussion focusses on issues
of war and peace. This topic has clearly been the concern
of humanity throughout its history. Back in ancient times,
in antiquity people argued about the nature, the causes
of conflicts, about the fair and unfair use of force,
of whether wars would always accompany the development
of civilisation, broken only by ceasefires, or would
the time come when arguments and conflicts are resolved without war.
I’m sure you recalled our great writer Leo Tolstoy
here. In his great novel War and Peace, he wrote that war
contradicted human reason and human nature, while peace in his
opinion was good for people.
True, peace, a peaceful life have always been
humanity’s ideal. State figures, philosophers and lawyers have often come
up with models for a peaceful interaction between nations. Various
coalitions and alliances declared that their goal was to ensure
strong, ‘lasting’ peace as they used to say. However,
the problem was that they often turned to war as a way
to resolve the accumulated contradictions, while war itself served
as a means for establishing new post-war hierarchies
in the world.
Meanwhile peace, as a state of world
politics, has never been stable and did not come of itself. Periods
of peace in both European and world history were always been
based on securing and maintaining the existing balance
of forces. This happened in the 17thcentury
in the times of the so-called Peace of Westphalia,
which put an end to the Thirty Years’ War. Then
in the 19th century, in the time
of the Vienna Congress; and again 70 years ago in Yalta,
when the victors over Nazism made the decision to set up
the United Nations Organisation and lay down the principles
of relations between states.
With the appearance of nuclear weapons, it
became clear that there could be no winner in a global conflict.
There can be only one end – guaranteed mutual destruction. It so happened
that in its attempt to create ever more destructive weapons humanity
has made any big war pointless.
Incidentally, the world leaders
of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s did treat the use
of armed force as an exceptional measure. In this sense,
they behaved responsibly, weighing all the circumstances and possible
consequences.
The end of the Cold War put an end
to ideological opposition, but the basis for arguments
and geopolitical conflicts remained. All states have always had
and will continue to have their own diverse interests, while
the course of world history has always been accompanied
by competition between nations and their alliances. In my view,
this is absolutely natural.
The main thing is to ensure that this
competition develops within the framework of fixed political, legal
and moral norms and rules. Otherwise, competition and conflicts
of interest may lead to acute crises and dramatic outbursts.
We have seen this happen many times
in the past. Today, unfortunately, we have again come across similar
situations. Attempts to promote a model of unilateral
domination, as I have said on numerous occasions, have led
to an imbalance in the system of international law
and global regulation, which means there is a threat,
and political, economic or military competition may get out
of control.
What, for instance, could such uncontrolled
competition mean for international security? A growing number of regional
conflicts, especially in ‘border’ areas, where the interests
of major nations or blocs meet. This can also lead
to the probable downfall of the system
of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (which
I also consider to be very dangerous), which, in turn, would
result in a new spiral of the arms race.
We have already seen the appearance
of the concept of the so-called disarming first strike,
including one with the use of high-precision long-range non-nuclear
weapons comparable in their effect to nuclear weapons.
The use of the threat
of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse,
as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern
international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United
States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we
have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran
and never has been, just as we said.
The thing that seemed to have led our
American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It
would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US
anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. What
is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually
the opposite – everything continues.
Recently the United States conducted
the first test of the anti-missile defence system
in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with
our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us
and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was
not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was
about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance,
to change the balance of forces in their favour not only
to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their
will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe,
to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario,
harmful to all, including, in my opinion,
to the United States.
The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some
probably even had the illusion that victory of one party
in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible,
unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if
there ever is one.
In the past 25 years, the threshold
for the use of force has gone down noticeably. The anti-war
immunity we have acquired after two world wars, which we had
on a subconscious, psychological level, has become weaker.
The very perception of war has changed: for TV viewers it was
becoming and has now become an entertaining media picture, as if
nobody dies in combat, as if people do not suffer and cities
and entire states are not destroyed.
Unfortunately, military terminology is becoming part
of everyday life. Thus, trade and sanctions wars have become today’s
global economic reality – this has become a set phrase used
by the media. The sanctions, meanwhile, are often used also
as an instrument of unfair competition to put pressure
on or completely ‘throw’ competition out of the market.
As an example, I could take the outright epidemic
of fines imposed on companies, including European ones,
by the United States. Flimsy pretexts are being used, and all
those who dare violate the unilateral American sanctions are severely
punished.
You know, this may not be Russia’s business, but this
is a discussion club, therefore I will ask: Is that the way one
treats allies? No, this is how one treats vassals who dare act as they
wish – they are punished for misbehaving.
Last year a fine was imposed
on a French bank to a total of almost $9
billion – $8.9 billion, I believe. Toyota paid $1.2 billion, while
the German Commerzbank signed an agreement to pay $1.7 billion
into the American budget, and so forth.
We also see the development
of the process to create non-transparent economic blocs, which
is done following practically all the rules of conspiracy.
The goal is obvious – to reformat the world economy
in a way that would make it possible to extract a greater
profit from domination and the spread of economic, trade
and technological regulation standards.
The creation of economic blocs by imposing
their terms on the strongest players would clearly not make
the world safer, but would only create time bombs, conditions
for future conflicts.
The World Trade Organization was once set up.
True, the discussion there is not proceeding smoothly, and the Doha
round of talks ended in a deadlock, possibly, but we should
continue looking for ways out and for compromise, because only
compromise can lead to the creation of a long-term system of relations
in any sphere, including the economy. Meanwhile, if we dismiss that
the concerns of certain countries – participants
in economic communication, if we pretend that they can be bypassed,
the contradictions will not go away, they will not be resolved, they will
remain, which means that one day they will make themselves known.
As you know, our approach is different. While
creating the Eurasian Economic Union we tried to develop relations
with our partners, including relations within the Chinese Silk Road
Economic Belt initiative. We are actively working on the basis
of equality in BRICS, APEC and the G20.
The global information space is also shaken
by wars today, in a manner of speaking. The ‘only
correct’ viewpoint and interpretation of events is aggressively
imposed on people, certain facts are either concealed or manipulated.
We are all used to labelling and the creation
of an enemy image.
The authorities in countries that seemed
to have always appealed to such values as freedom of speech
and the free dissemination of information – something we
have heard about so often in the past – are now trying
to prevent the spreading of objective information and any
opinion that differs from their own; they declare it hostile propaganda that
needs to be combatted, clearly using undemocratic means.
Unfortunately, we hear the words war
and conflict ever more frequently when talking about relations between
people of different cultures, religions and ethnicity. Today hundreds
of thousands of migrants are trying to integrate into
a different society without a profession and without any
knowledge of the language, traditions and culture
of the countries they are moving to. Meanwhile, the residents
of those countries – and we should openly speak about this,
without trying to polish things up – the residents are irritated
by the dominance of strangers, rising crime rate, money spent
on refugees from the budgets of their countries.
Many people sympathize with the refugees,
of course, and would like to help them. The question is how
to do it without infringing on the interests
of the residents of the countries where the refugees are
moving. Meanwhile, a massive uncontrolled shocking clash of different
lifestyles can lead, and already is leading to growing nationalism
and intolerance, to the emergence of a permanent
conflict in society.
Colleagues, we must be realistic: military power is,
of course, and will remain for a long time still
an instrument of international politics. Good or bad, this is
a fact of life. The question is, will it be used only when all
other means have been exhausted? When we have to resist common threats,
like, for instance, terrorism, and will it be used in compliance
with the known rules laid down in international law. Or will we
use force on any pretext, even just to remind the world who is
boss here, without giving a thought about the legitimacy
of the use of force and its consequences, without solving
problems, but only multiplying them.
We see what is happening in the Middle East.
For decades, maybe even centuries, inter-ethnic, religious
and political conflicts and acute social issues have been accumulating
here. In a word, a storm was brewing there, while attempts
to forcefully rearrange the region became the match that lead
to a real blast, to the destruction of statehood,
an outbreak of terrorism and, finally, to growing global risks.
A terrorist organization, the so-called
Islamic State, took huge territories under control. Just think about it: if
they occupied Damascus or Baghdad, the terrorist gangs could achieve
the status of a practically official power, they would create
a stronghold for global expansion. Is anyone considering this? It is
time the entire international community realised what we are dealing
with – it is, in fact, an enemy of civilisation
and world culture that is bringing with it an ideology of hatred
and barbarity, trampling upon morals and world religious values,
including those of Islam, thereby compromising it.
We do not need wordplay here; we should not break down
the terrorists into moderate and immoderate ones. It would be good
to know the difference. Probably, in the opinion of certain
experts, it is that the so-called moderate militants behead people
in limited numbers or in some delicate fashion.
In actual fact, we now see a real mix
of terrorist groups. True, at times militants from the Islamic
State, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda heirs and splinters fight
each other, but they fight for money, for feeding grounds, this is
what they are fighting for. They are not fighting for ideological reasons,
while their essence and methods remain the same: terror, murder,
turning people into a timid, frightened, obedient mass.
In the past years the situation has
been deteriorating, the terrorists’ infrastructure has been growing, along
with their numbers, while the weapons provided to the so-called
moderate opposition eventually ended up in the hands
of terrorist organisations. Moreover, sometimes entire bands would go over
to their side, marching in with flying colors, as they say.
Why is it that the efforts of, say, our American
partners and their allies in their struggle against the Islamic
State has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, this is not about any
lack of military equipment or potential. Clearly, the United
States has a huge potential, the biggest military potential
in the world, only double crossing is never easy. You declare war
on terrorists and simultaneously try to use some of them
to arrange the figures on the Middle East board
in your own interests, as you may think.
It is impossible to combat terrorism
in general if some terrorists are used as a battering ram
to overthrow the regimes that are not to one’s liking. You
cannot get rid of those terrorists, it is only an illusion
to think you can get rid of them later, take power away from them
or reach some agreement with them. The situation in Libya is
the best example here.
Let us hope that the new government will manage
to stabilise the situation, though this is not a fact yet.
However, we need to assist in this stabilization.
We understand quite well that the militants
fighting in the Middle East represent a threat to everyone,
including Russia. People in our nation know what terrorist aggression
means and know what the bandits in the North Caucasus have
done. We remember the bloody terrorist attacks in Budennovsk, Moscow,
Beslan, Volgograd and other Russian cities. Russia has always fought
terrorism in all its forms, consistently advocating for truly
unifying the global community’s efforts to fight this evil. That is
why we made our suggestion to create a broad anti-terror coalition,
which I recently voiced in my speech at the United
Nations.
After Syria’s official authorities reached out
to us for support, we made the decision to launch
a Russian military operation in that nation. I will stress
again: it is fully legitimate and its only goal is to help restore
peace. I am sure that the Russian service members’ actions will have
the necessary positive effect on the situation, helping Syria’s
official authorities create the conditions for subsequent actions
in reaching a political settlement and stage pre-emptive strikes
against terrorists that threaten our nation, Russia. Thus, we help all nations
and peoples who are certainly in danger if these terrorists return
home.
Here is what we believe we must do to support
long-term settlement in the region, as well as its social,
economic and political revival. First of all, free Syria
and Iraq’s territories from terrorists and not let them move their
activities to other regions. And to do that, we must join all
forces – the Iraqi and Syrian regular armies, Kurdish militia,
various opposition groups that have actually made a real contribution
to fighting terrorists – and coordinate the actions
of countries within and outside of the region against
terrorism. At the same time, joint anti-terrorist action must
certainly be based on international law.
Second, it is obvious that a military victory
over the militants alone will not resolve all problems, but it will create
conditions for the main thing: a beginning
of a political process with participation by all healthy, patriotic
forces of the Syrian society. It is the Syrians who must decide
their fate with exclusively civil, respectful assistance from
the international community, and not under external pressure through
ultimatums, blackmail or threats.
The collapse of Syria’s official authorities,
for example, will only mobilize terrorists. Right now, instead
of undermining them, we must revive them, strengthening state institutions
in the conflict zone.
I want to remind you that throughout its
history, the Middle East has often been an arena for clashes
between various empires and powers. They redrew boundaries
and reshaped the region’s political structure to suit their
tastes and interests. And the consequences were not always good
or beneficial for the people living there. Actually, no one even
asked their opinion. The last people to find out what was happening
in their own nations were the people living in the Middle
East.
Of course, this begs the question: isn’t it
time for the international community to coordinate all its actions
with the people who live in these territories? I think that it’s
long overdue; these people – like any people – should be treated with
respect.
The involvement in the process
of political settlement of the Muslim clergy, leaders
of Islam and heads of Muslim nations is crucial. We count
on their consolidated position and assistance, as well
as their moral authority. It is very important to protect people,
especially youth, against the destructive effects of the ideology
of the terrorists, who are trying to use them as cannon
fodder, nothing more. We need to distinguish clearly between genuine
Islam, whose values are peace, family, good deeds, helping others, respecting
traditions, and the lies and hatred that the militants sow
under the guise of Islam.
Fourth, we currently need to develop
a roadmap for the region’s economic and social development,
to restore basic infrastructure, housing, hospitals and schools. Only
this kind of on-site creative work after eliminating terrorism
and reaching a political settlement can stop the enormous flow
of refugees to European nations and return those who left
to their homelands.
It is clear that Syria will need massive financial,
economic and humanitarian assistance in order to heal
the wounds of war. We need to determine the format within
which we could do this work, getting donor nations and international
financial institutions involved. Right now, Syria’s problems are being
discussed at the UN and other international organizations, and within
the framework of interstate relations. It’s true that for now,
we are not always able to reach an understanding and it is
painfully difficult to abandon might-have-been expectations
and unjustified calculations, but nevertheless, there is some progress.
We see that contacts are being gradually established
between military departments within the anti-terrorist operation
framework, although not as actively and quickly as we might
like. Approval of the Russian-American document on safety guidelines
for the two countries’ military aircraft flying missions over Syria
is a serious step in the right direction.
We are also close to starting an exchange
of information with our western colleagues on militants’ positions
and movements. All these are certainly steps in the right
direction. What’s most important is to treat one another as allies
in a common fight, to be honest and open. Only then can we
guarantee victory over the terrorists.
For all the drama of its current
situation, Syria can become a model for partnership
in the name of common interests, resolving problems that affect
everyone, and developing an effective risk management system. We
already had this opportunity after the end of the Cold War.
Unfortunately, we did not take advantage of it. We also had
the opportunity in the early 2000s, when Russia, the US
and many other nations were faced with terrorist aggression
and unfortunately, we were unable to establish a good dynamic
for cooperating then, either. I will not return to that and the reasons
for why we were unable to do this. I think everyone knows
already. Now, what’s important is to draw the right lessons from what
happened in the past and to move forward.
I am confident that the experience we
acquired and today’s situation will allow us to finally make
the right choice – the choice in favor of cooperation,
mutual respect and trust, the choice in favour of peace.
Thank you very much for your attention. (Applause.)
<…>
Vladimir Putin: First of all, let me thank
everyone who spoke. I think this was all very substantive
and interesting, and I am very pleased to see that our
discussion has spice and substance to it rather than being all dry
talk.
Let’s not dig around now in the distant past.
When it comes to who is to blame for the Soviet Union’s
collapse, I think that internal reasons were the primary cause,
of course, and in this sense, Mr Ambassador was right.
The inefficiency of the former Soviet Union’s political
and economic systems was the main cause of the state’s
collapse.
But who gave this process a helping hand is
another matter. I don’t think that our geopolitical adversaries were
standing around idle, but internal reasons were nonetheless the primary
cause. Mr Ambassador, as I understand it, was debating with me from
afar, and now here, face to face, when he said that, unlike me, he
does not consider the collapse of the Soviet Union one
of the twentieth century’s great tragedies. For my part,
I continue to insist that this was a tragedy, above all
a humanitarian tragedy. This is what I was saying.
The Soviet collapse left 25 million Russians
abroad. This just happened overnight and no one ever asked them.
I repeat my argument that the Russian people became
the world’s biggest divided nation, and this was unquestionably
a tragedy. That is not to mention the socioeconomic dimension.
The Soviet collapse brought down the social system and economy
with it. Yes, the old economy was not very effective, but its collapse
threw millions of people into poverty, and this was also
a tragedy for individual people and families.
Now, on the question of continuing
strategic offensive arms limitation talks, you are right to say that we do
need to continue this dialogue. But at the same time,
I cannot say that Russia and the United States have done nothing
here. We did conclude a new treaty on limiting strategic offensive
arms and set goals for limiting this type of weapons. However,
the USA’s unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, which was
the cornerstone for preserving the balance of power
and international security, has left this whole system
in a serious and complicated state.
In this respect, since this is a discussion
club, I would like to ask Mr Ambassador what he thinks
of the USA’s unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Jack Matlock: I was personally opposed
to that withdrawal and I take your point. I would say that
I don’t think that any subsequent plans for the sort
of deployments were or could be a threat to Russian
systems. But in general, I am not a supporter of ABM
systems. I would point out that I think the main source
of that is not to threaten Russia but to secure employment
in the United States. A lot comes from
the military-industrial complex and the number of people it
employs.
Vladimir Putin: Mr Ambassador, I find your
arguments unconvincing. I have the greatest respect for your
experience and diplomatic skills, of which you have given us
a flawless demonstration, avoiding a direct answer. Well, you did
answer my question, but not without some embellishments.
One should not create jobs when the result
of this activity threatens all of humanity. And if developing
new missile defense systems is about creating jobs, why create them
in this particular area? Why not create jobs in biology,
pharmaceuticals, or in high-tech sectors not related to arms
production?
On the question of whether this poses
a threat to Russia or not, I can assure you that US
security and strategic arms specialists are fully aware that this does
threaten Russia’s nuclear capability, and that the whole purpose
of this system is to reduce the nuclear capabilities of all
countries but the USA itself to zero. We’ve been hearing arguments
this whole time about the Iranian nuclear threat, but as I said
in my remarks before, our position was always that there was no such
threat, and now not only we but the entire international community
share this view.
The United States initiated the signing
of an agreement with Iran on settling the Iranian nuclear
issue. We actively followed and supported our US and Iranian partners
on the road to a common decision and this agreement
has now come into force and Iran has agreed to send its enriched
uranium out of the country. So if there is no Iranian nuclear
problem, why develop a missile defence system? You could stop
the project, but not only has the project not stopped,
on the contrary, new tests and exercises are taking place. These
systems will be in place in Romania by the end of the year
and in Poland by 2018 or 2020.
As I can tell you, and the specialists
know, the missile defense deployment sites can be used effectively
for stationing cruise missile attack systems. Does this not create
a threat for us? Of course it does, and it changes
the very philosophy of international security. If one country thinks
that it has created a missile defense shield that will protect it from any
strikes or counter-strikes, it has its hands free to use whatever
types of weapons it likes, and it is this that upsets
the strategic balance. You have worked on arms agreements
in the past and have achieved some amazing results. I can
but take off my hat to you and congratulate you on this.
You and your Russian partners have had some great successes, but what is
happening now cannot fail to worry us. I am sure that you would agree
with this in your heart. Essentially, you admitted as much when you
said that you did not support the USA’s unilateral withdrawal from
the treaty.
Now, on the subject of Ukraine,
and on the idea that this creates dangers for us, yes,
of course it creates dangers, but was it we who created this situation?
Remember the year when Mr Yanukovych lost the election and Mr
Yushchenko came to power? Look at how he came to power. It was
through a third round of voting, which is not even in the Ukrainian
Constitution’s provisions. The Western countries actively supported this.
This was a complete violation of the Constitution. What kind
of democracy is this? This is simply chaos. They did it once, and then
did it again in even more flagrant form with the change
of regime and coup d’état that took place in Ukraine not so long
ago.
Russia’s position is not that we oppose
the Ukrainian people’s choice. We are ready to accept any choice.
Ukraine genuinely is a brotherly country in our eyes, a brotherly
people. I don’t make any distinction between Russians and Ukrainians.
But we oppose this method of changing the government. It is not
a good method anywhere in the world, but it is completely
unacceptable in the post-Soviet region, where, to be frank, many
former Soviet republics do not yet have traditions of statehood
and have not yet developed stable political systems. In this context,
we need to take great care of what we do have and help it
to develop. We were ready to work even with the people who came
to power as a result of that unconstitutional third round
back then. We worked with Mr Yushchenko and Ms Timoshenko, though they
were considered to be completely pro-Western politicians –
I think this is not an accurate label in general, but this was
the way they were viewed. We met with them, travelled to Kiev,
received them here in Russia. Yes, we sometimes had fierce debates
on economic matters, but we did work together.
But what are we supposed to do when faced with
a coup d’état? Do you want to organize an Iraq or Libya
here? The US authorities have not hidden the fact that they are
spending billions there. The authorities have said directly in public
that they have spent $5 billion on supporting the opposition. Is this
the right choice?
Another of our colleagues said that it is wrong
to interpret things as suggesting that the United States seeks
to change the political system and government in Russia. It
is hard for me to agree with that argument. The United States
has a law that concerns Ukraine, but it directly mentions Russia,
and this law states that the goal is democratization
of the Russian Federation. Just imagine if we were to write into
Russian law that our goal is to democratize the United States, though
in principle we could do this, and let me tell you why.
There are grounds for this. Everyone knows that
there were two occasions in US history when a president came
to power with the votes of the majority
of the electoral college members but the minority
of voters. Is this democratic? No, democracy is the people’s power,
the will of the majority. How can you have someone elected
to the country’s highest office by only a minority
of voters? This is a problem in your constitution, but we do not
demand that you change your constitution.
We can debate all of this forever, but if you
have a country writing such things into its domestic laws
and financing the domestic opposition [of another country]…
Having an opposition is a normal thing, but it must survive
on its own resources, and if you have a country openly spending
billions on supporting it, is this normal political practice? Will this
help to build a spirit of trust at the interstate
level? I don’t think so.
Now, on the subject of democracy moving
closer to our borders. (Laughter). You seem to be an experienced
person. Do you imagine we could be opposed to having democracy on our
borders? What is it you call democracy here? Are you referring to NATO’s
move towards our borders? Is that what you mean by democracy? NATO is
a military alliance. We are worried not about democracy on our
borders, but about military infrastructure coming ever closer to our
borders. How do you expect us to respond in such a case? What
are we to think? This is the issue that worries us.
You know what is at the heart
of today’s problems? I will share it with you, and we will
certainly make public the document I want to refer to now.
It is a record of the discussions between German politicians
and top Soviet officials just before Germany’s reunification. It makes
for very interesting reading, just like reading a detective story.
One prominent German political figure
of the time, a leader in the Social Democratic Party,
said during the talks with the senior Russian officials –
I can’t quote him word for word, but I remember
the original closely enough – he said, “If we don’t reach agreement
now on the principles for Germany’s reunification
and Europe’s future, crises will continue and even grow after
Germany’s reunification and we will not end them but only face them again
in new forms.” Later, when the Soviet officials got into discussion
with him, he was surprised and said, “You’d think I am defending
the Soviet Union’s interests – reproaching them for their
short-sighted views it seems – but I’m thinking about Europe’s future.”
And he turned out to be absolutely right.
Mr Ambassador, your colleagues did not reach
agreements then on the basic principles of what would follow
Germany’s reunification: the question of prospective NATO membership
for Germany, the future of military infrastructure, its forms
and development, and the coordination of security issues
in Europe. Oral agreements were reached back then, but nothing was put
on paper, nothing fixed, and so it went from there. But as you
all recall from my speech in Munich, when I made this point,
back then, the NATO Secretary General gave the oral assurance that
the Soviet Union could be sure that NATO – I quote – would
not expand beyond the eastern borders of today’s GDR. And yet
the reality was completely different. There were two waves of NATO
expansion eastwards, and now we have missile defence systems right
on our borders too.
I think that all of this raises legitimate
concerns in our eyes, and this is something we certainly need
to work on. Despite all the difficulties, we are willing to work
together. On the serious issue of missile defence, we have
already made past proposals and I say again that we could work
together as a threesome – the USA, Russia, and Europe.
What would this kind of cooperation entail? It would mean that all three
parties agree together on the direction missile threats are coming
from, and have equal part in the system’s command
and in other secondary matters. But our proposals met with
a refusal. It was not we who did not seek cooperation, but others who
refused us.
Now we face the serious issue of what is
happening in Syria, and I am sure this will be the subject
of further discussion. We hear criticism that we are supposedly striking
the wrong targets. I said recently, speaking in Moscow, “Tell us
what are the right targets to hit if you know them,” but no, they
don’t tell us. So we ask them to tell us which targets to avoid, but
they still don’t answer us.
We have this excellent movie, Ivan Vasilyevich Changes
Profession. The Russian audience knows it well. One
of the movie’s characters says to the other, “How am
I supposed to understand what you’re saying if you don’t say
anything?” Fortunately, at the military level at least,
as I said before, we are starting to say something to each
other and come to some agreements. The circumstances oblige us
to do so.
The military people are the most responsible
it seems, and I hope that if they can reach agreements, we will be
able to reach agreements at the political level too.
Thank you.
<…>
Vladimir Putin: How effective will our operations
in Syria be?
How can I give a certain answer to such
questions? The only thing that is certain is an insurance policy. We
are acting in accordance with our convictions and with the norms
of international law. We hope that coordinated action between our strike
aircraft and the other military systems being used, coordinated with
the Syrian army’s offensive, will produce positive results. I believe
and our military also think that results have already been achieved.
Is this enough to be able to say that we
have defeated terrorism in Syria? No, big efforts are still needed before
we will be able to make such an assertion. A lot of work is
still needed, and let me stress that this must be joint work.
We do not want to start finger-pointing now, but
let me say nonetheless that over the nearly 18 months that a US-led
coalition has been carrying out airstrikes, with more than 11 countries taking
part and more than 500 strikes against various targets, there is no result
yet, and this is a clear fact. What result can we speak of if
the terrorists have reinforced their presence in Syria and Iraq,
dug in deeper in the territory they had already taken,
and expanded their presence? In this sense, it seems to me that
our colleagues have not achieved any effective results as yet.
The first operations between our armed forces
and the Syrian armed forces have produced results, but this is not
enough. It would be wonderful if we united forces, everyone who genuinely wants
to fight terrorism, if all the region’s countries
and the outside powers, including the United States, came
together on this. In essence, this is just what we proposed.
We proposed that a military delegation come
to Moscow first, and then I said that we were ready to send
a high-level political delegation headed by Russia’s Prime Minister
to discuss political questions. But our proposal was given a refusal.
True, our American colleagues did then provide explanations
at the ministerial level, saying that there had been some
misunderstanding and that the road is open, that we can take this
road and should think about how to unite our efforts.
Now, the foreign ministers of the USA,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will meet. I think that other
countries in the region should join this process too, countries whose
involvement is essential if we want to settle this issue. I am
thinking of Iran, primarily. We have already said this many times before.
But it is a start at this stage to have the foreign
ministers meet to discuss things. As for our Iranian partners,
we are in close contact with them on this matter, and Iran makes
its own significant contribution to a settlement.
On the question of Syria’s partition,
I think this would be the worst-case scenario. It is an unacceptable
option because it would not help to resolve the conflict but would
instead only serve to increase and prolong it. This would become
a permanent conflict. If Syria were partitioned into separate territories,
they would inevitably fight between themselves without end and nothing
positive would come out of this.
On the matter of whether al-Assad
should go or not, I have said many times already that I think it
wrong to even ask this question. How can we ask and decide from
outside whether this or that country’s leader should stay or go. This
is a matter for the Syrian people to decide. Let me add
though that we must be certain that government is formed on the basis
of transparent democratic procedures. We can talk of having some kind
of international monitoring of these procedures, including election
procedures, but this must be objective monitoring, and most importantly,
it must not have a bias in favour of any one country
or group of countries.
Finally, on how we see the political
process, let me give a general outline now, but let me say
at the same time that it is the Syrians themselves who must
formulate this process, its principles and final goals, what they want
and how they will achieve it. By the Syrians themselves,
I am referring to the lawful government
and the opposition forces. Of course, we take the view that
the root causes of the conflict in Syria are not just
the fight against terrorism and terrorist attacks, though terrorist
aggression is clear and the terrorists are simply taking advantage
of Syria’s internal difficulties. We need to separate
the terrorist threat from the internal political problems. Certainly,
the Syrian government must establish working contact with those opposition
forces that are ready for dialogue. I understood from my meeting
with President al-Assad the day before that he is ready for such
dialogue.
<…>
Vladimir Putin: I can tell you, I watch
the video reports after the strike and they make
an impression. Such a quantity of ammunition goes off there that
it flies practically all the way up to the planes. You get
the impression that they have collected arms and ammunition from
throughout the entire Middle East. They have put together a colossal
amount of arms. You can’t help but wonder where they get the money
from. It’s really a tremendous amount of firepower they’ve
accumulated. Now, of course, it is less than it was. The Syrian army
really is making gains with our support. The results are modest
for now, but they are there, and I am sure that there will be
more.
<…>
Vladimir Putin: (responding
to a question on possible Russian participation
in an operation in Iraq) We have no such plans
and cannot have them because the Iraqi government has not made any
such request of us. We are providing assistance to Iraq
in the form of arms supplies. This is something we were already
doing, and we make our contribution to fighting terrorism
in Iraq this way – by supplying weapons and ammunition. But
the Iraqi government has not made any request for other aid, though
we work together with them not just through supplies of arms
and military equipment, but through information exchanges too.
As you know, it was in Baghdad that Iran,
Syria, Russia and Iraq established an information centre, where we
exchange information and set the main directions
in the fight against terrorism, including against the Islamic
State, but we have no plans to expand military operations involving
Russia’s Aerospace Forces.
<…>
Vladimir Putin: The aim of Russia’s military
operations and diplomatic efforts in this area is to fight
terrorism and not to mediate between representatives
of the different currents of Islam. We value equally our Shiite
friends, our Sunni friends, and our Alawite friends. We do not make
distinctions between them.
We have very good relations with many countries where
the Sunni branch of Islam is dominant. We also have very good
relations with majority Shiite countries, and we therefore make no
distinction between them. Let me say again that our sole and primary aim
is to fight terrorism.
At the same time, we are aware
of the realities on the ground. Of the 34,
I think (it’s around that number, anyway), cabinet members in Syria,
more than half are Sunnis, and Sunnis are just as broadly represented
in the Syrian army as in the government. Syria was
always primarily a secular state, after all.
But let me say again that we are aware
of the real circumstances we are working in, and of course,
if our actions could help to give discussion between the different
religious groups a more civilised, good-neighbourly and friendly
nature and help to settle various conflicts and unite efforts
in the fight against terrorism, we would consider our mission
fulfilled.
<…>
Vladimir Putin: I was wondering to myself
just now whether to say this or not. Let me raise the curtain
a little on our talks with President al-Assad. I asked him, “How
would you react if we see that there is an armed opposition in Syria
today that is ready to genuinely fight terrorism, fight the Islamic
State, and we were to support their efforts in this fight
against terrorism just as we are supporting the Syrian army?” He
said, “I think it would be positive.” We are reflecting on this now
and will try, if it all works out, to translate these agreements into
practical steps.
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.