Windows to Russia

September 25, 2009,
Pittsburgh, USA.

Meeting with Students and Staff of the University of Pittsburgh:

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: My name is Dmitry Medvedev. I want to start by apologising for the delay. I hope the wait was not too tedious. The delay was not due to my being too busy, but was caused by the summit underway today and tomorrow in Pittsburgh. It was a circumstance beyond my control.

Before answering your questions, I would like to thank all of the University of Pittsburgh’s staff and students for the opportunity to speak here today and for inviting me to visit your university. I have found it a very pleasant and interesting experience to come here and see your university, known for its traditions, the outstanding figures it has produced, and of course, your teachers. And I am sure that it will have further achievements to its name. It is therefore a great pleasure to be here and address these words to you today.

I think there is no need to tell you about myself, seeing as I was kindly introduced just now and you heard the details of my academic and political career. But I want to say that it is a great pleasure to have this opportunity to share with you my vision of events past and present in Russia, Russian-American relations, the global challenges and problems that we all face, and, of course, the ideas that Russia and other countries are proposing.

It is particularly interesting to know that exactly 50 years ago, one of the Soviet leaders visited this very place. I cannot say that we are close politically, or that I share his views, but it is interesting whatever the case to note this coincidence. Nothing is ever completely coincidence, after all. There was a reason why this had to happen, and I am very pleased that it is so.

I hope too that you will not ask me the same questions as were put to Nikita Khrushchev 50 years ago, because life has gone on and we have all changed since then. Actually, I can’t say that I have changed since then because I was not even born 50 years ago, but there is no question that our countries have undergone great change since then. We are no longer divided by the barriers of ideology and values that existed then. We share practically the same views on global development issues and respond in the same way to problems at home. There are no doubt issues that arouse in us different emotions, things on which we do not see eye-to-eye, but this is good too, for this is one of the driving forces that has been helping humanity to develop over thousands of years.

We are all different, and this is good. At the same time, we share common values, and this is also good.

I think I have said enough for now. It is with pleasure that I am ready to answer any questions you may have.

Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: What future do you see for relations between Russia and Georgia?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I am sure that our two countries will have good relations based on our centuries-old friendship and common history and traditions, including religious traditions. That is, I am sure our relations will be as they were until not so long ago. The problem today is not that serious issues have arisen between Russia and Georgia, but that we differ in our assessment of events, in our assessment of the aggression launched in August last year, to be more precise. As far as Russia is concerned, we do not at all hold the Georgian people and the Georgian state responsible for this. Our assessment applies only to the actions of one individual, namely, the Georgian president. I have answered this question before, and I can say to you that Russia will build the best possible relations with Georgia, with the Georgian government and Georgia’s leadership, but I personally do not want to have any dealings with President Saakashvili, because I believe he has committed a crime against his own people and against the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Time will be the judge and will set everything in its place, but I am sure that the Russian and Georgian peoples will maintain good and brotherly relations. This is something that politicians cannot undo.

QUESTION: Being president of the world’s biggest country makes you someone with international influence. What is the most important piece of advice you could give to the students here at Pittsburgh?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you for asking your question in Russian. I am not president of the world’s biggest country. You would be right if it were Hu Jintao standing here. But Russia is indeed a very big country in terms of territory. In this you are right. Giving advice is not an easy job at all. I am no longer a teacher, you see, but a politician, a country’s leader. It is better to seek advice from those who tell you about life, about what the future holds, those who give you learning. But as a former teacher, I will give you one small piece of advice: Treasure this time in your life. This is the happiest time of your life, and I can say this for sure. I have had all sorts of experience in my life. I was a graduate student, a teacher, a lawyer, a barrister, I worked in business, became a civil servant, worked in the Government. Now I am president of a large country. But I can tell you that those years when I was a law student were the happiest years of my life. It was an unforgettable time. It is also an important foundation for your future lives and should motivate you to seek learning every single day. So, my advice to you is to treasure this time. I envy you.

QUESTION: Mr Medvedev, I am sorry, but I did not prepare my question in Russian.

Now that the Obama administration has decided to renounce the missile defence plans, people are saying that Russia will support UN sanctions against Iran. Do you think that such sanctions could actually be effective in reducing the tension over Iran?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I feel like I’m still with Barack Obama. He spoke at quite some length about this issue yesterday. We discussed the matter for about half an hour no doubt, and now you are continuing the same subject. I tried to answer this question yesterday, and I will do so again now, of course, in this splendid venue. First of all, I think that we share common responsibility for the state of affairs in the world. We all share equal and collective responsibility. Countries should not try to shirk this responsibility, and in this respect, Russia, is a responsible member of the international community, like the United States and other countries.

Second, we are all working on developing nuclear energy. Iran also has a right to its own peaceful nuclear programme, but what we are talking about here is solely peaceful nuclear energy and not development of a nuclear weapon. Our position is very clear on this and is no different to the position taken by other responsible countries, including the United States of America. I said this yesterday to Barack Obama.

Third, I do not think that sanctions are the best means of obtaining results. Sanctions have been imposed on Iran on past occasions. But at the same time, we are talking about the fact that we do have various doubts about what Iran is doing. If all possibilities for influencing the situation have been exhausted, we could consider international sanctions. This is a fairly conventional approach. I will not go into sanctions’ effectiveness, but sometimes there is no other option. I therefore think that, together with the USA and other countries, we need to continue offering Iran positive incentives to work on peaceful nuclear energy development, while at the same time pushing it towards making all of its programmes open, so that they are no longer a cause of concern for the Middle East and the entire world. This is the main direction our action should take, but if we fail in these objectives, we will have to consider other steps.

QUESTION: Mr President, developing the education sector is one of your policy priorities. What plans do you have for developing cooperation between Russia and the USA in the education sector and in support for young graduates? It is no secret, after all, that people are having an ever harder time finding a job after graduating. Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I have already begun developing education-sector cooperation between Russia and the United States. I am continuing this work right here and now, and I will keep doing so in the future.

Concerning the current situation, it is true that graduates do not face the easiest prospects, whether in Russia, the USA or other countries. But I would not over-dramatise the situation. The crisis will not last forever. We are seeing the signs that times are changing for the better, and the Russian and American economies are starting to grow again. I do not think, therefore, that the situation is really so dramatic. Regarding the situation in Russia, on my initiative, several decisions regarding graduates were taken a few months ago. They include job creation measures and legal amendments making it possible to establish small businesses at universities, where graduates would work. I had to make a special effort to push this law through our parliament, the State Duma, because it had not been passed in time.

I hope that the first of these small businesses offering employment to graduates will be established this very month. This will not resolve all the problems, but we absolutely must create these kinds of new jobs. As for developing educational programmes and education-sector contacts between Russia and America, I think that your university is an excellent example of what can be achieved. You have quite a large number of teachers who have Russian origins or are Russian citizens, not to mention examples from further back in history, Zvorykin and others. Quite a few students from Russia study here. This is good to see and, to be honest, it was one of the reasons why I wanted to come and meet with you in particular.

QUESTION: Mr President, what kind of relations would you like to see between Russia and the USA in five years time?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I would like them to be better than they are today, although today they are already better than they were yesterday. This is no joke. I can tell you quite frankly that around a year ago, I had the impression our relations were at a dead end and had practically sunk to the Cold War-era level. I don’t want to point the finger at anyone or put all the blame on the previous U.S. administration, but my position is that we in Russia certainly did not seek this situation. What happened then is not important now, but we should always remember it all the same. It is important now to reduce the number of differences between our countries and our politicians.

I have said before, and I say again now that I feel very comfortable in my contacts with the current U.S. president. There are several reasons for this. For a start, we are of the same generation and we studied in the same field. I recalled how, when I was a graduate student, I even read legal reviews that Barack Obama edited at that time. This is an interesting coincidence. I didn’t know, of course, that he edited them. If I’d known, I would have paid them greater attention perhaps. But it’s a curious coincidence all the same.

I think that these questions of world outlook are important. But what is even more important is that, when I talk with the President of the USA today, I have the feeling that he listens attentively to what is being said, and that he does not hand out ready-made recipes or take a mentoring tone. Taking a mentoring tone does no one any service no matter who you may be, president of a small country or president of the USA. He does not have this fault. I think it is for this reason that he has won the hearts of so many people, not just here in the USA, but in other countries too. And this is why he has achieved success in some areas where past attempts had failed.

On the personal side of things, it seems to me that if relations between our countries’ leaders stay as good as they are now it will be easier for us to build good relations for the future. Sincerity and a desire to listen to your partner are what are needed.

I have not spoken about this yet, but will say nonetheless that the U.S. president’s recent decision to renounce plans for deploying missile defences in Europe is a decision dictated, of course, by his vision of how best to protect the United States’ interests. This is not a pro-Russian, pro-Chinese or pro-European decision. It is an American decision. But what is very important here is that, in making this decision, Barack Obama did listen to and, it seems, analysed what I had to say, and this was also something taken into account in making this decision. This means that we are learning to listen to each other. I think this is extremely important, even on such complex and sensitive issues as domestic security.

Sometimes we need to take decisions that require courage. I think that decisions such as this one are courageous. It is not an easy decision to change the previous administration’s line regarding not domestic but foreign policy. I tried putting myself in his place, and I can say that this would not at all be an easy decision to make. I think this alone deserves respect.

I do not know where things will go from here. No one knows, probably. Perhaps they at the top know. In any case, if we continue listening so attentively to each other our relations will have a good future.

QUESTION: Mr President, my name is Alina and I am president of the students’ Russian club, Pitt. We have students here who are interested in Russia, speak Russian, have Russian roots. We have a whole three Russian shops here in Pittsburgh.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It would be good to visit at least one of them. All the other shops in Pittsburgh are closed today.

QUESTION: We all love Russian food, only we’d like to have not just Russian ‘bread’ but some more Russian ‘circus’ too, more cultural events. Could you help us to get Russian theatres, performers and concert tours to include Pittsburgh on their list of venues? You have come to visit us. Perhaps others will follow?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you for your words. It makes me happy to hear your wish. I can promise you that others will definitely follow. I do not know who yet, but if this is what you want, they will certainly come. Write me a list of who you would like to see. I am not a magician, of course, but we can try to send someone out here. Is that agreed?

QUESTION: In his introduction, the university’s president said that when you studied law your teachers said you were an excellent student who could find solutions to problems that others could not solve. My question then is, what particular effective solutions do you have for finding a way out of the financial crisis?

Thank you.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I studied law more than economics, of course, but they are related areas, all the more so as I studied civil law, as the president said, commercial law, and this is the economy in its legal form.

I do have some ideas, but I cannot share them with you right now. I want to wait until dinner and share them with my G20 partners. If I tell you about them now, someone might hear about our discussion, take my ideas and present them as their own, and I’d rather assert my priority to the copyright.

But speaking seriously, there is no universal recipe, of course, and I don’t think anyone will propose one. We are gathering for the third time now. I can tell you very clearly that I am positive about the summit and about how we are working. The idea to meet like this first came up in Washington slightly less than a year ago, and I had the feeling then that it would just be a meeting to talk a bit, share our woes, tell each other about our own problems, but no, what was proposed in Washington and subsequently in London is working. Of course these are not magic solutions that will solve everything and pull this or that economy out of the crisis, but as I see them, they do represent a systemic package of measures.

As far as the decisions taken in London go, they are a fairly concrete set of measures that address issues including the way the international financial institutions will function in the future. It seems very likely, by the way, that here in Pittsburgh we will finalise this issue: agreement on most points has been reached concerning the future shape the international financial system will take, including the difficult and long-running issue of the quotas’ distribution among the different countries.

This includes too issues such as supervision of national economic parameters, macro-regulation issues, audit, and other matters that will determine the outlines of the new financial system.

We are always saying that we need a new financial system, but so far we have not actually succeeded in building it yet. I have no doubt now, though, that we have begun laying its foundations. If the G20 ultimately succeeds in building the base for this new financial system, if not this year then next, I think we will have fulfilled our task.

Maybe we will not achieve any amazing feats, but we will at least lay the base for our economies to function over the next decades. This work is absolutely unique in nature, because when the Bretton Woods agreements were drawn up there were a lot fewer countries involved. The economy today is global and we are all in the same boat. The financial system that we are building today will be one that we can rightly call our common decision. This is what makes me positive. I hope that this work will enable us to foresee and, if possible, avoid the kind of serious crisis that has hit the global economy and affected our national economies today.

Let’s wait and see.

QUESTION: Good evening, Mr Medvedev. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Republic of Belarus remained Russia’s ally, Russia’s younger sister, as it were. But it is no secret that relations have undergone some strain of late, and the ‘milk war’ in the summer of 2009 seems to me evidence of this.

What measures will the Russian Government take if Belarus declares that it is establishing borders, customs borders? And what strategy do you have for restoring economic and diplomatic relations between Belarus and Russia?

Thank you very much.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We do not see Belarus as our younger sister but simply as our sister. No good ever comes out of trying to say who is senior and who is junior. It can lead to family ties being severed and marriages falling apart. Nothing good ever comes of it all.

I do not think that our relations with Belarus have worsened. There are indeed a number of issues on which we differ, and which we are discussing openly and quite emotionally. But what else can we do? Sometimes we have no choice but to argue our case with emotion, especially during a crisis period. I understand the Belarusian leadership, the president.

What is most important here is that this polemic, these emotions, do not hide something more complex.

I have no reasons for thinking that our relations have worsened or are in need of revival. We have very close relations. I will be meeting with the President of Belarus upon my return from the United States, and we will discuss all the different issues together, including issues that really are matters between allies.

This does not mean that everything will be smooth sailing, but we are continuing on from our previous contacts and will try to find solutions to the problems that exist, because this is in our peoples’ interests.

We are sovereign countries, very close countries, and I think these are the principles that should continue to underpin our partnership.

QUESTION: Hello, Mr President. My name is Olga Dmitriyeva and I am from Ukraine. My question is very similar to the last one. How do you view the current state of relations between Russia and Ukraine, and what policy do you have for their future development?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I see them pretty much the same as I see Russian-Belarusian relations, because we are very close countries, very close peoples, and it is the politicians’ job to build political cooperation based on our common history, our relations as neighbours, and interest in our mutual economic development. I feel the same way about the Ukrainian state and all who live there. But as far as our intergovernmental relations go, the situation is a little different to that with Belarus. I wrote a letter to the President of Ukraine recently, you perhaps saw it or read it. I recorded a video address on my blog too. Its main idea was that, unfortunately, our intergovernmental relations have deteriorated over recent years, and our task now is to try to rebuild them. In my opinion, the Ukrainian leadership, above all the president, I think, have not done enough to try to develop these relations. On the contrary, as we see it, these relations have often taken second place to other plans and have taken a direction that is not in our peoples’ interests. This is my view, of course, the view of the Russian president, and I know that President Yushchenko does not agree and thinks that all is fine. But I think that not everything is as fine as it might look from Kiev, and our countries’ leaders, the future leaders of Russia and Ukraine, therefore have the task of doing everything they can to resolve the problems in our relations and set them on a course of mutually advantageous development based on the particularly close feelings that our peoples have always had for each other and always will. That is the only real difference that I see between us today. I do not think it is fatal. The main thing is simply to make a common effort to put our relations back on a normal and constructive track, and Russia is ready to do this.

To be continue…

Americans take anger out on G20:

25 September, 2009, 12:16

The first day of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, USA has been marred by violent clashes. Police use pepper spray and rubber bullets to stop protesters from marching towards the venue of the summit.

The streets of Pittsburg have seen controlled chaos as hundreds of anti-globalization protesters rallied against the G20 leaders meeting. Violent clashes between demonstrators and riot police have led to the arrests of at least nineteen people.

The unwelcome streets of a city on lockdown: the financial summit brought out protesters in the hundreds, and police in full armor, blocking every entrance to the city center.

It was meant to be a peaceful event, but a tough economy is pushing people to the brink. Police surrounded the crowd, and used tear gas to quell the unrest.

With anarchy symbols leading the front of the line, few things could make it clearer that Americans are angry with the way things are going in their country, and they don’t think a global financial summit will work in their favor.

I like the little part about Medvedev’s speech to the University of Pittsburgh students. Medvedev said, “Love! What can be more important? Love towards people closest to you, those who are near. To my mind, it’s in line with any commandments – both moral and religious. It is the sense of life. Each of us understands the world differently, but it is probably the most important thing in life.!”

While Medvedev’s speech of love was going on – the freedoms of expressions outside in America, were being destroyed by America. (Somehow the love was lost!)

Oops the Military state of America is showing her colors to the world…

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

As you know I have been following the story (tale) on the Arctic Sea Freighter. This poor freighter has been accused of all sorts of bad things: From (WMD) Weapons of Mass Destruction to the largest shipment of illegal drugs on earth. It has been denied entry into the port it was to have gone to. It has been denied entry into any port. It has run out of food, fuel and water. It was recently being escorted for safety reasons by a Russian warship after no one else cared what happened to it.

Now it has disappeared again… (Along with the Russian Warship!)

“The cargo vessel and the warship disappeared from our radars, which cover an area with a radius of 25-30 nautical miles.” (Link)

Maybe this freighter should become a new weapon in someone’s Navy. It seems to have an uncanny ability to disappear! (This time a Russian Warship went with it…)

I say – that next we will find the ship in very deep waters at the bottom of the ocean…

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

Russia Today (a Russian News Agency) found out first hand about freedom of press in America. Russia Today found out that America has no room for criticizing anyone else in the world. The funny thing (not ha ha funny) is that they were told that they were doing nothing wrong…

So America can never talk down about Russia anymore for America is now doing what they claim the rest of the world is doing… Suppressing Freedoms!

NY police comes down on RT correspondent:

25 September, 2009, 05:18

As the UN session continued, RT correspondent Marina Portnaya was verbally abused and harassed by overzealous New York police officers.

She was prevented from broadcasting and denied the use of her phone, but was later told she had done nothing wrong.

However, a live broadcast associate was told that our correspondent still could not broadcast live from outside the UN. Eurovision New York – the company managing the site – put out the following statement through its senior producer, Ian Johnson:

“Your correspondent got into a confrontation with the New York Police Department and they have denied her access to our stand-up position outside the United Nations as a result. She has attempted to go back, and the police have again denied her access.”

“We have been warned by the NYPD that our operation will be shut down if they see her involved in a live shot from our position,” the statement says.

Seems that America is turning into a Police State right in front of your eyes. Don’t blink too many times because you may miss the transformation. I will let you seek out the information on the riots in Pittsburgh over the G20 meeting. But to show you a little sample of a Police State watch this video…

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

What is Medvedev up to this week?

1. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has arrived in the United States to attend a number of key international events and hold talks with foreign leaders.

2. Medvedev will address on Wednesday the 64th session of the UN General Assembly with his vision of the current world order and the system of international relations.

3. Medvedev will also hold talks with U.S. President Barack Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Austrian President Heinz Fischer and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

4. On Thursday, the Russian President will attend a UN Security Council’s summit on nuclear disarmament, and hold talks with Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika.

5. Later travel to Pittsburgh for a G20 summit to continue dialogue on steps to overcome the global economic crisis.

6. On the sidelines of the G20 summit he will hold bilateral talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy.

That seems like a full plate to me… (Glad he likes his job!)

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

Russia begins patrolling Abkhazian waters:
The first Russian patrol boat has arrived in the Republic of Abkhazia to protect the sea borders of the young state which declared independence from Georgia last summer following Tbilisi’s attack on South Ossetia.

EU to blame Georgia for the South Ossetian war:
An independent international commission working for the EU has put the blame for last summer’s war in South Ossetia on Georgia, but claim part of the responsibility also lies with Russia.

Melting ice may change world shipping:
Global warming could pave the way for a boom in commercial shipping across the eastern Arctic. Use of the Northern Sea Route, which links the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, would save companies time and cut fuel costs.

Iconic Soviet spy dies at 97:
Legendary Soviet undercover agent Elizaveta Mukasey died in Moscow at the age of 97 following a heart attack. She had been working for the country’s foreign intelligence for over half a century.

Russia’s first couple present Siberan bear cubs to Swiss capital:
The Russian president and his wife presented two Siberian bear cubs to Bern at a ceremony on Tuesday, on the second day of Dmitry Medvedev’s state visit to Switzerland.

Russia’s state defense order to rise 8% to $36 bln in 2010:
Russia’s state defense order will rise 8% in 2010 year-on-year to 1.1 trillion rubles ($36 billion), Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday.

Five police officers injured in mortar attack in south Russia:
At least five police officers were injured when their vehicle came under mortar attack in the southern Russian republic of Ingushetia, police said on Tuesday.

Russia and Switzerland: a comparison chart:
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev arrived in Switzerland on September 21. The Russian leader will hold talks with his Swiss counterpart Hans-Rudolf Merz and meet with leading Russian and Swiss business representatives.

Russian, Chinese warships escort 23-vessel convoy off Somalia:
Russian and Chinese warships have completed a joint anti-piracy exercise which involved escorting a convoy of 23 merchant vessels in the Gulf of Aden, a Pacific Fleet official said on Monday.

Darrell and Dennis

Hello.

We wrote about a father and son who came to Russia a month ago. Denis has left a comment on Windows to Russia and gives out what his heart says about Russia. We are reprinting this comment because it tells from inside Dennis how he feels about Russia!

Lets read what Dennis wrote:

After returning home to the USA from Russia a few weeks ago, I can honestly say my feelings never changed about Russia. I have visited Russia four times since 2003, and each time I return to USA, I become more and more homesick for Russia. I suffer from withdrawal symptoms being away from Russia. I often go into depression for many weeks or months. The sudden change from Russian life to American life is very brutal to me physically and mentally. People in America often told me that I would experience culture shock when I arrived in Russia. The truth is simply the opposite!!! The real culture shock is coming back to America to the fast pace of life. In America it seems money, competition, and greed are the only things American people worry about. Americans are constantly worried about the kind of car they drive, the size of their house, where their children shall go attend college, and the size of their yearly income. I never felt this attitude or stiff competition in Russia. People in Russia don’t worry from day to day about what they don’t have, they simply live life!!! Each time I come to Russia, I pack only 2 bags of belongings, and I have every thing I could possibly need!!! I saw ordinary Russia people everyday who have very little and suddenly all the things I have accumulated in America doesn’t seem that important to me anymore. I definitely know I could add an additional 20 years to my life if I would simply walk away from this stressful life in American!!! Russia is in my blood and I hope your readers do not think I am crazy!!! I left my heart and soul in Russia!!!

Link to comment: russia-come-to-russia-you-may-not-want.html#comment-16934169

Thank you Dennis and we do not think that Dennis is crazy and if you do, then I (Kyle) am also crazy. I do know that I have added years to my life and I feel the same way that Dennis does…

We want Dennis and his son to know that they are welcome anytime!

Anyone else interested in coming to Russia drop me an email…

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

More reading on Dennis and his son: Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Interview with CNN
September 20, 2009
Recorded on September 15. Barvikha, Moscow Region

FAREED ZAKARIA: Mr President, thank you once again for giving us this interview.

What does it feel like to be in this position? This is your first elected office. What is the biggest surprise to you about being President of Russia?

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I do not think that it would be a discovery for you, if I say that a President has a very interesting but very difficult job. It does not matter how old you are, 44 or 88, it requires certain dedication. We are of similar age with you, so you can imagine what emotions one can have in such situation. On the other hand, of course, to understand and to feel all that, one should spend some time in this chair. This is true.

As for my job, I can say that the tests that were important for me are quite obvious now. It is the crisis, economic crisis, which, unfortunately, broke out last year. I had been President for several months only, when it smelled like crisis, and we all felt that it was quite serious and that it would last for quite a time.

Another big and serious problem was, of course, the test that we had to go through during the military incident with Georgia, when we had to protect the people of South Ossetia. I was not happy to see the events follow that scenario but I had to make that decision. Those, I think, were the two most serious tests that I had to go through when I started my job.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about some of the other issues that you face. Russia has said that it does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Putin has said that, you have said that. Yet the IAEA says that Iran is not cooperating to give the world confidence that it has a purely civilian program. Iran says it will no longer negotiate on this issue, and yet Russia says it will not support any further sanctions against Iran. So, is the policy of not wanting Iran to develop nuclear weapons on Russia’s part – are these empty words or do you have concrete steps you are willing to take to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We have our fairly developed relations with Iran, that is why I can speak of Iran’s intentions not by hearsay, not on the basis of the information received from special services of other countries, but proceeding from the reality. Of course, I believe that Iran needs a set of motives to behave appropriately as far as its nuclear programme is concerned. There is no doubt about that.

Secondly, Iran must cooperate with the IAEA. It must be done, because it is its obligation.

Thirdly, we should create for Iran a system of positive motives, so that it wants such cooperation. On September9, 2009 Iran submitted its proposals concerning these very complicated issues, and they are being analyzed now.

There have been voices that it is not enough, that those proposals are too general. You know, I believe, that it is obligation of all nations involved in this problem to study these proposals, at least. It took quite a long time for Iran to study the package of incentives that had been given to it through Solana’s mediation at that time. Now, we need to study its package.

As for the sanctions, I have just had a chance to talk about it during my meeting with political analysts, who attended a conference here. I told them one very simple thing: as a rule, sanctions result in nothing, though sometimes sanctions are necessary. But before speaking of applying additional sanctions, we should make full use of the existing possibilities. That would be a responsible behavior by the world community. Yes, of course, we should encourage Iran, but before taking any action we should be absolutely confident that we have no other options and that our Iranian colleagues do not hear us for some reason. This is, I believe, the simplest and most pragmatic position. By the way, I voiced this position during the consultations on this issue, which took place during the G8 summit in Italy, when we discussed this question. It was discussed by all G8 leaders.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But do I take you to be saying that Iran does have an obligation to cooperate with IAEA? And if it does not, is Russia willing to step up to its responsibilities as a world power and press in the UN and in other ways to ensure Iran does cooperate?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Iran must cooperate with the IAEA, this is an absolutely indubitable thing, if it whishes to develop its nuclear dimension, nuclear energy programme. This is its duty and not a matter of its choice, because otherwise a question will be raised all the time: what it is really doing? And this is as plain as a day.

FAREED ZAKARIA: And Russia is willing to exercise its responsibilities?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Certainly.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about another issue relating to this. Russia has agreed to sell Iran the S-300 antiaircraft and antimissile system. When you will deliver it to Iran?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Our relations with Iran really have a military component and we believe that this work should completely correspond to the international obligations both from the part of Iran and from the part of Russia. We have never supplied and will not supply to Iran anything that is beyond the valid system of the international law. What we have supplied and what we are going to supply, it has been and always will be the defense complexes and this is our firm position, and I will hold to it when making final decisions as to the all existing contracts with Iran.

FAREED ZAKARIA: You know that there are many people in Israel who say that if you deliver that system, the Israelis will feel they will have to strike Iran before that system is deployed because once that system is deployed, an Israeli attack on Iran becomes much more difficult. So by delivering that system you open up a window or a period of considerable tension.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: In an hour I will have a conversation with President of Israel Mr. Peres, who, when he recently was visiting me in Sochi, said something that is very important for all of us, namely, that Israel is not going to deliver any blows on Iran, that Israel is a peaceful country and will not do it. Therefore any supplies of any weapons, all the more defensive weapons, can not increase tension; on the contrary they should ease it. But if there are people who have such plans, it seems to me that they have to think about it. For this reason, our task is not to strengthen Iran and weaken Israel or vise versa but our task is to ensure a normal, calm situation in the Middle East. I believe that is our task.

FAREED ZAKARIA: When Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Moscow, did you say that to him?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Prime Minister Netanyahu has visited Moscow. They did it in a close regime, it was their decision. I do not even understand very well the reasons for it, but our partners made such a decision and our reaction was absolutely normal and calm. I have had a conversation with him.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But did you feel like it was a positive meeting?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It was a good, normal meeting. We have discussed the most different problems. Before that I met with President Peres, after that I met with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is normal, this is our dialogue. And Ahmadinejad visited us, but, to be true, earlier than that and it was not a bilateral meeting, he came to attend as an observer the session of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. We communicate with everybody. I believe that this is our advantage.

FAREED ZAKARIA: If Israel were to attack Iran, would Russia support Iran in such a conflict?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Russia can not support anybody or act in such situation. We are a peaceful state and we have our own understanding of our defense strategy. This is the first point.

The second point. We have our allies with which we have concluded one or other agreements. In case of Iran we do not have obligations of this kind. But it does not mean that we would like to be or will be impassible before such developments. This is the worst thing that can be imagined. I have already commented on this issue. Let us try together to reason upon it. What will happen after that? Humanitarian disaster, a vast number of refugees, Iran’s wish to take revenge and not only upon Israel, to be honest, but upon other countries as well. And absolutely unpredictable development of the situation in the region. I believe that the magnitude of this disaster can be weighted against almost nothing. For this reason before making decision to deliver blows it is necessary to assess the situation. It would be the most unreasonable developments. But my Israeli colleagues told me that they were not planning to act in this way and I trust them.

FAREED ZAKARIA: So you expect no Israeli strike on Iran?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I hope that this decision will not be made. Iran should be pushed to cooperate. And indeed, Iran should not pronounce such things that it has stated, for example in relation to Israel, when it said that it did not recognize the existence of this state. It is unacceptable in the modern world, in the modern system of international relations. And this is the point Iran should start thinking about.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about US-Russian relations. President Obama and Ms Clinton have talked about a “reset” of relations. Your ambassador to NATO said that after the Obama-Medvedev meetings if a good result takes place it could usher in a new era in RussiaAmerican relations. What concretely are you looking for from the American Administration, and I am thinking specifically about issues relating to NATO and the missile shield? What would you regard as a good result from the Americans?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We will get good results. Indeed, we are enjoying truly positive relations with the new Administration: personally mine with President Obama and other officials’ and ministers’ with their American counterparts. It is very important since it is crucial that we still speak a similar language. Unfortunately, this was not the case with the previous Administration during its last years, though before we had been able to come to an agreement on all the issues on our common agenda and, it is no secret, we still tried to help our American colleagues out in some situations, particularly after 9/11.

I hope that this “reset”, though it’s quite a relative term, will bring its results. This should cover other issues beyond strategic offensive weapons reductions. This should concern our relations on European and Middle East problems which we have just touched upon by the way; this should concern a number of major conventions which we are jointly drafting; this should concern climate change; this should concern bilateral relations in the economic sphere, since they still have been developing lately, but not as intensively as we would like to. Our bilateral trade represents a rather modest share of the overall foreign trade of Russia, and a really small share of the US foreign trade. Though it means billions of dollars, our countries’ potential goes far beyond that.

Finally, we have another common challenge which is the most difficult topic for the moment, I mean the economic crisis. We are cooperating here, exchanging phone calls and letters, our sherpas (meaning assistants to the Presidents) are in contact with each other discussing these issues.

That’s why, in my opinion, the prospects are not bad, but it is the results that matter. I agree here with President Obama who told me right away: “It’s high time for us to come to final agreements”. I support this intention, as well as the intention to come to an agreement on strategic offensive weapons, for example. It is not the only topic, we should not limit our relations to this aspect. Nevertheless, it is an important aspect, everybody expects it, it is interesting to everyone. If we come to an agreement by the end of the year, and chances remain quite high, I believe, this would be extremely helpful for us, as well as for the world community. One should not certainly suppose that we are doing this under the influence of some domestic reasons and so on, since in any case it would look quite unfriendly and would not reflect the reality. Everything we do (I mean the Russian Federation) is dictated by our understanding of our national interest, exactly as everything what the Government of the United States does, is dictated by the national interest of the USA.

FAREED ZAKARIA: I understand there is a broad range of issues with the United States. But the crucial ones and surely the immediate ones are the issues of NATO and its expansion potentially into Ukraine and Georgia, and of the missile shields being deployed in Eastern Europe. Do you want assurances on both those issues?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I would like changes in the US position on these issues. There are certain positive shifts, I have already mentioned it. President Obama told me: we need some time to analyze the consequences of deploying the new BMD site in the Czech Republic and Poland. The analysis is underway now. I hope that this analysis would result in reasonable conclusions. I have many times reiterated that such simple conclusions are as follows: the BMD issues may not be dealt with by two or three countries separately. We just have mentioned problems in the Middle East, there are problems with North Korea and others. Hence, the defense should have global dimensions rather than consist of a limited number of missiles which can first of all reach our territory and cannot cover greater distances. I hope our American partners have got this message through.

As to Ukraine and Georgia, it is all very simple. My opinion was, and is, that such decisions must be based on sovereign decisions of the respective states.

There was no referendum in Ukraine. There are certain results of the forecast concerning the people’s attitude towards this issue. Two-thirds of the country’s population do not back up the idea of Ukraine’s joining NATO, but several Ukrainian leaders with fabulous obstinacy proceed with pushing their state into NATO. If they intend to do it, it needs to be done by means of referendum, by means of appropriate procedures. Though, of course, we would not be happy with this decision, for obvious reasons. Our relations with the North-Atlantic Alliance are steady and normal. Now they have stabilized after a difficult period they underwent last year. We want to develop them further.

But we should not forget that NATO is nevertheless a military bloc, and its missiles are targeted against Russia. We do not feel excited about the fact that more and more nations are joining NATO, that it is expanding further and getting closer to our borders; we do not like it and we do not conceal our sentiments. We should better focus on European security. Let us develop joint institutions. I think we should consider it. As far as I can see, this position is shared by a number of European countries which advise not to accelerate the entry into NATO of the countries that are not ready for it. I would also like NATO itself to consider whether the Organisation would be able in this case to manage such a number of countries that have numerous internal problems. If it is done to vex Russia, then more countries could be admitted to NATO; but I still hope that it is not the driving motivation of the North-Atlantic Alliance leadership.

FAREED ZAKARIA: When you talk about Ukraine and say that they should have a referendum, it is worth pointing out that Ukraine is a sovereign country and it can join any alliance it wants. There is no constitutional requirement that Ukraine has a referendum. It does make many people think that Russia is uncomfortable with an independent Ukraine, sees Ukraine as a fundamentally part of Russia and has not reconciled itself to the loss of Ukraine. Because Ukraine does have the right to join whatever alliance it wants and does not need to follow your prescription as to what it needs to do domestically.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You are right. The thing is, I do not provide Ukraine with prescriptions, I just believe that Ukrainian politicians should think about it. I am no expert in Ukrainian legislation, but if I had to make such decisions–we speak of entering a military bloc–I would understand that it is not that simple. Once we were all members of one bloc, it was called the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, and it was NATO’s direct opponent. I would believe that such issues need consultations with the population. Of course, it is their sovereign right, but, as far as I know, a considerable number of politicians–I mean Ukrainian politicians–share exactly the same opinion as myself, that the issue of accession into NATO needs to be decided by means of referendum. If the incumbent President does not think so–it is up to him. Therefore I think they should remember about it.

As to our attitude towards Ukraine, it is warm and friendly. We all have relatives in Ukraine, our close ones and our friends. We all need to communicate with each other. Ukraine goes its own way, it is an independent state, let it develop the way it likes. Ukraine has many difficulties in economy, certain specific national problems. Let our colleagues deal with them.

What do I dislike? It is just one thing–the one I pointed out in my recent video message and my open letter addressed to President Yushchenko. I do not like just one thing–that the anti-Russian position has become the base-line of the acting leadership, I mean my counterpart, the President of the country. Whatever we are told, it is my firm belief that it is his main line of behavior. It is very vexing and unfair, because we are the peoples that are so closely linked that anyone who tries to force a wedge between the two peoples, is making a mistake, if not to say, committing a crime in the face of the generations to come. That is why my address had only one purpose–to make Ukrainian politicians, and first of all the President of Ukraine, think this policy over. I am not happy with the fact that the “heroization”, as they call it, of Nazi criminals is taking place in Ukraine. Once we actually used to fight, shoulder to shoulder, against Nazism. This is generally understood in other countries, but not by Ukrainian leaders, for some reason. I have a right to give such assessments, because it is a common challenge, a common threat. Nazi criminals once were tried and sentenced by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Thus, there are things that are really important for the future of our relations. We are not imposing our will or appealing to anyone. I particularly stressed, that I do not appeal to the people of Ukraine, since they have their own leadership. But as a national leader I must make my position clear to my counterpart. In light of what was, and is going on there, I had to make an unpleasant decision not to assign, for a while, Russia’s new ambassador to Ukraine, so that our Ukrainian colleagues could consider the consequences of their strategy.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Back to what we were talking about earlier. What do you think of President Obama? You have spent a fair amount of time with him.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I like communicating with President Obama. We held quite a serious event during his visit to Russia. I counted that we spent eight hours with each other. That’s a lot for such kind of meetings, because very often negotiations between presidents last twoortwo and a half hours, including an official part and dinner. By the way it held often true for meetings with our American partners before. This time we were negotiating for eight hours. I’m thankful to my colleague that after all he is willing to look into many problems. It is important. Another virtue of his lies in the fact that he listens to arguments, formulates his country’s position. This position may differ from, let’s say, the Russian one. But at least it’s a result of a fairly elaborate policy, circumspect considerations concerning what is effective or ineffective for, let’s say, the USA. In this respect I feel comfortable communicating with him. However we are expected to achieve results and not just to spend a good time with each other, although it is also important.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But does it help that you are of the same generation, that you are about the same age?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think it does. Not only do we belong to the same generation; we also have common educational background. I told President Obama during our very first negotiations, that at the moment when he headed, as far as I remember, the Harvard Law Review, I used to read both the Harvard and the Yale Law Reviews, when I was a postgraduate student. It also means something. Well, we’ll see. The most important is to make an effort to understand each other.

FAREED ZAKARIA: I was going to ask you, Mr. President, about the comments that Vice President Biden made about Russia. But then I found an even more critical analysis of Russia’s situation. It was an article that said that Russia is a primitive economy based on raw materials, with an endemic corruption, a semi-Soviet private sphere, a fragile democracy, and so on. That was an article, of course, that you wrote a few days ago. What I was wondering is who is responsible for this condition, because many of the things you point to have gotten worse in the last ten years.

The World Economic Forum has a competitiveness index. This year Russia dropped twelve places on that index and it is now 63rd, it’s behind Mexico and Indonesia.

Transparency International has a corruption index and Russia now ties with Bangladesh and Syria on that index.

The Economist Magazine says the government has utterly failed to create a legal and political structure to support business and enterprise.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I don’t know whether you trust these indices. I don’t really trust them. However there is certainly some logic behind your words.

In my recent article I clearly wrote that I don’t like many structural elements of our economy. I don’t like its reliance on raw materials. I think that our level of corruption is absolutely unacceptable. I agree that we haven’t completely succeeded in building a democratic state, developing a legal framework. However it doesn’t mean that we haven’t made any progress and that we are heading down the wrong path in the first place. Everything what you mentioned and what I wrote in my article had emerged not over this decade. It evolved back in the Soviet era and in the 90’s. It’s absolutely true. Thus we should address these challenges by working in a normal, modern, effective manner on establishing a normal market and so on. That would be quite ridiculous to think that Russia is undergoing a setback in the field of economic freedom, economic development, if for no other reason than for the fact that the living standard rose and the number of people, who have become richer in the proper sense of the word, has dramatically increased over the recent decade. That is an uncontestable fact. I have mentioned it more than once and I’m going to reiterate…

FAREED ZАКARIA: But that’s because of the price of oil.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: In the 90s there were different periods as concerns oil prices, but in the 90s, when I worked at the University – just like President Obama – my salary was some 10 to 15 dollars a month, and this is not a large salary at all. And this is not only because of the oil prices, although I have spoken about this today, and mentioned it in my article, as well as at the conference yesterday, that, certainly, we should change the economic structure. This is absolutely apparent.

As to the article by Mr Biden, which you have mentioned, I do not believe that this is a good example of how to establish good neighborly relations with a partner for one reason: because we know about our shortcomings, while drawing rather questionable conclusions is wrong. What Mr Biden said is literally the following. Russia is seeking an agreement with America on nuclear weapons because it is economically weak and is incapable to retain its arsenals. This is untrue. First, nuclear weapons are such a sphere that any state would give due attention to. I am convinced that even the weakest states would reduce their defense expenditures in the last turn only. Therefore we have no problem with this.

Second, this is simply an incorrect move, because while having only started to develop relations – and I hope new, modern, effective relations – with the Russian Federation, at the same time to strain them in such a way is to make a mistake indeed.

And therefore, as I understand it, if this reflects the opinion of one person, then, after all, this is the question for the US leadership to deal with, but if this reflects a consolidated political position, then there is reason to think about what is going on and what will happen. You know, I used to believe that the foreign policy of the United States of America was the responsibility of one person – the US President.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about this issue of military prestige. It has often seemed to the outsiders that Russia is obsessed with some of the symbols of power – military weaponry, planting a flag at the North Pole – rather than with really hard work of modernizing an economy which is much more complicated and takes a lot more effort. Why is Russia so obsessed with issues like respect?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I don’t believe that it is all that simple. All I can say is that Russia obviously has its own perception of its role in the world, and of its achievements. By the way, I have mentioned this in my article, indeed on certain occasions Russia has literally come to the rescue of humankind, and yet only dishonest people can claim that World War II was won by somebody else. Russia made a decisive contribution in the victory over Nazism. This must be apparent to any honest observer. Therefore, this has indeed become in a certain way an integral part of national psychology. One should not revel in this, and make the conclusion about one’s own greatness only on the basis of former achievements – the first manned space flight, or the war victory, although we must always remember this, and we should never underestimate this. But in real terms, we should produce new achievements, and this indeed is the most important thing. Here indeed is where we need to change the psychology.

Why should we get rid of corruption? Because corruption is not only a crime, it simply hampers our development; it destroys our system of values. If one can steel money, why work to earn it? If one can take bribes, why should one labor? If one can bribe an official, why take chances in a fair tender? These are the questions that need to be rethought.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But Mr Medvedev, I have to say to you that when I talk to Russians about corruption they will say part of the problem, a very central part, is that the Russian Government has created a system of such a strong state with so much influence the state has, that the corruption actually maintains the power and position of the Russian regime. So it’s easy to talk about corruption from the outside, but corruption is at the heart of the Kremlin’s ability to control this country.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I am not sure that this is a good premise, because it is so easy to say that corruption has become part of the national system, that everyone needs it, and that it essentially helps to run the country. This is not so at all. If it were so, we would not have any problems. Corruption is not an effective method of managing the economy although it exists in any country. Unfortunately in some countries, like in Russia, corruption runs high, while in others it is substantially lower.

I had the opportunity to dwell on this issue today. I said that very many countries have gone through such great corruption and organised crime. Let us recall the situation in the 1920s and 1930s in the United States that was very hard. Yet you managed to cope with it. There were shootouts at almost every street corner, yet it’s all over. Today, I believe, the situation with corruption in the United States has improved.

And we too are capable to cope with it. But if one says that it is part of the state system, this is the best justification of corruption. It appears that those who say this are bribers themselves.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Let me give you a theory of why Russia should want to have much better relations with the West than it does now. And you tell me if you agree.

Russia’s great challenge you outlined is modernizing its economy. To do that it needs to have constant interaction and good relations with the centres of modernity in the Western Europe, in the United States and Japan.

Russia’s strategic challenge is a radical, violent Islam, an Islamic movement in its south; complicated and potentially chaotic situation in the Far East where there would be thirty million Russians and one billion Chinese facing each other.

In this circumstance to have these constant frictions with the West, with the United States does not serve Russia’s national interests.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I almost entirely share your view with one correction. We indeed need good and developed relations with the West in the entirety of these words namely because of what you have said. Because there are many challenges that we must jointly respond to.

What else have I written about in the article? We need modern technologies. In certain cases we may need to attract loans although we have sufficient funds of our own. There are questions on which we cannot advance at all without each other, such as climate change. If we fail to agree, all our attempts to stop the greenhouse effects and global warming would be doomed.

Therefore we really need very good relations with the West. I would only like to add a couple of points. I hope that the West, too, needs good relations with Russia and that this is not a one-sided position.

And secondly, we also need good relations with other countries, including those you have mentioned. Because today the world is multi-polar after all, everyone admits this, and we count on good relations not only with the western world, but with the other part of the planet as well.

FAREED ZAKARIA: What would be your advice, based on long years of experience, to the United States in Afghanistan?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We do have our own Afghan experience, and it was rather painful. It is absolutely obvious that the decisions that were made then about bringing the Soviet troops to Afghanistan were not well-calculated. But today the situation is different.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Do you mean the Soviet decisions?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, indeed. Today situation is different. I mean that on the whole we all are interested in success of the USA and countries of the Alliance. And we are even more interested in Afghanistan’s being able to have its own full-fledged modern government that would rule the country for the benefit of the people; in the Afghan provinces being reunited and not torn apart by terrorists; in putting an end to the massive heroin traffic from Afghanistan. That is our common burning problem. Practically all hard drugs in Europe are of Afghan origin. So, we are interested in an overall success there.

As for advice, I would give just one. One should respect the Afghan people, their traditions; should not run ahead of time, nor try to impose on them any pre-made recipe of state organisation that they are not yet ready to accept. We were discussing democracy with you yesterday at the conference and on other occasions. Although democracy is a universal value, it should at the same time allow for a national specificity; it should be proportioned to the level of political stands of the people. In that case it has chances to be successful.

FAREED ZAKARIA: A lot of people look at democracy in Russia and feel that it has gone backward in terms of the freedoms of press, the safety of journalists, the ability of opposition leaders and movements to contest elections, the amount of harassment that they face – in all these ways democracy has gone backward.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I have a different point of view on this issue. I don’t think there is a backslide on democracy in Russia. I stated that on many occasions and will now try to do it again. The point is that the democracy of the 1990s, or rather the then views on democracy which were embodied in a number of legal acts, were naпve. Up to a certain extent, they were copied from the views on democracy of the developed countries. But you can’t copy everything that easily. Thus, I believe that our current stands on political system, current party system, current system of delegating authority to the governors are far more democratic, compared with what we had in the 1990s. Why? Because it is more sustainable and better protects people’s interests.

As for freedom of the press, it is, of course, an issue that will always remain multidimensional. I happened to discuss the situation around the media in Russia with my American counterparts on many occasions. Some think that there is a lack of them. It is, however, not the case; there are very many of them, both electronic and printed, not to mention the Internet. Others think that our media are suppressed. I don’t think it is an honest position, since journalists have no serious difficulties raising practically any question one might want to raise in the media.

There are, however, attempts to exert pressure on the media, and I’m not going to deny that. Such attempts very often take place in the regions, where the officials are unhappy about, say, the media criticism against them. It happens, and we need to react to it; the media themselves need to be able to fight back, too.

Finally, the last thing about the media. Whether some officials like it or not, there are no “taboo subjects” in the contemporary global information space. You can hush up something on TV, be silent in a TV program, but given that about 40 million Russians are Internet users, any news spreads throughout the country in five minutes. So, it’s absolutely no point putting pressure on the media.

On the other hand, however, we should, of course, realize what is happening to the media. And you know this industry very well. In the 1990s, our media were organised differently; they were owned by about five oligarchs, who used them as a means to get even with each other, and sometimes to exert pressure on the country’s leaders. That was not right, too. The media should have dignity, be aware of their role in the world, in the democratic “division of labor”, if you wish. So, the media should not be controlled either by the state or the capital. It should have a “margin of safety”. And in this sense, I think we are going in the right direction. But I don’t think that the current situation is perfect, and I am always open for a dialogue on this issue. To sum it up, our political system has become more mature lately. In my article, I wrote that it is still far from being perfect, and that’s true.

Many of our democratic institutions yet appear only on paper. People are inert, not using their political rights. Courts do not perform as successfully, as they could. To protect their interests, people would usually appeal to officials, rather than to courts. As a lawyer, I consider it absolutely wrong. We need a completely different legal culture, a respected court and efficient law enforcement agencies. There is still a lot to be done here, and we are determined to do it. In conclusion, however, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that our democracy is still rather young. Russia had never been a democratic society until it became a new country; neither under Tsars nor under the communists did we ever have democracy. In our country, democracy has been existing only for the last 18 years. That is not very long if we compare it, for example, with the USA experience.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about the question relating to this democracy that many people wonder about. I have read the Constitution, the Russian Constitution, and I understand the division of roles between the President and the Prime Minister. And my understanding, reading it on paper, is the President is the superior officer.

So my question to you is, are you Vladimir Putin’s boss?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It would be sad if you skipped this question, I think that we could consider our interview as a failure in that case. By Constitution there is only one Commander-in-Chief, only one guarantor of the Constitution, only one head of state in the country – the President of the country. It is an absolutely evident matter and I don’t even want to go into further details.

As far as the Government is concerned, the Government of our country unlike the Government of the United States of America is a fully-fledged executive authority. Let’s look at the Constitution of France where there is President and where the Chairman of the Government is a serious figure as well. It doesn’t surprise anybody. All is made clear by that.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But the French President is a very powerful President and the Prime Minister is not so powerful.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Well, as far as the status is concerned, from either historical or legal point of view, do you see much difference, say, between the French President and the Russian President?

FAREED ZAKARIA: You know why I am asking you this, Mr President.

Because lots of people say: Dmitry Medvedev is very fine lawyer, he sounds like a reformist and says all these things that need to happen in Russia, except he has no power. All the power is held by Prime Minister Putin, so he is a ceremonial faзade and it does not really matter what he thinks…

What would you say to them?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It would be such a dialogue where there will be no person who could hear another person. Probably those who think so should say the following: “The current President of the country will only convince us if he removes from power the Government”. I don’t have this intention, because I feel comfortable working with this Government and with MrPutin, as simple as that. Therefore, if the proof of presidential powers resides in his desire to shuffle the Government as was regularly done by some of my colleagues in 1990s when the Cabinets changed every six months, and if it should be considered as a sign of authority and democracy, then it is not my choice. And there is no point to explore the subject any further. Besides, in our country everything is so bureaucratised that nobody will even stir his finger before I sign a paper whatever he thinks about the powers of one person or another. It is an absolute truth for everyone who wants to sift this question to the bottom. As far as those who wear mental blinkers are concerned, let them do it. I am not surprised that sometimes people want to remain stuck in their own stereotypes.

FAREED ZAKARIA: What you are saying is that nothing happens without your signature, so in fact you are making all the decisions, certainly with regard to foreign policy?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It is even strange to hear this from you. We have only one single person who is responsible for foreign policy, it is the President of the country I think it can easily be seen, as I spend all my time in visits. Naturally, all directives, all decisions are taken by the President. All decisions which should be discussed are taken by the Security Council of the Russian Federation, but they should be signed by the President.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But I look at the negotiations with Ukraine, with MsTimoshenko, and the negotiations took place between Prime Minister Putin and her.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: It’s normal, we are talking about economic relations, the two governments have to do it. You don’t ask me in that respect the question, who and how takes such decisions there. By our Constitution, by our law the questions of international economic relations should be handled by the Government, it is the area of its responsibility. But if we talk about all final decisions, they should be taken in any case by the President.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Do you think you are more liberal than Vladimir Putin?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is a good question. When Vladimir Putin met with his colleagues and quite recently with political scientists he said he and I “are of the same blood”. If our educational backgrounds are meant by the word “blood” then it is absolutely correct. That is why I would like you and our readers to know, though I am sure you are informed about the fact, that Vladimir Putin is a lawyer by education. After all, he was not born to the intelligence service or to the KGB. He graduated, by the way, from one of the best universities of the country. In this sense we have similar beliefs. But if we start to speak about details or preferences they, of course, can differ. I have my vision he has his. And, in my opinion, for eight years he had efficiently interpreted his vision into reality. But there are no identical people or identical leaders.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But when you make all these criticisms of where Russia is today, it feels like criticism of the last eight years because many of those trends have grown bad in last eight years.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is not quite so because all the problems we are talking about and which I identified in my article, are not the problems of the last decade. If we are speaking about the prevailing raw-material component of our economy, then it is not our invention, neither mine, nor Putin’s. That goes back to the 1960s and 1970s when the country launched a large scale “pumping” of oil and gas. This is not bad in itself, but, regretfully, we have developed only one sector. However, the USSR had a considerable technological potential. That’s true. Though in many respects it was based on military technologies, in that period, I emphasize, it was rather effective.

And then the 90s witnessed a landslide which we failed to repair in the last decade. In this sense problems stacked one on top of another and now we have to clean up the mess, as our saying goes. That is to say that we face them every day. That is why these are not the problems of economic degradation of the last decade – I have told you about that and I would like to say once again that the main country’s indicator is living standards. One can even squander one’s raw material revenues in a manner that will hinder a rise in the living standards, and such examples are many.

That is why, perhaps, everybody made mistakes and nobody is guaranteed against them. Some, of course, have been made in these ten years. Nevertheless, I am sure that we could be better prepared for the crisis, that we could better buttress our financial system, or modernize a number of enterprises. Instead, we have indulged in other things.

Today I have already talked about the fact that our business is reluctant to invest in new technologies. This is a problem of mentality, though very important one because nobody is permitted to seek money all the time. You know, at one of our last meeting with George Bush he told me that the Wall Street was responsible for everything. It might be so but on the other hand the Wall Street is not situated in outer space. It is an integral part of the economy and an element of the state system. For this reason we must take sober decisions and move further.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Do you think you are doing good job as President?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I don’t think it’s up to me to judge in the end how well I’m doing, though there are objective indicators, they do exist too. I believe that the government in this country should be authoritative. Certainly, it should be authoritative in every country, but in some of them people don’t know the name of their Prime Minister – there is such a political culture there – and still everything is all right. But in other countries it’s very important to understand who is running the country and who are its main political leaders. Maybe it’s due to our history; maybe it’s due to something else. But it is quite important for our country. That’s why it’s not up to me to assess, that’s for sure.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But if you’re doing a good job, it would make perfect sense for you to run in 2012, correct?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: If everything is all right, why not?

FAREED ZAKARIA: So, do I take that to be an announcement that you will be a candidate for the president in 2012?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think that the most important thing is to do everything that I promised to during this term. He who didn’t complete his work that he was supposed to do during the first term but talks about working during the next term and about his participation in new election campaigns, behaves irresponsibly. Did President Obama say that he would run for re-election? Ihaven’t heard about that.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But some believe that Vladimir Putin has said recently that you will agree with each other, just as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did; moreover, many people are under the impression that Mr Putin is going to run for president in 2012 again. How do you tackle these issues with him?

You know, the people ask about the future because they wonder whether you and PrimeMinister Putin have made a deal where he will run for the presidency and you will become PrimeMinister? What is the actual state of conversation about that?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think that what you are saying is absolutely right. If we are to talk about responsible politicians representing one political force – PrimeMinister Putin and me are, certainly, one political force– we should look at the real situation while making such decisions whether in 2012 or 2016. The point is not to simply offer oneself to the people, it is about something else. Every political force should be responsible. Suppose, when a political party decides to nominate somebody for President, it does so on the basis of his abilities, electability and his being able to win. That’s what Vladimir Putin referred to while answering this question. At the same time such common indicators as approval ratings should also be taken into account. So far we have had good ratings. That’s why we will agree with each other, that’s for sure.

FAREED ZAKARIA: But that sounds like you should run for President. You are doing well. Public feels you are doing well.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We should complete the work we are doing now. If we succeed, certainly, such decisions will be taken.

FAREED ZAKARIA: Mr President, thank you very much for agreeing to give this interview.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Thank you.

Lets continue this tale of the Arctic Sea Freighter – Maltese officials said it was not their responsibility to take control of the ship, even though it sales under a Maltese flag. At the same time, Spanish authorities do not want to put the ship in the port of Porta de Palmas in the Canaries because they do not want to be left with the responsibility of paying for the repairs of the ship.

At the same time the Russia government says they do not want anything to do with the ship…

So all fingers are pointing at the company that owns Arctic Sea – Solchart. The company has reportedly sent representative to the Canary Islands to get involved and bring all appropriate papers to dock the ship in the Canaries, but at the last minute Spanish authorities denied access of the Arctic Sea to the port, without offering an explanation.

So the ship just sits while the crew that is left on board runs out of water, food and fuel.

What next with this ship?

You watch – it will sink….

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

http://windowstorussia.com/2009/09/continuing-tale-of-russias-arctic-sea.html
http://windowstorussia.com/2009/09/russias-arctic-sea-freighter-could-have.html

ERIC HOESLI: Mr.President, let me on my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues to thank you for agreeing to answer our questions. We have prepared three sets of questions to discuss with you.

The first group of questions concerns relations between Switzerland and Russia in light of your forthcoming visit. The second set of questions relates to the current political events in Russia, and, in particular, the statements that you made during the Valday Club meeting and your article in Gazeta.ru. And the third group of questions concerns Russia’s foreign policy and its image abroad.

I would like to start with a question concerning your visit to Switzerland. You will be the first Head of Russian State to ever visit Switzerland. Tsars, Secretaries General, Presidents- none of your predecessors made such a visit. You and your predecessors visited almost every European country, except Switzerland. How does it happen that you are visiting us so late? How to explain the fact that Switzerland is in the very bottom of Russia’s priorities?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I can hardly speak about what has happened before me. I can say that Switzerland is not at the bottom of my priorities, just by the fact that it is not much time that I occupy my post but I already go to Switzerland on a state visit. I think everything is okay in this regard. As for me personally, I have visited Switzerland more than once. I love Switzerland, I like your State. It is very diverse and it has its historic place in the world and in Europe, it has its own position on most diverse issues, which, by the way, has always been the reason to respect it, because Swiss citizens- they are like other Europeans, but not quite as much, which is precisely the identity that we respect in each other. This is what, on the one hand, brings us closer, and, on the other hand, shows our peculiarities. I am very glad that this state visit will finally take place, and it is true that our relations have a centuries-long history, and we do have common pages in that history. By the way, my visit will be dedicated, among other things, to one of those common pages. I mean Suvorov’s march across the Alps, which happened already 210years ago.

Many citizens of Switzerland worked not only for their State but also for Russia. I am not going to enumerate all of them, you know pretty well who I am talking about. Of course, some of them, like, for instance Domenico Trezzini, form part of our common culture, including the culture of SaintPetersburg, where I come from. For me it is not just a name from a book, it is a person who created the image of SaintPetersburg. That is why I am preparing for this visit with a great interest. I am confident that it will be a busy visit, that we will discuss all the current issues with the President, and we will also talk about bilateral matters. We will discuss international and European affairs. Of course, we will discuss the crisis. It is impossible to omit this topic. We will discuss different problems related to that, both in Russia and in Switzerland. Thus, the agenda is quite busy.

Of course, despite the fact that I have visited Switzerland several times on business matters and just for vacation, I hope that I will be able to see a new small piece of Switzerland.

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: Mr.President, you are going to visit Switzerland. The first question to you is what expectations do you have visiting our country, and where do you see a potential for further development of Russian-Swiss relations? One should also bear in mind the fact that Russian-Swiss relations were not always very easy, there were periods of tension, for instance, those provoked by the tragic air crash. Where could you see a potential for conflicts or complicated relations between Russia and Switzerland?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, difficulties may happen both in your life and in bilateral relations. But today I would not like to focus on some difficulties or conflict potential. Thanks God, we do not have such conflict zones or they do not exist actually. And all small problems that arise could always be settled. This is precisely what I am visiting your country for, and this is the reason why our Swiss colleagues visited the Russian Federation. This is an absolutely normal practice.

As for the potential I can see it in several areas, of course. First of all, as it usually happens in inter-state relations, it lies in business links. Russia is widely represented in Switzerland. We have diversified economic relations, and we have a structured and well-functioning interaction, including in the area of finance. I believe that it is fairly important. I can tell you frankly that I do not see anything bad in the fact that some times Russian business started to take advantage of the possibilities in Switzerland, because business always chooses a comfortable environment. The challenge of modern Russia is to create such environment here.

But we do understand that there are states with a traditionally very high level of financial services. I believe that it is perfectly normal when Switzerland is used for such purposes. That is why, I believe, this area of cooperation is very important. It does not mean that we should not develop business cooperation in other areas: production, services, or tourism. All those are good areas of cooperation, and I am confident that a certain impetus will be provided to their development, including during my state visit.

Another direction is, certainly, cultural and humanitarian relations. Ibelieve that this is another important issue, because it dictates the mood of the people, it determines how well we understand and feel each other, it also serves as a basis for our wish to visit some place for vacation. Therefore, we are always glad when Swiss citizens come to Russia, and we are always glad when our citizens visit Switzerland for vacation- for alpine skiing or for summer time.

Finally, there is another area which, in my view, is also very important. It is regional cooperation and pan-European cooperation. I have already mentioned that Switzerland has its own position in Europe, and it is good because it enables Switzerland to look at certain problems from its perspective and to avoid certain stereotypes. Everybody has stereotypes. Our European colleagues have them, we, perhaps, also have stereotypes. And when there is a state, which looks at the same thing from another angle, it may help in addressing some complicated issues.

Well, we are all concerned with the European security now. Russia has formulated its proposals. What do they include? They include establishing a universal forum where most diverse European issues would be addressed and all states would be present, since there are different kinds of states in Europe: NATO members and non-NATO members, EU members and non-EU members, there are Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members, there is the Collective Security Treaty of which Russia is a party, as well as the OSCE, which is indeed a universal forum, while it doesn’t solve all the problems dealing with, in my opinion, minor issues and it does not certainly solve security problems. Hence, the idea of international cooperation in the sphere of European security seems very urgent to me, and I would like to discuss this topic with my Swiss colleagues.

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: Another question. Is there any evidence that you can obtain Swiss support for your initiative?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, there is evidence that we can obtain support for this initiative from different countries, I think Switzerland has direct reasons to support this initiative, because Switzerland is a unique country; it is not bound by bloc discipline. And as I see it, Switzerland finds it important to be entwined in the texture of European ties while preserving its neutral status. That’s why I’m positive in my hope.

MACUS ACKERET: Mr. President, you’ve already mentioned Switzerland as a financial center and its significance. Switzerland is one of the most important world financial centers without being a member of G20.

Does Russia support Switzerland joining the negotiations in G20 format?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think Switzerland should occupy its well-deserved place in a variety of formats just because Switzerland is one of the leading world financial centers. Switzerland is more than beautiful mountainous country or a country with the interesting history, it is a serious financial center after all.

As to participating or not participating in certain formats, it does not for sure depend on Russian position alone. This depends on the general consolidated position. But my personal position is as follows. I think we should seek for such forms of cooperation now that allow us to resolve issues. What do I exactly mean?

The G8, with all respect it deserves, has shown that it is unable to cope with the crisis on its own. It is already a fact. It was necessary to create a new format of G20. Is this format perfect and absolutely universal? Perhaps not, since not all the issues can be discussed among these twenty major states. Hence, we need to develop such formats where all the issues could be solved, including complex ones: tax jurisdictions, tax regimes, banking sector and every important item which is indeed being discussed now, from the one hand, and which is important for Switzerland, from the other hand. Therefore, I believe that all formats are excellent where existing issues can be resolved.

ERIC HOESLI: I would like to come over to today’s situation in Russia. Many Russians and also foreigners, by the way, read your article in “Gazeta.ru” with great interest. This week, at the “Valday Club” you also spoke, and there were a couple of clear and relatively tough phrases in relation to the present situation in Russia. I was there and I listened to your address. I would like to ask you the following question. What has changed today, why such words are used today (at least, you stated the situation, but many observers were shocked by the contrast between your tough, firm, resolute phrases and words today compared to your position a year ago)?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Everything is changing in this world. The position of a President should also change. It does not mean that the President should recoil from side to side. Every one of us should correspond to his place and assess the situation adequately. What I said this year, in the interview, in my new article in “Gazeta.ru” and other media, and also addressing the Forum, is the continuation of what was said last year. It does not mean, however, that Ishould use the same words. And certainly, the rethinking happened of some things. I can tell you about that sincerely, I have already told that. What do I mean? Our economy, notwithstanding everything what has been done lately to develop it, help it get on new rails, turn away from the hard past, first of all, the Soviet past and the 90s, it appeared, to put it mildy, non-competitive in the times of a crisis. And this is a hard test to stand. We all underestimated the impact of crises on the economy in our country. We should openly admit this and I have already said this. In the end of last year – beginning this year we forecast one or two percent recession, as well as many our European colleagues, by the way, they also underestimated many things. Now we are having a very considerable recession. And this makes us take a tougher attitude towards our priorities and take, perhaps, more radical and tougher decisions. And this concerns first of all the structure of the economy.

What’s the use of the crisis except for it is a colossal test? It allows us to rethink life. If it was not for this recession, we may have continued to develop inertially. Everything would have been calm, say, raw materials would have brought us considerable revenues, and it would have been fine. But, from the other hand, if it would have lasted some more years, the extent of a meltdown could have been much greater with such events, since we would have preserved our approaches to the economy, that is our backwardness, to a certain extent. And now we have to address it more substantially. Evidently, we are far from being successful in everything for the time being, and far from being done with everything. But here is a wish to rethink many perceptions which are traditional for us.

If we talk about other spheres: political, legal, anti-corruption measures, judicial system development, civil society and democratic institutions development, my ideas are being developed here also. What may have seemed not quite adequate just a year ago, is being implemented already. I already voiced several ideas in my last Address [to the Federal Assembly], which have already become laws. I believe I have to voice several ideas this year also. This is aimed at improving our political system. And I told sincerely that our political system was also developing and we had no illusions that we managed to create an efficient democracy which would have been an example to other countries and would have helped our people solve their problems. The piece of criticism which was voiced in my speech may be related to that.

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: But in your critical statements you mention problems of corruption, significant challenges in the field of human rights, problems of energy resources and reliance on energy resources. This situation hasn’t improved over the recent years. What in your opinion could be the major steps to redress a situation in these areas?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: In certain areas we’ll be able to make such steps over quite a short period of time, however there are some challenges, and I’m not under illusion here, that will require a lot of time to address. As for our reliance on raw materials, on gas, oil and other kinds of raw materials that we export, this economic model was created not in the 90’s and not over this decade. This model goes back to the Soviet era. The Soviet economy was built on several pillars. This is first of all oil, gas and selling of a number of export commodities. It’s absolutely true. This situation has emerged over recent 40-50 years. It is our own defense industry, which provided for lots of work, orders and jobs. This is the structure of economy that we inherited. Thus there is nothing new about it.

The question is how to readjust this system in a short term. It will be hard. Because to achieve this, we will require large-scale investments. Nevertheless, I think that we will be able to reduce our reliance on raw materials over a certain number of years. That won’t be one or two years. But given that we act coherently, consistently, in about five-ten years we may be able to establish a separate cluster, let’s say, the cluster of high-technology industry. I’m not going to give you examples of other countries. But even in Europe there are some countries that managed to establish an IT-sector in the course of ten-fifteen years, for example Finland. It means that it is achievable over this period of time.

Not long ago I said that from my point of view it’s very important for our new economy to have the size comparable to that of the raw-material economy. It doesn’t mean that we should abandon oil and gas. We will certainly export these raw materials, develop cooperation in the energy sector with other countries. But our new economy should be of proportionate volume, at least to some extent. I think that this is a solvable problem and this problem can be solved in a relatively short period of time. There are tasks that are much more delicate and complicated.

You mentioned the fight against corruption. That is a truly eternal problem for Russia. I referred to it in my article. Unfortunately, it’s not the problem that can be addressed through simple solutions. More specifically: the problem of corruption can be resolved over a short period of time but only in a unique manner, as it is addressed in totalitarian societies. It goes without saying that in closed tough totalitarian regimes the corruption level can be relatively low. But it’s not the path we should follow. We cannot go back in the past. But just to be objective, we have to admit that, let’s say, in the tsarist period, when there was not a scintilla of democracy in our country, corruption was flourishing. In the Soviet period its level was, perhaps, lower than now. That is the objective truth, as everything was under tight control.

I’m not implying that we should go back to those times. We need new technologies, that will encourage people for sound, honest work. And that would be a different kind of education. It means creation of the new way of thinking. Unless it emerges, it would be hard to make people adopt it. But it doesn’t mean that we on the other hand should lose heart.

Last year the special anti-corruption plan was adopted. Besides, under this plan the law was passed. For the first time in history of the Russian Federation and the Russian state in general the law contains rules concerning definition of corruption crimes; special code of laws, including rules dealing with accountability of civil servants, their incomes declaring. We shouldn’t forget that there were no such laws before. On one part, we should get used to it and on the other part control observance of this law. Therefore we may require more time to solve this problem. It doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t undertake this task.

Once I mentioned that when we were formulating an overall approach to combating corruption, there were some people, who voiced their doubts concerning this undertaking, who thought that we wouldn’t achieve significant progress in the near future, that we would be accused of starting this fight against corruption and not obtaining results. I replied that we had to do it, even though we wouldn’t be able to overcome this situation in the next one-three years. No country is immune from corruption, crime, organized crime. In the 30’s – 40’s the level of organized crime in many developed European countries, I’m not speaking about the USA, was beyond any limits. However they coped with it and we should achieve the same results.

ERIC HOESLI: With your permission I’ll continue this topic. You used harsh words in you article in the Gazeta.ru and again during the Valday club meeting you were speaking about corrupted functionaries, who rule Russia. When I talk to your fellow countrymen, I can see that many of them fully agree with the diagnosis that you’ve made. They consider you a bold person, but very few people believe that something can be changed. There was a lot of talk about the reforms, the reforms didn’t yield any results. Is there a need, in your opinion, for any kind of a token gesture, let’s say, a symbolic arrest of an oligarch, a corrupted functionary that would give weight to your statements, infuse people with additional hope?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I think I would trade-off my beliefs, if I told you that we need to arrest a functionary for the sake of the symbol. Because people should be arrested for a different reason, they should be arrested on the grounds of strong evidence of their guilt, their implication in a crime. Although sometimes high-profile cases lead to strengthening the credibility of authorities. But one shouldn’t just make advances, do politicking, run into populism, because risks are too high. At the same time, speaking about the real court cases there are many of them. Well, it means that corruption is a large-scale problem. However dozens of high-ranking civil servants are on trial in Russia. The problem is that sometimes it won’t form a one picture. Russia is a big country, thus the amount of adversity, of corruption, is very big too. Actually, I think that we are ranking first according to the number of people, being on trial.

The same holds true for dishonest entrepreneurs. Very often, speaking about legal proceedings concerning entrepreneurs people refer to the same list of names but only in terms of whether their conviction was justified or not, whether their conviction had to do with political issues. However it occurs to nobody that a significant number of entrepreneurs, who are on trail, violated the law. Not that I’m glad about it, on the contrary it’s sad. But that is the way of the world.

When the crisis began, serious measures were taken in many countries, and many businessmen lost their property, while some were prosecuted and jailed, sometimes they were sentenced to a whole century, in the sense that they literally would have to stay in prison up to 99 years. And no one questions this because their guilt has been proven.

Therefore I think that we should proceed from legal criteria even if somebody doesn’t like it.

MACUS ACKERET: In your article you did not once mention the United Russia party. Could it be that the current political system, in which one party holds a monopoly, is one of the greatest obstacles in modernizing the country?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I did not mention the United Russia Party not because I don’t like it, but because the United Russia party is just like any other party. Yet today it has gained popularity, and is holding the power. But from the viewpoint of law, it is just like any other party. This is the first point.

Second. I believe that the fact that today we have such a strong political force does not impede development of democracy, and on the contrary it helps developing the party system. I shall explain why. While the role of the Communist Part of the Soviet Union was once and for all determined by Article 6 of the Constitution, the role of United Russia is not determined by any normative acts. And if United Russia starts losing popularity, it will naturally loose its power. United Russia should think how to maintain this popularity.

Each political system has its features, and attributes. I do not believe that our political system will be developing, for example, according to the Japanese pattern, where one party, as you know, ruled for sixty years. And only recently the situation changed, and a representative of another party headed the government. Today, I actually had a telephone conversation with him. And for them this event has marked a fundamental change. But no one before that had claimed that the political system in Japan was not democratic. It is peculiar, and it is original. Yet it is democratic.

I do not know how long would such triumphant participation of United Russia in power last. I wish that it proved its right to run the country with its effectiveness. And then it will all be just fine. Yet it doesn’t mean that other parties should not develop. Moreover, I believe that competition among the parties should actually contribute to political system development. In the future I believe that we should get such a system where several parties will be competing on a continuous basis. This is absolutely normal. We should not create such a situation artificially though. We should not say that the party, despite its popularity, should get only half of votes. This would not be democratic. But in the future, I believe, that there will be a situation when several large political forces would compete for the electorate. And even today such parties exist in their prototype. They are not ideal, but they exist. We already have left-wing parties with their electorate, and right-wing parties that can get their electorate, but are not yet represented in the State Duma. We also have a centrist party that in the current situation more fully reflects the interests of the electorate, it is the United Russia. Therefore this is a question of developing party culture.

ERIC HOESLI: I would like to get back to the question that was widely discussed after your statement and the statement of the Prime Minister concerning your relationships. I was struck when I was listening to you and Mr.Putin, when you spoke about your relations, and the famous phrase that “we are of the same blood”. What does it mean, that people belong to one family or that one is father, the other – son. What does this phrase mean?

One more thing that also astonished me. During the discussion you spoke a lot about your ties with Barack Obama, the relations, hearty relations that were established, while the Prime Minister spoke more about his friendship with Bush. And therefore my question is the following. Can we say that you belong already to the next political generation?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Well, as regards any blood relations or blood type I have already said during our meeting at the Valday Forum. This is of course a figurative comparison, after all I did not make it, but rather my colleague Vladimir Putin. But I believe that it is interesting because of at least the following, which I shall try to describe.

The matter is that the educational code, those roots people get in youth, the roots on which their life attitudes are formed- that’s what is very important. And this is why in this sense we indeed have absolutely the same roots or the same blood type. Because we grew up in St.Petersburg, the then Leningrad, and received education at the same university department, we shared the same atmosphere during the Soviet period. While my colleague Vladimir Putin was a student in the 70s, which was one situation. I was a student during a period that began still in the Brezhnev times and finished my education under Gorbachev. There were certain specific conditions then. Nevertheless the level of education, professors’ qualifications, certain life values, abilities that were developed at the University, the desire to apply them in practice, the range of contacts- all this is very close. And therefore when we are painted all the time with different paints- one is a young liberal lawyer, the other – a spy, who returned from the “cold”, is incorrect because we indeed have similar perceptions concerning many things in life. Although all people are different, which is clear, it is ridiculous to say that we are similar in everything; this would also be an exaggeration.

As regards the question of generations, as you know, the matter is not just the fact that Vladimir is older than me, I am younger, but that he simply had a chance to work with Bush. This is an objective reason. I worked with Bush far less, although we also have met-– we have talked at the G-8 Summit as well as during bilateral meetings. I believe that perhaps my impressions of him are more fragmented. As for Obama we actually met in a full-fledged format and it was such, you may call it, a moment of truth, because by that time,- with all due respect for George W. Bush,- the relations between America and Russia had degraded to the limit, almost to the level of the Cold War. I shall not dwell on the reasons for this. It is not necessary now. There is no secret about the fact that Barack Obama, just as I, wished to overcome this situation. This is fine, this is for the benefit of all, for the benefit of our countries, and for the benefit of peace. If we succeed to achieve at least something, and we have laid the groundwork for this, it would be just fine.

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: Mr. President, there is another question of the hour. The United States have allegedly made a decision not to deploy the ABM system in Eastern Europe. What is your reaction to that? And if it is really so, what steps will make Russia in relation to the United States in this case?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I am waiting for the definitive information. For the time being, when our interview is recorded, I have not yet received it. But the fact that such a signal was sent is a very good one. It shows that our American partners, as a minimum, are ready to listen to the arguments and position of the Russian side, to take part in the dialogue and make decisions aimed at damping down the situation.

I do not think that the third position area in Europe will allow somebody to draw some dividends, except a group of politicians interested in this decision and a group of companies which will be supplying the corresponding countermissiles and producing radars but they have their own interests. As for the situation in Europe, it would not be improved at all, but the relations between the United States and Russia and, unfortunately, as a result of it, between Europe and Russia would be substantially tensed. For this reason, from the very beginning we opposed this idea. And if this idea is not implemented in this way it will be very good for Europe and good for the American-Russian relations. But I have to take a final look at proposals made by the American side. This signal is a positive one. We will certainly study it.

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: In this connection, I have one more question. Does it mean that Russia is going to meet the United States halfway and agree to some compromises in other areas?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We are both grown up and responsible persons. And when I was talking about my partner – Barack Obama – I mentioned that we are really trying to build new relations. It is very important that in fact we had the same education. It is good, too. I was saying this about my colleague – Vladimir Putin. I can tell the same thing in relation to Barack Obama. And when we have been studying, we have even used, to a certain extent, the same textbooks. This is true, too. Because when I was doing my postgraduate studies I could use American textbooks to study. It was useful.

Why I am talking about it? We are quite grown up and responsible persons not to condition a decision to another one. Well, indeed, there is always a score in politics. This is evident. And if our partners hear some our concerns we certainly will be paying more attention to their concerns. It does not mean primitive compromises and exchanges. But the fact that they defer to our opinion gives us a clear signal that we have to listen attentively to our partners, our American partners.

MACUS ACKERET: Twenty years after the Cold War was over the image of Russia in the West is partly different from the image that Russia should have from its point of view. The last year war in Caucasus, violations of human rights also in Russian Northern Caucasus influence time and again the image of Russia in the West. What can Russia do to change this bad image? What are reasons for this bad image of Russia in the West? And why it is sometimes difficult for Russia to find real friends even in the post-Soviet space, in the CIS space?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Image is a complex notion. It is formed from the most different elements. I would wish too that Russia has the most favorable image. But the image is not only how we are perceived but it also is how we identify, perceive ourselves. Who has the best image? Who is strong, efficient and rightful. This is a state, a society that we must build. What are, for example, the problems with the perception of us in the West and our communication problems with it? Because, unfortunately, beside our own problems which you have mentioned and mentioned correctly, there is a lot of stereotypes remaining from the times of the Cold War. I knew it before. But I can tell you honestly, when I became President I had, as they say, this experience first-hand and saw how many stereotypes weighed upon us. Probably, they weigh upon us, upon Russia, too. But also upon our partners from the West, from Europe, from the United States of America as well. Actually, they are still looking at us through the rifle sight, in a figurative sense, thinking that practically all our aspirations are based on the wish to obtain some results by military objectives, redivide the map of the world, and solve some economic problems by rough means. What are the reasons for such an approach? These reasons are connected with the visions of the past. And I do not say that Russia is sinless and does not do anything that can be perceived in different ways. Probably, every state makes mistakes, too. Or rather its leaders make mistakes. This is normal, sometimes it has to be admitted.

But in general the fact that there are some problems with the image that you mentioned may also be connected to a large extent with our perception of the West. Moreover, this problem has a reverse side, I fear, for the relations. Many Western countries are perceived very critically in Russia. The problem is not just that Russia is perceived somewhat wrongly, first of all, by the political establishment, business circles or by some intellectuals of the West. But it is also an issue that not all Western countries are perceived adequately by Russians. Many in our country feel offended by such attitude. This is the first point.

The second point. Certainly, there are stereotypes, this is also true, which remained from almost 80-year Soviet history.

For this reason we should not get angry with each other, boast of our own inherent merits, but we have to treat each other from the equal position, mutually educate, if necessary, each other. There are a lot of other areas where Russia could learn and we are not ashamed of admitting it, so we must speak right out about it. But this is not a pretext for self-flagellation and other conclusions.

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: One more very short question on Russia’s image. There are a lot of human rights violations that are brought to the European Court in Strasbourg, and that is an established fact.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: So, what is the question?

CHRISTOF FRANZEN: Why is there no progress on preventing human rights violations? And why are the reforms of the European Court in Strasbourg also blocked?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: As far as the situation around human rights is concerned, it is, of course, far from being sterile; the number of human rights violations is considerable, and they should be eliminated. We should protect human rights by all possible means, first of all, in court. And in this sense, there are so many of violations for the reason of absence of efficient state and efficient court. These are the institutions we need to develop. Up to a certain extent, this is also a question of people’s attitude, since not nearly all the problems today are solved in court.

As for the situation with human rights and court jurisdiction, in my opinion, it has partially to do with the imperfection of our judicial system. We should develop it, adjusting it according to our state interests and, most importantly, to the interest of our people. Since today our judicial system, perhaps, does not provide all the means for effective protection, for being able to go to a court of appropriate instance and have a just court decision made. Our judicial system is so organized that one can fairly quickly apply to Strasbourg. On the one hand, it is a good thing.

On the other hand, however, it impedes development of our judicial system. One can well set up a system when after a district court one goes directly to Strasbourg. But will it really help to deal with the issue? We should develop our own judicial system and not overload the Strasbourg court. This is, of course, not to say that Strasbourg is reviewing cases that deserve an effective response from the state. This is both our internal issue and, at the same time, an issue of improvement of our judicial system. That is why I think that as our judicial system develops, the number of cases in Strasbourg should decrease. Nevertheless, if our citizens view Strasbourg as the only place to apply, they have the right to do so.

As far as the so-called Protocol 14 is concerned, since you’re obviously referring to that, this question should be addressed to the Parliament, not to President. The President introduced the draft law, which was rejected by the Parliament because it considered the draft to contain several things that are against the interests of our country. But it does not mean that the process is haulted. Just yesterday I was reported on the updates. Now we are checking a number of things. The work in this area has resumed; our colleagues are working on this protocol, and we are thinking about how we can contribute to this process.

MACUS ACKERET: Last months, there have been several contradictory statements by the Russian authorities on the issue of Russia’s accession to the WTO. And for outside observers, Russia’s decision to accede the WTO as a member of the Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan looks like an attempt to delay this process.

Do you support Russia’s decision to accede the WTO? And what do you think the Russian government has to do to ensure Russia’s accession to the WTO?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The government has to do nothing. We did want to accede the WTO, and we still want to do it now. The fact that we are not in the WTO has to do with the WTO itself, as well with a number of states that block our accession. Our position has no contradictions of any kind. The contradictions are as follows. We want to accede the WTO. At the same time, we want a stronger integration with Kazakhstan and Belarus. I can tell you very frankly that about a year ago, maybe a little earlier, President Nazarbayev and I agreed to speed up the creation of the Customs Union. What did we agree about? It was very simple: if we were still kept in the ante-chambre of the WTO, we would create the Customs Union very quickly and would accede the WTO as members of the Customs Union.

And if we acceded the WTO by then, we would configure our Customs Union somewhat differently. Nothing has changed since then, and it is very good. We have not, of course, given up the idea to accede the WTO and will be acting on it; moreover, we are willing to consider different ways of accession: either as a Customs Union or, in case it creates technical difficulties, as the separate countries. In the latter case, we of course, would coordinate our positions before the accession, and now such coordination is in progress. We will work out common positions with Kazakhstan and Belarus and will work from that, but will be acceding the WTO at different paces. This is my position, and I have given a relevant instruction to the government; naturally, the position of the government is the same, so there are no contradictions here.

ERIC HOESLI: The last question will be about the Northern Caucasus. We were saying that a lot of officials, journalists and human rights activists have been killed; that there have been terrorist attacks. If all this is left unpunished, doesn’t it undermine the authority of the state? Aren’t you afraid that this impunity creates a negative image of Russia?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: If these things are left unpunished, they, no doubt, undermine authority of the state, of the state’s officials, of the law enforcement agencies. I have nothing to add here. These things, however, should not be left unpunished, and this is not so. Although lately the Northern Caucasus has suffered from a new wave of terrorist attacks, we are combating terrorism. And anybody could become a victim of terrorists, including human rights activists, whose deaths have just a deeper social resonance. Law enforcement officials become victims, too. I regret to say, a lot of them have been killed lately. They are ordinary people with their own families. They are ordinary citizens that accidentally become victims of terrorists. So, if all these crimes are left unpunished, this cannot but undermine the state’s authority. But we should do all we can to prevent impunity.

And I understand that most attention is usually given to such an unpleasant, negative information; I, however, can tell you with all responsibility that lately, in spite of all those severe crimes, we have managed to solve a considerable number of criminal cases, prevent a considerable number of terrorist attacks (some details are yet even not to be disclosed), the possible consequences of which could have been simply disastrous. Several terrorist leaders have been terminated. The number of the terminated bandits by far extends the number of their victims. This means that the counter-measures in this area are in progress. But we should not only finish this battle, but also investigate the crimes that have been committed earlier, including those against murdered human rights activists, as well as against other people, and carry out all legal actions in full. That is not simple merely because our judicial system is yet working not so fast, perhaps, as we would like it to work. Generally, any judicial system is inert and not always capable of making decisions that immediately achieve tangible results.

A question is frequently asked about a jury trial. A jury trial is an absolutely humane institution. But one should say frankly that, first, we have established our jury court whose competence is much broader than that of European. This is a true fact, the competences could be compared. It is because under the European law and in America a jury court considers a rather limited number of offenses, but we expanded the jurisdiction of such a court to almost all offences. This is the first point.

The second point. Jurors themselves should be ready to make responsible decisions. And if jurors are freightened and if they are afraid of terrorists, they cannot make such decisions. That is why I have taken measures in order to make the consideration of such cases more impartial. Let professional judges consider them now. Moreover, at one of the latest meetings I decided that a draft law be prepared, under which these proceedings may take place not only in the Caucasus, but also in any other region, so that the case could be considered outside the Caucasus with no one afraid to try terrorists. This is a hard decision, but currently it is a critical one. You know that to try their own criminals some European countries also adopted such decisions so that judicial activities, judicial proceedings be undertaken not in places of crimes. And now we have to take that course. But I am sure that we will be a success.

I would like to thank you for our interview and I am looking forward to seeing you in Switzerland.