TRANSCRIPT (continued): News conference of Vladimir Putin

(Kremlin.ru – December 19, 2013)

[DJ: Putin video http://eng.kremlin.ru/video/1680 with English interpretation]

QUESTION: Jill Dougherty, CNN.

Mr Putin, I worked in Russia in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and when I came back, I noticed that a lot of attention is being given to religion and moral values. I don’t remember it being like that. I would like to ask why this has become so important, and why is it so important for you to criticise Western values?

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s start with the second part of your question. What’s important for me is not to criticise Western values but to protect Russians from certain quasi-values that are very hard for our people to accept.

The issue is not to criticise someone but to shield us from the rather aggressive behaviour of certain social groups, which, in my opinion, not just live the way they like, but also aggressively impose their views on other people and other countries. That is the only thing behind my position on certain issues that you alluded to.

As for our traditional values, I believe that we should pay more attention to them for very a simple reason.

A certain ideology dominated in the Soviet Union, and regardless of our feelings about it, it was based on some clear, in fact, quasi-religious, values. The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism, if you read it, is just a pathetic copy of the Bible: Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife. The Code of the Builder of Communism has the same commandments, just that they are written in a simple language shortened drastically.

This code has passed on, it does not exist any more. A new generation of Russian citizens, young people don’t even know what it is. But the only thing that can replace it is those traditional values that you mentioned. Society falls apart without these values. Clearly, we must come back to them, understand their importance and move forward on the basis of these values.

I want to reiterate something I said in the Address to the Federal Assembly: yes, this is a conservative approach, but let me remind you of Berdyaev’s words that the point of conservatism is not that it obstructs movement forward and upward, but that it prevents the movement backward and downward. That, in my opinion, is a very good formula, and it is the formula that I propose. There’s nothing unusual for us here. Russia is a country with a very profound ancient culture, and if we want to feel strong and grow with confidence, we must draw on this culture and these traditions, and not just focus on the future.

QUESTION: Pavel Zarubin, Rossia television channel.

They asked us to be brief, so I will be brief. Have you met personally with [Edward] Snowden? If so, what did you talk about? If not, is such a meeting possible in principle? What would you talk to him about? Perhaps you would want to ask him about something in more detail?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I have never met Mr Snowden personally. I have a busy schedule. He has his own ideas about life and about what to do, how to live.

I won’t pretend that he doesn’t interest me. I think that he did a lot to change the way people look at things, including among the major political figures of our times (as people used to refer to Leonid Brezhnev during the Soviet time), among my colleagues much has changed, and he can certainly take the credit for that. This is true.

When all of this happened, I was curious as to how he came to his decision, because he is quite a young man still. What has he gained from it? He has nothing now. Where is he going to live? He is only just over 30, I think. But this is the choice he made. It’s a noble choice but a difficult one. He is an interesting person, but he has his affairs and I have mine.

We gave him the chance to live here, as I already said, on condition that he will not engage in any kind of anti-American propaganda while on Russian Federation soil. Whatever leaks are coming from somewhere, they are coming from whatever he left elsewhere around the world. We do not know what he left and where.

As I said before and say again now, to use the professional language, our intelligence agencies are not working with him and never did. We are not questioning him either about anything that involved Russia in his former work.

He ended up on our territory as a result of the circumstances you know. I have already explained everything regarding this point. He has to decide his future life for himself. We will neither help him nor hinder him. All we have done is gave him asylum.

QUESTION: Natalya Seldemirova, AvtoRadio.

My sign says: 50 days left. I think that many have already guessed that I am referring to the Olympics: 50 days before they begin.

Since such a big event is awaiting our entire country, naturally we hope for success. Incidentally, AvtoRadio station will be working right alongside the events, in the Olympic Park. We would also invite you to support our athletes.

My question is as follows: how would you evaluate the results our country can expect at the Olympic Games? And what means is the government currently using to motivate our athletes? Are they sufficient?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, by asking this question you’re helping motivate them, because any person or athlete, especially high-level athlete, is well-aware that when performing at the Olympics, an entire country will be watching him or her. And if the Olympics are taking place at home, then of course the athletes compete in special conditions, and receive special attention.

I would like to draw attention to two circumstances. The first is that we are the host country. And for us the main issue is that this competition be well organised, that we create equal conditions for all athletes. So that all of them, each athlete, regardless of the country they represent, can show their best qualities, give pleasure to our fans and those of their country of origin, and make a significant contribution to the development of Olympism, of the Olympic Movement. In my opinion, that is our primary mission during these Games. I hope you agree with me that it’s an important one.

Second. Of course we all expect our athletes to win. But I would refrain from trying to predict a specific number of medals, from counting seconds and points. The most important thing, and what I expect from our athletes, is that they demonstrate skill and character, so that we can be pleased for them and with their results.

And sport is certainly something that is connected with circumstance. For that reason it is quite difficult to predict with absolute certainty the performance of even the most famous, well-known athletes. Anything can happen: a sprained ankle, a fall, a slip ­ and it all does happen in real life.

I think that our fans will understand all this. And if there are any failures, they will forgive. Most important, let me repeat, is to demonstrate skill and character. Of course the best will win, and we will be happy for them.

QUESTION: Hello!

Channel Four, Yekaterinburg.

Mr President, in your Address to the Federal Assembly, you said that the municipal reform needs to be adjusted, but did not give any specific instructions. Now, various foundations and organisations are suggesting different options, including the abolition of mayoral elections. I would like to ask, should we elect mayors, appoint them, or get rid of them altogether?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mayors must be elected, of course.

Russia is a member of the European Charter. But that’s not the only reason. The municipal level is the level of government that is closest to the people. Therefore, municipal leaders should be the people that voters know personally and can come to them, talk to them, express their opinions on the development of their village or town. They must have the opportunity to pursue the implementation of their ideas. Incidentally, it is not necessary to go out into the streets. We need direct communication between people and municipal leaders. This is extremely important.

The fact is that we have a two-tier system, which is cumbersome and inefficient. Take a city of half a million people. How can an ordinary person come into contact with any of the top officials? This is quasi-municipal government. That is the first point.

Second. As I mentioned earlier, the reason for the recent decisions is that we took education and healthcare away from municipal authorities. They lost a lot of their powers. This was not done to punish them; they simply have no sources of revenue to achieve the objectives they were responsible for before.

We are still to make the decision regarding this situation. Should they get additional sources of revenue or should we just accept the fact that such tasks cannot be performed at the municipal level? A whole set of issues is involved here. I asked to get back to these problems and resolve them once and for all.

But I deliberately did not offer any solutions; on the contrary, I asked municipal associations to make their own proposals, jointly with regional authorities, the federal Government and the State Duma. We cannot postpone this any more. That’s why I drew attention to it.

I don’t want to voice my opinion now either, because I am afraid that it will be accepted as something final and will prevent free discussion. I want people to talk about it openly and make their arguments for or against certain decisions.

But there’s another aspect that is very important. I recently met with the heads of municipalities from across the country, excellent professionals. I know that they come under a lot of criticism, and rightly so, because, they represent the frontline in the drive for a better future. Their work is very hard. This is a very complicated, difficult and dangerous trial for the authorities. If people pass through it, it means that they are very good professionals.

I would very much like for the municipal level of government to become a real talent foundry, as they say, so that local officials went on to work in the regional and federal government. All of this needs to be combined. There are problems in this area, but we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves.

QUESTION: Yekaterina Kotrikadze, Russian Television International (RTVi), New York, USA.

Mr President, we’ve already heard Edward Snowden’s name, but I would like to ask a follow-up question about Russian-American relations.

It is well known that after Snowden’s revelations, relations between the US and its strategic partners such as Germany deteriorated or at least became significantly strained. We know that Angela Merkel was shocked to learn that her cell phone was tapped.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: But she’s feeling ok now; don’t worry, everything is fine.

YEKATERINA KOTRIKADZE: In fact, according to Western, including German, media, she was shocked. But be that as it may, relations have soured.

Russian-American relations have never been particularly warm, but they are nevertheless very influential for global processes. Now I would like to ask how your personal relationship with Barack Obama is developing? How do you feel about him, and do you communicate? And in general, what prospects are there for US­Russian relations following these leaks?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How do I feel about Obama after Snowden’s revelations?

YEKATERINA KOTRIKADZE: Yes, among other things.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I envy him, because he can do this without incurring any consequences.

But of course there is nothing to be particularly pleased about, nor is there anything to be particularly upset about. First of all, spying has always existed and it is one of the oldest professions, along with some others that I will not name here. There are not so many professions that are as old as mankind.

And then you know it is impossible to analyse this amount of data, and it is useless to read excerpts. It is useless to look at the analyses conducted by intelligence services, because they reflect analysts’ opinions, and not facts. I myself have worked at this, and I know what I’m talking about. It is always a very delicate thing.

Or you have to absolutely trust these analysts and know them personally, know the opinions and views of those who are writing. I did this myself and to be perfectly honest, it’s a serious thing. Or you have to read the original documents. But it’s not possible to read the billions of originals of these interceptions; that much is obvious.

Therefore, no matter how much our American friends are criticised, at the end of the day I think that their work was mainly directed at fighting terrorism. Certainly, this has some negative aspects, and on a political level, it’s necessary to control the appetites of special services by introducing certain rules. But you must understand that overall, it’s a necessity.

After all, why so much data? Because you have to monitor not only a specific terrorist suspect, but rather his whole network of relationships. Keeping in mind modern means of communication, almost nothing can be done by surveying a lone suspect.

Let me repeat that I am not going to justify anyone, God forbid. But it is fair to say that overall this is primarily directed at the fight against terrorism, and that these are anti-terrorist measures. But along with this there should be more or less clear rules and agreements, including morally informed ones.

QUESTION: Natalya Galimova, gazeta.ru.

Mr President, recently, Vladimir Ryzhkov gave you the results of a public investigation of the May 6, 2012 events at Bolotnaya Square.

According to the results of this investigation, which questioned over 600 witnesses of the event, there were no mass riots at Bolotnaya; what did occur, in short, was the unlawful use of force by the police and self-defence by individual protestors. In other words, essentially, people are currently being tried for things they did not do.

Nevertheless, in the amnesty project that you have submitted to the State Duma and which the Duma approved yesterday, you suggested granting amnesty to only a tiny number of persons involved in the Bolotnaya case. Why? Don’t you trust the results of the public investigation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, when I was a university student, I had a class on logic. I imagine they teach it today as well. And they gave the following example as a logical fallacy. A train is on its way from Moscow to Leningrad, and it stops at, say, Bologoye station. An American gets off the train to smoke a cigarette. Meanwhile, another American ­ dark-skinned ­ gets out of the same train to buy some water. And a third American, also dark-skinned, gets out of a third car in the same train. The first American looks at the other two and concludes that people in Bologoye have dark skin. This is one example of a disruption in the logical chain that leads to incorrect conclusions.

You began with the fact that Ryzhkov believes the use of force by law enforcement was wrong, and the protestors were not guilty of any wrongdoing. And based on this, you conclude that we are offering very limited measures with regard to amnesty. If we decide that everyone can make their own assessments and this will be recognised as the ultimate truth, then we will get completely confused about everything.

Only the courts can determine whether there were any infractions, regardless of what side they may originate from, and from whom, specifically. I am asking you to seriously think about this. If the courts feel that somebody committed an infraction pertaining to the organisation of mass riots, and somebody else engaged in violence against the authorities, first and foremost, law enforcement officers, then we are using that data. We are making decisions based on that information ­ including whether to grant amnesty.

Now, concerning the heart of the matter. I have already said this many times, and I’ll repeat it if necessary. This is certainly not about somebody ripping a police officer’s epaulet or hitting him; although that, in and of itself, is unacceptable and bad.

The danger to our society is that if we allow anybody to treat law enforcement officers this way (it’s mostly representatives of the so-called liberal spectrum of our society who are now talking about this), then it is quite easy to imagine a situation wherein members of other political groups take to the streets ­ nationalists, for example ­ and begin to beat up this liberal intelligentsia.

At that point, they will call to us and the police: “Help! Save us!” And the police will say, “No, now you’ll have to save yourselves, because the law does not protect us.” And we will descend into complete chaos. The government’s responsibility, if it has that responsibility, must be to ensure that nobody is allowed to flagrantly violate the law.

That is precisely why we have made this decision on amnesty ­ not to grant amnesty to people whose infractions relate to violence against the authorities, first and foremost law enforcement officers, and those who committed grievous crimes that are dangerous to our society: organising mass riots.

Incidentally, in other nations ­ we won’t name them ­ raising your hand against a police officer is enough to get shot between the eyes straightaway. Sometimes, they don’t even have time to raise a hand against the police officer before they are shot ­ and this includes women and children.

QUESTION: Hello, Ivan Zakharchenko, Realnaya shkola Internet portal, Moscow. Mr President, I have two questions.

The first: do you think it was worth it to cause such a big fuss about the Greenpeace affair? After all, people started calling representatives of that NGO pirates. But now they are being released on bail. And why was it necessary to make such a big scandal involving many famous people from around the world? Is it justified in this case to tone down legislation, as in the case of legislation that allows us to put young participants of flash mobs in jail? And what are your personal views of this organisation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have positive views of all those who are working to protect the environment. Of all of them without exception. However, I consider it unacceptable when people instrumentalise environmental protection, and use it for their own PR and personal enrichment.

I do not want to cite examples to substantiate this now, but that is not because I don’t have any. Unfortunately, it is often the case that environmental activities are used for these ignoble purposes, namely blackmail, extorting money from companies, and so on.

As for the hype, no one created it. Government authorities certainly did not. It was your colleagues who did. And who was behind that? The very people who broke the law. Why did this happen? Either to put pressure on a company and receive compensation from them, or interfere on someone’s orders to prevent offshore development, in this case that of the Russian Federation.

This is a serious matter for us, and we do not intend to soften our stance. On the contrary, we will only be toughening it. But I want to make it very clear to everyone: we are ready to engage in debate and are open. Moreover, if needed, and if we hear serious, valid arguments, we are even ready to make adjustments to our work, despite the financial implications.

We just mentioned, and at the very beginning talked about our Olympic project. With regards to one facility, where we had already spent 30 million rubles, environmentalists (both Russian and international) showed up and made a complaint about the facilities’ proximity to protected natural areas. And we said to them: “Where were you earlier? This is what happened.” Nevertheless we agreed with them, and despite the money spent, we transferred and moved these facilities, and took on the necessary costs.

As you know, we did the same thing while working on laying the oil pipeline system from Western Siberia to the Pacific Ocean. At that time a question arose ­ and Valentin Rasputin spoke out about this with particular vigour ­ of whether we should move its route farther away from Lake Baikal’s water-intake area.

We spent an additional $400 million to do so. You see, we agree to such steps, and are always ready to listen. But this was a completely different situation. The [Arctic Sunrise] ship entered our exclusive economic zone, turned off all identification signals, and didn’t answer any signals from our side, from our border guards, like a ghost ship.

Moreover, they tried to land on our Prirazlomnaya oil rig, and when we tried to stop them, their second boat began to ram into our border guards. What is that? Is it a normal discussion about environmental protection?

It was either an attempt at getting PR or, let me repeat once again, an attempt at blackmail and extortion, or they were carrying out someone else’s order to stop us from developing hydrocarbons offshore. All of these variants are very bad. We hope that this will not happen again.

As for the fact that they can now receive amnesty, and I understand that they will, we are not doing this for them. But if they benefit from it, fine. I think that what happened must serve as a lesson and should, I hope, dispose both us and Greenpeace to working positively together.

Not to create empty noise, but to minimise environmental risks should they occur. We are ready for such joint work, including with Greenpeace.

QUESTION: Ivan Prytyka, Kubanskiye Novosti (Kuban News) newspaper, Krasnodar Territory.

Mr President, I have a question concerning Cossacks. The Cossack community is developing very actively in our territory, and Cossack brigades help maintain public order.

My question is as follows: how do you feel about this initiative and about Cossacks in general? Do you think it’s something archaic, or it’s a true force?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: They are a part of our Russian culture ­ a very bright part of our culture. I am not just referring to the Cossack songs and dances, but, among other things, their well-known traditional patriotism.

And there is nothing at all archaic about that. Today’s patriotism is very important for promoting the ideas of nationhood in our people’s consciousness in general. In this respect, the Cossacks play a unique and rather positive role.

As for the Cossacks’ self-organisation, we support it. We have a corresponding legal framework, including Presidential executive orders. We will continue to do so in the future. Of course, as with anything, there are excesses, some violations or abuses. We simply need to fight them and respond to them. I know that the Cossacks are doing so themselves.

As for the brigades, there is nothing really new about them. Didn’t we have public brigades during Soviet times? Incidentally, such public brigades are appearing in other regions of the Russian Federation as well. And I feel that what the Cossacks are doing is entirely natural.

What’s important is for all this work to be conducted within the framework of existing laws, in close contact with law enforcement agencies. But in my view, the Cossacks sometimes operate much more effectively than the law enforcement agencies. And this has to do with the fact that they represent the overwhelming majority of the people who live in those territories where these authorities are operating.

What’s truly important is earning people’s trust. They are not really working for themselves personally but for the citizens who are delegating them to do this. I repeat: what’s important is for all this to be within the framework of existing laws and common sense. And I want to wish them success.

QUESTION: Sergei Brilev, Rossiya-1 TV channel.

Mr President, I wanted to build on the amnesty issue, but put the question a little bit broader.

When this issue was discussed, the extra-parliamentary opposition appealed to you, then the State Duma waited for the president’s draft bill. On the eve of the 20th anniversary of Russia’s Constitution, one gets the feeling that as head of state you are not only its main guarantor, but also its reader, because so many of the broadest powers it contains ­ those of parliament and the Government ­ are not often used.

For example, your Address to the Federal Assembly. A year ago you spoke about stopping offshore activities. A year later, the Presidential Address contains concrete steps to this effect. What were the others doing? It’s a question about homework and so on. Is this situation, in which every issue is your issue, more flattering or more worrying for you?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You’re mistaken. You’re mistaken that the majority of management issues are eventually referred to the head of state. There are issues that are to some extent in the public eye. So, it seems that everything that is happening in Russia occurs exclusively manually. But that is not the case.

I worked as Prime Minister for four years. You cannot even imagine the tremendous amount of work the Government does. Even the Prime Minister doesn’t know everything that is going on in the ministries. This is simply impossible.

The nastiest work we have is that of Prime Minister. It’s hard daily work, like being under a waterfall that is just falling constantly, incessantly. And you can’t control everything that happens, you simply have to create a mechanism that works. Such a mechanism exists, and it’s up and running.

But there are questions that take on a crucial role in the public consciousness. And naturally very often it’s up to either the Prime Minister or President to resolve them. And at that point it seems that everything is being managed manually. This is not so.

As for the amnesty, I myself, when meeting with State Duma deputies, suggested doing it directly, that the deputies submit the legislation themselves. They suggested that I do so. It was their suggestion. It was easier that way to hold discussions within parliament itself.

I think it is also quite natural. Do not forget that after all I myself established United Russia, and until recently I acted as its head in both theory and practice. It remains the leading political force in parliament, so this is a natural process. That is first thing.

And the second. We still need to develop and not to destroy the business-like atmosphere that governs our cooperation, an atmosphere that has already been created, for I sign the laws eventually. Therefore even in this case, even when an issue is being resolved through a parliamentary resolution, we must agree with and understand each other. I think it’s actually a good sign.

QUESTION: Rustavi-2, Tamara Nutsubidze.

Mr President, yesterday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a statement that Russia is not ready to have a visa-free regime with Georgia.

The new Prime Minister of Georgia made a statement in turn: “The Government of Georgia has done everything to normalise relations with Russia. We have changed our rhetoric. We have actively begun to renew economic and cultural ties. We have done everything in order to ease the tension that existed in our relations. And I think that we were able to achieve this. However, we are disappointed by Russia’s actions along the occupation line. Our government has shown with both words and actions that we want to normalise our relations with our neighbour, Russia.”

These are the words that the Prime Minister said yesterday.

What political steps is Russia prepared to take in order to normalise relations with Georgia? And have you personally changed your position after regime change in Georgia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You have asked an all-embracing question. I don’t know if I will be able to answer it as exhaustively.

I will say what is most important. My personal attitude toward Georgia’s current leadership has changed. But my attitude toward the Georgian people has not changed. They remain kind and big-hearted, just as they have always been. Even during the most difficult times, when there were hostilities in the Caucasus in connection with the events you are well aware of, even then, my feelings about the Georgian people were very positive.

It was confirmed even during those difficult days and hours, confirmed by the Georgians’ own attitude toward Russia. I do not remember whether I said this publicly or not, but in one of the cities, an elderly man approached our troops and said, “What do you want here? What have you found here, what are you looking for? Go to Tbilisi and get Mishka [former President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili]. What are you doing here, looking at me?”

As you know, there were losses among our service members. A plane was shot down; the pilot ejected and landed. An old Georgian lady approached him and said, “Come here, my son.” She took him in and fed him. Then they sent him to where the Russian troops were stationed.

When I say that my feelings toward the Georgian people are kind, I am not joking or being ironic. We have very deep cultural relations and spiritual ties ­ I mean the similarity in our religions. There are problems that have occurred through no fault of our own; we did not start these hostilities. This has been recognised by everyone. What happened has happened. We said a thousand times: do not allow bloodshed under any circumstances, do not take it that far. But they did, nevertheless. Now we have to live with a certain reality. We cannot fail to acknowledge it. But nevertheless, we see the signals being sent by Georgia’s new leadership.

I do not know what our Foreign Minister meant; maybe there are certain formal issues in connection with the Ministry’s work. But, understanding the development of the situation in Georgia the way we see it, I think it would be entirely feasible for us to return to a visa-free regime. We will need to think it through at the expert level.

I think this would be a very good step toward normalising the relations between our nations, in that it would help people communicate, it would help Georgian companies work on the Russian market and generally create the conditions for a fundamental, final normalisation of our relations.

QUESTION: Natalya Smolyaninova, Kray Ryazansky TV company, Ryazan Region.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you. This year, we saw the launch of the Odintsovo northern bypass. We have waited for this highway for over a decade. It opened this year, connecting distant areas of the city and making life easier for drivers. Now, the transit flows no longer pass through the city centre. Thank you for this, because if it weren’t for your help, I think we would still be waiting for this road for a long time.

And now, the question. Last year, our nation joined the WTO. Now, all the related rules have gone into effect. Has accession to the WTO benefited our nation? And what should be done by agricultural sectors that are not making it in these conditions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As far as the WTO is concerned, nobody expected to get any immediate benefits, as soon as we signed the agreement. The point was entirely different. You see, joining this international economic club gives us many benefits in protecting our markets ­ in particular, protecting out metal products and chemical products markets. We have not yet begun to fully use all these options, but we intend to do so.

For example, the chemical products market, the fertilizer market. Despite our full-fledged accession to the WTO, our European partners are still limiting access to our chemical products and fertilisers in their markets under various pretences, including the pretence that gas prices supposedly aren’t market-based in Russia, and it is the main raw material for producing fertilisers. And because gas prices within the nation are not market-based, our chemical producers supposedly have unjustified competitive advantages in supplying foreign markets.

We are certain this is not the case; this is purely an excuse. But in entering the WTO, we have the option and the right to dispute these decisions with corresponding WTO authorities, which we did not have before. I do not yet know how this dispute will end, we have not started it yet, but overall, we now have such options.

The same is true of supplying our metal products to global markets, including the United States. All this gives us certain rights and opportunities.

But what’s most important is that in joining the WTO, there will be more trust in the Russian economy. We are starting to work in accordance with global rules. This imposes certain responsibilities on us, but also creates certainty for our partners, which have worked before and intend to work in the future. These are long-term factors of economic development.

As for negative consequences, yes, we see them, they are possible, but they are not significant.

In terms of agriculture, this mainly concerns only pork, but here, we have the right and even opportunities, discussed during our accession to the WTO, to protect this market and to create trade preferences. Let’s say agricultural engineering is facing difficulties. But this is not only because we have joined the WTO, and perhaps not for that reason at all. It was not in an ideal state anyway. There are many other internal factors; it is our own fault that we cannot create the same equal conditions for agricultural producers, for working within the nation, the way other states do. And, incidentally, this should push us, push the Government, toward creating those conditions.

Unfavourable or complicated conditions for the agricultural engineering sector are due to our transition to subsidising agriculture by hectare. This allows our agricultural producers to choose to buy the best equipment at the best price. It fuels competition. There are downsides to this, as well as certain positive aspects, because it should provide incentives for modernisation. But we must also think about supporting such sectors.

We have instruments like this even within the WTO framework. With engineering, for example, there was and is a whole set of protective measures, and we will use them, without breaking WTO rules. Overall, I feel there are no negative consequences expected, whereas a potential positive influence on the development of the economy generally remains.

QUESTION: Alexander Yunashev, Life News.

While answering a previous question you said that you were satisfied with the Government’s work, and gave them at least a C grade. And you also said that you will raise officials’ salaries…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We have “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” We don’t have an A+ to F- system; there is only satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I am satisfied with the Government’s work.

ALEXANDER YUNASHEV: But you talked about raising officials’ wages, to attract professionals from the job market.

Any criticism of ministers immediately leads to rumours about the Government’s resignation. Is it already time for ministers to pack their things? Or can someone stay in their position?

And since you did not answer Alexander Gamov’s question about a successor: does Medvedev have no chance at all then?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You work for which publication? Life News?

ALEXANDER YUNASHEV: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You are asking me a loaded question, just in the style of your publication.

I said that I am satisfied with the Government’s work. And in general I think that a personnel shuffle is the worst thing ever. Of course, with regards to this work there are some things that I think can and should be done more energetically, more effectively, and in a more timely fashion. Some things are being drawn out for too long. But I already described what it means to work in the Government. It’s hard work. And the potential of the current Government is far from being realised.

To be continued.