TRANSCRIPT: Direct Line with Vladimir Putin

(Kremlin.ru – April 25, 2013)

(transcript continued)

Moscow

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Thank you, Novoshakhtinsky. Thank you, Primorye.

Let’s give the opportunity to ask a question to…

MARIA SITTEL: Just one second. On the topic of adoption, I have a question from Marina from Vladivostok.

Mr President, is it possible to look into the legislative aspects of letting the adopted children access their personal records after they reach adulthood, upon request? You see, in Russia, people aged 30, 40 and even 60, who were adopted as children, are unable to find out who their birth relatives were, as state officials refuse to provide that information. This is a problem we have.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is both a legal and moral problem. For example, why have Americans been and are still so keen to adopt Russian children specifically? One of the reasons ­ not the only reason, but one of them ­ is that, as far as I understood from looking at American laws, it is prohibited to provide any information about a person’s birth parents. No, pardon me, just the opposite, you can access this information. And there were cases in legal practice when adoptive parents had their children reclaimed by their birth parents. But when a child is adopted from abroad to the United States, including from Russia, it is impossible to obtain any data about their birth parents. And this safeguards adoptive families from having any conflicts in the future.

So I repeat, this is not just a legal issue but a moral and ethical one as well. And I think that if we are to resolve it, if we follow the path that you brought up, then we first need to consult with society, with the people, to hold an open, direct discussion on this topic.

MARIA SITTEL: Anyway, each case should be examined individually, don’t you think?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we need general rules that could be applied individually, but there needs to be some kind of common approach.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: We have many questions from people in the studio.Let’s hear them.

Olga, please go ahead.

OLGA USHAKOVA: Thank you, Kirill. A few minutes ago, we spoke with Primorye. As you saw, it’s already evening there. And here in our studio, we have a person who wants to ask a question about time changes. This is Alexei Lavrinenko, a collective farm chairman from Stavropol Territory. Please, go ahead.

COLLECTIVE FARM CHAIRMAN ALEXEI LAVRINENKO: Hello, Mr President.

During the election campaign, you were constantly asked questions about daylight saving time. You promised to look into the issue, to consult with others and to make a decision. What decision will be made?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I already said that this issue falls under the authority of the Government of the Russian Federation. I do not want you to think that I am avoiding a decision on this matter, but earlier, Mr Medvedev had made this decision, the Government implemented it, and it is now under the authority of the Government, which must make this decision. I do not feel this is a case where the Government requires Presidential intervention (although, of course, this can formally be done). I think we need to look into what is happening. Mr Lavrinenko, you are a state farm director?

ALEXEI LAVRINENKO: A collective farm.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How are the cows milked? According to a schedule?

ALEXEI LAVRINENKO: We do not make the time change; I have the authority to make that decision at our collective farm. We are living according to the old time.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The old time? Seriously?

In other words, you have not even made the change to the new time?

ALEXEI LAVRINENKO: No. We go to work as we used to in the past.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Does the collective farm know that Lenin has died already? (Laughter.)

ALEXEI LAVRINENKO: Look, we just shifted the time by an hour.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I see. You know, let’s address these issues to the Government. I understand those who want to wake up when it’s already nice and bright outside and go to bed when it’s dark. There is a problem for the business community, especially for those who work with Europe, and a problem for sports fans.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: And there will be more. The Sochi Olympics are coming soon.

VLADIMIR PUTIN:Yes. But the IOC will adapt to our situation. Let’s look into it.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, do you have any questions in this regard? Are you comfortable?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, if I say now that I am comfortable or uncomfortable, I immediately define my position. I repeat, I do not want to impose on the Government’s authority. Let the Government of the Russian Federation settle this matter.

MARIA SITTEL: Let’s take a question from the audience. Maria?

MARIA MORGUN: Mr President, we invited several of your authorised representatives to join us in the studio for this programme. Sergei Malenko, a journalist and political expert, is from Perm Territory. Please, go ahead with your question.

SERGEI MALENKO: Hello, Mr President. The topic of corruption has already been brought up here, but I would nevertheless like to return to it. Moreover, I would like to add something about the efficiency of state management.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The inefficiency.

SERGEI MALENKO: I would like to hear your answer and understand what you think.

We have a person named Anatoly Chubais. Since I have already heard your position regarding Oboronservis, the privatisation and reform of the Unified Energy System [RAO UES], we will not discuss them, although we can see certain results from the RAO UES reforms in our bills for housing and utilities services. Instead, I’ll ask about RUSNANO, a big state company with a great deal of trust put in it: economic diversification, nanotechnology development, venture investments ­ this company received an enormous influx of capital over the last few years.

And now in April, the Accounts Chamber reveals some serious infractions in the work of the company’s management. At the same time, management salaries are many times higher than salaries at certain private companies and even transnational corporations. This year, they are looking at losses of 20 billion rubles, a figure comparable to the budget of a large city like Perm, which is a million city. And in this respect, as your authorised representative, I have a fairly simple question: when will this outrage end, how much longer are you going to tolerate having Chubais in power? And the traditional question from a huge number of Russians: when will he finally be jailed? (Applause.)

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Chubais remains someone whom we very much need; public opinion is constantly deflected toward him when people don’t like something. I believe both he and many other people who worked with him at the time certainly made many mistakes, and this led to a certain image of them.

But somebody had to do what they were doing. They changed the entire structure of the Russian economy and essentially changed our trend of development. Let me repeat, in my view, this could have been done in a different way, with smaller social losses and expenditures, not as harshly. But it is always easy to judge these situations in hindsight. But when people lead the way, and it is unclear what the next step should be, whether it will be the right step or a mistake, it’s important to have the courage to make those steps. Many mistakes were made, but it is clear that these people were brave. They had courage to make transformations.

Many curious and funny things happened back then. For example, we learned today that officers of the United States’ CIA operated as consultants to Anatoly Chubais. But it is even funnier that upon returning to the US, they were prosecuted for violating their country’s laws and illegally enriching themselves in the course of privatisation in the Russian Federation. They did not have the right to do this as active CIA officers. In accordance with US law, they were not allowed to engage in any kind of commercial activity, but they couldn’t resist ­ it’s corruption, you see.

But we should give credit to the American legal system: despite everything, they went to admit that CIA officers worked as consultants in Chubais’ entourage. You asked how long he will be in power, but he is not in power;yes, he is heading a state corporation, but it is nevertheless a commercial organisation and he is not present in the government agencies.

Now, with regard to responsibility. After all, they said themselves that they had allocated the funding inefficiently. Naturally, I am monitoring what is happening there; today they are reporting losses of 2.5 billion rubles. This is, of course, a large sum of money. Is it possible not to make mistakes in this area…

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, 22.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, no, 2.5 billion. 22 billion was the initial figure for ineffective investments; today, they are stating losses of 2.5 billion. Is it possible to avoid making any mistakes in a sector like nanotechnologies, doing everything absolutely profitably? It’s hard for me to say, but I suppose it’s possible. After all, what is their problem? They are using non-traditional energy, silicon. But should they have invested in silicon, particularly in our nation, which is rich in hydrocarbons, where some still don’t do time changes and it’s dark when you rise and dark when you go to bed? When do these batteries suppose to work? I do not know and do not want to give any assessments now, this is a difficult area.

I won’t argue that back in the day, this was one of my initiatives, to create this company, because nanotechnologies are one of the main paths in scientific and technical development. And overall, a fair amount of useful work has been done there. I was there a couple of times and seen the materials related to their work. There were blunders and failures. But no shady activity, nothing law-breaking. You see? These are two absolutely different things. Even when we have our regions invest money for other purposes, not as intended, it does not mean the money was stolen. In this case, the money was invested inefficiently. But that is not theft.

I am not going to defend Mr Chubais. Moreover, he is my opponent on many issues (although he has told me many times that he does not get involved in politics, I can see that this is not the case). But it’s unfair to randomly take a person and declare that he is a criminal, that he stole something; it’s unjust. And we are not going to do that.

MARIA SITTEL:Our next link-up is ready.

This year we celebrate the anniversaries of several heroic battles of the Great Patriotic War: we celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, and that of the great Battle of Kursk is approaching. So today we are live in legendary Prokhorovka, where the Red Army decisively rebuffed Nazism.

So, to Prokhorovka and our correspondent Olga Skabeyeva.

OLGA SKABEYEVA: Hello, Moscow! Hello, Mr President!

The legendary Prokhorovka, Belgorod Region, where the largest tank battle in military history took place, welcomes you. But before we go back to those valiant days, before we introduce our esteemed veterans, I want to say that our entire region experienced a terrible tragedy when six people were killed in Belgorod. The suspected shooter was captured only a day later. Yesterday a two-day mourning period in our region ended.

And now we are together with our respected veterans at a huge memorial complex called ‘Russia’s Third Battlefield­ Prokhorovka field’.

The Battle of Prokhorovka involved 1,500 tanks from both sides: 900 Soviet and 600 German ones. Nothing of that scale had ever happened before or after. 1943, the year of the Battle of Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge, was the turning point in the Great Patriotic War, the year that forced the Germans to begin their retreat.

This year on July 12, here in Belgorod Region, we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Prokhorovka. And here today are real witnesses of those terrible events, participants in them, our veterans. We tried to make everyone as comfortable as possible, we have good weather here. The youngest veteran here today is 88.

So let’s give the floor to our veterans: this year Abram Yekhilevsky has his own anniversary to celebrate ­ he will be 90. His chest is full of awards and medals. Mr Yekhilevsky liberated Orel, stormed Konigsberg, and made it to Berlin. He is a truly loved, revered and respected man in Belgorod Region.

MrYekhilevsky, you have the floor, there is your camera.The President is listening to you.

ABRAM YEKHILEVSKY: Hello, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Hello.

ABRAM YEKHILEVSKY: Despite our respectable age, together with activists from the veterans’ movement we do a great deal of work aimed at the spiritual, moral and patriotic education of young people.We try to introduce them to the historical truth about the Great Patriotic War, and tell them about the resilience, courage and heroism of our people on the front and their feats of labour in the rear.

Our country’s major holiday ­ the 68th anniversary of Victory ­ is approaching. At this time, during these days, we remember our comrades, friends who gave their lives for the freedom and independence of our Motherland, for our Victory. Their memory will live forever in our hearts.

And today, unfortunately there are still some regions where good-for-nothings vandalise monuments erected in our honour. For example, in Volgograd a young man relieved himself, and in Rzhev another stripped almost to his underwear and began to dance on the monument. There are many other examples.

Mr President, it is very sad and painful for us, war participants, to see and hear all this. And I want to know your opinion as to what else could be done to protect our memory, and what additional work could be done among the younger generation, so that they remember and give special attention to our glorious history of defending the Fatherland and the Great Victory?

We are in Prokhorovka, whose earth was abundantly watered by the blood of our soldiers during the war. July 12, the 70th anniversary of the famous tank battle, is approaching. And we would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the 4,000 Great Patriotic War veterans in our region, including participants inthe tank battle and the Battle of Kursk, to invite you to participate in this anniversary celebration if you can find the time. Please come!

Thank you for your attention. (Applause.)

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Yekhilevsky, dear veterans, first of all congratulations to all of you ­ those who are in Prokhorovka field today, those who live in other regions of the Russian Federation ­ congratulations on the approaching Victory Day. I want to tell you that today I signed an executive order about celebrating the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This will take place in two years time, but we need to start preparing now in order to decently celebrate this anniversary.

Just recently we celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, after which the Soviet Army took all the strategic initiative. And soon we will celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of Prokhorovka, and that of Kursk. I will be sure to come. Thank you very much for the invitation.

With regard to the acts of vandalism and misbehaviour of some of our citizens, of course first and foremost our young people, what can I say? First, not all young people think and behave this way. The vast majority of young Russians understand the feat you accomplished in the name of humanity and our Motherland. I can assure you that this really is the case. And this is best proved, for example by the feat of the famous Pskov paratroopers during the bloody events in the Caucasus [in 2000], when out of 90 people ­ and I want to specifically point out the figure ­ only 4 remained alive. They have fulfilled their sacred duty to the Motherland in full. And this is the best proof that there is absolute continuity of generations.

But unfortunately we are also faced with the problems you just talked about. And I think that in this respect, naturally the blame lies with the concrete perpetrators of these barbaric acts, but it is also our shared blame. Our fault lies in the fact that we do not pay enough attention to young people, we do not pay enough attention to the study of our own history. It is society’s entire fault, but it is also that of the authorities. You must forgive us for that. We will do our best to change the situation.

And not just out of respect for our veterans, although that is an extremely important thing. It is in the interests of our country’s future. Undoubtedly we will count on your support in this work. Despite their respectable age, the vast majority of veterans remain in service and influence the patriotic education of society in general and young people in particular in the most beneficial way.

Once again, thank you very much for the invitation. (Applause.)

MARIA SITTEL: Mr President, the issue of our shared historical memory is directly and closely linked to education and to school. You recently proposed that a standard history textbook should be introduced. That initiative sparked a heated debate in society. Today, we have teachers, researchers and members of the Russian Academy of Science in the audience. It would be fair to let them have a say, so let’s give them the floor. Dmitry?

DMITRY SHCHUGOREV: Thank you.

Yesterday we spoke with some history teachers from Moscow schools, and judging by what we’ve heard, there are different opinions. Let’s find out what Moscow teachers think.

I give the floor to Anton Molev, a history teacher at Moscow High School No.1505.

HISTORY TEACHER ANTON MOLEV: Thank you.

Mr President, as you probably know, your proposal to introduce a standard history textbook on which you have even issued specific instructions has provoked a heated debate.

There are two diametrically opposite views. On the one hand, there is an understandable fear of possible uniformity and return to some totalitarian aspects, and on the other hand, the idea that uniformity or, more precisely, a unified approach and a standard concept would be good not only for teaching history, but in general for all textbooks as a standard approach to new education.

In this regard, I think it is crucial for the professional community to understand what, in fact, is the authorities’ position and your personal position as President, what risks do you see in the implementation of this idea and how they could be overcome. Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I can only repeat what I have said earlier. I think that there should be a unified concept of this textbook, a set of textbooks that would show us the chronology of events and their formal assessment. Without a formal assessment, students will lack a fundamental understanding of the events that took place in our country over the past centuries and decades.

The differences in the perception of the key aspects of our history lead to such negative consequences as were mentioned earlier by Mr Yekhilevsky, a veteran, when young people do not understand the country they live in and do not feel a connection to previous generations. They do not realise that the achievements, for example, of the Great Patriotic War veterans is something for them personally to be proud of. They do not understand this connection with the heroes of the past.

Last year, if I’m not mistaken, we had 41 history textbook versions for Grade 10, and this year, there are 65 recommended history textbook options for Grade 10. Is this normal? I remember, even people of very liberal views, who now seem happy to criticise and even disparage, some of them came to me a few years ago and showed me, look what they’re writing, they’re completely off their rocker. Sometimes it’s not even clear who won World War II: Rommel’s Afrika Korps fought against the British, and millions of Nazi Germans fought on the Eastern Front. Who broke the backbone of Nazism? Who routed those divisions fighting on the Eastern Front? Who knows that the Battle of Stalingrad was the only battle in the history of World War II when the enemy suffered greater losses (1.5 million people) than the Soviet forces. The Red Army also suffered heavy losses, 1.2 million people, but the enemy suffered even more ­ 1.5 million. Who knows that today? Only the experts. But without knowing this, it is impossible to understand the value of the monuments that these people desecrate today.

This does not mean that we should return to totalitarian thinking. If there is a general line, an official point of view, the textbook can present more than one position, and it is the teacher’s job (and our teachers are talented people) to draw the students’ attention to the fact that there are different assessments of the same events and to teach young people to think and reason for themselves. In fact, this is the essence of the modern education system not only when it comes to history, but also in other subjects. I think it is quite possible and achievable.

MARIA SITTEL: Let’s go back to Prokhorovka and give people there another opportunity to ask a question.

Olga, can you hear us?

OLGA SKABEYEVA: Yes. Now we will give the floor to our farmers. Belgorod Region is famous for its agriculture: there are 12,000 small farms as well as major enterprises here. The industry employs up to 150,000 people. Everyone has the same question.

We will give the floor to Natalya Korolkova, head of the local meat packing plant.

NATALYA KOROLKOVA: Hello, Mr President.

Today our agricultural region fears bankruptcy. Since Russia joined the WTO, we suffer daily losses. Only in the first quarter of this year, losses amounted to about 13 billion rubles, and that is only in livestock farming. You always say that our industry requires special, close attention from the government. Until 2015 it is clear that we will receive subsidies. But I can assure you that today we have a difficult life even with subsidies. And what’s next? Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Ms Korolkova, of course the WTO accession and the situation in such a critical sector as agriculture are very closely related. But WTO accession does not mean that agriculture will stop developing. I’m going to say a few words about this.

Indeed, what danger does WTO accession represent for agriculture? It reduces potential government support, reduces subsidies. This is the first thing. And the second ting is that it lets cheap, but quite good quality goods access our markets.

With regards to allowing low-cost, high-quality goods into our markets, in general the idea is to encourage our producers ­ and not only in agriculture, but in other industries too ­ to produce goods at acceptable prices for our citizens with a quality that meets the world’s best. I very much hope that this will also transpire in agriculture.

But of course there are threats too. In order to combat these threats, for agriculture in particular, we have developed a whole system of protection measures. What is their primary form? Further subsidies. As you know, this year we started to subsidise per hectare too. Moreover, compared with past years the amount of support for agriculture in 2013 (it was significant in the past too, but this year it has increased) will amount to 180 billion rubles allocated from the federal budget alone. More recently, the Government announced that it has taken the decision to provide additional direct support to our farmers in the amount of 42 billion rubles. And I want to stress that together with regional support, this year the total will be about 260 billion rubles.

Let me draw your attention to the fact that 260 billion rubles is somewhere around $8 billion. And in WTO negotiations we received the right to subsidise our agriculture this and next year not for $8 billion but for $9.5 billion – $9.4 billion. So we have not used up the quotas provided for in our WTO accession agreements. There are simply budgetary constraints, although significant growth continues. But that’s not all.

We have kept previous support measures for agriculture in place. For example, for some types of livestock farming, such as livestock breeding, we will keep the low VAT rate of 10 percent until 2017. You know that agricultural producers are entitled to use a simplified tax system. And for one of the options under such system, which many agricultural producers use quite actively, we have completely removed the tax on profits.

There are other forms of support too, and we will keep them all. One very interesting aspect is that under WTO rules regions where agricultural production is considered risky can be excluded from the remit of WTO requirements. So we have a great deal of instruments to protect our producers. We have kept quotas for poultry, pork and beef. I do not know what kind of meat you produce, but I would draw your attention to the fact that we have significantly reduced the volume of imports of poultry, for example. Five years ago our imports stood at 1.4-1.6 million tonnes; two years ago the volume was reduced to 200,000 tonnes and eventually down to 100,000 tonnes last year. But I know that our poultry farms can cover these volumes themselves. However, the quotas remain.

Still, I understand your concerns. I myself, both as Prime Minister and now as President of Russia, draw the attention of the Agriculture Ministry and the Government’s economic bloc to the fact that with regards to, say, pork, there are certain problems that require careful consideration. Now I simply do not want to speak publicly about them, so as not to aggravate ongoing negotiations with our partners, especially from European countries. And perhaps pork requires separate support measures.

I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture will not only address these questions, but also provide adequate and timely solutions.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you for your reply, Mr President.

Thank you for joining us, Prokhorovka. Let us once again express our sincere gratitude to our veterans and wish them many happy years to come.

Now let’s take a telephone call. Here is Tatyana Remezova from the call centre.

TATYANA REMEZOVA: Thank you. Work in full swing here. Let’s take a phone call. We have Moscow Region on the line.

Good afternoon! Your question, please. You are on the air.

QUESTION: Hello!

Mr President, here is my question for you: there are plans to introduce the requirement from 2015 that immigrants must carry an international passport? Why not introduce it already now? Immigration flows bring drugs and violent crime, people are afraid to go out at night. We fear for our children.

Can I ask a second question?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Public sector employees like myself get a minimum wage. My salary is 9,000 rubles minus 13% income tax. How can I make ends meet with such a salary?

These issues concern many Moscow Region residents.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your reply.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you.

First of all, with regard to immigrants. I also think that we need to civilise and tighten procedures for the entry of foreign nationals into the Russian Federation. Primarily this applies to the citizens of the Central Asian republics.

Why from 2015? Many immigrants are already resident here. To make sure this process is civilised, we must give our partners time to issue the passports and the relevant forms. This volume of work can be done in about eighteen months. We could try to speed up this process, but in that case it would be more difficult for us to set demands for our partners. To make sure this process is civilised, we would simply have to provide financial assistance from the federal budget for the production of these documents. I suppose we could consider it, although it would entail additional expenses for us while it would be better to use the money on increasing the salaries of public sector employees.

Incidentally, with regard to public sector salaries, we have already talked about the fact that wages are growing faster than labour productivity. This applies primarily to the manufacturing sector but everything in the economy is interconnected. As soon as wages go up in the public sector, the manufacturing industry responds to it in one way or another. For example, higher pay in the military sector is inevitably reflected in other sectors and, one way or another, affects the growth of wages.

Unfortunately, this level remains quite modest in the public sector. That is why the executive orders of May 7, 2012 devote considerable attention to social issues and raising wages in the public sector.

I draw your attention to the fact that, for example, teachers in 15 regions already receive the average wage for their region’s economy, and this level is 90% in 34 other Russian regions. I very much hope that this year all the regions will bring the level of teachers’ salaries to the average for the economy. This is a very difficult task, which stretches the regional budgets almost to the limit, so that the federal Government has to provide assistance to many of them. The same goes for university faculty members and professionals in other fields.

With regard to preschool education, for example, the objective there is to bring the level of wages to the average for the sector. That includes raising salaries for university faculty members by 200% by 2018, and so on. Therefore, a significant part of our objectives in the social sphere has to do with increasing wages in the public sector, for which we have come under harsh criticism from our liberal colleagues.

We will act carefully, but this is the policy we will continue to pursue.

KIRILL KLEIMENOV: Well, I think it has been a while since we took a question from the audience. Let’s turn to our studio. Valeriya Korableva, please.

VALERIYA KORABLEVA: I have here an employee of the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works. He has a question.

IGOR MAKOVCHUK: Good afternoon, Mr President!

My name is Igor Makovchuk and I am from Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk Region.

Recently, there has been an increasing number of girls in our schools wearing hijabs. France has already outlawed it. What about us? Are we in for Islamisation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is nothing good about it. There are certain national traditions in some of the republics but what you are talking about has nothing to do with tradition: it is a demonstration of a certain attitude to religion.

Even the Muslim regions of our country have never had this tradition. By the way, some Muslim countries have laws prohibiting hijabs.

You mentioned France, which has adopted such a law. I believe that in our country (and I’ve already talked about this), we could and should bring back the school uniform. Work on this is already underway. I hope the regions will not disregard or abandon these efforts, but will work on introducing the school uniform.

STATE DUMA DEPUTY VALERY YAKUSHEV: Mr President, I’m afraid my turn will never come.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: That’s possible.

VALERY YAKUSHEV: I talk with you every time we meet, as you know.

I have great respect for you and I feel sorry for you. Do you know why?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why is that?

VALERY YAKUSHEV: Today, 90% of the questions have had to do with social issues. Why don’t the governors meet with their regions’ residents like this, listen to them and answer their questions? They don’t feel the responsibility. All of Russia is listening and watching today, but later they will say: “It was Putin who made the promise, go and ask him.” People judge the Government by the quality of their lives, and for people you are the Government. It is not the ministers; it is you. And everyone points at Putin. So get the governors to do their own work instead of shifting the responsibility to you.

Thank you. (Applause.)

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You are absolutely right. No one should shirk responsibility. I never have. I believe that it is a useful format that is very valuable to me and the country.

As for the governors, many of them work very actively with the public, although not necessarily in this format. But I agree with you that we must always look for new formats and try to be closer to the people. Only then can we understand what needs to be done to address their problems.

MARIA SITTEL: Let’s all go to Lipetsk now, to the Russian Air Force’s 4th Centre of Combat Application and Conversion of Frontline Aviation. Our colleague Yevgeny Rozhkov is working there.

YEVGENY ROZHKOV: Good afternoon, colleagues! Hello, Mr President!

Lipetsk here, the Russian Air Force Combat Training Centre. That’s how it was called 60 years ago when it was founded. Today it is a national centre for pilot training and retraining, Russia’s most prestigious flight school. We have been working here for only a few days, but I can tell you for sure that I have never seen such high level of piloting and military aircraft operation skills anywhere else.

The aerobatic team called the Falcons of Russia simply works wonders. It is led by Major General Alexander Kharchevsky. Hello, Mr Kharchevsky.

First, we probably do not need to introduce Mr Kharchevsky to you, Mr President, as you know each other well: in 2000 you flew together in a Su-27 fighter, almost the same as the one you see next to us.

By the way Mr Kharchevsky, could you reveal a military secret? Where did you fly at that time?

ALEXANDER KHARCHEVSKY: On March 20, 2000 we flew from Krasnodar aerodrome to Severny aerodrome in Grozny, and back again.

YEVGENY ROZHKOV: And tell us honestly, what kind of G-forces do you experience while inside this flying machine?

ALEXANDER KHARCHEVSKY: A maximum of 9g.  At that point the pilot’s weight increases nine times over.

YEVGENY ROZHKOV: I’ll add just one more thing: Mr Kharchevsky does not yet know that his subordinates are currently preparing the documents to include him in the Guinness Book of Records, as he has been flying fighter planes for 43 years now. That’s an absolute record.

Please, you have the floor.

ALEXANDER KHARCHEVSKY: Hello, Comrade Commander-in-Chief.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon.

ALEXANDER KHARCHEVSKY: Today the Air Force is in the process of renewing its aircraft and helicopter fleet with new, complex and modern aircraft technology, which requires crews with high professional skills, able to use the full range of these machines’ combat capabilities. But we have a paradoxical situation: while the technology is becoming more sophisticated, the level of professional selection of future military students is dropping due to lack of competition. The minimum competition we need is 10-12 people competing for each place. In addition, the situation with the deficit of flight personnel will worsen as of 2014 because there was no admission of students to flight schools for three years.

How can we resolve this situation as it might affect the future of our military aviation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Kharchevsky, first of all let me welcome you. It is a pleasure to see you in good health, in the ranks, in service. I perfectly remember our flight to Chechnya. I am grateful to you for teaching me to roll a plane. I remember that during our landing on our return, you showed me how a master does it, with all the g-forces. That was a good lesson for me. Let me repeat once again how nice it is to see you in the ranks.

As for the shortage of flight crews. You did not actually say it, but I understand that the implicit question concerns the fact that we recently optimised military academies and many of them were not exactly closed, but rather enlarged and merged with one another. Now I do not want to make any assessments of the things done in previous years, but in general the amount of officer training must correspond to the Armed Forces’ personnel requirements. And that amount should not and must not be determined in reference to the distended army of the Soviet period.

At the same time, we must train as many specialists as the Russian Armed Forces needs, and no less.

Over all these years total enrolment has not diminished, even though I know that in some specific fields it really did go down. You see this as you are working at the Combat Application Centre. If you feel that there is a problem with pilot training, then perhaps it is necessary to pay attention to this issue and I will do so. You can be sure of this. But in general, the staffing level for serving officers of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is 98 percent. I think we would be hard pressed to find any other agency in which staffing levels are so high.

As for pilots, we will analyse this issue separately. I can promise you this.

And I want to wish you and all your colleagues, all officers, success in their service. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MARIA SITTEL: Yevgeny, do you have any more questions?

YEVGENY ROZHKOV: Of course we do.

MARIA SITTEL: Then please go ahead.

YEVGENY ROZHKOV: Lipetsk Air Base is very large, even huge, and it is often called a City-Base. More than 10,000 people work here, including pilots, engineers and navigators, such as Pavel Lykov, senior navigator for combat training. He said that he has a lot of questions for the President, and all of them are in some way or another connected with the military equipment next to us. Pavel, please go ahead.

PAVEL LYKOV: Hello, Comrade Commander-in-Chief.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon.

PAVEL LYKOV: My question is the following. We have successfully mastered the Su-34 airplane and use it. We look forward to receiving new aircraft this year, namely the Su-30SM and the Su-35. But it is no secret that these planes were developed in the Soviet Union, and that aircraft of this generation are called “4 plus-plus”. In order to maintain Russia’s defence capabilities at the highest level, we need to use fifth-generation aircraft. My question is as follows: when will this new technology be operational at our base in Lipetsk and in the Armed Forces in general?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am sure that you, as a highly qualified specialist, can make an adequate assessment of the equipment currently available in the army. There was a time when we were very anxious about aviation. Today the situation is changing, and changing for the better. I think you notice it too. And not just with respect to military pays, I am also referring to modernisation of the Armed Forces, including combat aircraft. “4 plus” and “4 plus-plus” fighter jets meet modern requirements. But of course we have to think about the future. And the famous machine that experts call the [Sukhoi] PAK FA is a promising tactical aircraft already in operation. Four machines are currently undergoing tests. One of them was recently flown here, to Russia’s European part, from Komsomolsk-on-Amur and is currently undergoing trials.

Ask your colleagues and test engineers their opinion of this machine, the T-50 as experts call it. I think that judging by many parameters ­ the manoeuvre capability, other indicators ­ it will outperform its main rival, the American F-34. I could be wrong but I think it’s the F-34 or F-35. Judging by many parameters indeed. However, some issues still need work. They include the propulsion system and weapons, so that the engine enables us to accomplish the tasks we set for this machine, and to ensure that its weapons are powerful and precise. Do we have such opportunities? Yes, we do.

Serial production of the T-50 fifth-generation fighter jet should begin soon and it should go into the field in 2016.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Thank you, Lipetsk.

Mr President, we also have a famous pilot in the studio. I can see Magomed Tolboyev, a fighter pilot.

OLGA USHAKOVA: He’s a Hero of Russia.

MAGOMED TOLBOYEV: Good afternoon, Mr President.

As president of the International Aviation and Space Salon MAKS, which you open every year, I would like to say that it is a great honour for us and I hope you will also take part this year. Before I ask my question, I want to brief you on several issues.

First. The International Aviation and Space Salon has been held for 20 years, but five years ago it was transferred to Oboroneksport. Another intermediary has been created ­ TEC, the Transport and Exhibition Complex; therefore, currently the succession is the International Aviation and Space Salon ­ TEC ­ Oboroneksport. The land has been transferred to TEC, it is state land, a technical zone with a total area of 242 hectares. We built many pavilions at our own expense. By the way, the Government did not give us a penny, all the funds came from private investors. Did you see the scale of construction? Now we have lost the land, it is now the property of TEC, although the buildings remain in our property and we are responsible for paying taxes. As a result of all this activity, the Aviation and Space Salon is bankrupt.

OLGA USHAKOVA: What is your question for the President?

MAGOMED TOLBOYEV: I wanted to ask my question after I say a few more words, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Go ahead, please.

OLGA USHAKOVA: Unfortunately, we have very little time, so I would ask you to state your question.

MAGOMED TOLBOYEV: Let’s continue the subject raised earlier about training flight crews. You’re probably aware that the Government is drafting a project on the Transport Ministry’s initiative about attracting foreign pilots to work in our aviation market. The question is: how can this be? Doesn’t this amount to deliberate undermining of national security?

REMARK: It applies to civil aviation.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The project concerns civil aviation?

RESPONSE: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Civil aviation pilots?

First, let’s talk about what is happening with the Aviation and Space Salon, with MAKS. This is the first time I’ve heard about its financial problems. But if some land, 242 hectares of land, has been transferred into your ownership and you have problems paying for it, you should just submit to me the details of this case. We need to look into this. I can talk to Mr Chemezov about it and to the Government too. And if MAKS needs support, we will find a way to provide it because I am very grateful to you and all your colleagues involved in the organisation of the salon, which is one of the major international venues of this kind and is highly respected around the world. It is a venue where we can present our aviation and space achievements. We will certainly provide you with every support. We just need to understand what kind of support you need.

Now, regarding the pilot training. Yes, indeed, such a decision is being drafted by the Government of the Russian Federation. Why is that? It is due to the fact that our fleet of civil aircraft is growing. I regret to say that so does the share of foreign technology. Why do I regret it? Because Russian manufacturers have so far been unable to produce the right quality aviation technology and in the right amount, especially, as I am sure you know, when it comes to wide-bodied aircraft.

We now have plans to develop a medium-range M-21aircraft; in addition, you know about the Superjet 100, and so on. But we do not make wide-bodied aircraft yet, so we have to buy it. That is always very dangerous from the economic point of view because as soon as you start buying something, it means you close down your own production or create problems for sales in this market. But we have to do it. And unfortunately, the shortage of pilots is growing. We are increasing the number of trained pilots. They are trained in six schools but that is not enough.

Some eighteen months ago, we reached the level of 600 graduates a year. Last year, it was almost 800, if I’m not mistaken. This year 940 new pilots will graduate. But we need 1,200 pilots a year!

Almost all market economies allow the access of foreign pilots to the labour market, except for the Russian Federation, where it is forbidden by the Air Code. Keeping in mind, first, the deficit and, second, the large share of foreign aircraft, and that we have to attract pilots who know how to fly these aircraft and use the technology, the Government has decided to introduce a quota of 200 pilots, and I want to emphasise this ­ 200 pilots a year for five years, but only crewmembers and not pilots in command of the aircraft.

REMARK: The quota is only for pilots in command.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, it is for crewmembers.

But they could also be commanders. Crewmembers could also be pilots in command. Therefore, it is still being discussed, but we must act in line with the industry’s interests, but also bearing in mind the interests of the people who work in this industry, especially pilots. There must be a balance, between the quality of service and security, that is, the use of people who know how to effectively use the foreign technology. I hope that the balance will be found.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you, Mr President. Now let’s go over to our call centre.

Tatyana, which region is the most active?

TATYANA REMEZOVA: The Central Federal District is the most active, and every tenth caller is from Moscow. But now I want to give the floor to the Far East, there is a question that we found very interesting, so we called back its author. Hopefully, the connection will not fail us now.

Komsomolsk-on-Amur is on the line. Can you hear us?

PAVEL ULANOV: Yes, I can hear you very well. Thank you.

TATYANA REMEZOVA: Please your question.

PAVEL ULANOV: Good afternoon, Mr President!

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Hello!

PAVEL ULANOV: My name is Pavel Ulanov and I have a question.

Why does petrol 92 cost 34 rubles per litre in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and diesel fuel is even more expensive at 36 rubles? What is the reason for such a big difference in price, and in general, how is the price made up, considering that in Venezuela, which is also an oil-producing country, a 40-litre tank of petrol costs $2?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Ulanov, the issues of price setting, the economic justification of these prices and social justice are always on our agenda. In general you’re right, and we must monitor this.

As far as I know, the average price of 95 octane petrol in European Russia is approximately 31.40 rubles per litre, and diesel fuel ­ I may be wrong, but I think it’s about 32 rubles per litre.

The prices in the Far East have traditionally been a little higher. Here in the European part the price is 31.5 rubles, and you have 34. The difference is 2.5 rubles. It is also money, of course. The same goes for diesel fuel. This is due to several reasons, but primarily it is due to the fact that one of our companies, Rosneft, has a monopoly of the market. It supplies petroleum products to the Far East. The company explains the price difference by the remoteness, long distances, the complexity and cost of delivery to the consumer, and so on. We must always keep on top of this issue. I have raised it with the company’s management more than once, as well as the Federal Antimonopoly Service. I will raise it again, so that they kept these issues under control.

As for the fact that in some oil and gas-producing states hydrocarbon resources are sold very cheaply or at bargain prices, we can certainly discuss this.

By the way, I draw your attention to the fact that petrol prices in the United States are a little higher than ours. However, incomes are also higher there, so on the whole petrol is cheaper for the consumer if we take its price against the consumer basket. But the United States has a very low tax on petroleum products. The state receives tax revenues in other areas, for example they have a very high vehicle tax and other contributions.

If we look at European countries, petrol in Germany is twice as more expensive as ours, and in general prices are comparable. As for oil and gas producing countries, then yes, in some of these countries, petrol, petroleum products and gas are sold at extremely low prices. Unfortunately, this usually leads to major problems in the oil and gas industries. They do not have enough resources for development, for exploration and launching of production at new fields. Therefore, these countries are often forced to raise prices sharply, and I want to stress this, the prices for gas, oil and petroleum products.

I do not think we should follow this non-market policy. We must follow a different way by introducing price controls and proper pricing, and here you are absolutely right.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, I have just had a look at the Direct Line website, and there is a question that continues on the subject broached by the Far East just now. This person wrote, and he refers to the Far East Minister Viktor Ishayev, that we sell electricity to the Chinese at 1.5 rubles per kilowatt, while our own consumers in the Far East pay three or four rubles. Why is that?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Ishayev is probably getting ready for the gubernatorial election in one of the Far Eastern regions. He used to be a governor and a successful one, but I would advise him to check his facts more thoroughly. How much did you say?

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: One and a half rubles to the Chinese and twice as much to the Russian consumers.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, the consumers you are talking about are the so-called end-users. That is, the generating company first sells electricity in bulk, and then wholesale companies incur various expenses and sell electricity to consumers at their own prices. The price increases a little at each stage.

As for the prices for China, I’m not sure of the exact figures, I must check them more closely. But this is a wholesale price, and we don’t know how much these Chinese companies charge their customers. I doubt their prices are lower than in the Russian Federation.

MARIA SITTEL: Let us stay on the subject of cars for a few minutes longer. Dmitry, pass the microphone to Vyacheslav Lysakov, please.

DMITRY SHCHUGOREV: All right, but I have one request. We have been on the air for almost three hours, so let’s keep it short.

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: Thank you.

Mr President, we…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have a feeling this is going to be about blood alcohol content, right?

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: That’s right.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I knew it. As soon as you took the microphone…

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: This issue concerns millions of motorists. There are a lot of us here. The vast majority of us are normal, reasonable, law-abiding people. The State Duma is planning to toughen the punishment for driving under the influence, and plans to introduce criminal liability. Many people are concerned how fairly these punishments will be applied.

My colleagues in the Russian Popular Front are all in for justice, like you. Therefore, we have prepared a draft law, invited experts from the Mendeleyev Metrology Institute in St Petersburg…

DMITRY SCHUGOREV: What’s your question?

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: I’m talking about information that is currently available. A draft law has been prepared that introduces the prohibition law in the legislative field ­ that is, drivers must not drink a single drop; the steering wheel and alcohol are incompatible. But the law stipulates a margin of error. The mere act of drinking alcohol will be punished, but with the possible margin of error. That is, the figure displayed by the device cannot be lower than the margin of error.

DMITRY SCHUGOREV: Thank you. As I understand, this was just a news announcement and not a question.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What is your question? Do you have a question?

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: Mr President, not a question but a request that you give your support to this scientific approach, because this issue concerns millions of people.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The request is to change the rules and introduce the blood alcohol content measurement?

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: You could say that, but this draft law has been submitted to the State Duma and is already signed by many deputies from United Russia and other parliamentary parties.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The current rule is zero blood alcohol content, isn’t it?

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: Look, if a person is killed, his blood is analysed and he is pronounced intoxicated if his blood alcohol content is over 0.5. Below that he is sober. And in relation to the living, to a normal driver, any showing above zero is considered intoxication. This approach is not scientific.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I see. Before we move on to this subject, I want to finish my answer to the previous question. This is very important. The cost of electricity in the Far East and the price in China. I hope I have already explained the difference. However, this does not mean that the electricity prices in the Far East are optimal. I think they are still too high for the Russian Far East.

A possible solution would be for them to build up their own energy capacities. It is essential to build new power plants, new refineries and so on. That is part of the programme for development of the Far East.

Now let’s move on to blood alcohol content. You have told me about it before, I think it was in Rostov-on-Don. I understand and I want to emphasise once again my own position. I am in complete agreement with you: you cannot drink and drive.

We must make sure that no one gets behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol.

There are probably some people who will not agree with this, but I am sure that the vast majority of people will because a driver under the influence of alcohol cannot control his reflexes and his reaction. And if we make it legal to drink one or two glasses of alcohol, you know, glasses come in different sizes. Therefore, you must not drink and drive.

You’re right, after our meeting in Rostov-on-Don, I thought about this issue and read about it. It is true that the blood alcohol measuring devices have a margin of error and manufacturers state this margin of error in product materials.

So let’s proceed as follows: let’s ask Rosstandart to conduct a study of this technology. It is one thing they write in their equipment documentation, and quite another what happens in practice. Rosstandart should research this and depending on their conclusion we will make a decision about the legal limit of blood alcohol content.

VYACHESLAV LYSAKOV: The Metrology Institute is a division of Rosstandart, and we already have their conclusion. They say that not only the equipment’s margin of error must be considered but also other factors such as air temperature, humidity and atmospheric composition. None of this is considered now. We have such a conclusion already.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The Government and I should have it as well.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you, one more question from the studio. Maria!

MARIA MORGUN: Mr President, I would suggest that we give the floor to a person who did not choose to become your authorised representative during the election campaign, he refused, someone who has been heading the famous Echo of Moscow radio station for 15 years now, Alexei Venediktov.

Mr Venediktov, please make it short.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: He was offered to become my authorised representative?

MARIA MORGUN: That’s what they say. You can ask him.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Did I offer you to become my authorised representative?

ALEXEI VENEDIKTOV: Mr President, I see that your authorised representatives are somewhat bloodthirsty: one calls for incarcerating Serdyukov, the other wants to lock up Chubais. It is a good thing that I walked away from such company.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Ok.

ALEXEI VENEDIKTOV: To be honest, I think that relations between a President and a journalist do not need to be formalised as other relations between humans do.

My question is as follows. Three years ago during a similar Direct Line, you answered a question about your attitude to Stalin. You said that this was an important question, that this was a tricky question, and answered it very carefully. But in your third term as President some of my colleagues and I see certain Stalinist elements. I would like you to comment on them.

Political trials are taking place in Russia ­ those of Pussy Riot, Alexei Navalny, the case of May 6 [2012], and there are a huge number of people suspected of being foreign agents, I am talking about the law on NGOs. The Duma passes and you sign a law that severely restricts the freedom of speech, particularly on the Internet.

Please tell me, do you really think that using these Stalinist control methods Russia can become a progressive world power in the 21st century?

Thank you very much.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You and I have repeatedly discussed all these issues. I do not see any elements of Stalinism here. Stalinism is associated with a personality cult and mass violations of the law, with repression and camps. There is nothing like this in Russia and, I hope, never will be again. Society is different now and simply would never allow it. But this does not mean that we should not have order and discipline. It means that all citizens of the Russian Federation, regardless of their official position must be equal before the law. And these girls from Pussy Riot, these youngsters who desecrate the graves of our soldiers must all be equal before the law and responsible for their actions. Nobody puts anybody in jail for political reasons or because of their political views. People are punished for their actions in court when they violate the law. Everyone must abide by this.

I have already spoken more than once about mass gatherings. Can they be held? Yes, they can, and they should. But they must be legal and not interfere with people’s everyday life. After all, today’s media, and your radio too, can cover any event and transmit the position of opposition members to millions of our citizens. Why then go asking for trouble and pick fights with representatives of law enforcement agencies? Why is this done? Only to draw attention to oneself, but in an improper manner. And everyone who breaks the law must take the consequences.

As for NGOs, I have already spoken many times on this account. We welcome the work of NGOs. Moreover, we even welcome our oppositional colleagues. Why? I am personally very interested in this, because both here in Moscow and in the regions there are many instances of shameless treatment of our people, many violations of the law by bureaucrats and authorities, and the authorities themselves either respond poorly or do not respond at all. And so naturally for me, as the guarantor of our Constitution, as a person who was elected by an overwhelming majority of our citizens, it is essential to know what is happening at the local level and be able to respond to it in a timely manner.

But if these activities are not aimed at improving society, but only at boosting one’s own PR to the detriment of society, then that is a bad thing. If an activity that purports to be a part of domestic political procedures is financed from abroad, it’s not necessarily bad, but we have to know about it. Let them tell us about it ­ what is wrong with this? After all, these activities are not prohibited. Who is prohibiting organisations engaged in domestic political affairs that receive money from abroad? No one, and the law does not. But let them tell us where their financing comes from, how much they receive, what they spend it on and where. What is wrong with that?

In the US such a law has been in operation since 1938, and not simply because it was adopted during the fight against the Nazi threat. Today such a threat no longer exists yet the law continues to apply, and is applied to our organisations, among others, who are trying to conduct some kind of work in the United States. We had such examples just last month. Why can’t we do the same thing? What is undemocratic here?

For example, you talked about restricting freedom of speech on the Internet. Listen, Alexei, people in this studio, those currently watching us on TV: what restrictions to freedom of speech are there on the Internet? In reality the Internet is a space of freedom, and nothing can be restricted or banned there.

But society can and should bar itself from certain things. From paedophilia, child pornography, the distribution of drugs, and teaching suicide methods. But after we enumerated these three or four items to which we have paid attention and included in the law, what happens, is everything else banned? No. How is the law constructed? If there are items related to child pornography, paedophilia or suicide methods, for example, the provider should notice that itself and block the offending site. Such things should be brought to its notice, and the provider should block them. Since we passed the law nothing has occurred to restrict activity on the Internet. Such laws have long been adopted in all developed countries. Adopted long ago!

Let me also say that I am convinced that the opponents of such restrictions are not acting to defend Internet freedom, but acting primarily for commercial reasons related to making money from advertising. The volume of advertising on the Internet has caught up with that on major federal TV channels. There is a struggle going on there, and it’s about money too. Money is a good thing and we must fight for it, but society must and should protect itself from things like paedophilia, child pornography and teaching suicide methods. We have to do this for our country’s future. (Applause.)

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Here’s a short question, Mr President. Alexei Venediktov mentioned the court case against Alexei Navalny just now, and I found this question on the internet: “Alexei Navalny is getting dragged through the courts. Does this mean the authorities fear him?”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, there are people out there fighting corruption, we all should fight corruption. We have this woman here from Omsk taking part in the discussion today, and she’s fighting corruption in her own way. Different people are taking their stand in their own way. But if you fight corruption, you have to be squeaky clean yourself, otherwise it can all turn into just self-promotion and political advertising. Everyone has to be equal before the law ­ this is the point I want to stress. No one should be under any illusion that just because they spend their time shouting “stop thief!” they can get away with theft themselves. But at the same time, this does not mean that if someone’s views differ from the authorities’ views, we should start looking for pretexts under which to put people on trial or send them to prison.

I am confident that the court proceedings on this and other matters will be as objective as possible, and I have made clear to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the other law enforcement agencies that we need maximum objectivity.

MARIA SITTEL: Mr President, let me continue with three comments from the internet. “You are the president of pensioners and workers, but the country’s thinking youth are out [at the opposition demonstrations] on Sakharov Prospekt and Bolotnaya Square. Do you agree?” “Why are you so negative about the opposition? Are you afraid of them?” And here’s one more on this subject: “Are you ready now to talk with the opposition and find some kind of common moral ground with them?”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I’m not simply ready to talk with the opposition; I talk with them already, all the time.

As for what has come to be called the ‘non-systemic’ opposition, we offer them dialogue too. Some members of the opposition simply reject all offers of dialogue. It seems to me in any case that this concept of ‘non-systemic’ opposition is gradually losing its relevance. People have the right now to establish political parties with only the minimum of bureaucratic formalities involved. You need 500 people minimum, I think, to do this now, and so if you want, you can establish a fully legal political party and fight for the voters’ confidence. It’s one thing to cry disaster after all, and quite another thing to offer the voters a positive agenda. You can do this only through the proper legal procedures, using the possibilities the law gives us. This is all perfectly possible. Please, go ahead, take action, join the fight, enter the parliament, and prove that you’re right. It’s when talk turns to the actual specifics, the concrete steps, that the problems immediately start coming.

Today’s discussion started with a catalogue of how bad everything is here, a list of all the woes. Yes, there are a lot of problems, and what should we do about them? Some say that we shouldn’t try to raise wages too fast. Fine, but then this is something you have to explain to the public. Or they say that we are to raise the retirement age. Again, you must explain this to the public. Yes, maintaining a balanced pension system is a difficult task and a very complex economic and social problem. But make proposals then on what you want to see done. It’s easy to sit wagging your tongue, but what do you propose actually doing?

We are not just ready for discussion but want it, seek it, only we want it to be civilised and professional, open and clear. A lot of things would fall into place and become clearer then. Moreover, I think the authorities have an interest in engaging in discussion. Maybe this would help make some of the things the opposition leaders talk about clearer to the public in general. Maybe some of these things really are necessary and this kind of discussion could give the authorities the nudge they need to start taking unpopular but essential measures in the economy. This is all useful, but it has to take a healthy and civilised form.

I therefore hope that the dialogue will continue.

MARIA SITTEL: To what extent would you characterise yourself as the president of this or that generation? Are you the pensioners’ and workers president?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: When it comes to being the pensioners’ and workers president, well, I’m from a working class family myself and I have immense respect for workers. They are the main ones holding up the whole country on their shoulders.

As for pensioners, you saw the veterans taking part in the discussion just before, and my parents too, they lived through the siege of Leningrad, my father fought in the Great Patriotic War, was a war invalid, and so I feel in my marrow just what sort of people these are. What’s wrong with being their president? I would just like to thank them for all the support they give me.

If we’re looking at today’s workers though, being a worker today is certainly not just about using your muscles. Workers’ jobs today are becoming more and more skilled and demand ever more intellectual input. Some of the public discussions today show that members of the modern working class, the working class’ elite, are in every measure equal to other social groups. When you look at it, after all, who are scientists, doctors, teachers ­ they’re all workers, all people just hard at work in their jobs, and I rely on their support too.

MARIA SITTEL: Do you feel you have young voters’ support?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, young people are very active, they’re just starting out in life, and I’m sure that our young people are able to see for themselves what we have achieved, what we are doing now, and what we can do in the future. Of course a lot will depend on the attitude they take.

COMMENT: Mr President, you are quite simply the clever people’s president.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much!

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, the news agencies are reporting that the Primorye Territory governor’s press secretary has already announced that a children’s playground will be built in the yard of the large family’s home out there, and given all the details of the planned construction.

COMMENT: Let’s meet more often!

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Excellent! Incidentally, in Primorye Territory we have a very interesting person, well prepared for the job I hope, who we appointed to his current post from his previous job as rector of the Far East Federal University. Before that, he’d worked practically his whole life in universities. I hope that this intellectual component will help him in his work. The region is very rich, very interesting, but at the same time also very difficult.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Let’s give the floor again to our guests here in the studio.

Olga Ushakova, go ahead.

OLGA USHAKOVA: Thank you. We have here today writer and Chairman of the Izborsk Club Alexander Prokhanov. Mr Prokhanov, you have the floor, but please keep your question brief.

ALEXANDER PROKHANOV: Mr President, the country is trying to develop, trying to make the big leap forward that you have spoken about. But this kind of big leap forward is possible only when you get all of society united around a common cause. Instead though, an unfair system and inequality ­ financial, social, status inequality ­ are dividing society and driving people apart. Is it not time to introduce a luxury tax? This could be the first step in eliminating the terrible and divisive unfairness in society. We must tax these palaces of gold and the diamonds in which oligarchs’ wives and lovers drape themselves from head to foot. Development and justice are synonyms after all.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How do you tell the oligarchs’ wives from their lovers, by their fragrance?

REPLY: By their age.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Oh, by their age.

You probably know my own view on this matter as I’ve stated it many times, including in my Address [to the Federal Assembly]. I am in favour of a luxury tax. The issue of social justice and the huge income gap is a very serious one, not just for Russia. In some countries with developed economies, the USA too, this is becoming an ever more serious issue. Europe in this respect deserves credit for having made more effort to give a social dimension to its economy, and so the divides are not as great there. I think therefore that we would do well to study Europe’s best practice and traditions in this area and see what we can try out here at home.

Coming back to the luxury tax, as I said, I personally support its introduction. There are proposals regarding cars for example, specifically, a proposal to double the basic tax rate for luxury cars worth more than 5 million rubles [$160,000], and triple the basic rate for cars worth more than 10 million rubles. There are not so many people with cars of this kind, and I think the tax would be even not so much an economic measure as simply have a moral connotation.

As for real estate, I believe there should be an additional tax here too. True, this idea has run up against problems in the Government. I’ve spoken with the Cabinet members many times on this issue, but they still have not come up with the proper required mechanism for applying such a tax to real estate. The problem here is that we still do not have an official land valuation system in place. We need to get this work completed as soon as possible so as to be able to tax big and expensive real estate. You are right on this count and I fully agree with you.

MARIA SITTEL: We are now ready to cross over to St Petersburg, Russia’s cultural capital, where the Mariinsky Theatre is about to show off its new stage in all its glory in a few days. Dmitry Vitov and St Petersburg, over to you.

DMITRY VITOV: Good afternoon, Moscow. Good afternoon, Mr President. Good afternoon, colleagues. We chose the Mariinsky Theatre’s new building as our venue for the linkup from St Petersburg for a reason. People have been talking about expanding the theatre ever since the mid-nineteenth century. Back then the performers were already feeling the shortage of rehearsal space. There was nowhere to store unique music score archives, and original costumes, many of them real works of art, real museum exhibits. Most important of all, there was not enough room for the audiences. Now the Mariinsky Theatre is finally getting ready to move into its new building. Before this hall actually opens to the public, we invited members of the culture and arts community here to discuss the problems in this sector. Let me move things straight along now and give the floor to Boris Eifman, the famous choreographer, director of the Ballet Theatre, and a well-known teacher.

BORIS EIFMAN: Mr President, I want to announce a piece of good news. The Dance Academy will begin functioning in St Petersburg on September 1, 2013. This is a unique school that will train new generation universal dancers. The Dance Academy has an ambitious social programme too. We will be teaching orphaned children and children from underprivileged families, giving them the chance to get an education and live a happy creative life.

Let me tell you now about our theatre’s biggest problems.

You have given your backing to the Dance Palace project, and I am sincerely confident that by 2016, St Petersburg will gain a unique new world-class ballet centre in which both professionals and also amateurs, for whom dance is a part of their lives, will be able to realise their potential.

But our theatre is in a serious situation today because we quite simply have nowhere to stage our shows. Commercial organisations squeeze us out of the federal theatres, whose stages we rent, and the result is that Petersburg residents and visitors to the city end up missing out on a chance to see our country’s modern ballet.

Mr President, I ask you to help the St Petersburg Ballet Theatre return to our city.

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Eifman, we have discussed this issue in the past, several times at least, but before I say a few words on the problem itself, let me thank you for your creative work and helping Russia not just to continue its classical ballet traditions but to develop new forms too. You deserve a lot of credit for what has been accomplished here and we are very grateful to you.

Regarding the theatre itself, I can guess at what has prompted your question and your concerns. This is related to the fact that the site where VTB Bank had planned to carry out a developer project involving elite housing construction is now to be used instead for the Higher Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court’s new buildings.

I think that this [the courts’ move to St Petersburg] is a very good thing for the city, because we call it the northern capital, but with the Constitutional Court having moved there it really does take on some of the functions of capital and really does become our northern capital.

I can guess though, that you are worried that the piece of land on the site that was to be used for building your theatre might disappear from the overall project. This won’t be the case. I met recently with the St Petersburg Governor and our colleagues from the Government and the banks, and we reached a final decision. The city’s share and the federal share in the project have not been completely finalised yet, but the general agreement has been reached and your theatre will be built.

MARIA SITTEL: We have a culture-related question from Moscow now. Ms Antonova, director of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, is here. You have the floor.

DIRECTOR OF THE PUSHKIN STATE MUSEUM OF FINE ARTS IRINA ANTONOVA: Mr President, my question also concerns St Petersburg. The matter is that 65 years ago, in 1948, Moscow’s world-renowned museum of modern Western art was closed down. This museum was founded by two absolutely phenomenal Moscow collectors, Sergei Shchukin and Ivan Morozov. They were the first in Europe to appreciate and believe in the new directions that were emerging in art at that time. They put together a collection of impressionist and post-impressionist works that it would be no exaggeration to call the best of its kind by quality at least, if not by quantity, in this area of art.

The museum was closed down on Stalin’s orders. Ideological arguments were the reason given. The museum was accused of formalism and of collecting art that was anti-people in nature. Those were the same kinds of accusations used back in the late 1940s against the work of Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Khachaturian, Anna Akhmatova’s poetry, Zoshchenko’s writing and so on. The museum in question was founded in 1923 and at that time was the world’s first museum of modern art. New York’s famous Museum of Modern Art opened five years’ later, in 1928. In other words, our collectors in their genius guessed and understood the directions developments were taking.

VLADIMIR PUTIN:  Are you talking about the Guggenheim Museum in New York?

IRINA ANTONOVA: No, the Museum of Modern Art, it gets called MoMA for short.

The collection that we had from that museum was simply amazing, not to mention very extensive. There were a lot of works by Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, Van Gogh, more than 50 works by Matisse, and nearly 50 works by Picasso. When all of this was under one roof it was obviously the best museum in the world in this area of art.

One of the collectors, Sergei Shchukin, wrote about how he followed [art collector Pavel] Tretyakov’s example when putting together his collection of new Western art, and he planned to donate it all to Moscow.

Mr President, modern Russia has done a lot to redress the injustices of the past against its citizens, even if there still is perhaps more work to do here. Modern Russia has rehabilitated the names of great cultural figures and has also rebuilt Christ the Saviour Cathedral. We cannot let churches be destroyed.

I want to now ask if you would be willing to consider the issue of this collection. I realise that the matter is complicated because it would involve getting part of the collection returned to Moscow. The works were all transferred initially to our museum, but then part of the collection was given to the Hermitage in St Petersburg. Would you be willing to examine the possibility of returning that part of the collection and rebuilding this museum that would become a real cultural jewel for Moscow?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fortunately, we are not talking about returning works from abroad or handing works over to other countries. The issues here are all domestic. As far as I know, these works are all on display at the Hermitage and are not hidden away from the public. Of course I would support any decision to rebuild the museum, but the decision would have to be the result of consultations between the specialists first and discussions within the museum community itself.

To be continued.