TRANSCRIPT: Direct Line with Vladimir Putin (continued)

(Kremlin.ru  – April 25, 2013)

(transcript continued)

Moscow

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.

Have we switched off St Petersburg? Mikhail Piotrovsky…

MARIA SITTEL: No, St Petersburg is still on the line.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Piotrovsky is going to say that he “will never give anything away, it will never happen.” Mr Piotrovsky, you are ready to return part of the collection to Moscow and help revive the Museum of Modern Art?

I am not sure but I think these works are exhibited. Matisse, Picasso’s Girl on a Ball, Monet. There are some very interesting and very valuable paintings, like Paris after the Rain. There are a lot of different things, it’s a huge collection, and I think all the artworks are exhibited.

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE STATE HERMITAGE MUSEUM MIKHAIL PIOTROVSKY: Naturally, they are all exhibited, they were transferred to the Hermitage in exchange for some 200 old masters’ paintings that were removed from the Hermitage and transferred to the Pushkin Museum in the 1920s. But that’s not the point. (Laughter and applause.)

First of all, Mr President, we are surrounded by three miracles created by Mr Gergiev…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I knew it.

MIKHAIL PIOTROVSKY: And he created them with your help. I am very grateful to you for that, because it’s absolutely amazing and extraordinary.

First, I would like to talk about a general issue that is important everywhere, but it is particularly important in culture: anger. Rage and anger have permeated our information field. They are everywhere ­ in the media, on the Internet, everywhere. The right, the left, the sidelines, the marginalised and the liberals ­ everyone is happy to pour dirt on each other, and that’s just fine. But we have a new trend with press statements and interviews turning into denunciations, parliamentary inquiries turning into accusations, when people are deliberately turned against each other and made to cross swords. This is a different type of thing because it washes away the intellectual sensitivity from our relations.

I have a question for the authorities. How do you feel about all this? Do you think it is what real democracy is all about and that’s just great? Or let them come to blows, we’ll see who wins? Or “the dogs bark but the caravan moves on”? And generally, full speed ahead to the caravan? It’s such a simple question, as if it were taken from the National Final School Exam. As for the museum business ­ I am ashamed that museum business has come up in such a discussion with the President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I want to answer in any case. I’ve been asked to indicate my position and I don’t mind. But this issue must be discussed in detail by the Ministry of Culture, with the involvement of experts and museum professionals.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: We are talking about establishing a new museum, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Reviving a museum.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: It’s not about returning artworks to the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: That’s what Mr Piotrovski said. You see, I don’t know anything about this. It turns out that part of the Hermitage collections was removed to Moscow. We must look at this situation closely and analyse it at the level of experts.

As for the moral side of things, I don’t think there is anything special here. It’s not very good when people start demanding that someone is thrown in jail but I am sure we can resolve everything calmly by discussing it. This is a routine issue, although one that is interesting and deserves to be analysed.

IRINA ANTONOVA: This is a moral issue.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good. All right. We will not forget about it.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, we still have a lot of questions in the studio.

Olga, please.

OLGA USHAKOVA: Thank you, I would like to give the floor to our colleague, Chief Editor of Nezavisimaya Gazeta Konstantin Remchukov.

NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA CHIEF EDITOR KONSTANTIN REMCHUKOV: Mr President, I would like to ask a question on foreign policy. My assessment of the past year is as follows: I think Russia’ relations with the United States and the West in general have deteriorated. There has been a significant reduction in the level of trust between the West and Russia. I think your last visit to Germany and the Netherlands was very revealing because most of the time, at least judging from what we were shown, you talked about same-sex marriages and paedophiles, and it was difficult to see if there is any traditional and substantial component in the Russian-German or Russian-Dutch relations at all.

I am one of the people in Russia who believe that good relations with the West can serve for Russia’s benefit. It entails exchanges in technology, information, healthcare, medicine and pharmaceuticals. In this regard, do you think it would be beneficial to discuss confidence-building measures during your possible meeting with President Obama in September? Because one meeting will not be enough to restore trust; it is a multi-faceted process. This is the first question.

Second, do you agree with my opinion that the state of our relations is at times reminiscent of the Cold War, with this exchange of the Magnitsky List, the anti-Magnitsky List, the accusations of suppressing democracy and political freedom in Russia and counter-accusations that the West finances our opposition?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all, I want to say that a certain cooling in our relations began with the events in Iraq. That did not happen yesterday, last year or the year before that. It started with the events in Iraq, when our colleagues, especially our American colleagues, called on us to take an active part in those events. At the time we said that we believed this step to be a mistake and we would not participate.

By the way, a number of other countries supported us, including NATO members such as Germany and France. Nevertheless, this gave rise to a certain cooling off despite the fact that our position was open and honest. My counterpart at the time told me on several occasions: “We do not resent your position, we had an honest dialogue.” But still there was some cooling off.

That was followed by the events in Libya and in other parts of the world. I have repeatedly stated my position on this matter. We are seeing this chaos everywhere and we do not believe that our partners’ position is absolutely right. Why should we support what we consider wrong? However, that does not mean that we do not need a set of measures aimed at building up our relations.

You are right, a great deal of time during my last visit was devoted to the rights of sexual minorities and other matters of this kind. But, you see, they have their own standards, I spoke out when I was there and I can repeat here: if the Dutch court allowed an organisation that is engaged in promoting paedophilia, why does it mean that we have to adopt similar standards?

If they want their population to increase by letting in more immigrants, let them do that. We are not trying to tell them how to run their country. Why should we follow their lead? We have a different society. Try to allow an organisation like that here. I said when I was there, just try to allow anything like that in Russia. We have such a diverse country ­ there is the North Caucasus, the Far East, the North and the central part of the country. It would be impossible to introduce everything they have over there. Impossible. And how can they demand that we introduce their standards? Or, maybe we should demand that they instil our standards in their country? Let’s not demand anything from each other. Let’s treat each other with respect. Naturally, this does not mean that we shouldn’t look for a rapprochement, for a way to understand each other better.

By the way, the countries I visited are our leading trade and economic partners. Despite the fact that we disagree on some issues, which I have just mentioned and which you referred to, nevertheless our trade with Germany amounts to $74 billion and it is even more with the Netherlands ­ $82 billion, although German experts believe that part of the $82 billion actually belongs to their companies, because our import and export only passes through the Netherlands. That may be so but it doesn’t matter. In any case, these two countries are our leading partners. These misunderstandings in the humanitarian field have no impact on our cooperation. But I agree with you that we must work on improving our relations. We are ready for this.

I also want to tell you that we have not done anything to provoke this deterioration. Did we enact this Magnitsky List? Why on earth did they need to do this? Can you just explain this to me? No one can explain it, you know! Nobody knows the purpose. There used to be the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which discriminated against the Soviet Union, limiting its trade with the United States. It was introduced decades ago because Soviet Jews were not always able to move to Israel. What is the situation now? Russia is being accepted into the World Trade Organisation with the help of the United States, for which we are grateful to the Obama Administration. The accession process has begun. But the trick is that if they had kept the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, the United States would have begun to lose money following Russia’s accession to the WTO. They were forced to abolish it. It was an excellent opportunity to leave the Cold War behind and move on. But no, they had to think up another anti-Russian law, the Magnitsky Act. The investigation of those events has not even been completed. Why was this done? Just to show off who is the toughest here. What for? It is an imperialist approach to foreign policy. Who would be happy about it? We warned them that we would respond in kind. But apparently they didn’t expect a strong answer. I don’t know if our response is good or bad; it may have been somewhat excessive. Our deputies gave vent to certain emotions. It is a mistake to assume parliament in other countries and the Congress in the United States is so independent while ours is completely domesticated. No, that does not reflect the reality of our political life. We have a ruling party which has the majority, but its members have different views, and it takes a lot of effort to convince them to act in one way or another.

But you are right that both sides should treat each other with respect and seek ways to improve mutual understanding.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, we are ready to cross over to another city now, Russia’s Olympic capital.

Anton Vernitsky in Sochi, over to you.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Good afternoon, Moscow.

We are here in Sochi at the Adler Arena, Russia’s most modern speed skating centre, which will host the Olympic Games. There will be 12 events held here at this venue. This unique stadium is located only 400 metres from the sea. You can smell the sea on the other side of the walls, but we’ve got real snow here. We’ve brought together some of our most famous athletes here, including Ilya Averbukh, Irina Lobacheva, and our Paralympic team’s flag bearer Alexei Ashapatov. We’ve interrupted our Paralympic athletes’ training process and they’ve come here to ask you their questions. Also with us here are the wonderful Olympic volunteers, and the builders who built this stadium, which is so unique in many ways. It’s even got a mirror ceiling, as you can see, so as to create a special microclimate inside the building.

My colleague Viktor Gusev, who is a sports commentator and probably spends more time here than in Moscow, is already looking around the commentators’ area.

The builders here worked not just on this unique facility but at other Olympic sites too. Dmitry Morozov is someone who helped build this stadium and is currently working on the Formula 1 track. Let’s have him put the first question on behalf of all the builders working on the Olympics.

DMITRY MOROZOV: Hello, Mr President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Hello.

DMITRY MOROZOV: I don’t have a question so much as a statement. There’s been a lot of talk in the media and on the internet lately about how the Olympic construction work is behind schedule and isn’t up to standard, and about how much is being stolen, and how nothing’s ready and we’ll end up making a disgrace of ourselves.

But this is not the case, Mr President. You had the chance to see for yourself that a mass of sites have already been completed and the trial events there have all been a success. I can tell you that for all of us, thousands of people who have been away from their homes and families for quite some time now, working on the Olympic construction sites, it’s really hurtful to hear all these accusations.

I’d like to know how you feel about this sort of talk, what’s your opinion?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think this kind of criticism was only to be expected and overall we shouldn’t let it offend us. First of all, the accusations aren’t being levelled at the builders themselves but at the project organisers, and they target financial institutions and financial flows that have nothing to do with the builders.

But you are right in saying that the work is on schedule and that overall, all of the sites will be completed on time and will go through all of the planned trial competitions. I am absolutely certain that all of the Olympic preparations will be completed on time and will be of the proper quality.

But as the International Olympic Committee members said to us, we can’t start to drop our guard as we reach this final stage of preparations. On the contrary, we have to be more alert than ever and pull together all of our administrative, financial and organisation efforts to ensure that we are fully ready for the Olympics. I am sure we have the capabilities we need to do this. I am sure that we will succeed.

MARIA SITTEL: But Mr President, isn’t it turning out to be very expensive for Russia to hold these Olympics?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It’s not a cheap undertaking. The figures have already been quoted, I can repeat them now.

MARIA SITTEL: We’ve heard various figures.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, there have been various figures given because people use different calculation methods and include different things in the cost. Talking about the cost of the Olympics themselves, we’ve got 99 billion rubles from the federal budget and around 144 billion from investment raised from other sources.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Is that counting the ski jumps?

MARIA SITTEL: Which turned out more expensive.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: These figures include the cost of the two media villages, one in the Imereti Valley and the other in the mountains, 14 sports facilities, and 22 auxiliary facilities.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you. Let’s go back to Sochi.

Anton, let’s hear another question from you there.

ANTON VERNITSKY: Yes, of course.

We have some of the volunteers here. They have an important occasion at the moment. They’re going through their own training process and are working at the ice hockey junior world championship. Our junior ice hockey team is playing against the German team in the quarterfinals today. Let me turn to Ilya Averbukh, who I think has a question to ask on behalf of all former sportspeople (though I doubt there’s really such thing as a ‘former’ sportsperson) and future viewers. Please, you have the floor.

ILYA AVERBUKH: Even if there’s not really such a thing as a former sportsperson, nonetheless, as someone who has retired from competition, I want to ask you a question about our country’s image. The Sochi Olympics is a huge event of course, and when you come here to Sochi you can’t help being filled with pride for Russia. Thank you very much for giving us these Olympics.

Together with the guys here, our Olympic champions, we’ve created an ice project. You’ve already had the chance to see it. It could become a real image-boosting project that can show just what a modern, innovative and beautiful country Russia is, rich in talent and Olympic champions. But it is quite hard to find the backing needed for these kinds of projects that can showcase Russia as a modern country abroad. There isn’t such enthusiasm for these kind of innovative and image-boosting projects. I therefore want to ask you how to find the needed support, who we should talk to, and what are your hopes for these Olympics?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let me return your compliment and say what an excellent specialist and organiser you are. You have put together a wonderful team, and that’s not to mention your own past achievements. Of course people like you and your colleagues should get support.

There is just one point I want to make though, and that is that with really big projects like the Olympics we cannot disperse our efforts, not when it comes to the federal budget funds in any case. We cannot spend extra money on additional projects, even if they are very attractive. We cannot start trying to carry out new projects until we have completed all the spending needed to prepare for the Olympics themselves. We need to concentrate our efforts on this big project first.

What are my hopes from the Games? I hope first of all not even so much for the chance to advertise our country abroad, though this really is very important of course, but what I really want is for the Olympics to spark an upsurge in interest in sports, in mass sports. I hope that millions of people of all ages in Russia, especially young people of course, will take up sport and make it an integral part of their lives. I hope that this will help to improve our people’s health and ultimately have benefits for the demographic situation and so on.

Of course, when I look at all of the sites you referred to just now, I too feel pride in our country, our engineers and our builders. I want to say a huge thanks to them for working to such high standards and in such good time. These are really impressive facilities. It is far from every country that would be able to produce something like this. But Russia can, and Russia is doing this.

Of course we hope too for a successful performance by our athletes. Naturally, you need to put your all into the competition, not just be there to work up a sweat, but be there to win. Sport is sport of course, but I hope that our sportspeople will give their very best, knowing that they have our whole huge country and their millions of fans behind them.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Thank you, Sochi. We have been live on Russia’s two main national TV channels and radio stations Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio Rossiya for over three and a half hours now.

Let’s go back to the television centre, to our colleague Tatyana Remezova.

Tatyana, please, go ahead.

TATYANA REMEZOVA: Thank you, Kirill.

Today we talked a great deal about salaries, particularly the salaries of public employees. But now I would like to discuss a slightly different aspect of this problem.

We have a self-employed entrepreneur on the line from Nizhny Novgorod Region. Hello, you’re on the air! Please ask your question.

QUESTION FROM NIZHNY NOVGOROD REGION: Hello, Mr President! I am speaking to you on behalf of all entrepreneurs. Please, help us. Our taxes have been raised very high.

We are living in a rural area and we simply cannot pay such high taxes; the pension fund contributions have grown enormously. Please help.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those are not taxes ­ those are contributions to so-called social funds. These include, first and foremost, pension fund contributions, as our colleague said. Clearly, these decisions were made in order to balance the pension system. But I agree that these contributions have turned out to be very difficult ­ and not even so much for medium-sized businesses, and certainly not for large ones, as much as for self-employed individuals, especially in rural areas.

You did not introduce yourself, so I don’t know what your name is, but I fully agree with you. Just recently, we were discussing this problem at a meeting in Rostov-on-Don with the Russian Popular Front. And there, too, your colleagues, self-employed business representatives, very modest people working very hard, said that these social fund contributions have become too much of a burden, so there are two ways out: either to work under the table, to hide from these contributions, or to stop working altogether. And both are very bad options, especially the latter. The first is bad, of course, but the second is just terrible, because we need to keep these people. Rather than having them line up at an employment office or receive social allowances and benefits, it’s better to create the conditions for them to be able to work and provide jobs for themselves, their families, and maybe even their acquaintances, friends, or simply people who are looking for the opportunity to work.

We are currently looking into several options for resolving this problem. One option, which I think is the main one, is to return to a system when these contributions to social funds amounted to one full minimum monthly wage for self-employed individuals and entrepreneurs with revenues under 300,000 rubles a year. For those who make more than 300,000, a gradual scale would apply, such as one minimum monthly wage plus one percent of the amount exceeding 300,000. It is not complicated, but this problem is still causing arguments within the Government.

The Government’s social bloc believes that people deducting only one minimum monthly wage from 300,000 will not be able to provide for their pension rights, and this is unjust because all the other contributors to these funds will have to subsidise their pension rights.

The Finance Ministry believes that reducing current contribution levels this way will lead to a shortfall in budget revenue.

Both concerns are justified. But ultimately, it is more important to preserve this sector of our economy and support people like you.

Thus, I will ask my colleagues in the Cabinet to accelerate this decision using the formula I just explained.

MARIA SITTEL: Let’s take another question from the audience. Dmitry, let’s hear from your sector.

DMITRY SHCHUGOREV: I would like to pass the floor to our colleague Mikhail Leontyev.

JOURNALIST MIKHAIL LEONTYEV: Mr President, you said that a ‘shale revolution’ is a threat and a challenge for Russia and the Russian economy, and that we must respond to it adequately. Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said there is no such ‘shale revolution’ so there is no need for any kind of response. However, the company is losing markets and capital. So what shall we do, first of all, with Alexei Miller, second, with the ‘shale revolution’ and restructuring of the economy, which even Alexei Kudrin is supporting, although he ‘sucked’ all the money from the economy which could have been used for these types of reforms? (Applause.)

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you, Mikhail, for giving Kudrin and Miller a hard time; we have already criticised Chubais. Incidentally, I feel we must always differentiate such things: it’s one thing to talk about, say, Anatoly Chubais and administrative responsibility, talk about his efficiency as a manager, and another to talk about the criminal aspect of the matter, whether or not one exists.

With regard to a company like Gazprom, earlier I brought up Rusnano, but Gazprom is our leading company alongside Rosneft, which certainly became one of the largest global players in oil and gas production. So it’s hard to say whether Gazprom missed the ‘shale-gas revolution’ or not ­ we do not have an answer yet. Why? Because shale gas production cost is much higher, may times higher, than that of gas extracted in a traditional way.

Moreover, we have enough so-called natural gas bubbles to extract gas the traditional way. For the time being, we have enough. Currently, we cannot even develop everything we have.

Furthermore, extracting shale gas and shale oil, which is also possible, is tied to enormous ­ I want to stress this ­ enormous environmental costs. Many people living in regions where shale gas is produced have black slush pouring from their taps instead of water. At the very least, these technologies require serious development.

And finally, this does not mean we have refused entirely to work with shale gas. Even international experts who are studying this problem say that Russia has very serious prospects for shale gas production. We have enormous undeveloped territories and enough minerals to work there in terms of hydrocarbons production.

I do not think we have missed anything, but we should monitor this situation very carefully, and you are absolutely right here.

MARIA SITTEL: Mr President, we have a lot of questions about developments in the post-Soviet area.

There’s the question of a customs union with Ukraine for example, whether or not Ukraine will join the Customs Union.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, that depends on Ukraine, not on us.

Ukrainian experts themselves have spoken in favour of the idea. Experts from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, one of its institutes actually, I think it’s called the Institute for Economic and Forecasting, have said that Ukraine’s GDP would grow substantially if Ukraine joins the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space. They are not talking about just a small increase in GDP, but about real percentage-point growth. We estimate the increase would be worth around $9-10 billion a year.

Ukraine itself, its people and government, has to decide if they need this or not. The Ukrainian economy has huge, wide-ranging ties with the economies of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and abandoning this cooperation would be an irreplaceable loss for everyone involved. And while Russia would still be able to compensate in some way for these losses, Ukraine would find this very difficult indeed. I am afraid that this could lead to deindustrialisation in some production sectors. Ultimately though, the choice is up to Ukraine. We will respect whatever choice they make. The ball is in our partners’ court.

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

MARIA MORGUN: Yes, I want to give the floor to a French citizen.

We have with us here Dmitry de Koshko. He’s a fourth-generation émigré, a journalist, and he heads the Coordination Council of Russian Compatriots in France.

Mr de Koshko, go ahead, you have the floor.

DMITRY DE KOSHKO: Hello, Mr President.

My question concerns citizenship for Russians living abroad. My now double compatriot Gerard Depardieu was lucky. He got his [Russian] citizenship in practically a single day, but many of our compatriots in many countries around the world, people who speak Russian, love and support Russia, end up having to wait many years before finally getting a reply on their citizenship applications, and sometimes do not even get citizenship in the end.

You said last December when addressing the Federal Assembly that the procedure would be simplified. We were all very happy to hear that news of course. But what progress has been made since then? You said that people who take Russian citizenship and resettle in Russia must give up their former citizenship, but does this apply too, to people who continue to live in other countries? These are the kinds of questions we often get asked at the coordination councils.

Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, this is currently the rule. As for Mr Depardieu, he was granted citizenship through a special procedure in accordance with our Constitution, on the grounds of his services to Russian culture. He is very well-known here in Russia, not just because he knows how to put on a show, but because he’s an outstanding actor who has made a name for himself all around the world. He recently acted in a soon to be released film, Rasputin, I think it’s called, and plays one of the main parts. This film is directly related to Russia’s own film industry and to Russian culture in general. So, I think the decision was justified.

Actually, this is not just a one-of-its-kind case. I will not give the details of who has discussed this matter with me. People do not want this news to take on any kind of sensational overtones. As for Mr Depardieu, he’s an impulsive man, and as I said earlier, he expressed this desire to become a Russian citizen without any prior discussions or consultations. This is not some kind of a Kremlin project. What could we do when he announced his wishes publicly to the whole world? Were we to say “no, we’re not going to grant your wish”? And on what grounds? It would have been laughable, absurd, you understand? And so of course we were happy to present him with a passport, and even thanked him for his choice.

As for our compatriots, I think that they should be able to obtain citizenship under a simplified procedure, as should all people from the post-Soviet area who are healthy, educated, of an age when they can have children, and adapt easily to our cultural environment. Russia needs such people.

Many countries, Canada for example, search all around the world for just such people. The Foreign Ministry there has a quota and a set task to attract these people to Canada. Why should Russia not do the same thing? But this should be in the interests of Russia itself, benefit our people and not unsettle the labour market in any way. There are all these tried and tested schemes, and we can and should use them here too.

As for the group into which you yourself fall, I think that people like you, people whose forebears, parents, grandparents, ended up abroad and became foreign citizens not through their own free will, should benefit from a special procedure for getting citizenship.

I just recently updated my instruction to the Government and the Federal Migration Service. I hope that these procedures will be drafted and applied.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: I suggest that we now move thousands of miles away from Moscow, to a place where researchers in Akademgorodok are waiting to ask the President their question.

Igor Kozhevin from the Novosibirsk Technopark, Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is on the line.

IGOR KOZHEVIN: Greetings to Moscow from the Novosibirsk Technopark. I am here in one of the technopark buildings where the most comfortable conditions possible have been created for implementing the latest business projects. Everyone who wants to ask the President of Russia a question is here, in one of the park’s facilities, which houses highly modern equipment built using cutting-edge science. Overall, people have a special relationship with science here, and indeed, we have felt this during all of our time in this town. And so, we have invited scientists, graduate and college students, and those who are working directly at the research park to participate in our meeting. I am here with several researchers and I would like to give them the floor. Please introduce yourself.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE BORESKOV INSTITUTE OF CATALYSIS OF THE SIBERIAN BRANCH OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES VALERY BUKHTIYAROV: Hello, Mr President,

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Valery Bukhtiyarov, I am an associate member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and deputy director of the Boreskov Institute of Catalysis here in Novosibirsk. So, it is no surprise that my question concerns the never-ending dispute in our society regarding the efficacy of the work in Russia’s scientific sector, first and foremost in the Russian Academy of Sciences.

You know well that there exists a point of view stating that there is no more reason for being proud of the Academy of Sciences, as we did during Soviet times, when the nation was carrying out space and nuclear projects. Without getting into this dispute, without trying to prove that these arguments are unfounded, I would like to note that during the era that can now be recognised as the golden age of academic science, we experienced organised, systemic governmental support for the science. First and foremost, this involved setting or identifying scientific priorities that actually resulted in those large-scale projects. It also involved the creation of systemic infrastructure for implementing large-scale projects. This meant implementing the entire chain, from laboratory research to implementing production technologies.

Unfortunately, it is no longer the same today, so I have a question. Do you think that the government, government institutions should be more engaged in infrastructure support?

I specifically referred to infrastructure support rather than competition. A great deal has already been done in this direction in science to really create the conditions for the implementation of such large-scale projects, for example, deep conversion of resources, which is very relevant today. It is not just a matter of increasing financing and subsidies for scientific research in Russia, although that is also worth discussing, but rather, first and foremost, creating the entire chain, including the most important, missing link: national engineering centres, whose goal would be to scale up scientific developments. Without this link, it is impossible to implement an entire large-scale project.

I would like to note that there are already examples of such institutions. One example is the French Institute of Petroleum, which is responsible for implementing ready-to-operate technologies in oil processing and petro-chemistry in France. Thank you.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Mr Bukhtiyarov, this is a very important question and a major one. I recognise the walls that surround you today; I visited your facilities once. We even had a meeting. And incidentally, the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences demonstrates good performance indicators in this respect. The people managing the Siberian branch are results-oriented.

As for comparing the Soviet period and today, we always compare; people have always compared and will continue to compare everything we had before and everything happening now.

You talked about the need to identify priorities. At the same time, you recalled the golden age, as you called it, of Soviet science and its nuclear and missile projects. But I think we can agree that the scientists were not the ones who identified those priorities. The priorities were set as was needed to resolve national security issues. That is precisely why such enormous, truly colossal resources were channelled toward these goals, including intellectual, financial and other special resources. And the problems were resolved ­ resolved in a brilliant and timely manner.

Today, the situation is different. But to make this comparison objective, let me remind you of other aspects that characterised science in the Soviet Union. Let’s recall genetics, cybernetics and other fields that were ostracised, and the fact that scientists who defended the most cutting-edge ideas and theories were persecuted. There was such period in Soviet science. There was the good and the bad. Fortunately, nothing of this kind exists today in Russian science.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, it is developing ­ developing successfully. Perhaps things are not going as fast as we would like them to, because unfortunately, in the 1990s, Russian science had to cope with a different kind of problem ­ it needed to survive. Right now, we are talking more and more about the need to develop infrastructure for scientific research (indeed, we are also doing a fair amount of work along these lines). And recognising the development level of Russian science, as expressed by our participation in nearly all the major international research projects, such as CERN and others, is evidence that we are on the right path. We are present everywhere, physically and intellectually. And you know this better than anybody else.

As you know, we are developing funds, providing fund and grant support. You mentioned this, even though you didn’t seem to want to discuss it, but it’s true and we shouldn’t forget it.

As for applied science, you just spoke about this very subject ­ particularly a specific project related to deep conversion of raw materials, which is extremely important for our nation, exceedingly important. Thus, I would like to draw your attention to the following. Naturally, state infrastructure support is needed. We need to create engineering centres that will promote these developments. But you should also take on some of the responsibility for promoting the products that you want to offer on the market, the market of intellectual services and intellectual products. We do have it here. We have leading global companies working here, in our nation. Other global companies with which we are in contact ­ American, European, Asian ­ all of them are also present in Russia. If you prove to them that your developments are the best and that they can yield profit, they will come running to you themselves, if that’s really the case. But, of course, promoting goods and services on the market is a special kind of work. You are right; I suppose it is difficult to solve this problem without state support.

Our nation is creating research parks ­ indeed, you are currently inside one of them (looks like you are working); we are creating other facilities designed to solve this problem. I guess so far, it is not enough. We will need to take the example from our European partners, including our northwest neighbours in Finland, where this system is very well developed. We will work hard and give this matter even more attention.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Thank you, Novosibirsk.

As it happens, we have our own innovation cluster here in Moscow ­ Skolkovo ­ although lately, the news coming from there has more to do with financial scandals rather than innovations. The latest one concerns Skolkovo lecturer Ilya Ponomarev, a State Duma deputy who delivered ten lectures for $300,000.

Mr President, there are many such scandals. Could you tell us what you think? Do you even believe in the future of this project?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do. After all, how did it all begin? At a certain point, I initiated two projects: one in Moscow and another in St Petersburg. The project in Moscow was Skolkovo and the second was launched in a place not far from central St Petersburg, on the shore of the Gulf of Finland. This platform was handed over to St Petersburg State University (the project is patronised by Sergei Ivanov), while Dmitry Medvedev was in charge of Skolkovo project from its very start.

We decided to focus our attention on Skolkovo as far as private investments are concerned. The platform in St Petersburg was given to the university, so the government sponsors it and things are developing real slow there. We hope that it, too, will come to fruition.

Initially, both projects were planned as business schools. Later, three or four years ago, the Moscow project began to transform into an innovation centre. I think this is a good idea; we just need to ensure that other participants in this innovation process, including our recognised science towns like Dubna and others, do not find themselves treated like poor relations, and we cannot create exclusive conditions for just one participant in this project. I think the project itself deserves support, but that does not mean that someone can act outside of current laws, like the Olympics project. It does not mean that laws can be violated; it means that everything will be strictly monitored, including here. And if somebody received money for unclear reasons ­ I don’t know whether this individual even had a higher education at the moment when he received that money, but even if he did, he did not deliver any lectures, as the law enforcement agencies say, and instead, all his work involved compiling cheap texts from the Internet that are not even worth three pennies ­ then this needs to be dealt with. Incidentally, I cannot confirm this, we simply need the relevant authorities to provide a legal evaluation of this case: if this is true, then something needs to be done. But what if it’s not true? I don’t know yet. If that’s the case, then great, let him continue with the lectures. Are they worth $650,000? That I do not know.

MARIA SITTEL: While on the subject of Skolkovo, Mr President, I have two text messages: “Why doesn’t the government set specific goals when investing that much money into Skolkovo?” And another: “When will all the Skolkovo money be stolen?” (Applause.)

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You surely know that this project does not fall under my direct control, but I assume it will follow the same rules as other similar projects, as I just said. And we will carefully monitor how the money is spent, where it is directed, toward what goals. I am confident that there will not be any theft allowed there.

What was the first part of the question?

MARIA SITTEL: Why doesn’t the government set specific objectives when it invests money?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As for specific objectives, this question should primarily be addressed to the Education and Science Ministry. As far as I understand, the project is not being managed by setting specific goals to reach certain results. Instead, conditions are created in order for people with various projects to go there, to use the conditions created there to present the results of their work. That is more or less what Mr Bukhtiyarov was saying about the need to develop science infrastructure ­ this is one of our attempts to create elements of such infrastructure. It’s another question whether this is working or not.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, we still have a lot of questions left and we have barely talked about the situation in healthcare. Many people can’t understand the meaning of changes taking place in that sector. Let me read out one of the messages sent to our Direct Line: “It is not clear why they introduced the compulsory health insurance (CHI) policy if it just allows you to get an appointment slip, while all the treatment, prescriptions, medicine, and surgeries are paid for with your own cash.” And in general people are asking what will be free and what will be covered by the CHI?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: This is an extremely important question and one whose impacts are keenly felt. We originally intended that healthcare reform would be accompanied by introduction of new standards for treatment, which would lead to… Let me make it simple, for people who are not immersed in this topic. Injections used to cost the government around 100 rubles [$3.20], and once we raise the standards, they will be not 100, but around 150 rubles [$4.80]. This is covered by the government through the CHI system. Among other things direct government funding should also result in wage increase for health workers. This is the first aspect of the new system.

The second thing is that hospital stock available in Russia will now be comparable with, and in some cases even supersede, bed capacity in the most developed countries in the world. And as the technology level of medical services increase, the number of patient days must be reduced. Because hospital beds are not social beds where people can simply relax and recuperate, but rather a place where specific type of treatment is provided aimed at achieving positive result, based on modern methods, new materials, and new medical technology. And in general this process is correct. But what happened? We have not developed the basic amount of these medical standards. This is the first main point.

The second general point is that because these standards are not available, what do the local authorities do? Standards have not been developed though they should have been, so local authorities start deciding for themselves what is free and what isn’t. So in general we are seeing quite a disturbing tendency associated with arbitrariness in this area, which has rightly captured citizens’ attention. And the Government must respond to this very quickly. We need to finalize these standards, so that everyone understands precisely and clearly what is compulsory and free, and what medical providers can charge for certain services. But these standards are designed to keep our nation healthy, and eventually they need to be elaborated.

As for the number of beds, what is happening in that respect? People have started cutting their number not where it is needed, but where it is easier. And the number of patient days is not diminishing because of more high-tech services, but simply by the numbers. In some remote settlements or villages health workers are simply defenceless, and it is easier to make cuts. Go and try to make cuts in any major hospital ­ the resulting noise and din, and proximity to the authorities will slow the whole process down very quickly.

And in places where people have nowhere to turn to and must rely on paramedic services, they start making cuts instead of developing this system. I’ve also drawn attention to this, including during preparations for today’s event. One of our goals in reforming the healthcare sector in recent years has been to develop rural medical assistance centres. And yet they began to cut them. I would draw the attention of the Government and the regional authorities to this.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: We now have the opportunity to return to the call centre. The calls keep on coming in. Tatyana Remezova, our colleague, please go ahead.

TATYANA REMEZOVA: Yes, thank you very much, Kirill.

The preliminary results: as of 4 pm the total number of calls is approaching 3 million. This is an absolute record and exceeds all previous direct lines. And judging by how much our operators are working, I can predict that within an hour we will already be at the 4 million mark. That is absolutely certain.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think that in an hour we will all need a doctor. Let’s slowly bring this to a close.

TATYANA REMEZOVA: Let’s see how things go.

Mr President, it’s interesting that for some reason the number of calls on price rises has increased dramatically in the past hour; simply a surge of calls on this topic. Let’s now try to take one such call. My colleagues tell me that we have someone on the line from Khabarovsk Territory. Can you hear us? Please ask your question. The President is listening to you.

QUESTION FROM KHABAROVSK TERRITORY: Hello, Mr President,

I have the following question for you: why are gas, water, bread and food all becoming more expensive? When will prices stop rising at these rates?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I’ll tell you now what’s happening on average, though to use an expression from the healthcare field we were just discussing, no one is interested in “the average temperature for the hospital”. But nonetheless, price increases reflect primarily such thing as inflation. And in general inflation in Russia is at its historical low. The year before last it was at an all time low: I think it was 6.2 or 6.3 percent. According to forecasts, by the end of this year it should be about 6 or 5.9 percent, as the Economic Development Minister [Andrei Belousov] told me yesterday. At least, that is what we forecast. Now, today, it’s at 7 something percent.

In general, I would repeat that the country has seen only modest price increases. For some items ­ gas, water, electricity ­ this is not due to increases in tariffs but, as a rule, increases in standard rates. And we have the same unsatisfactory situation in the housing and utilities sector we talked about at the beginning of our Direct Line. What’s going on? I have already mentioned this, and I want to say it once again. After all, at the beginning of the year we froze the tariffs for the services of so-called natural or infrastructure monopolies: gas, transportation and electricity. But when people receive bills they do not feel this, but rather see the opposite: prices have risen, and risen steeply. This is due to the fact that often regions revise the rates themselves. If a rate used to be X, then now it becomes X plus Y, and this increases the cost of the service itself. And that is unacceptable. I hope that the Government and the regional authorities will react accordingly.

But as for increases in tariffs, they are planned. They are still being planned. And this causes inflation expectations as well. At the meeting in Sochi [with members of the Government] that we just mentioned, at the meeting I talked about, there were proposals to keep the rise in tariffs on natural monopolies  lower than expected. This is a double-edged sword,  bearing in mind these monopolies’ investment plans. However, probably here too we will have to back down. The Government will prepare a decision on this issue.

As for housing, I have already stated my position. We will work in this direction in order to protect people from unreasonable charges.

MARIA SITTEL: Thank you, Tatyana.

Mr President, what is the situation with the pension reform? Let me read out a text message: “The President says one thing about the pension reform, Dmitry Medvedev has some other ideas, and the Government does something entirely different. Tell us please, what is going to happen with the retirement age and term of employment.”

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The President and the Prime Minister are saying the same thing. Perhaps you can find different details in what we say but there are no discrepancies. Has the Government prepared the necessary measures? No, not yet. I had issued the instructions to prepare the so-called retirement formula by March 2013 but it is not ready yet. The aim of the pension reform is to ensure a decent standard of pensions for Russian citizens in the short, medium and long term. The pension reform’s objective is to balance the pension system.

As you know, a law has been passed on changing the scale of contributions to pension funds. This law should come into effect from January 1, 2014. I will not go into detail now, I don’t want to bore everyone with this, especially the people watching TV at home, but in order for this law to come into force on January 1, 2014, the Government must prepare proposals to change the procedure for calculating pensions, or the so-called pension formula, because it would be extremely dangerous, if not impossible, to transfer the pension system and retirement funds’ income from public to private ownership or vice versa without a clear understanding of how the pension is calculated. The Government had to do this by March 2013. Unfortunately, we don’t have any definite proposals yet.

MARIA SITTEL: What is the new deadline?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We will continue these discussions. I think that the work should be completed in the near future. If they do not do it, they will have to admit that they had not executed the instructions, and in that case it is unlikely that we will be able to introduce any changes to the current pension system from January 1, 2014.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: Mr President, not all the questions were sent in through our call centre, or as text messages, or via the programme’s website.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I’m sorry, Kirill, but I want to finish with the previous question. This is a vitally important and highly sensitive issue, and we will not take any action until we are satisfied that every step has been analysed and considered thoroughly and can be implemented for the benefit of Russian citizens.

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: I wanted to say that not all the questions we have received came by SMS or through the call centre. Some people addressed you through the media. In particular, Gennady Zyuganov, a viewer from Moscow, asks the following question to which he is waiting to receive your answer: How is Vladimir Putin planning to create 25 million new jobs in the foreseeable future, given the fact that hardly any large new high-tech manufacturing companies have opened in recent years, while science and education have for nearly a decade been run by ministers who have a poor understanding of these fields?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We have had a change of Government and almost 60% of the ministers are new people. They have come from all over the country and are young and energetic. At the beginning of our meeting today there was a proposal to change everything and to send them packing. I have my own position on this matter, which I have already stated. So the statement that these people have been working there for ten years is false, although naturally there must be continuity in such a key body of executive power as the Government. If there were no continuity, we would see some serious negative consequences on running the country.

How will we create 25 million new jobs? This is a difficult task. By the way, it was not my initiative but I actively supported it. This initiative came from the business community, from the OPORA Russia business association, and I gave it my full support. This is an extremely ambitious goal but I want to say again: if we set only easy tasks for ourselves, we will not make any progress in our development.

How will we tackle these challenges? Of course, we cannot create 25 million completely new jobs: that is a huge amount. But we can create 25 million new jobs by converting what we already have into new high-tech jobs through the modernisation of enterprises and production, as well as by creating new ones. This is what Mr Kudrin talked about earlier ­ we must convert our economy onto an innovative development track. This is a key objective of our economic policy. And I assume that we will crate, if not 25 million, then at least 24 and a half million new jobs. We’re working in a very competitive environment, and yet entire industries in our country are created from scratch.

Think back to the Soviet times. We had our own pharmaceutical products but there weren’t many of them and we imported a lot of medicines from Eastern Europe: we had drugs from Yugoslavia, Poland…

KIRILL KLEYMENOV: India…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There are still quite a lot of Indian generics on the market. So we had our own products, but not enough of them. Then, in the 1990s, the industry collapsed completely, so that now we are in essence building a whole new branch of the pharmaceutical industry, and it is a cutting edge industry, with the participation of leading global companies and industry leaders. New companies are springing up across the country, in many regions of the Russian Federation.

We have new businesses in the electric power industry, including in the nuclear energy sector. Our objective is to launch almost the same number of power stations as had been built in the entire period of Soviet nuclear power industry. They had put up 28 large power stations, and our target is around 25. Of course, we are building on what was achieved in the Soviet era. But there are new companies in hydropower generation, aircraft building and defence. For example, we have just started the construction of two new factories for the production of our new S-400 air defence systems, for which there is enormous demand around the world. All over the world! We cannot even satisfy that demand.

Therefore, there is every chance that we will create 25 million jobs. We must work hard on implementing this task.

To be continued.