«It seems to me that over the past decade, and perhaps even during the past 50 years, the idea of American exceptionalism has captured the public consciousness of the American population. Perhaps there are specific reasons for this, there is a historical phenomenon whereby in 250 and some odd years a small colony became a prosperous world power, one of today's leaders. This bears witness to a great deal, namely the talent of the American people and the optimal arrangement of the political and economic spheres. But, as a rule, leaders do not benefit from special rights. In general, they receive responsibilities. And if leaders start to believe that they have special rights then they often lose their leadership position.
And when we had two major world communities, the so-called Western bloc led by the United States and the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union, then we had the possibility of maintaining rigid discipline within this bloc mentality, this form of interaction. But today, when the overwhelming majority of the international community does not feel the same external threat that used to exist, and I would ask you not be offended by what I am saying, and one country starts to dictate an agenda in international affairs, this will not meet with understanding but rather resistance.»
«Incidentally, I would not add the adjective 'Islamic' to a definition of terrorism. In our opinion and according to my own personal conviction, terrorism does not have a national or religious component. Terrorism is international. And there are extremists in all fields, in all countries, and, if you want to talk about the religious component, in all denominations. From time to time something simmers and then occasionally erupts. But we are not fighting with any kind of religious manifestation, but rather with the ideology of intolerance, in whatever form that may take.»
«QUESTION: You have obviously followed the publishing of the CIA report according to which Iran has no active nuclear weapons programme. A few months earlier you had already said the same thing. How would you evaluate the reasons that the American government has made this public only now? Does this reduce the likelihood of military actions against Iran?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to ask the Director of the CIA and senior officials in the American administration why they chose to do this now, and why they did it at all, just as you need to ask why they destroyed the records of the interrogation sessions of suspected terrorists. These are not questions to me, but rather to them.
As for whether it reduces the threat of military action? If this CIA report has been published simply to divert the Iranians' attention from the real preparations for military action, something that is theoretically possible, then I believe that this would be very dangerous because any military action against Iran would represent yet another very big mistake. And if we assume that the report was actually published to provide an objective picture of events, then this simply confirms that the Russian side, in formulating its foreign policy position on a given issue, is guided by objective data. And I cannot help but be happy about this. This also bears witness to the fact that there are people in the American administration who believe that we need to speak the truth. And this too pleases me. This shows that we, basing ourselves on objective data, can construct an honest dialogue.»
«Why do you think Mr Kasparov was speaking English rather than Russian when he was detented? Did this not occur to you? I think that first and foremost his deeds were not aimed at his own people but rather at a Western audience. A person who works for an international audience can never be a leader in his own country. He should think of the interests of his own people and speak in their native language.»
«I do not want to offend anyone, but let us recall that the elections for the first term of the current President of the United States were associated with certain difficulties. After all, the fate of the presidency was solved in a court of justice, rather than by direct plebiscite. In Russia, the head of state is elected directly by secret ballot, and in the U.S. by an electoral college. As far as I remember, in the first case the electoral college voted for a president who had less of the popular vote than the other candidate. Is this not a systematic problem in American electoral legislation? And I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, I think, at the end of the 18th century there was another president elected in a similar way. We do not force you to change your laws, we believe that this is the sovereign right of the American people and the legislators. Why do you believe that you have the right to interfere in our affairs? And, frankly speaking, this is the main problem in our relations.
Indeed, in recent years it is as if people are saying to us: we are waiting for you, we want to welcome you into our family, into our civilized western family. But, first of all, why have you decided that your civilization is the best? There are many civilizations that are more ancient than the American one. And, second, we are quietly made to understand, people whisper in our ear, that 'we are ready to accept you but you should understand that we have a patriarchal family. We are more senior than you and you must listen to us'.»
«And now, with regards to detention and so on. You know that everyone received the right to express their opinion, just as they will have the right to do so during the presidential election campaign. And in accordance with the law all participants in the parliamentary and presidential elections have access to the media, but not only that. If you look at some television channels, the so-called opposition figures were simply permanent features there. Yes, they appeared less on other channels but they definitely appeared within the legislative framework. And on some channels they appeared constantly.
They had important, very important financial support. They had every opportunity to publicly express their views, to clarify their positions in the streets and town squares, but where permitted by law and the local authorities in accordance with the law. However, if they see their task as more than simply expressing their views, then they have another task: provoking the law enforcement agencies, ensuring that they are detained, and then appealing to their supporters, in this case not within the country but abroad, to show that there are problems in Russia. And in this sense they have of course achieved their goals and will achieve them in the future because we are going to continue to require that everyone comply with the laws of the Russian Federation.»
«QUESTION: Are you still concerned about the opposition's capacity to destabilize Russia? You are very popular, but all the same you see this as a threat?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, if you look at the election results, they got 0.9 per cent, not even one per cent. How can this be worrying? In political terms there is no worry. That is not what is at stake! The point is that I see this as an instrument that foreign countries are using to interfere in Russia's domestic affairs. This is the heart of the matter.
As to detention, I would like to repeat to you once again that everyone, all the people who have different opinions from the authorities on a given issue, will be given and have been given the opportunity to express their views, and express them publicly. This is not the problem. The problem is if they want to do more than simply express their opinion, if they want to be detained, and if they want to provoke the authorities into taking tough action. We have already said to them: please go ahead, you can hold demonstrations, you can come with posters and with slogans. But they don’t want that. They want to go where they are not allowed, where they disturb the life of a city in which millions of people live, where authorities cannot ensure security. And when they execute these violations consciously, then the authorities react accordingly. And I want to say this to you and I want to say it with full responsibility: the authorities are going to continue to respond in this way. But if people act within the law and abide by the law, then they will receive the right to protect their legal and constitutional rights and interests. And we will punish those who infringe on this and the officials who prevent our citizens from enjoying their constitutional rights.»
«What do we need to unequivocally leave behind? We need to get rid of the Soviet legacy according to which we are trying to lead the world socialist or communist revolution and become leaders, international leaders of this movement, a time in which we tried to impose a certain way of life on other countries. I think that this is an error that was committed by other countries in addition to the Soviet Union, but it is obvious and applicable to the Soviet Union. And we undoubtedly need to move away from this.»
«QUESTION: One of the questions I wanted to ask you has become evident over the course of today’s discussion. What do you think about American misconceptions of Russia, the Russian people, you, the Government? What is the reason for this situation? If you were able to address the American people directly and say, “I think you should know the following facts about us. I think there are things you do not understand or maybe have not been told”, what main misconceptions would you address?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not believe this is a case of misconceptions. I think that this is a deliberate attempt to create a certain image of Russia that can be used to influence our domestic and foreign policy.
Russia has demonstrated on numerous occasions in word and in deed over the last 15 years that we want to be not just a partner but also a friend of America. But we sometimes have the impression that America does not need friends. We sometimes have the impression that the United States needs vassals it can command.
We cannot build our relations with other countries on such principles. This situation constantly leads to friction, and this is the reason why people are always looking for problems within the country.
This is the reason why we and all the others are told, “it’s alright to pinch and criticise them a bit because they’re still not quite civilised, they’re still a bit wild, only came down from the trees not long ago, so we have to groom them a bit because they can’t do it for themselves. We have to shave them, clean the grime from them. That’s our civilising mission”.
But I think that this is really just an instrument for influencing Russia. It’s not the right instrument. The right approach, as I said, is to look for compromise and take each other’s interests into account.»
«I think nevertheless that [Yeltsin] and Gorbachev did what I could probably not have done. They took the step towards destroying a system that the Russian people could endure no longer. I am not sure I would have been able to take such a step. Gorbachev took the first step and Yeltsin completed what I think was a historic and very important transition for Russia and its people. Both of them, Yeltsin above all, of course, gave Russia freedom, and this is indisputably the historic achievement of the Yeltsin era.»
«The command economy system and the Communist Party’s total domination of political life had brought the country to a point where most people no longer placed any value on the state. They did not need that state. So it was no surprise that they saw the state as they did and felt no regret at seeing it go, imagining that things could surely not be any worse without it. But then it became apparent that things could indeed be worse. The tragedy is that people’s hopes were disappointed because freedom to do as one pleased was called democracy, and the theft of millions to enrich a few, the plunder of immense resources that belonged to the whole people, was called the market and market relations. » (...)
