{"id":2799,"date":"2013-06-12T12:53:13","date_gmt":"2013-06-12T18:53:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/?p=2799"},"modified":"2013-06-12T13:24:06","modified_gmt":"2013-06-12T19:24:06","slug":"interview-with-putin-on-usa-iran-stay-tuned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/?p=2799","title":{"rendered":"Video interview with Putin on USA, Iran – stay tuned!"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/object><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Russia\u2019s President Vladimir Putin has spoken at length with RT about the world\u2019s burning issues, including war-torn Syria, Iran, US surveillance and terrorism. He exclusively answered questions from RT journalists while paying a visit to the channel.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> Mr. Putin, thanks again for visiting us.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Thanks for inviting me.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> According to the Russian tradition, as hospitable hosts we are always happy to have such guests.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> I have to say, it was somewhat unexpected for me that our talk would be on air, not to mention it being live. But I was happy when Margarita just told me about it. I knew that we were having a meeting with journalists but I had no idea that you\u2019d arranged such an ambush as live broadcast of it. Well, it\u2019s all yours.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> Well, we have nothing to hide.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> There\u2019s nothing to hide, indeed.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> My first question is a bit immodest \u2013 about our channel. What are your impressions of it?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> I have good impressions.<\/p>\n

When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the world\u2019s scene, a player that wouldn\u2019t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean \u2013 try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams. And it seems to me that you\u2019re succeeding in this job.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

I\u2019d like to emphasize something of the key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel which would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena.<\/p>\n

Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government\u2019s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I\u2019d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> One issue that at least our viewers are generally excited about today is the Snowden case. A man who is now being dubbed \u2018a second Assange\u2019 has exposed total surveillance practices employed by the American government. There are two sides to this story: on the one hand, that was classified information, which makes this man a traitor. But on the other hand, the information he has leaked is of crucial importance, primarily for the American public, and for the world in general. What do you think of that?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin<\/strong>: He told us nothing we didn\u2019t know before. I think everybody has long been aware that signals intelligence is about surveillance of individuals and organizations. It is becoming a global phenomenon in the context of combatting international terrorism, and such methods are generally practicable. The question is how well those security agencies are controlled by the public. I can tell you that, at least in Russia, you cannot just go and tap into someone\u2019s phone conversation without a warrant issued by court. That\u2019s more or less the way a civilized society should go about fighting terrorism with modern-day technology. As long as it is exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities, it\u2019s alright. But if it\u2019s unlawful, then it\u2019s bad.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan<\/strong>: Mr. Obama said, rather gaudily, that you cannot have hundred-percent security while maintaining hundred-percent privacy\u2026<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Yes you can. I\u2019d like to reiterate: you do have to obtain a warrant for specific policing activities domestically, so why shouldn\u2019t this requirement be valid for intelligence agencies as well? It can, and it should.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan<\/strong>: As you probably know, it isn\u2019t Snowden, or Syria, or Turkey that\u2019s been top news in Russia this week. It\u2019s your divorce everybody has been talking about. Both yourself and Ms. Lyudmila Putina explained it at length when you spoke to the press after a ballet performance, but a few questions still remain. I wonder about the religious aspects of your divorce, and this is something many people are questioning at the moment.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> First of all, I can tell you that Lyudmila and myself agree that it\u2019s much more appropriate to be outspoken about our actual state of relations rather than try to keep it secret.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Margarita Simonyan<\/strong>: That\u2019s what they say in the press, too, regardless of political affiliation.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Well, thanks for that much. As for the religious aspect of our marriage, there is none, because we never wed in church.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> You didn\u2019t wed?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> \u00a0No.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> Thank you. The next question will be from Maria Finoshina, who\u2019s sitting right next to you. She is a war correspondent on RT English. She has spent 56 days in a row in war-time Syria recently, isn\u2019t that right?<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> Almost. It was 54 days.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> She went on air every day without fail.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0 As RT\u2019s CEO, you should know that this isn\u2019t right.<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> It was my own initiative, Mr President.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:\u00a0<\/strong> No, I\u2019m serious here. Some friends of mine, including your colleagues from European countries, professionals who dedicated their life to journalism, believe that. One of them told me that you cannot keep a reporter in a warzone for that long. The reason for that is because people…<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> Start to lose touch with reality.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Exactly, lose touch with reality and lose the sense of danger.<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> That\u2019s very true.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> You have to pull reporters out.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0I\u2019ve called you so many times and told you to come back! Honestly.<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> But I\u2019ve already lost my sense of danger…<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> I started calling her on day 20, telling her, \u201cMasha, how are you doing over there? Get back!\u201d, but she said no, she had more stories to shoot.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0This is very risky, it\u2019s no joke.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Of course. Most of us have been to hot spots at some point, and it\u2019s very dangerous. Maria, the floor is yours.<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> Thank you very much, Margarita. Hello, Mr Putin, we are very happy to see you here, in our new home. Something seemed to be missing here at first, but now it\u2019s become much cozier.<\/em><\/p>\n

I was introduced as a war correspondent. Some people believe that all correspondents are, in a way, invisible soldiers, so to say. Over the last two years we had to work in warzones, where the war was very real. I\u2019ve spent a lot of time in Syria \u2013 54 days just recently \u2013 we travelled across the country, visited practically every town and village. We also went to neighbouring countries, which in majority of cases did not support al-Assad\u2019s regime. The thing that struck me most was that over time more and more people were becoming involved in the conflict. We\u2019ve talked to a huge number of completely different people. Now, two years later, there is no single person standing on the sidelines. One way or another, the conflict affected everyone. The people we talked to were very different, I mean, we talked to, for example, widows of military officers of the Syrian Army and their children, who would maybe prefer not to be involved, but it\u2019s impossible. Their fathers have been killed, and they must seek revenge. Perhaps they don\u2019t want to, but they must \u2013 it\u2019s a matter of honour. We also talked to rebels, both Syrian and non-Syrian, who were living in Syria and other places, for example, in Europe, Turkey, and Jordan. They were in very high spirits at first, very optimistic, but then they started complaining that the West had forgotten and betrayed them. They wanted more money and more weapons. As you\u2019ve highlighted yourself, Bashar al-Assad is no angel, and we met with people who openly hated him. I remember seeing this old man in a hotel in Damascus where the UN observers were staying. He was a shoe polisher, and he kept doing his job, mechanically going through the familiar motions, and the only thing he was thinking about is when the happy news that Bashar al-Assad is gone \u2013 either dead or no longer president \u2013 would reach it. He has been hating al-Assad vigorously ever since 1982, for what his father did to the city of Hama.<\/p>\n

In Lebanon we managed to contact arms dealers who ship weaponry into Syria. They told us that they didn\u2019t care in the slightest who got those guns and who got killed as a result. They said, \u201cWe are businessmen, we care only about money\u201d. We talked to young boys, about 11-12 years old, who were given these guns \u2013 maybe they even came from Lebanon \u2013 put in front of cameras in their scarves and made to read aloud the words that someone else wrote. Nasty business. Well, you know, children are being used in this conflict.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

We have seen so much, and during our time there we became part of it. The horrifying part is that it doesn\u2019t matter where any of these people were in March 2011, when it all began. Now it feels like they\u2019ve crossed a critical line of sorts, losing hope and faith \u2013 in themselves and other people, perhaps even humankind as a whole, in kindness and justice. And they\u2019ve become angry, really angry at everyone. So, coming to my question \u2013 there are people who are really angry at Russia. Some people feel that way because they think Russia is doing nothing in order to stop the bloodshed. Others are angry at Russia for supporting al-Assad and supplying weapons. And everyone\u2019s expecting something from Russia, hoping for something. And it\u2019s not limited to the Syrian conflict, it happens every time \u2013 in Serbia, in Kosovo; everyone\u2019s asking where Russia is. The same is true for Iran, where we\u2019ve been just recently, and even in Mali they ask about Russia. So, as the president of this country, I would like to ask you a question on behalf of these people.
\n<\/em>
\nVladimir Putin:<\/strong> You mean me as the president or you as the president?<\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> \u00a0No, no (laughter).<\/em> I meant to say I wanted to ask you, as the president.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Who are these people? (laughter)<\/em><\/p>\n

Maria Finoshina:<\/strong> What should I tell these people?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0That was such a long question, so I\u2019ll try to be concise. First of all, you mentioned I once said that Bashar al-Assad was no angel. I said no such thing, as I try to be very careful about the way I put things. What I did say, however, is that the country was obviously ripe for some kind of change, drastic change. The country\u2019s leadership should have realised this and started implementing the necessary reforms. It\u2019s obvious that had they done that, what we see now in Syria wouldn\u2019t have happened. That was my first point. Secondly, I said that we\u2019re not advocates of the current Syrian government or the country\u2019s current president, Bashar al-Assad. And one more thing \u2013 what we wouldn\u2019t want to do is get involved in the conflict among various denominations of Islam, between Sunni and Shia. This is their internal issue. We have very good relations with the Arab world, and we have good relations with Iran and other countries.<\/p>\n

So I will tell you what we are concerned about and why we assumed our current stance. Look at the region as a whole. There\u2019s still unrest in Egypt. There\u2019s no stability in Iraq, and there\u2019s no certainty that it will stay united within its current borders in the future. There\u2019s no stability in Yemen, and Tunisia is far from peaceful. Libya is suffering from clashes between various ethnic and tribal groups. So the region as a whole finds itself in a state of, at the very least, uncertainty and conflicts. And now Syria joined the rest.<\/p>\n

In my opinion, this is happening because some people from the outside believe that if the region were to be brought in compliance with a certain idea \u2013 an idea that some calls democracy \u2013 then peace and stability would ensue. That\u2019s not how it works. You can\u2019t ignore this region\u2019s history, traditions and religious beliefs, and you can\u2019t just interfere. Look at what happened in Libya. Whether the regime was good or bad, the living standards in the country were the highest in the region. And what do we have now? There\u2019s fighting over resources, incessant clashes between tribes, and no one knows where that might lead.<\/p>\n

We are very concerned that if we try the same thing with Syria, the result will be similar. Is the pocket of uncertainty between Afghanistan and Pakistan not enough? No one is controlling that territory, except militants who set up their bases there. Is that what we want? It\u2019s very close to our borders. So this is our primary concern.<\/p>\n

Secondly, we are concerned over the future of all ethnic and religious groups living in Syria. We want this country to have lasting peace and security, with the people\u2019s interests and rights guaranteed. So we believe that first of all the Syrian people are to be given an opportunity to decide how their state should be organized, how their lawful rights, interests and security should be ensured. When there is consensus on these issues, systemic change should take place, not vice versa, when you eliminate some forces and try to establish order, and chaos engulfs the country instead.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a question our Western counterparts fail to answer. One of the main armed opposition groups \u2013 specialists in Arab countries will correct me if I\u2019m wrong \u2013 is called the Al-Nusra Front. The US State Department dubbed it a terrorist organization connected with Al-Qaeda. The Al-Nusra itself doesn\u2019t make a secret out of it. So these are the people what will make up Syria\u2019s future government? Our Western counterparts say that it will not happen. \u201cHow will you get rid of them, then? Chase them away like flies?\u201d I ask. \u201cNo,\u201d they say. So what is going to happen? They say they don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

This is no joke, though, this is very serious. I\u2019ll give you another example. On the one hand, some Western countries support some organizations that are at war with Bashar al-Assad\u2019s regime in Syria, but these same Western countries fight these same organisations in Mali. They\u2019re not even the same organisations \u2013 they are the same people. Some have left Syria and come to Mali. The West is fighting them in Mali, but once they cross the border into Syria, they get support from the West. What is the logic in all of this? Where will it take us? You need to understand, this is not just rhetoric.<\/p>\n

I very much hope that the current initiatives, such as the one put forward by the Egyptian president \u2013 we have recently met in Sochi, and he proposed the countries of the region take a more active part in resolving the conflict \u2013 and by the British Prime Minister, who believes the permanent members of the UN Security Council need to be more involved, and the joint initiative of Russia and the United States, that the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department have been working on together, I hope that this will enable us to resolve the Syrian conflict.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> Irina Galushko is a correspondent of RT English, too. She has travelled a lot, and became one of the first in Japan to cover the Fukushima disaster.<\/p>\n

Irina Galushko:<\/strong> My question will not be dealing with Fukushima. Recently we have spent a lot of time in Europe, covering all kinds of demonstrations. There are a lot of protests in Europe, and we can say that there are mostly young people on the streets. They take part in demonstrations because they have nothing to do \u2013\u00a0 the have got an education or they are still students, but they can\u2019t find a job. They don\u2019t have any prospects for the future at all, let alone a promising one. So of course they are dissatisfied \u2013 they take to the streets and voice their protest against what is going on in their countries. Meanwhile the governments of those European states believe that the only solution is austerity measures \u2013 they tighten the screws, especially in terms of the social obligations. They tell those young people to wait for some ten or fifteen years, promising that maybe after that period the situation will probably get better. Do you think this the right approach? If no \u2013 then, does Russia have a recipe how to deal with this?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> It is a correct approach for them.<\/p>\n

Irina Galushko:<\/strong> And what about Russia?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0It is incorrect for us \u2013 we have got different economies. Russia is a developing economy and a developing market, while Europe mostly consists of well-developed, advanced economies, the state of which is different in each country. The Russian economy is rather healthy, and, I must say, it is unburdened by an external debt the way it is in Europe or the USA.<\/p>\n

The average national debt across Europe is about 90 per cent, and the USA is well over 100 per cent. They have a high unemployment rate. All of the budgets are deficit-ridden. So not only do they have a huge national debt, but also a massive budget deficit. Russia\u2019s external debt is 2.5 per cent, our overall debt is 10 per cent. Russia is deficit free, our unemployment rate is 5.6 per cent, whereas in some European countries it reaches 25-26 per cent, and among young people it is up to 40 or sometimes even 60 per cent. It is a disaster. So we are in different situations. Obviously, Russia can use the so-called oil-money and rely on oil and gas exports. But I\u2019d like to note that we don\u2019t use monetary mission \u2013 we don\u2019t print more money in reserve currencies the way they do in the Western countries. So it\u2019s not just about Russia having oil and gas reserves, but it\u2019s rather about Russia restricting its spending. The Central Bank of Russia is often criticized for high interest rates \u2013 I guess it is about 8 or 8.5 per cent at the moment, or maybe 8.25 per cent. It doesn\u2019t matter \u2013 it is still high, while in the USA, for instance, it is 0.25 per cent, if I\u2019m not mistaken. Europe has similar rates, too. Some say Russia should have the same numbers as well, but the Central Bank is keeping its rates this high in order to avoid financial bubbles. Of course, we could provide cheap loans, low-interest credits, which would be used by manufacturers to produce some goods that would not be much in demand later on. So you have a bubble that is about to erupt. The highest performance is finding balance between having a more liberal monetary policy and toughening spending cuts, in a way that would ensure maximum growth. I don\u2019t think we are there yet. I believe we are not that efficient in everything we do as a government. I do hope that following our repeated meetings Russian government will make an effort and come up with some additional proposals to stimulate the economic growth and business activity in Russia.<\/p>\n

Speaking of which, one of such measures is something we use constantly, for which we get criticized by our counterparts \u2013 liberal economists: that is active support of growth in real income of the population. Last year it was about 4.5-4.6 per cent, and beginning February through April this year it has gone up to over 5 per cent. That is the growth of actual income of the population, which implies an increase in domestic demand. So the conditions we find ourselves in are different. Generally, I do share the viewpoint of some of our European colleagues who suggest we should consolidate budgets and bring discipline to the economy to get out of the crisis. Still, everything has its boundaries, and we can\u2019t shift the entire burden to the shoulders of the population.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Daniel Bushell, the presenter of one of our shows in English. Western media such as Foreign Policy and New Statesman often comment that he is too critical of the mainstream view on the world. I think it\u2019s really so. Daniel, the floor is yours.<\/p>\n

Daniel Bushell:<\/strong> Mr. Putin, I\u2019d like to hear your opinion on multiculturalism. Not long ago, the leaders of the European Union admitted reluctantly that their experiment with multiculturalism failed. When I lived and studied in England, and then worked in France and Belgium as an RT reporter it was evident that the local residents and immigrants had little in common. Over the last years Russia\u2019s been facing the same issue of mass immigration. I\u2019d like to ask, how can Russia avoid the same mistakes that the EU has made in the issue of immigration?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0We have different starting positions with the West. In the Western Europe and, by the way, partially in the United States all these migration problems are, in my view, more severe; they are more explicit and more dangerous. As we know, Western Europe and the United States have to deal with people who come from different countries and who find it difficult to assimilate in their new homeland. They fail to learn the local language, they fail to speak it, and they fail to find their way in the labour market.<\/p>\n

One of my Western European counterparts once told me that immigrants from, say, North Africa would live in a new country for ten years and still fail to speak the local language. In that instance he was referring to Spanish. And what about Russian immigrants? I guess they\u2019re doing better now, but those who immigrated to the United States back in 1980s and 1990s\u2026 Someone I know once was visiting an area where Russian immigrants have been settling\u2026<\/p>\n

Comment: Brighton Beach.<\/em><\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0Exactly. So there was an old lady who\u2019s lived there for 15 years, and didn\u2019t speak English. She was telling her guests that tomorrow she would go shopping in New York. She didn\u2019t even realize she was living in New York.<\/p>\n

So it is a general problem which is related primarily to the economy and to the need to attract a cheap labour force. Actually the same thing is happening in Russia. But in our country, despite how acute this problem is, it\u2019s still not as severe and dangerous as it is in Europe and in the States. Why?<\/p>\n

If we speak about immigrants, i.e. citizens of other countries in Russia, most migrants come here from different parts of the former Soviet Union. This new generation might not be speaking good Russian but their families do one way or another. We still do share a common mentality, a common historic memory. Some of them or perhaps their relatives may have lived in the regions of Russia. These factors make it much easier for these people to integrate in the lives of those ethnic groups where they are resettling for permanent residence.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, even in Russia we should make more efforts in preparing those people who are willing to come and live to Russia. As we\u2019ve said, we should set up Russian language and history classes in those former republics, in those new states \u2013 so far we haven\u2019t done a very good job at it. This way we would help people understand each other better from the start.<\/p>\n

And of course we need to educate our citizens or those aspiring to become Russian citizens in a sense of responsibility. We have to help them realize that they are in a different country now and so they have to observe our traditions and our laws; they have to respect our culture and our history.<\/p>\n

This is an entire separate field of work. It used to be ignored in the past but now we need to pay attention to this matter, and we need to contribute more centralized efforts to it.<\/p>\n

As for the domestic migration, it also is a complicated issue. Back in the Soviet Union, there used to be a domicile registration (propiska). Those who violated it were thrown in jail or banished beyond 101 km from large urban centers.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

This situation is much more complicated now. The Russian Constitution delegitimizes propiska, so we need more modern mechanisms to regulate this matter. But let me repeat that we do have an advantage in our country that we are a multiethnic people, and we are an integrated civilization as a whole.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong> Speaking of immigrants\u2026 We have an immigrant in our midst – Jelena Milincic. She works on RT Spanish, but she is actually from Serbia.<\/p>\n

Jelena Milincic:<\/strong> Yes, I am from Serbia, and I have lived in Russia for 11 years. I can say that Russia has become my second home, but I still don\u2019t have Russian citizenship. And if I file for citizenship now, the process will take at least 5 or 6 years.<\/p>\n

But in order to do that, I need to own an apartment, for example. In order to get an apartment, I have to take out mortgage, but I have to be a Russian citizen for that. It is a vicious cycle. So seems that in the West, where this is a more serious issue, like you said\u2026<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0It\u2019s easier to get citizenship, than in Russia<\/p>\n

Jelena Milincic:<\/strong> \u00a0That\u2019s why it\u2019s a more serious issue, because it\u2019s easier to get citizenship. Will anything change in Russia in this respect?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0We have to be very careful here, making sure we protect the interests of the majority. Our country is Russia, and 85% of our citizens consider themselves Russians. Other people groups living on our territories are closer to us than those living outside Russia. These are our indigenous people. And there are over 120 ethnicities indigenous to Russia. You\u2019ve lived here for 11 years? But it takes 5-6 years to get citizenship you said. You should\u2019ve filed already.<\/p>\n

Jelena Milincic:<\/strong>\u00a0I have to have residence registration for that.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0You could\u2019ve bought some basic housing\u2026<\/p>\n

Jelena Milincic:<\/strong>\u00a0But how can I take out mortgage?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0I think if you really wanted to become a citizen, you could\u2019ve bought a room in an apartment outside Moscow, just to meet necessary requirements to file for citizenship and observe the formalities.<\/p>\n

Jelena Milincic:<\/strong>\u00a0 Isn\u2019t the fact that I have\u2019s lived and worked here for 11 years enough?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0It is. I think you are right. We do have to adjust our immigration policies in some cases.
\nWe have to welcome professionals like you. You are a young and beautiful woman. I am sorry, but it is true that you are a woman of childbearing age. Your boss here sets a good example, by the way\u2026 Some countries, Canada, for example, have special programs to attract certain categories of people from other countries. Unfortunately, our system is very outdated in this respect. There have been some developments in this area. There are initiatives to make the citizenship procedure easier for certain categories of people from the former Soviet Union. But as a whole, our immigration policy lacks flexibility. It has to protect interests of Russian citizens, but it also needs to allow for an inflow of specialists that our country needs. So you are absolutely right, and like I said, the government is working on that.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"MargaritaMargarita Simonyan (L) and Sophie Shevardnadze (RT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy)<\/div>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Sophie Shevardnadze, presenter and show host on RT English, has Russian citizenship. Authorities were more flexible in her case.
\n
\nSophie Shevardnadze:<\/strong> It didn\u2019t happen right away though.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes, she had to jump through hoops first. Sophie, our presenter and show host.<\/p>\n

Sophie Shevardnadze:<\/strong> I have lived here for 8 years. Mr. Putin, I work in Moscow, but I was born in Tbilisi and grew up in Georgia. I wouldn\u2019t be honest if I said that I wasn\u2019t concerned about the relations between Russia and Georgia. This is something that I care about on a deep personal level.<\/p>\n

Do you think there is a chance that these relations will return to normal in the near future? As we know, Georgian athletes will come to the Sochi Olympics, and Tbilisi is even ready to help with security issues during the Olympics.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> \u00a0I have talked about this on many occasions, voicing Russia\u2019s opinion. I think that President Saakashvili made a big mistake. We have discussed it with him several times, so I don\u2019t think he would deny this. I used to tell him, \u201cMr. Saakashvilli, whatever you do, please make sure there is no bloodshed.\u201d<\/em> To which he would always respond, \u201cOf course not! We will be patient and try to work things out with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.\u201d<\/em> Unfortunately, it all ended up in a war.<\/p>\n

Many of your colleagues, especially in Europe, the US, and Georgia itself, often blame Russia. But I think any unbiased observer would agree that Russia had nothing to do with this. This ethnic conflict has been going on for decades or even centuries. And people in Georgia are well aware of this. They know about what happened in 1919, in 1921. They know about relationships between people groups.<\/p>\n

They had to have patience and political wisdom if they wanted to build relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of one state. Unfortunately, they failed. Russia reacted to what was going on at the time, and eventually this response led us to recognizing independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I can\u2019t imagine how this could be reversed, it\u2019s simply impossible.<\/p>\n

But this is also the red line that Georgia cannot cross. Because for Tbilisi this is a strife to restore its territorial integrity. This is a complicated issue that has to be dealt with very carefully. And it requires not just a competent solution, but there must be a will to solve this issue on the basis of respect towards interests of all people who live on those territories.<\/p>\n

Here is what I think. If interests of all people living on those territories are considered and respected, and this respect becomes a basis for solutions, this might become a long-term fix. But it can only be done by people living there, no decision should be imposed from the outside.<\/p>\n

As for the new government of Georgia deciding to participate in the Olympics and make other reconciliation steps, it\u2019s not lost on us. We appreciate those steps and respond in the same manner, as you have probably noticed.<\/p>\n

Sophie Shevardnadze:<\/strong>\u00a0Would you be willing to accept the help they offer? I mean security assistance\u2026<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0Of course, we are ready to work with Georgia. We want to restore relations with Georgia, we like Georgia. We have close ties with Georgians. You live here, you have Russian citizenship. And how many Georgians live in Russia? We are proud of their contribution, we see them as our own people.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Many.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0I won\u2019t go back as far as the War of 1812, we all know which war general I am talking about. Georgians did great things for Russia back then, during the Soviet period, and they are still doing them now\u2026 So we are very close culturally and otherwise. Not to mention the religious aspect. I have met with the Catholics\u2026<\/p>\n

Sophie Shevardnadze:<\/strong>\u00a0Ilia II.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes, he is a very kind person and a true Georgian. The whole time he kept talking about the interests of Georgians. But there was so much wisdom in what he had to say, and his tone was very gentle and calm.<\/p>\n

As you know, we have decided to allow Georgian products back on the Russian market. We understand that this may not be the key issue, but it is still a very important step that will help Georgia\u2019s economy. We will continue developing our relations, but the most important and complicated issues have to be solved by people living there through a dialogue and without any external pressure.<\/p>\n

Sophie Shevardnadze:<\/strong>\u00a0Can I ask a simpler question? It\u2019s about visas. A couple of years ago I asked Dmitry Medvedev this same question. And he basically said that while Saakashvili was in office, there was not going to be any progress in this area.<\/p>\n

What needs to happen, so that my relatives, my close ones can freely visit me in Moscow, just like my Russian friends go to Georgia without any visas?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0If we work together fighting crime and terror, it will become possible. I don\u2019t think I will reveal a big secret by saying that terrorists often get to Russia\u2019s Caucasus region from Georgia.<\/p>\n

When 6-7 years ago we had to attack Georgian territories, those were not just strikes on Georgia, we targeted militant groups that came very close to Sochi \u2013 they were only 30 km away. Do you realize how serious the situation was?<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0You mean the Kodori Gorge?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> No, the Kodori Gorge was a different situation. In any case, Georgian police vehicles were transporting the militants to the Russian border. So we had to take some pre-emptive measures. And I informed the president about this. We don\u2019t want to see this ever happen again. We want to work with Georgia, want to restore relations. Again, if we begin to work with law enforcement and security agencies, this would be the first step towards cancelling visas.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Thank you. Salam Adil is Deputy Editor-in-Chief with RT Arabic. Salam, you have the microphone.<\/p>\n

Salam Adil:<\/strong> Thank you, Margarita. Actually, I have only occupied my present position for a week. Before that, I spent twenty years working as a reporter. I\u2019ve travelled practically all over the world, including many conflict areas. I haven\u2019t lost my sense of danger in the process, and that\u2019s why I\u2019m still alive.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0Thank God.<\/p>\n

Salam Adil:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes, thank God.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> God bless you.<\/p>\n

Salam Adil:<\/strong>\u00a0Thank you very much. And my question concerns conflicts, too. I mean to ask you about drones.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Unmanned aerial vehicles.<\/p>\n

Salam Adil:<\/strong> As you know, America employs drones to deliver airstrikes, almost on a daily basis. This happens especially often in Pakistan and a few other countries \u2013 you have already mentioned the explosive situation we are seeing at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Drones are arguably a very convenient means of warfare: there is no direct engagement, and no risk for your rank and file. It\u2019s all remote controlled, like a computer game. However, and this is something we see in the news almost every day, this kind of warfare is fraught with massive casualties among civilians. So, on the one hand, drones are efficient in combat, but on the other hand, we are all aware of collateral damage. The public in many countries have found this shocking, and there has already been a motion for imposing an international ban on using drones. I would like to ask you about Russia\u2019s attitude on this issue. Thank you.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Gunpowder was originally invented in China, and no one has managed to keep it from spreading ever since. Then came nuclear arms, and they also started to spread. Modern means of warfare keep evolving, and they always will. I doubt if it\u2019s possible to simply ban it all. But you certainly can \u2013 and should \u2013 introduce certain rules and exercise control. I\u2019m sure the United States does not target civilians on purpose. And the drone operators you\u2019ve mentioned are people, too, and I think they understand all those things. But you still need to combat terrorism. I know they are currently debating this issue in the United States, and a notion is being advocated increasingly often within the UN framework that you need to put drones under control, you need to lay out certain rules of engagement in order to prevent or minimize collateral casualties. It is extremely important. I don\u2019t know whether our [Western] counterparts will choose this option, but I would suggest it would be in their best interest. However, there are other threats, too. For example, they are presently debating the option of using non-nuclear ballistic missiles in the United States. Can you imagine how potentially dangerous that is? What if such a missile were to launch from somewhere in the middle of an ocean, and get spotted by a nuclear power\u2019s early warning system? How should that nuclear power react to a missile coming its way? How are they supposed to know whether that missile comes with a nuclear warhead or not? What if the missile impacts right next to its border, or inside its territory? Do you realize how perilous that can be? Or take the notion of low-yield nuclear weapons \u2013 do you realize how badly it can blur the very notion of using nuclear arms, or how low it might bring down the threshold for authorizing such a strike? Can you imagine the possible implications? Where are the limits for lowering that threshold, and who is setting them? There are many threats in the world of today, and there is only one way to address them efficiently: that is, working together within the boundaries of international law.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0And now I would like to give the floor to Peter Lavelle, who is the presenter of one of our most popular shows CrossTalk. Peter has worked with RT since its very beginning. He will be speaking in English and I will translate the question for you.<\/p>\n

Peter Lavelle:<\/strong> Thank you.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Shall I translate it for you?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> No. Well, every opposition can prove useful. You just mentioned Occupy Wall Street. At a certain point we saw the police cracking down on the Occupy Wall Street activists. I won\u2019t call the actions of police appropriate or inappropriate. My point is that every opposition movement is good and useful if they act within law. If they don\u2019t like the law, they should use democratic ways to change those laws. They should win voters on their side, they should get elected into legislatures so that they have a chance to influence the laws. This is the way to change things on the ground. If there are people who act outside the law, then the state must use legal means to impose law in the interests of majority. That\u2019s the way it\u2019s done in the US, and that\u2019s the way it\u2019s done in Russia.<\/p>\n

Truth be told, we are grilled for that, but when the same thing happens in the US, it is considered to be normal. Never mind, these are double standards and we have got accustomed and pay little attention to it.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0When it happens in the US, RT grills America.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Way to go! Everyone must be treated in the same fashion. Because these situations are identical. The only difference is that our diplomatic missions don\u2019t actively cooperate with<\/p>\n

Occupy Wall Street, and your diplomatic mission works together and directly supports Russian opposition. I think this is wrong because diplomatic missions must forge ties between states and not meddle with their domestic politics.<\/p>\n

Getting back to popular movements. Reckless behavior is not appreciated by people. If these activists are breaking the law, then it\u2019s illegal. If they express their will by legal means, without breaking the law then they are fully entitled to do that. Then it would be beneficial to any state because it\u2019s a way to provide grassroots feedback on state policies \u2013 social, domestic or foreign ones.<\/p>\n

As for Mr Kudrin, he is my long-standing associate. We see eye-to-eye on many vital issues of Russia\u2019s development. But that\u2019s for an obvious reason \u2013 we\u2019ve known each other for a long time now. We worked together back in St. Petersburg, and then he became a member of the cabinet and proved to be one of the most efficient ministers. I have always backed him on key decisions. If I didn\u2019t he wouldn\u2019t have been able to work, to implement those ideas and principles that he promoted. So to a certain extent that was our joint policy. He has his own view on certain things. It so happened that they had a disagreement with Mr Medvedev on a number of issues and since Mr Medvedev was president, he had the right to take the decision that he eventually took.<\/p>\n

Today Alexey Kudrin says that he is ready to re-join the executive branch if the authorities were more decisive. But he is quite reluctant to specify what he means by being more decisive when I ask him to. Why? Because \u2018more decisive\u2019 means \u2018taking tougher steps\u2019, for example, in terms of the pension reform, in terms of raising the retirement age. No-one, including the opposition, wants to speak about to the public. They think it\u2019s the right way but they don\u2019t want to talk loudly about the issue.<\/p>\n

Also, taking tougher steps on other issues, like slashing budget expenditures, and social spending, first of all. Many of our liberal economists think that our social expenditures are too high, that we raise salaries and pensions and social benefits too fast. They point out that the growth in real disposable income is unjustified \u2013 last year we had a 4.2 percent increase, and it\u2019s been up 5.9 percent during the four months of this year already. They argue that salaries are growing faster that labour efficiency, which is bad and dangerous for the economy. There\u2019s no denying it, and they are absolutely right. But maybe it\u2019s best not to decrease real disposable incomes but rather to improve our labour efficiency? Russians often say that the goal is not to expand the amount of the wealthy people but rather to reduce the amount of the poor. That\u2019s a very hard thing, but the best part of the opposition has admitted that in private and professional meetings with us. But publicly they are afraid to speak about it. And this is wrong. I have told them many times now. If you stick to some idea, you have to be straightforward about it. Don\u2019t be afraid that some part of the nation won\u2019t like it. If we are to rally a bigger support for your ideas, you have to stick to your principles to expand your electoral base. Look at today\u2019s Western Europe. They brought their countries on the precipice of bankruptcy, but whenever they talk of lower salaries, people are up in arms. So it would have made more sense to increase your social spending and debt more gradually. Also, it would have been great for the authorities if there had been someone who could have told them about it. I don\u2019t think our social spending is too high, I don\u2019t think that we increase pensions, salaries and social benefits too much. But generally, Mr Kudrin and the likes of him have a point to make, and we need to listen to them. It\u2019s a very useful thing. So I believe that an opposition that has national interest at heart will be in demand.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Next question is from Oksana Boyko, the presenter of our new show. She moved into presenting after several years of reporting for RT, she, too, went to many war zones.<\/p>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong> My question is a follow-up to your previous reply, concerning principles and a principled position. I would like, however, to apply these notions to the Iranian issue. Iran will be holding a presidential election soon. I know that Russia doesn\u2019t like to meddle with domestic politics of other countries that\u2019s why my question would be as general as possible. It\u2019s more of a philosophical kind. To me, Iran is a great example of how you can create extreme tension in mutual relations by blowing out of proportion some insignificant differences. The Iranian nuclear issue that everyone\u2019s been talking about for the last decade basically relies only on some vague suspicions which, year after year, have been dismissed even by Americans themselves. But that rhetoric has ignored the fact that Iran has been compliant with the nonproliferation regime by 99 or even 100 percent. The mainstream focus is on suspicions, but at the core, as I see it, is the relationship between the US and Iran. Tehran is partially to blame for the tension buildup, but the root of the problem is the stance of Washington, their signature foreign policy principle \u2013 friend and foe divide, meaning that if you are not their ally, you are their enemy. And it seems that the level of tolerance to dissent is quite low, and when it drops too much, we see threats of war based on groundless suspicions, as is the case with Iran, or assistance to war, as is the case with Syria.<\/p>\n

Russia has a good record of avoiding tension in relations with other countries. Your public statements indicate that you know the cost of enmity or, rather, open confrontation. However, I believe that Russia and the US have ideological, fundamental differences, on the use of force in particular, that no private meetings can resolve. It all stems from the national idea of the US. They believe they have a higher responsibility, which is actually just a bigger right. So where is this line for you between avoiding an all-out confrontation that could have an impact on Russian security and maintaining our principled position, which could, too, be critical to our security?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0I didn\u2019t quite get \u2013 was it a punch at the US or Iran?<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0She\u2019s our tough guy.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0A response to your question could take hours. It\u2019s so complex. I will try to be as concise as possible. First, I have repeatedly voiced Russia\u2019s official stance \u2013 Iran has the right for a peaceful nuclear program and it cannot be singled out for discrimination. Second, we need to be aware that Iran is located in a very challenging region. I have told our Iranian partners about that. That\u2019s why Iranian threats made towards neigbouring countries, in particular Israel, threats that Israel can be destroyed, are absolutely unacceptable. This is counterproductive.<\/p>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong> \u00a0This is not a proper quote of the Iranian president.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0It doesn\u2019t quite matter whether it\u2019s a proper quote or not. It means it\u2019s best to avoid a wording that could be improperly quoted or could be interpreted differently. That\u2019s why the focus on Iran does have a reason behind it. I have no doubts that Iran is compliant with the rules, simply because there is no proof of the opposite. According to the latest IAEA report, Iran has been abiding by the commitments it has taken up. True, there are some outstanding issues but with due patience and friendly attitudes, they can be resolved.<\/p>\n

I have a great respect to Iran and a great interest in it. This is a great country indeed. You don\u2019t often hear this attribute mentioned in relation to Iran but this is true. This is a country with a great culture, a great history and a great nation. They are very proud of their country, they have their own understanding of their place both in the region and in the world, and that\u2019s something you have to respect. You have grasped the core of the problems. Iranians are very smart and cunning politicians. To a certain degree, they have exploited this confrontation with the United States.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong> They are not the only ones.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> They are extremely crafty in this, and they do it to tackle their domestic political issues. When there is an external enemy, it united the nation. But I guess the United States have been employing the same technique. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been no external threats that would allow Washington to dominate in the West. There must be a threat so that the US can protect their allies from it. This position yields political and economic benefits. If everyone relies on one country for protection, then this country is entitled to some preferences. So it\u2019s very important to possess this status of a global defender to be able to resolve issues even beyond the realm of foreign policy and security issues. I think the US has been using Iran for this very purpose, that is to unite their allies in the face of a real or fake threat.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s quite a complicated issue but it\u2019s not an issue for Russia. We have been complying with our international commitments, including on Iran\u2019s peaceful nuclear program. As you know, Russia built the Bushehr power plant in Iran, we have completed this project and are prepared for further cooperation. Yet when we proposed to enrich uranium on the Russian territory, our Iranian partners refused, for reasons unknown to us. They argue that they will enrich uranium on their own in line with existing international regulations. And, as I said earlier, if they don\u2019t break any rules, they are fully entitled to do that. We will endorse this right but we will also remain aware of the concerns that other states and the international community has concerning full compliance with these rules.<\/p>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong>\u00a0Can I clarify something? The thing is, I was asking you not only about the US-Iranian relations but also about the US-Russian relations. Would you agree that we have fundamental ideological differences on key issues of international law?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0So right on the eve of my meeting with Barack Obama, you are pushing me to make some serious statements\u2026<\/p>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong> It is a very important issue. If the country thinks it has more rights that others\u2026<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> I thought you wouldn\u2019t notice my deviation. But you did. Indeed, you are very persistent. To date, we don\u2019t have any significant ideological differences. But we do have fundamental cultural differences. Individualism lies at the core of the American identity while Russia has been a country of collectivism. One student of Pushkin legacy has formulated this difference very aptly. Take Scarlett O’Hara from \u2018Gone with the Wind\u2019\u00a0 for instance. She says \u2018I\u2019ll never be hungry again\u2019. This is the most important thing for her. Russians have different, far loftier ambitions, more of a spiritual kind, it\u2019s more about your relationship with God. We have different visions of life. That\u2019s why it is very difficult to understand each other but it is still possible.<\/p>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong>\u00a0That\u2019s why there is international law to create a level playing field for everyone.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> The US is a democratic state, there\u2019s no doubt about that, and it has originally developed as a democratic state. When the first settlers set their foot on this continent, life forced them to forge a relationship and maintain a dialogue with each other to survive. That\u2019s why America was initially conceived as a fundamental democracy. With that in mind, we should not forget that America\u2019s development began with a large-scale ethnic cleansing, unprecedented in human history. I wouldn\u2019t like to delve so deeply into it, but you are forcing me to do it.<\/p>\n

When Europeans arrived in America, that was the first thing they did. And you have to be honest about it. There are not so many stories like that in human history. Take the destruction of Carthage by the Roman Empire. The legend has it that Romans plowed over and sowed the city with salt so that nothing will ever grow there. Europeans didn\u2019t use the salt because they used the land for agriculture but they wiped out the indigenous population. Then there was slavery, and that\u2019s something that is deeply ingrained in America. In his memoirs, US Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed how hard it was for him as a black man to grow his way up, how hard it was to live with other people staring at you. It means this mentality has taken root in the hearts and minds of the people, and is likely to be still there.<\/p>\n

Now take the Soviet Union. We know a lot about Stalin now. We know him as a dictator and a tyrant. But still I don\u2019t think that in the spring of 1945 Stalin would have used a nuclear bomb against Germany, if he had had one. He could have done it in 1941 or 1942 when it was a matter of life or death. But I really doubt that he would have done it in 1945 when the enemy had almost given up and had absolutely no chance to reverse the trend. I don\u2019t think he would. Now look at the US. They dropped the bomb on Japan, a country that was a non-nuclear state and was very close to defeat.
\nSo there are big differences between us. But it\u2019s quite natural that people with such differences are determined to finding ways to understand each other better. I don\u2019t think there is an alternative. Moreover, it\u2019s not by chance that Russia and the US forged an alliance in the most critical moments of modern history \u2013 that was the case in WW1 and WW2. Even if there was fierce confrontation, our countries united in the face of a common threat, which means there is something that unites us. There must be some fundamental interests that bring us together. That\u2019s something we need to focus on first. We need to be aware of our differences but focus on a positive agenda that can improve our cooperation.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0America and Russia\u2019s relations with the US are important issues for our network, largely because Americans make up most of our audience. That explains why you wouldn\u2019t get that many questions about America from any other channel, particularly any Russian channel. If you simply look at our website\u2019s hit statistics, you\u2019ll see that most of our audience comes from America, so anything related to the US is a key topic for us. And here is Anastasia Churkina, who has specially come over from New York for this meeting. She works at our US-based channel, RT America, which caters to an American audience and focuses specifically on American issues. Is that right, Anastasia?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"RTRT photo \/ Semyon Khorunzhy<\/div>\n

Anastasia Churkina:<\/strong> Yes, thank you. I\u2019ve lived in New York for the past five years. You have mentioned the fundamental differences as well as the common features that Russia shares with the United States. I would like to go back to our diplomatic relations and the present issues of international law. When I meet American politicians and Russia experts these days, I often hear them acknowledge off-record that the Magnitsky Act has effectively come to replace the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which demonstrates the same outdated approach towards Russia. As we know, when Barack Obama met with Mr. Medvedev during the summit in Seoul last year, he made some hints, saying he would have more flexibility after re-election\u2026<\/p>\n

Oksana Boyko:<\/strong>\u00a0I see you guys just won\u2019t get off their backs, will you?<\/p>\n

Peter Lavelle:<\/strong>\u00a0This always happens.<\/p>\n

Anastasia Churkina:<\/strong>\u00a0This is the last question, I promise. Obama hinted that it would be easier for him to cooperate with Russia. However, that is not what we are seeing today. We\u2019ve already touched upon many of our remaining issues with the US. Why do you think the reset has not worked? And can it ever take place in the first place as an equal, reciprocal process? Or is it that Russia is always expected to sacrifice its national interest?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Any state pursues its national interests, and the US is no exception. What\u2019s unique here is that the collapse of the Soviet Union left America as the world\u2019s single leader. But there was a catch associated with it in that it began to view itself as an empire. But an empire is not only about foreign policy, it\u2019s also about domestic policies. An empire cannot afford to display weakness, and any attempt to strike an agreement on equitable terms is often seen domestically as weakness. But the leadership cannot afford to display weakness due to domestic policy considerations. I think that the current administration realizes that it cannot solve the world\u2019s major issues on its own. But first, they still want to do it, and second, they can only take steps that are fit for an empire. Domestic policy considerations play a huge role. Otherwise you would be accused of weakness. In order to act otherwise you either have to win overwhelming support or there must be a chance in mentality, when people will understand that it\u2019s much more beneficial to look for compromises that to impose your will on everyone. But it certainly takes time to change those patterns of thinking in any country, in this case it\u2019s the US. First and foremost, this change should take place in the minds of the ruling elite in the broad sense of this phrase. I don\u2019t think that it\u2019s impossible. I this we\u2019ve almost come to that point. I very much hope we will reach it soon.<\/p>\n

Margarita Simonyan:<\/strong>\u00a0Thank you very much, Mr. Putin. The issues we have just discussed are the headlines on our air. It is not a classic interview \u2013 we wanted to talk to you on those problems that we talk about daily to our audience. Those are very much different from what you can hear in the Russian media \u2013 since they have a different audience \u2013 and from the interpretation of the Western media as well. We are different \u2013 we have different values and views on both Russia\u2019s domestic issues and the world\u2019s system on the whole. But I think it would be right to say that we share one view: there shouldn\u2019t be one leader in the world that is running the show, and it applies to the media, too. And when all the TV channels say with one accord that the main headline of the day is that a NATO drone is shot down in Libya \u2013 there should be some other channel that will tell the world about a NATO shell that on the same day killed a family of 13 people there. We actually had such a story, when our coverage was completely different from the coverage of our colleagues. We do that and we are happy to have this opportunity, as that is what we believe in, given all the differences. That\u2019s exactly what we tried to show you today \u2013 how and where we do it. Thank you very much for paying a visit.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Thank you for the invitation. I would like to wish you all the best of luck. Thank you very much. Goodbye.<\/p>\n

RT<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Russia\u2019s President Vladimir Putin has spoken at length with RT about the world\u2019s burning issues, including war-torn Syria, Iran, US surveillance and terrorism. He exclusively answered questions from RT journalists while paying a visit to the channel. Margarita Simonyan: Mr. Putin, thanks again for visiting us. Vladimir Putin: Thanks for inviting me. Margarita Simonyan: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2801,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[104,111],"tags":[289,116,374,1221],"class_list":["post-2799","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-russia","tag-iran","tag-putin","tag-rt","tag-usa"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/rt-putin.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2SfUR-J9","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2799","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2799"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2799\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2825,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2799\/revisions\/2825"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2801"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2799"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2799"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myfutureamerica.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2799"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}