OREANDA-NEWS. October 17, 2011. Transcript: Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. Remarks: Good afternoon. Vladimir Putin: Go right ahead.

Konstantin Ernst (Channel One CEO): Mr Putin, following the recent United Russia convention, a great deal has become clear in Russian politics. We discussed this just two weeks ago with President Medvedev. Today we would like to ask you questions that we believe to be of concern for our fellow citizens. One of these questions, which both your supporters and skeptics have been asking is: What for are you returning to the Kremlin?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I know that there are a good deal of questions and comments concerning this issue that are floating around on the Internet, in online and print media. What I would like to say about this first of all is something that everybody knows and that Boris Yeltsin mentioned in his time, which is that I have never sought this post. Moreover, when I received an offer many years ago I had a lot of doubt as to whether I should accept it, considering the amount of work and the huge responsibility for the country’s future that come along with the office. But when I undertake something, I carry it through to the very end, or at least to its maximum result.

As for the critical opinions of our opponents -- which I suppose is at the root of your question -- I can tell you that of our supporters, as you have said (and I hope that they form a majority), many people – ordinary people whom I meet when I visit various regions – are hoping for the situation to develop in this way.

But as you said, there are also critics who criticise me and Mr Medvedev, and who believe that if it is your faithful servant who goes to the polls, then ultimately, there will be no election at all. Well, perhaps these people have no choice, but an ordinary citizen always does. Perhaps there will be no elections for those who believe this. But our opponents need to take it upon themselves to propose their own programme instead, and moreover, to prove that they can do better. There is another claim that I often hear in relation to this: “Things are so bad that they cannot possibly get worse.” It's certainly true that there are many problems and unresolved tasks that exist in this country. Things can be done better than they have been up until now. But as for the idea that “things cannot get any worse” -- you'll have to excuse me. For our left-wing opponents – the Communist Party and the left radical wing – I would remind the late 1980s. Do you remember how many jokes were going around at that time? For instance: some people invite their friends to come over for a visit. When they arrive, the hosts ask, “Would you wash your hands with soap?” They say that they do. The hosts reply, “Then you'll be having your tea without sugar.” The idea is that one could not afford to have both. People could only get the essentials – basic food products. There was rationing for everything, to say nothing of the monopoly in ideology and politics. That political power led to the downfall and collapse of the country. It created the circumstances that were behind the country’s dissolution.

People lost their sense of self-preservation and their conception of consequence. It was in this way that we threw out the baby with the bath water -- the dirty water of an inadequate political system and an inefficient economy. We allowed the country to collapse. This was also a time when people said that things could not get any worse. But then -- the 1990s: a total collapse of the social sphere, when we saw not only single enterprises but entire industries coming to a halt, along with delays in pensions, all kinds of benefits, military pensions and salaries (which were delayed by months), and rampant crime. We truly came close to a civil war. We shed blood in the Caucasus, where we sent air troops, heavy equipment and tanks. We are still dealing with the problems that remain there -- crime and terrorism -- but thank God, the situation has changed. So, I would caution against saying that things cannot get worse. If we take two or three steps in the wrong direction, everything that has happened then could return in the blink of an eye. The situation is very tenuous with everything – in politics and the economy.

There is another argument: people are saying that the stagnation of the Brezhnev era will return. First of all, this does not deserve sweeping criticism, because there were positive aspects in both the Soviet times and the early 1990s. But I cannot recall any Soviet leader who was at the helm after the war who worked as hard as me or President Medvedev. I cannot recall such a thing.

Remark: They couldn't.

Vladimir Putin: Precisely. They had neither the proper physical capacity nor the awareness what needed to be done. They surely would have done something if they had known what to do. They also did not have the will to do what was needed.

Finally, we should seek answers in the experience of other countries. You are well aware that I did not hold on to my post when it came time, although I easily could have! There was a constitutional majority among United Russia, the ruling party, which would have been able to change the Constitution. But I did not go down that road for my own benefit, in order to show people that there is no tragedy in the natural succession of power.

If we look at other countries, the United States did not restrict the number of presidential terms for a single person until the end of World War II.

Konstantin Ernst: Yes, Roosevelt was elected three times…

Remark: Four times.

Vladimir Putin: There were several presidents before him who tried to get elected three times. As far as I know, none of them succeeded, but Roosevelt managed to get elected four times. He led the country through the harsh times of the Great Depression and World War II, and he got elected four times because he acted effectively. The issue is not about the number of terms or the number of years in power. [Helmut] Kohl was chancellor of Germany for 16 years. Yes, this is not the same thing as being president, but he was essentially the top official of the state and its executive power. The same was true of one of the former Canadian prime ministers. In France after World War II, the presidential term was seven years with no restriction to the number of terms. Changes were made to the constitution only recently, the term was shortened to five years and restricted to two consecutive terms. They created what is in fact the same procedure that now exists in Russia. What does this mean? When the country faces hard times and is steering itself out of crisis, political stability is essential.

Our country, too, experienced a collapse-- the fall of the Soviet Union. What was the Soviet Union? It was essentially Russia, under a different name, though. We survived a very difficult period in the 1990s. Only in the 2000s did we begin to rise up and establish internal peace. The situation is now more stable. Of course, we need this period of steady development. In speaking about our plans, and my personal plans for the future, this is what we need to do. We must strengthen the foundations of our political system and our democratic institutions. We must create the conditions for the gradual development and diversification of our economy on a new, modern basis, and we must create the conditions to improve the quality of life of our citizens. This is what we intend to do.

As for talk about the possibility that your faithful servant may return, this is not guaranteed, because it is the people who will vote. Positive statements and proposals concerning this from the people in certain regions are one thing, but if the whole country comes out to vote, this is a completely different matter. The citizens must come out and express their attitude toward what we have been doing until now.

One of the most essential elements is of course the most active part of the political spectrum, the one that speaks about democracy and its institutions. There are fears that they may be forgotten. This of course will not happen. I cannot see this country developing without a corresponding development of its democratic institutions.

It goes without saying that this is what I intend to do in the future. Again, these goals are the strengthening of the country’s political system and its foundations, the development of democratic institutions and the strengthening of the market economy with a focus on its social aspects.

Oleg Dobrodeyev (General Director of the VGTRK State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company): Let’s get back to the United Russia convention held on September 24. This issue concerns and worries many, and is a crucial element. Dmitry Medvedev said on Saturday that the decisions were taken before the convention. Can you tell us when and under what circumstances this happened?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I can. It’s not a secret at all. In fact, it is a normal thing, not a conspiracy between two or three people – in this case two. It is absolutely normal in politics and practice when people form political alliances and agree on some principles of joint operation and conduct. We agreed years ago – four years ago, in fact – that this scenario is quite possible if both of us manage to survive this period of trials and tribulations.

Of course, we did not know that there would be a crisis, but we saw that processes underway in the global economy could lead to a crisis; we saw and felt that this could be so. And we proceeded from the assumption that if we got through the next four-year period, and if we did so successfully, then we would be in a position to offer the public our ideas regarding the structure of power – who would do what, our guiding principles and where we plan to lead the nation. And so when the time came and we announced our decision, we presented it not as a settled matter but as an issue which our compatriots must decide. We proposed the structure, but it is the Russian people who must support or reject it at the elections. Elections are the ultimate gauge!

Oleg Dobrodeyev: Can you disclose the circumstances of your conversation before September 24?

Vladimir Putin: There were no specific circumstances; we have been speaking about it for the past four, no three and a half years. We met regularly, had our vacations together, went skiing or did some other sport, or worked on routine political or economic tasks. We’ve always had it in mind and often discussed it in one way or another, speaking about the details in light of the emerging situation, but we have not fundamentally changed our decision.

Vladimir Kulistikov (Director General of the NTV Channel): I wonder if you and President Medvedev discussed the following detail: the president has positioned himself as a proponent of, what I would describe as, efforts to humanise our “monstrously inhuman” state in terms of how it treats individual citizens. That policy has been reflected in a number of his initiatives, including changes in our penal system, criminal law and political structure. You say that these changes should be continued, yet you are generally seen as a proponent of a government with a “strong hand.” So this is what I’d like to ask you: Are these initiatives by President Medvedev something you could continue?

Vladimir Putin: We are on the same page on strategic matters – matters related to the country’s strategic development. But we are not the same person, we are two different people, and at some stage Dmitry Medvedev decided that it would be sensible to humanise some spheres of life in Russia. He has a right to do so as the head of state. If the voters, the citizens, the public accept the structure of power we have proposed, I will not dramatically alter the things Mr Medvedev has done as president. We need to see how these changes will work out. Frankly speaking, I don’t see anything revolutionary in this either. As president, Dmitry Medvedev acted in accordance with his personal understanding of what’s good and what’s bad, and in accordance with circumstances as they developed. But I repeat that I don’t see anything revolutionary in this. Mr Kulistikov?

Vladimir Kulistikov: Yes?

Vladimir Putin: You currently head one of the largest media outlets, the NTV channel, which broadcasts across Russia. But if memory serves, you had worked for Radio Liberty.

Vladimir Kulistikov: Yes, I had.

Vladimir Putin: So.

Remark: A dark chapter in his CV.

Vladimir Putin: Dark or light, what does it matter?

Vladimir Kulistikov: I didn’t say that. It was someone else.

Vladimir Putin: Anyway, you worked there. And when I worked for the KGB, Radio Liberty was thought to work for the CIA – granted, as a propaganda outfit, but still. And there were reasons for thinking so. Apart from being financed through CIA channels, it in fact did intelligence work in the former Soviet Union. The situation has changed, but Radio Liberty is still a media outlet that expresses the views of a foreign state – in this case the Untied States of America. So you worked for it in the past, and now you head – how long ago did it happen? Quite long ago – a nationwide TV channel. Isn’t this liberalism? Not that we never had it before, I mean liberalism. But it’s true that at a certain stage in our history we faced formidable threats, which were so formidable that the very existence of the Russian state was put in question, and so we had to tighten the screws – I openly admit this – and to introduce certain harsh regulatory mechanisms, first of all in the political sphere. But what else could we do if the Russian regions, their charters and constitutions had many things but lacked one essential element – they did not state that they are entities of the Russian Federation. Of course, we had to take harsh measures. The situation is different now, and so Mr Medvedev made these decisions to liberalise, as you said, public life, including criminal punishment and criminal courts. And now we will see together if this will work. Personally, I consider this as steps in the development of our political system.

Konstantin Ernst: Mr Putin, what was the reason behind your joint decision that President Medvedev should head the United Russia election list?

Vladimir Putin: Here is why we did it. While working as Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev has integrated certain fundamental things from theory and documents into public thinking and practice, things that have been included in the country’s development strategy to 2020, about which you know. That programme also envisages the development of democratic institutions and economic diversification and modernisation. But it remained at the level of documents and discussions, whereas President Medvedev has moved these goals from the level of debates, lobbies and studies to the sphere of public thinking and practical actions. It is very important to have the tools to carry on this work. I’d like to remind you that under the Russian Constitution, the Russian government is the chief executive authority. It has the main levers and mechanisms, the instruments necessary for implementing real policy, for everyday work in the economy and social policy. So it is logical that Mr Medvedev should head the United Russia list. If the people vote for that list and we form a competent parliament in which United Russia maintains its leading position, Mr Medvedev will be able to rely on the parliament and the party’s victory to form a competent government, so that we will be able to jointly implement the programme he has put on the practical agenda.

Oleg Dobrodeyev: Going back to United Russia, during the summer you often pointed out the need to get new names on the party’s ticket. This is when the Popular Front was set up. In September you said that new deputies would make up over 50% of the United Russia party in the next Duma. But it’s clear that most of candidates at least in the party’s leadership are the same as before. Now that some time has passed, how do you assess the summer campaign?

Vladimir Putin: I’m not sure, and maybe I should not be saying this, but I will say it. As the saying goes, nothing should be done in haste except killing fleas. We need to act rationally and with stability. I don’t deny what I said, and I would even go further and say that everything that we said would happen is happening in reality and things will continue going this way.

I’m referring to the following: first, the election has not taken place yet. I will remind you that elections to the State Duma are scheduled for December 4. We were to draw up the United Russia ticket and I was saying that we would try to use the Popular Front to attract new people who have fresh ideas and are capable of implementing them. What do we have? More than a half of the 600-candidate ticket includes people who have never before taken part in federal elections. This means we did renew the ticket by more than 50%. Moreover, a third of those included in the United Russia ticket – before I mentioned between 20% and 25%, and now it’s a third of the candidates – are people who are not United Russia members, they don’t belong to any party. These are people who have been nominated to the United Russia ticket by various non-governmental organisations, including youth, women’s, professional organisations, and trade unions. I know that most of them are on the first part of the ticket and run a good chance to be elected to the State Duma. I believe that this objective – our main objective – will be reached – I’m referring to a significant renewal of the parliament through the United Russia parliamentary party. As for the party’s leadership, I believe some changes will take place there, too. But first we need to go through the election.

Konstantin Ernst: Mr Putin, you mentioned stability and it is crucial. But there is a dark side to it – stagnation. What do you think of the staff stagnation in the government? Some ministers have not been performing well for a long time or have even made serious mistakes. Isn’t this a stagnation that these ministers do not step down?

Vladimir Putin: First, we need to clarify what is a mistake and what is a series of failures. Indeed, mistakes can and do occur in various industries. Sometimes the minister is to blame but not always. A negative event often results from the overall state of the economy or the social sphere rather than the state of affairs in a particular sector even though this is sometimes the case. It would be wrong to unfoundedly pin the responsibility on one person. That’s my first point. Certainly, if an official is personally responsible for an error, he must be responsible. This is my first point.

Second, a government reshuffle only unveils the weakness of the country’s leadership. This means that the leaders are either unable or unwilling to take responsibility and always shift it to someone else. They say Petrov, Ivanov or Sidorov is to blame, or say Gurevich. You are to blame and I am not. This is not helpful; the responsibility should be shouldered by everyone. If we are to blame for something, people should know it. And the entire team should make the appropriate conclusions.

My final point will be as follows. Reshuffles and a leader’s attempt to hide behind someone else usually does little to improve the performance of an administrative body. Before you dismiss someone you need to do your best to work it out. Finally, we only appoint an official to a position after a certain selection process. Naturally, some errors can happen and then we have to get rid of such an official, this is true.