Exclusive: Full Interview With Russian President Vladimir Putin

[0:01] Mr. President, it's been a long time since you sat down with an American television network, [0:07] almost three years, I think. Thank you for your time. There's a lot to discuss. I hope we have [0:13] time to get to all of the issues. But I want to begin with some news from the US just today. [0:22] In the US, it's reported that Russia is preparing perhaps within months to supply Iran with an [0:28] advanced satellite system, enabling Tehran to track military targets. Is that true? [0:35] Would you mind repeating the question again? That we are preparing to hack what kind of facilities? [0:47] No, the report today is that Russia is preparing to give or to offer to Iran satellite technology, [1:00] which will enable Iran to target military, to make, to make military targets. [1:11] No, no, we don't have that kind of programs with Iran. No, we, it's just nonsense all over again, [1:21] yet again. We have cooperation plans with Iran, including military and technical cooperation, [1:32] and all of this fits the framework of the decisions that were agreed upon in our program in regard to [1:39] Iran's nuclear program in the context of UN decisions, together with our partners in the [1:48] preparation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions, whereby at some point sanctions, [1:56] including in the area of military and technical cooperation, should be lifted from Iran. [2:05] We do have certain programs, but they all concern conventional weapons if it gets that far. However, [2:12] we haven't even gone to that stage yet. We don't even have any kind of real cooperation, even in the [2:17] conventional weapons area. So if anybody is making something up regarding modern space-based technology, [2:26] this is just plain fiction. This is just fake news. At the very least, I don't know anything [2:31] about this kind of thing. Those who are speaking about it probably know more about it. It's just nonsense. [2:39] So presumably you'd agree that giving Iran satellite technology that might enable it to target [2:47] U.S. servicemen and women in places like Iraq or to share that information with Hezbollah or the Houthi [2:55] in Yemen so they could target Israel and Saudi Arabia, that giving Iran that kind of satellite technology [3:03] would be dangerous. Look, why are we talking about problems that don't exist? There is no subject for [3:16] discussion. Somebody has invented something, has made something up. Maybe this is just a bogus story [3:24] in order to limit any kind of military and technical cooperation with Iran. I will say once again, [3:29] this is just some fake information that I have no knowledge about. For the first time I'm hearing about [3:37] this information from you. We don't have this kind of intentions. And I'm not even sure that Iran is [3:44] even able to accommodate this kind of technology. This is a separate subject, a very high-tech subject. [3:51] Yes, indeed, we don't rule out that cooperation with many world nations and us is possible in space, [4:02] but probably everybody knows very well our position in terms that we are categorically against space [4:09] militarization altogether. We believe that space should be free from any and all kinds of weapons [4:17] located in near-Earth orbits. That is why we don't have this kind of plans or any plans, especially [4:25] concerning the transfer of technology up the level that you have just described. [4:28] So let's move on to your summit with President Biden. The context for the summit is that he is meeting with [4:38] the G7, a group that you used to belong to, with NATO, with European leaders. President Biden has defined [4:48] his first trip to Europe as, quote, about rallying the world's democracies. He views you as a leader of [4:58] autocrats who is determined to undermine the liberal democratic order. Is that true? [5:05] Well, I don't know. Somebody presents it from a certain perspective. Someone else looks at the [5:18] development of the situation and at yours truly in a different manner. All of this is being offered to [5:27] the public in a way that is found to be expedient for the ruling circles of a certain country. The fact that [5:36] President Biden has been meeting up with his allies, there is nothing unusual about it. There is nothing [5:43] unusual about a G7 meeting. We know what G7 is. I have been there on numerous occasions. I know what [5:50] the values are in that forum. When people get together and discuss something, it's always good. It's better [5:56] than not to get together and not to discuss. Because even in the context of G7, there are matters that [6:02] require ongoing attention and consideration because there are differences. Strange as it may seem, [6:07] there may be differences in assessments of international events on the international arena [6:12] and among themselves. Very well done. Let them get together and discuss it. As far as NATO, I have said [6:18] on many occasions, this is a Cold War relic. It's something that was born in the Cold War era. I'm not sure [6:26] why it still continues to exist. There was a time and there was some talk that this organization would [6:30] be transformed. Now it has been kind of forgotten. We presume that it is a military organization. It is [6:35] an ally of the United States. Every once in a while, it makes sense to meet up with your allies, although [6:41] I can have an idea how the discussion goes along there. Clearly, everything is decided by consensus. [6:49] However, there is just one opinion that is correct, whereas the other opinions, all of the other [6:56] opinions are not quite that correct, putting it in careful terms. Well, here we go. Allies are getting [7:03] together. What's so unusual about it? I don't see anything unusual about it. As a matter of fact, it's a [7:09] sign of respect to the U.S. allies before a summit between the U.S. and Russian presidents take place. [7:14] Probably it is being presented as desire to find out their opinion on the key issues of the current [7:20] agenda, including those issues that President Biden and I will discuss. However, I'm inclined to think [7:29] that despite all of these niceties, the United States, as far as their relationship with Russia, [7:36] will be promoting what they consider important and necessary for themselves, above all for themselves, [7:42] for their economic and military interests. However, to hear what their allies have to say [7:49] about that probably never hurts. This is a working procedure. [7:53] So let's talk about your meeting with President Biden, the summit that will happen after those meetings. [8:04] President Biden asked you to meet with him. He didn't make any preconditions. Were you surprised? [8:11] No. We have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to what is the lowest point in recent [8:24] years. However, there are matters that need a certain amount of comparing notes and identification [8:32] and determination of mutual positions, so that matters that are of mutual interest can be dealt with in an [8:40] efficient and effective way in the interests of both the United States and Russia. So there is nothing [8:45] unusual about it. In fact, despite this seemingly harsh rhetoric, we did expect those suggestions because [8:56] the US domestic political agenda made it impossible for us to restore the relationship at an acceptable [9:02] level. This meeting should have taken place at some point. So President Biden launched this initiative. [9:13] Prior to that, as you will know, he had supported the extension of the START Treaty, which of course was [9:19] bound to meet with support from our side, because we believe that this is a treaty in the area of containment of strategic offensive weapons. [9:28] It has been worked through and thoroughly and meets our interests and meets the US interests. So this offer could be expected. [9:36] Will you go into the summit agreeing to begin more arms control talks immediately after the summit? Because, as you mentioned, [9:49] President Biden has extended new START by five years. Washington would like that to be the beginning, not the end of that conversation. [9:58] We know what matters and what problems Americans want to discuss with us. We understand these [10:12] questions, matters and problems. We are prepared for this joint work. We have certain, if not differences, [10:21] then different understandings of what pace, at what pace and in what directions we need to be moving. [10:27] We know what constitutes priorities for the US side. And, generally speaking, this is a process that needs to be [10:38] advanced at the professional level along the lines of the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry on the Russian side and [10:46] Pentagon and the State Department on the US side. We are prepared for this work. We have heard signals that the US side would like to see [10:53] these negotiations resumed at this expert level of professionals, we will see if the conditions for [11:00] this have been created following the summit. Of course, we are not saying no. We are prepared to do this [11:06] work. [11:21] important things. This is the most important thing. This is the most important value, if [11:26] you will, in international affairs. [11:27] Sorry to interrupt you, but he would say that you have caused a lot of instability [11:32] and unpredictability. [11:33] Well, he says one thing, I say another thing. But maybe at some point, in certain ways, [11:47] our rhetoric varies and is different. But if you ask my opinion now, I'm telling you what it is. [11:53] The most important value in international affairs is predictability and stability. [12:01] And I believe that on the part of our US partners, this is something that we haven't seen in recent [12:07] years. What kind of stability and predictability could there be? If we remember the 2011 events in [12:15] Libya, where the country was essentially taken apart, broken down, what kind of stability and [12:21] predictability were there? There has been talk of a continued presence of troops in Afghanistan, [12:27] and then all of a sudden, boom, the troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan. What, [12:31] is this predictability and the stability again? Now, the Middle East events, is this predictability [12:40] and stability, what all of this will lead to, or in Syria? What is stable and predictable about this? [12:48] I've asked my US counterparts, you want Assad to leave? Who will replace him? What will happen when [12:56] somebody replaces him? The answer is odd. The answer is I don't know. Well, if you don't know what will [13:02] happen next, why change what there is? It could be a second Libya or another Afghanistan. Do we want this? [13:10] No. Let us sit down together, talk, look for compromised solutions that are acceptable for [13:17] all the parties. That is how stability is achieved. It cannot be achieved by imposing one particular [13:25] point of view, the quote-unquote correct point of view, whereby all the other ones are incorrect. [13:30] That is not how stability is achieved. Let's get to some of those issues. I want to just talk a little [13:35] bit more about your relationship with President Biden. This will not be the Helsinki summit. President [13:42] Biden is not President Trump. You once described President Trump as a bright person, talented. How [13:50] would you describe President Biden? Well, even now, I believe that former US President Mr. Trump is an [14:03] extraordinary individual, talented individual. Otherwise, he would not have become a US President. [14:08] He's a colorful individual, and you may like him or not. And he didn't come, of course, from the US [14:15] establishment. He had not been part of big-time politics before. And some like it, some don't like [14:20] it, but that is a fact. President Biden, of course, is radically different from Trump, because President [14:27] Biden is a career man. He has spent virtually his entire adulthood in politics. He has been doing it [14:34] for a great deal of years. And I have already said that, and that is an obvious fact. Just think of [14:39] the number of years he spent in the Senate and how many years he was involved in matters of [14:47] international politics and disarmament virtually at the expert level. That is a different kind of [14:52] person. And it is my great hope that, yes, there are some advantages, some disadvantages, but there will [14:58] not be any knee-jerk reactions on behalf of the sitting US President and that we will be able to comply with [15:05] certain rules of engagement, certain rules of communications, and we'll be able to find points [15:10] of contact and common points. That's about it. And what will actually happen, we will need to live [15:19] and see based on the actual practical policies and results thereof. President Biden says, [15:26] one time when you met, you were inches away from each other, close to each other. And he said to you, [15:34] I'm looking in your eyes and I can't see a soul. And you said, we understand each other. Do you remember [15:43] that exchange? As far as soul, I'm not sure. One has to think about what soul is. But I do not remember [15:56] this particular part of our conversations, to be honest with you. I do not remember. We all, when we [16:03] meet, when we get together, when we talk, when we work, we strive and achieve for some solutions, [16:10] we all proceed from the interests of our nations and our states. And this is fundamental and is the [16:16] bedrock of all our actions and intentions. And this is the driving force and the motive for organizing [16:27] meetings of this kind. And as far as soul goes, that's something for the church. [16:35] Yeah, you're a religious man. President Biden is saying he told you, to your face, you don't have a soul. [16:46] I do not remember this. He says it was about, it was 10 years ago. Maybe there's something wrong with my memory. [16:54] Well, he probably has a good memory. I do not rule this out. But I don't remember this. [17:07] Generally, in personal encounters, people try to act appropriately. I do not remember any [17:12] inappropriate elements of behavior on the part of my counterparts. I don't think that anything [17:17] like that has happened. Would you have felt that was an inappropriate thing to say? [17:22] Well, that depends on the context. It depends on what form they're set in. You know, one can say [17:34] in different ways. It can be presented in different ways. But generally, people meet up in order to [17:41] establish a relationship and create an environment and conditions for joint work, with a view to [17:48] achieving some kind of positive results. If one is going to have a fight with somebody else, [17:54] quite bother and have a meeting to begin with. One is better off looking into budget and social [18:01] policies domestically. We have many issues that we have to resolve. What's the point then? It's just [18:10] a waste of time. Of course, one can present this for domestic political consumption, which I believe [18:21] is what has been done in the United States in the last few years, where the US-Russia relationship [18:28] was sacrificed for the sake of a fierce political strife inside the US. We can see that. We know it [18:35] well. We have been accused of all kinds of things, election interference, cyber attacks, and so on and [18:41] so forth. And not once, not once, not one time did they bother to produce any kind of evidence or proof, [18:50] just unfounded accusations. I'm surprised that we have not yet been accused of provoking the Black Lives [18:58] Matter movement. That would have been a good line of attack. We did not do that. What do you think of [19:05] the Black Lives Matter movement? I think that, of course, this movement was used by one of the political [19:15] forces domestically in the course of election campaigns. But there are some grounds for it. [19:25] Let's remember Colin Powell, who was Secretary of State and he was also in charge of the Pentagon. [19:35] Even he wrote in his book that even he, as a high-ranking official, had felt some kind of injustice [19:41] towards himself his entire life, as someone with a dark complexion, even from the USSR days. And in Russia, [19:50] we have always, always treated with understanding the fight of African Americans for their rights. [19:57] And there are certain roots to it. There is a certain foundation for this. But no matter how noble the [20:06] goals that somebody is driven by, if it reaches certain extremes, if it spills over into extremism, [20:17] acquires elements of extremism, we cannot approve this. We cannot welcome this. So our attitude to this [20:29] is very simple. We do support African Americans' fight for their rights, but we are against any types and [20:38] kinds of extremism, which unfortunately, sometimes, regrettably, we witness currently these days. [20:47] You mentioned cyber, you mentioned cyber attacks and deny any involvement by Russia. But Mr. President, [20:55] there is now a weight of evidence, a long list of alleged state-sponsored cyber attacks. Let me give you [21:03] five. There's a lot, but it makes a point. The US intelligence community says Russia interfered with [21:12] the 2016 election. Election security officials said Russia tried to interfere with the 2020 election. [21:20] Cyber security researchers said government hackers targeted COVID vaccine researchers, [21:25] hacking for COVID vaccines. In April, the Treasury Department said the SolarWinds attack [21:31] was the world's worst, with targets including nine federal agencies. And just before your summit, [21:38] Microsoft says it's discovered another attack with targets, including organizations that have [21:44] criticized you, Mr. Putin. Mr. President, are you waging a cyber war against America? [21:50] Mr. President, are you waging a cyber war against America? [21:55] Mr. President, you have said that there is a weight of evidence of cyber attacks by Russia. [22:03] Mr. President, and then you went on to list those official US agencies that have stated as much. [22:13] Is that what you did? Well, I'm telling, I'm giving you information about who said it, [22:17] so you can answer. Right, right. You are conveying information to me as to who said that, [22:27] but where is evidence that this was indeed done? I will tell you that this person has said that and [22:34] that person has said this, but where is the evidence? Where is proof? When there are charges [22:40] like that without evidence, I can tell you, you can take your complaint to the International League [22:44] of Sexual Reform. Will you be happy about it? This is a conversation that has no subject whatsoever. [22:52] At least put something on the table so that we can look and respond. But there isn't anything like that. [22:58] The latest thing, as far as I know, one of the latest attacks was against a pipeline system [23:07] in the US. Right, yes. So, what? But this is… You'll mention… [23:13] Mr. President, just a moment. As far as I know, the shareholders of this company [23:19] even made a decision to pay the ransom. They paid off the cyber gangsters. [23:26] If you have listed an entire set of US special services – powerful, respectable, global – after [23:34] all, they can find whoever the ransom was paid to. And once they do that, I hope they will realize that [23:42] Russia has nothing to do with it. Now, there's some kind of a cyber attack against a meat processing plant. [23:52] Next time, they will say there was an attack against some Easter eggs. It's becoming farcical, [23:58] like an ongoing farcical thing, a never-ending farcical thing. You said plenty of evidence, [24:05] but you haven't cited any proof yet again. But this is an empty conversation, a pointless conversation. [24:12] What exactly are we talking about? You've moved on to this question of ransomware and criminals. [24:25] Russian-speaking criminals, is the allegation, are targeting the American way of life – food, [24:31] gas, water, hospitals, transport. Why would you let Russian-speaking criminals disrupt your diplomacy? [24:42] Don't you want to know who's responsible? [24:44] You know, the simplest thing to do would be for us to sit down calmly and agree on joint work in [24:59] cyberspace. And we did suggest that to Mr. Obama's administration. We started in September, during his [25:10] last year in office, in October at 1st. They didn't say anything. Then, in November, they came back to us [25:17] and said that, yes, it was interesting. Then, the election was lost. We restated this proposal to [25:22] Mr. Trump's administration. The response was that it is interesting, but it didn't come to the point of [25:30] actual negotiations. There are grounds to believe that we can build an effort in this area with the [25:38] new administration. We hope that the domestic political situation in the United States will [25:42] not prevent this from happening. But we have proposed to do this work together. Let's agree on the principles [25:49] of mutual work. Let's find out what we can do together. Let's agree on how we will structure [25:56] counter-efforts against this process that is gaining momentum. We, here in the Russian Federation, [26:02] have a cyber crime that has increased many times over in the last few years. We're trying to respond [26:10] to it. We're looking for cyber criminals. If we find them, we punish them. We are willing to engage with [26:17] international participants, including the United States. You are the ones who have refused to engage [26:21] in joint work. What can we do? We cannot build this work. We cannot structure this work unilaterally. [26:28] Well, I'm not the government, Mr. Putin. I'm just a journalist asking questions. [26:36] I understand that. But if you clearly want to negotiate, you must have something to negotiate with. [26:44] You don't ask for a truce unless you're fighting in a war. [26:53] You know, as far as the war, NATO, officially, I'd like to draw your attention to that. [27:00] NATO has officially stated that it considers cyberspace a battlefield, an area of military action, [27:10] and conducts military exercises in that battlefield. [27:13] And you're involved in that battlefield? Russia is fighting on that battlefield, correct? [27:20] No, no, no. That is not correct. Really? If we wanted to do that, NATO did say that it considers [27:36] cyberspace an area of combat, and it prepares and even conducts exercises. What stops us from doing the [27:43] same? If you do that, we will do the same thing. But we don't want that. Just like we don't want space [27:49] militarized in the same manner. We don't want cyberspace militarized. And we have suggested on many [27:55] occasions agreeing on mutual work in the cyber security area. But your government refuses to. [28:04] I saw your proposal from just in September. Isn't what you're proposing that if you can come to an [28:12] agreement over hacking and election interference, then you'll call off the hacking and the election [28:20] interference, if America agrees not to comment on your elections and your political opponents? [28:36] What we count on is that nobody should interfere in domestic processes in other countries, [28:42] neither the U.S. in ours, or we in the USA, or any other nations. All nations of the world should be [28:49] given a chance to develop calmly. Even if there are crisis situations, they have to be resolved by the [28:54] people domestically, without any influence or interference from the outside. But I don't think [28:59] that this call by the U.S. administration is worth anything. It appears to me that the U.S. government [29:06] will continue to interfere in political processes in other countries. I don't think that this process [29:12] can be stopped, because it has gained a lot of momentum. However, as far as joint work in cyberspace [29:21] to prevent some unacceptable actions on the part of cyber criminals, that definitely is something [29:32] that can indeed be agreed upon. And it is our great hope that we will be able to establish this process [29:38] with our U.S. partners. If you were in America, what would you fear might happen next? The lights being [29:47] switched off the way they were in Western Ukraine in 2015? I don't understand. You mean, if I were in [29:58] America, what would I be afraid of if I were an American, or what? What should Americans worry what [30:10] might happen next if there's no agreement on cyber? You know, this is the same as space militarization. [30:25] This is a very dangerous area. At some point in the past, in order to achieve something in the [30:34] nuclear area, in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons, the USSR and the United States [30:39] did agree to contain this particular arms race. Cyberspace is a very sensitive area. As of today, [30:47] a great deal of human endeavors rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of [30:56] government. And of course, interference in these processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of [31:02] losses. And everybody understands that. And I am repeating for the third time, let's sit down together [31:09] and agree on joint work on how to achieve security in this area. That is all. But what is bad about it? [31:14] I don't even understand. I am not asking you. I am not trying to put you on the spot. But for me, [31:24] as an ordinary citizen, it would not be clear and understandable. Why is it that your government [31:30] refuses to do it? Accusations keep coming, including up to interference and involvement in a cyberattack [31:37] against some kind of a meat processing plant. But in the meantime, our proposal to start negotiations in [31:44] this area are being turned down. This is some kind of nonsense. But that is exactly what has been [31:48] happening. I repeat one more time. It is my hope that we will be able to start engaging in positive [31:57] work in this area. In terms of what is to be afraid of, why is it that we suggest agreeing on something? [32:03] Because what people can be afraid of in America, the very same thing, can be a danger to us. [32:10] U.S. is a high-tech country. NATO has declared cyberspace an area of combat. That means they are [32:18] planning something. They are preparing something. So, obviously, this cannot but worry us. [32:26] Do you fear that American intelligence is deep inside Russian systems and has the ability [32:34] to do you a lot of damage in cyber? I am not afraid, but I bear in mind that it is a possibility. [32:44] Let me ask you about human rights, an issue that President Biden will raise, Mr. President. He will [32:55] raise the issue of Alexei Navalny targeted for assassination, now in a Russian jail. Mr. President, [33:02] why are you so threatened by opposition? Who says that I feel threatened by opposition or [33:10] we are threatened by opposition? Who told you that? Well, a Russian court has just outlawed [33:20] organizations connected to Mr. Navalny. Literally every non-systematic opposition figure is facing [33:26] criminal charges. In journalism, Medusa and V Times have been hit with foreign agent labels [33:32] and face collapse. Mr. President, it's as if dissent is simply not tolerated in Russia anymore. [33:44] Well, you are presenting it as dissent and intolerance towards dissent in Russia. [33:52] We view it completely differently. You have mentioned the law on foreign agents, [33:57] but that's not something that we invented. That law was adopted back in the 1930s in the United States, [34:05] the law on foreign agents. And that law is much harsher than ours. And it is intended, [34:12] among other things, at preventing interference in the domestic political affairs of the United States. [34:17] And on the whole, I believe, it is justified. But, Mr. President, do you want me to answer? [34:22] Would you like me to answer? Would you like me to keep answering? In America, we call what you're [34:27] doing now. What about-ism? What about this? What about that? It's a way of not answering the question. [34:34] Let me ask you a direct question. Did you… Did you… Did you… I will… I will look. Let me ask… [34:41] I will look. No, no, let me answer. You've asked me a question. You're not liking my answer, [34:48] so you're interrupting me right away. This is inappropriate. So there we go. [34:52] In the United States, this law was adopted a long time ago. It's working. And sanctions [35:00] under that law are much harsher than here, up to and including imprisonment. Yes, yes, yes, correct. [35:10] Again, you're not letting me… But I will revert to us. Do not worry. I will go back to us. I will not [35:16] remain focused on U.S. problems exclusively. I will revert and go back and comment on what's happening here. [35:24] President, I thought your belief was that nations shouldn't intervene in other countries' domestic [35:31] affairs, shouldn't comment on other countries' politics. But there you are doing it again. [35:37] No, no. If you muster some patience, and let me finish saying what I mean to say, everything will [35:48] be clear to you. But you're not liking my answer. You don't want my answer to be heard by your audience. [35:54] That is the problem. You're shutting me down. Is that free expression or is that free expression the [36:01] American way? Please answer. So, thank you very much. Here we go. The U.S. adopted this law. We [36:13] passed this law only very recently in order to protect our society against outside interference. In [36:21] some of the states in the U.S., if a foreign observer approaches a polling station, the prosecutor says, [36:29] come a few feet closer, come a few feet closer and you'll go to jail. Is that normal? Is that democracy [36:34] in the modern world? But that is an actual practice in some of the states. We don't have anything like [36:40] that. When I talk about these laws, about non-interference or attempts at interference, [36:49] what do I mean as applied to Russia? Many entities of the so-called civil society, [36:57] the reason I say so-called is because many of those entities are funded from abroad. Specific [37:05] relevant action programs are prepared. Their core members are trained abroad. And when our official [37:13] authorities see that, then in order to prevent this kind of interference in our domestic affairs, [37:21] we make relevant decisions and adopt relevant laws. And they're more lenient than yours. [37:29] We have a saying, don't be mad at the mirror if you're ugly. It has nothing to do with your [37:37] personality. But if somebody blames us for something, what I say is, why don't you look at yourselves? [37:46] You will see yourselves in the mirror, not us. There is nothing unusual about it. As far as [37:53] political activities and the political system, it is evolving. We have 44 registered parties, [37:59] well, 34, I think, and 32 are about to participate in various electoral processes across the entire [38:08] country in September. Yes. We only have a limited amount of time, Mr. President. [38:13] There is also non-systemic opposition. You have said that some people have been detained, some people [38:19] are in prison. Yes, that is all true. You mentioned certain names. Yes, yes. I will talk about it. [38:27] I will not leave any of your questions unattended. Can I just ask you a direct question? Did you order [38:34] Alexei Navalny's assassination? Of course not. We don't have this kind [38:42] of habit of assassinating anybody. That's one. Number two is, I want to ask you, did you order the [38:50] assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman? [38:55] Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering the Congress, [39:00] and they didn't go there to steal a laptop? They came with political demands. 450 people have been [39:07] detained. They are looking at jail time between 15 and 25 years, and they came to the Congress with [39:18] political demands. Isn't that persecution for political opinions? Some have been accused of plotting [39:24] to take over government power. Some are accused of robbery. They didn't go there to rob. The people, [39:33] the individuals whom you mentioned, yes, they were convicted for violating their status of individuals [39:41] who had been previously convicted and given suspended sentences. Twice an individual was given suspended [39:50] sentences. Essentially, it was a warning not to violate the Russian laws and completely ignored the [39:59] requirements of the law. The court went on and turned the conviction into real jail time. Thousands [40:06] and thousands of people ignore requirements of the law, and they have nothing to do with political [40:09] activities in Russia every year, and they go to jail. If somebody is actually using political [40:17] activities as a shield to deal with their own issues, including to achieve their commercial goals, [40:23] then it's something that they have to be held responsible for. There you go again, Mr. President. [40:33] What about America when I've asked you about Russia? Let me ask you, you mentioned Congress. Let me ask [40:38] you another direct question that you can answer, and it's an allegation that has been made, an accusation [40:45] that has been made again and again now in the United States. The late John McCain in Congress called you [40:53] a killer. When President Trump was asked, was told that you are a killer, he didn't deny it. When President [41:01] Biden was asked whether he believes you are a killer, he said, I do. Mr. President, are you a killer? [41:12] Look, over my tenure, I've gotten used to attacks from all kinds of angles and from all kinds of [41:23] directions under all kinds of pretexts and reasons and of different caliber and fierceness. And none of it [41:29] surprises me. People with whom I work and with whom I argue on the international arena, we're not bride and groom, [41:37] we don't swear everlasting love and friendship. We are partners. And in some areas, we are rivals. [41:44] As far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall U.S. culture. Of course, in Hollywood, [41:52] Hollywood, because we did mention Hollywood at the beginning of our conversation, there are some [41:57] deep things that undoubtedly can be referred to as works of cinematic art. But more often than not, [42:06] it's macho behavior. And that is also part of U.S. culture, including political culture, [42:12] and it is considered normal. By the way, not here. It is not considered normal here. If this rhetoric is [42:18] followed by a suggestion to meet and discuss bilateral issues and matters of international [42:23] policies, I see it as desire to engage in joint work. If this desire is serious, we are prepared to [42:30] support it. I don't think I heard you answer the question, the direct question, Mr. President. [42:38] I did answer. I did. I will add, if you let me. I have heard dozens of such accusations, especially [42:44] during the period of some grave events during our counter-terrorism efforts in North Caucasus. [42:54] And when it happens, I'm always guided by the interests of the Russian people and the Russian [42:58] state. And sentiments in terms of who calls somebody what, what kind of labels, this is not [43:05] something I worry about in the least. Let me give you some names. Anna Polakovskaya, shot dead. [43:15] Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned by polonium. Sergei Magninsky, allegedly beaten and died in prison. [43:21] Boris Nemtsov, shot moments from the Kremlin, moments from here. Mikhail Lesin, died of blunt trauma [43:28] in Washington, D.C. Are all of these a coincidence, Mr. President? [43:37] Look, you know, I don't want to come across as being rude, but this looks like some kind of indigestion, [43:46] except that it's verbal indigestion. You mentioned many individuals who indeed suffered and perished [43:54] at different points in time for various reasons at the hand of different individuals. You've [43:59] mentioned Lesin. Lesin used to work in my administration. I liked him very much. He [44:04] perished in the United States, died or perished, I'm not sure which. We should ask you how exactly he [44:10] perished. I regret to this day that he is not with us anymore. In my opinion, he's a very decent [44:16] individual. As far as the others, we found some of the criminals who committed those crimes, [44:23] and some are in prison. And we are prepared to continue to work in this mode, and along this avenue, [44:34] identifying everybody who violated the law, and by their actions caused damage, including to the [44:43] image of the Russian Federation. However, just piling everything together is meaningless, inappropriate, [44:54] and baseless. If one sees this as a line of attack, then very well. [45:02] Let me listen to it one more time. But I repeat, I have heard it many times. But this doesn't baffle me. [45:12] I know which direction to move in in order to secure the interests of the Russian state. [45:18] Let's move on to Belarus and Ukraine, two issues that will certainly come up in your summit [45:30] with President Biden. Did you have prior knowledge that a commercial airliner would be forced to land [45:36] in Belarus and that a journalist would be arrested? [45:40] No. I did not know about this. I didn't know about any airliner. I didn't know about the [45:53] individuals who were detained there subsequently. I found out about it from the media. I didn't know. [45:58] I didn't have a clue about any detainees. I don't know. It is of no interest to us. [46:03] You appeared to approve of it, judging by your meeting with President Lukashenko soon afterwards. [46:14] Not that I approve of it. Not that I condemn it. But, well, it happened. I said recently in one of [46:25] my conversations with a European colleague, I told him about the version of Mr. Lukashenko, [46:30] who told me about it. He said that information had been given to them that there was an explosive [46:36] device on board the plane. They informed the pilot without forcing the pilot to land, [46:40] and the pilot made a decision to land in Minsk. That is all. [46:43] And you believe that? [46:47] Why should I not believe him? Ask the pilot. It's the simplest thing. Ask the chief pilot. Ask the [46:55] commander of the aircraft. Did you ask him if he was forced to land? Because I have not heard or [47:01] seen an interview with the aircraft commander that landed in Minsk. Why not ask him? Why not ask him [47:09] if he was forced to land? Why don't you ask him? It's actually even odd. Everybody accuses Lukashenko, [47:17] but the pilot hasn't been asked. You know, I cannot but recall another similar situation, where the plane [47:24] of the president of Bolivia was forced to land in Vienna at the orders of the U.S. administration. [47:34] Air Force One, presidential plane, was forced to land. The president was led out of the aircraft. [47:41] They searched the plane, and you don't even recall that. Do you think it was normal? [47:45] So that was good. But what Lukashenko did was bad? Look, let us speak the same language, and let us use the [47:58] same concepts. If, well, Lukashenko is a gangster, how about the other incident then? Was it good? [48:10] In Bolivia at the time, it was seen as humiliation of the entire country. But everybody kept mum in [48:17] order to not aggravate the situation. Nobody is recalling that. By the way, this was not the only [48:22] situation of this kind. With respect, you're recalling it. But it's a completely different example. [48:28] That means you gave him an example to follow. We are talking about commercial flights. [48:33] Shouldn't people be able to take a commercial flight across Europe without fear of being shot down, [48:40] like in the case of MH17, or forced down so that a dictator can arrest a journalist? [48:51] Yes. Look, I will tell you one more time. [49:00] What President Lukashenko told me, I don't have any reason not to believe him. For the third time, [49:04] I'm telling you, ask the pilot. Why don't you ask the pilot? Was he being scared? Was he being forced? [49:11] The fact that information appeared, that there was a bomb on the plane, that individuals, people had [49:16] nothing to do with politics or any kind of domestic conflicts, that they could perceive it negatively, [49:27] could worry about it. Of course, that's a bad thing. There is nothing good about this. [49:31] And obviously, we condemn everything that has to do with this, and international terrorism, [49:36] and the use of aircraft, and so on. Of course, we're against this. [49:42] And you've told me that the landing of the aircraft of the President of Belize is a completely different [49:46] matter. Yes, it is different, except that it is ten times worse than what was done, if anything was done, [49:52] in Belarus. But you just won't acknowledge it. You are ignoring it. And you want millions of people [49:57] around the world to either not notice it or forget about it tomorrow. You won't get away with it. It [50:02] won't happen. In the case of neighboring Ukraine, earlier this year, the European Union said you had [50:09] more than 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Was that an attempt to get Washington's attention? [50:24] Look, first, Ukraine itself constantly, and I think is still doing that, it kept bringing personnel and [50:39] military equipment to the conflict area in the southeast of Ukraine, Donbas. That's one. Two, [50:44] is that we conducted exercises in our territory, and not just in the south of the Russian Federation, [50:49] but also in the far east, and in the north, and in the Arctic. Simultaneously, military exercises were [50:58] being held in different parts of the Russian Federation. At the very same time, the US was conducting [51:04] military exercises in Alaska. Do you know anything about it? Probably not. But I'll tell you that I [51:11] do know. And that is in direct proximity to our borders. But that's in your territory, on your land. [51:18] We didn't even pay attention to it. What is happening now? Now, at our southern borders, [51:23] there is a war game, Defender Europe. 40,000 personnel, 15,000 units of military equipment, [51:31] and part of them have been airlifted from the US continent directly to our borders. Did we airlift [51:40] any of our military technology to the US borders? No, we did not. Why are you worried, Ben? [51:46] But many of those exercises are a response to your actions, Mr. President. Do you worry that your [51:54] opposition to NATO has actually strengthened it? For six years, NATO has spent more on defense. [52:00] That's some defense. Some defense. During the USSR era, Gorbachev, who is still, thank God, with us, [52:12] you can ask him, got a promise, a verbal promise. However, it was a promise that there would be NATO [52:18] expansion to the east. Where are those promises? Two waves of expansion. Where is that, where is that [52:23] written down? Where is that promise written down? Right, right, right, right, right, right. Well done. [52:33] Correct. You've got a point. Nya, nya, nya, got you good. Well, congratulations. Of course, [52:40] everything should be sealed and written on paper. But what was the point of expanding [52:46] NATO to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders? And all of this before saying that [52:52] we're the ones who have been acting aggressively? Why? On what basis? Did Russia, after the USSR collapsed, [52:58] present any threat to the United States or European countries, we voluntarily withdrew our troops from [53:04] Eastern Europe, leaving them just on empty land. Our people there, military personnel, lived there for [53:10] decades in what was not normal conditions, including their children. We went to tremendous expenses. [53:16] And what did we get in response? We got in response infrastructure next to our borders. And now you're [53:22] saying that we're threatening to somebody. We're conducting war games on a regular basis, including [53:27] sometimes surprise military exercises. Why should it worry the NATO partners? I just don't understand this. [53:34] Will you commit now not to send any further Russian troops into Ukrainian sovereign territory? [53:50] Look, did we say that we were planning to send our armed formations anywhere? [53:59] We conducted war games in our territory. How can this not be clear? I'm saying it again because I want your [54:07] audience to hear it. I want your listeners to hear it, both on the screens of their television sets and [54:14] on the Internet. We conducted military exercises in our territory. Imagine if we sent our troops into [54:20] direct proximity to your borders. What would have been your response? We didn't do that. We did it in [54:24] our territory. You conducted war games in Alaska. God bless you. But you had crossed an ocean, brought [54:31] thousands of personnel and thousands of units of military equipment close to our borders. And yet [54:38] you believe that we are acting aggressively and somehow you're not. Just look at that. Pot calling [54:45] the kettle black. Moving on. The Biden administration has said that in your at your summit, they will bring [54:54] up the case of two U.S. prisoners in Russia, Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed. They are two former Marines. [55:03] Trevor Reed is suffering from COVID in prison. Why don't you release them ahead of the summit? [55:13] Wouldn't that show goodwill? I know that we have certain U.S. citizens who are in prison, [55:24] have been convicted. But if one considers the number of Russian Federation citizens who are in U.S. [55:30] prisons, then these numbers don't even compare. The United States in recent years has made a habit [55:38] of catching Russian Federation citizens in third countries and taking them in violation of all [55:44] international legal norms and put them in prison. Unless we can have more time, I'm very happy to [55:49] have to keep going for another 30 minutes. I control the time here, so don't worry about time. [55:56] Your guy, the Marine, he's just a drunk and a troublemaker. As they say here, he got himself [56:04] shitfaced on vodka and started a fight. Among other things, he hit a cop. It's nothing. It's just a [56:11] common crime. There's nothing to it. As far as possible negotiations on this subject, sure, [56:18] it can be talked about. Obviously, we'll raise the matter of our citizens in prison in the United [56:25] States. Yes, it can be a specific conversation, sure. We're happy to do it. Although it doesn't seem [56:30] that the U.S. administration has raised that matter. But we're prepared to talk about that. Our pilot [56:37] Yaroshenko has been in prison in the U.S. for a good, I don't know how many years, 15, maybe 20 years. [56:47] And there, the problem also seems to be a common crime. We could and should talk about it. But we [56:52] haven't been talking about this. But we could. If the U.S. side is prepared to discuss it, so are we. [57:00] So his family will find that incredibly distressing to hear you talk about him that way. [57:04] It does sound, though, as if you would consider some kind of a prisoner swap. [57:12] There is nothing offensive about it. He got drunk on vodka and started a fight. He fought a cop. [57:19] There is nothing offensive about it. These things happen in life. There is nothing horrible about it. [57:24] It happens to our men as well. Somebody gulps down some vodka and starts a fight. So you violate the law, [57:33] you go to prison. What would have happened if he had fought a cop in your country? He would have been [57:39] shot dead on the spot. And that's the end of it. Isn't that the case? [57:41] And on the prisoner swap question, is that something that you would consider? Are you looking to negotiate? [57:49] You're meeting with the president? Yes, yes, yes, of course, of course. [57:53] Even better would be a discussion of the possibility of entering into an agreement on extradition of [58:03] individuals who are in prison. This is a standard international practice. We have such agreements [58:09] with several countries. We are prepared to enter into such an agreement with the United States. [58:13] And just to be clear, so we hear it from you, which Russian prisoners in the U.S. [58:22] would you be hoping to bring back to Russia by name? Well, we have a whole list. I've just mentioned [58:32] our pilot, a pilot named Yaroshenko, who was taken to the U.S. from a third country and was given a [58:38] rather lengthy sentence. He has some serious health issues, but the prison administration is not paying [58:44] attention to this. You have mentioned that your citizen has coronavirus, but nobody is paying attention [58:51] to the health issues of our citizen. We are prepared to discuss these issues. Moreover, it makes sense, [58:59] as you correctly said, and I completely agree with you, there are matters of humanitarian nature, [59:06] and why not discuss them as long as they pertain to the health and life of specific individuals [59:11] and of their families? Of course, sure thing. Just quickly, before I move on, on the subject of prisons, [59:20] again with Alexei Navalny, will you commit that you will personally ensure that Alexei Navalny will [59:27] leave prison alive? Look, such decisions in this country are not made by the President, [59:37] they are made by the court, whether or not to set somebody free. As far as the health, all individuals [59:43] who are in prison, that is something that the administration of the specific prison or penitentiary [59:50] establishment is responsible for. And there are medical facilities in penitentiaries that are [59:58] perhaps far from the best condition, and they are the ones whose responsibility it is, and I hope that [1:00:08] they do it properly. But to be honest, I have not visited such places for a long time. I did visit one in [1:00:18] St. Petersburg some time ago, and that was a very grave impression that was made on me by the medical [1:00:23] facilities in a prison. But since then, I hope some things have been done to improve the situation. [1:00:31] And I proceed from the premise that the person that you have mentioned, the same kind of measures [1:00:37] will apply, not in any way worse than to anybody else who happens to be in prison. That can be said for [1:00:46] sure. His name is Alexei Navalny. People will note that you were prepared to say that he would leave [1:00:54] prison alive. Look, look, please listen to me carefully. His name can be anything. He is one of [1:01:05] the individuals who are in prison. For me, he is one of the citizens of the Russian Federation who has [1:01:11] been found guilty by a Russian court of law and is in prison. There are many citizens like that. By the way, [1:01:17] our so-called prison population, the people who are in prison, in the last few years has been reduced [1:01:25] by almost 50 percent, which I consider a big victory for us and a major sign of the fact that our legal [1:01:35] system is becoming more humane. So he will not be treated any worse than anybody else. Nobody should be [1:01:42] given any kind of special treatment. It would be wrong. Everybody should be in an equal situation. This is called [1:01:50] the most favored nation treatment, not worse than anyone else. And the individual that you have mentioned, that [1:01:58] applies to him as well. I appreciate the extra time, Mr. President, the team has been in quarantine for almost two weeks. So this [1:02:06] interview is very important to us. I want to ask you about China. China is working on its fourth aircraft carrier. It has two. [1:02:15] Russia has won and it's not in service at the moment. China refused to take part in arms control talks last year. [1:02:27] You complain so much about NATO to your west. Why do you never complain about China's militarization to your east? [1:02:34] The first thing I want to say is that over the last few years, the last few decades, [1:02:50] we have developed a strategic partnership relationship between Russia and China that [1:02:58] previously had not been achieved in the history of our two nations. A high level of trust and cooperation [1:03:04] and in all areas, in politics, in the economy, in technology and in the area of military and technical cooperation. [1:03:14] We do not believe that China is a threat to us. That's one. China is a friendly nation. [1:03:22] It has not declared us an enemy, as the United States has done. [1:03:27] China hasn't been… Don't you, don't you know anything about this? So that's number one. Number two is [1:03:36] that China is a huge, powerful country, one and a half billion people. In terms of purchasing power [1:03:44] parity, the Chinese economy has exceeded the size of the US economy. And in terms of trade, for the previous [1:03:54] year, China tied Europe for the first place, whereas the US dropped to the second position. Do you know [1:04:06] about this? China has been developing. And I understand that what's beginning to happen is a certain, well, [1:04:20] certain kind of confrontation with China. Everybody understands it. We can see it. Why hide from this [1:04:28] this or be scared by these issues. However, we're not alarmed by it, including, among other things, [1:04:38] the fact that our defense efficiency, as we call it, is at a very high level, including because of this. [1:04:44] But the most important thing is the nature and level of our relationship with China. You said China [1:04:49] will have four aircraft carriers. How many does the United States have? [1:04:54] Not more. There you go. That's my point. Why would we worry about the Chinese aircraft carriers? [1:05:05] On top of everything else, we have a vast border with China, but it's a land border. What, do you [1:05:13] think the Chinese aircraft carriers will be sent to cross our land border into our territory? This is [1:05:20] just a meaningless conversation. But you also have a Pacific coast. But you're right, there will be four [1:05:27] of them. Yes, there will be four of them. Coast? Well, the coast is huge, but the bulk of the border [1:05:35] between us and China is a land border. And yes, you're right that there will be four of them, because one [1:05:40] needs to be in maintenance, one needs to be on combat duty, one needs to be in repairs. There is nothing [1:05:46] excessive here for China. That is why what you said, that China won't engage in negotiations, [1:05:55] arms control. It refuses to negotiate reductions in nuclear offensive weapons. You should ask the [1:06:02] Chinese about it, whether it's good or bad. It's up to them. But their arguments are simple and they're [1:06:10] understandable. The level, both in terms of the amount of ammunition and warheads and delivery vehicles, [1:06:20] the United States and Russia are far, far ahead of China. And the Chinese justly ask, why would we make [1:06:32] reductions if we are already far behind what you have? Or do you want us to freeze our level of nuclear [1:06:40] deterrence? Why should we freeze? Why we, a country with a billion and a half population, [1:06:48] cannot at least set the goal of achieving your levels? These are all debatable issues that require [1:06:55] thorough consideration, but making us responsible for China's position is just comical. What do you [1:07:05] think of China's treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang? You know, I have met certain Uyghurs. It's always [1:07:23] possible to find individuals who criticize the central authorities. I have met Uyghurs on my trips to [1:07:33] China. And I assure you, at the very least, from what I heard with my own ears, that on the whole, [1:07:42] they welcome the policies of the Chinese authorities in this area. They believe that China has done a [1:07:48] great deal for people who live in this part of the country from the perspective of the economy, [1:07:54] raising the cultural level and so on and so forth. So why should I offer assessments looking at the [1:08:01] situation? You know, you know, you know, there are many Uyghurs who do not say that and that America [1:08:11] has accused China of genocide. The Secretary of State has accused China of genocide over the Uyghurs. [1:08:18] There is the accusation of a million Uyghurs in so-called concentration camps. Is that your message [1:08:25] to the Muslim communities in the former Soviet Union? You don't think anything wrong is happening there? [1:08:36] As far as the Muslim community in Russia, I need to give a message to it through the policies of the [1:08:48] Russian authorities vis-a-vis Muslims in the Russian Federation. That is how I need to give my message [1:08:56] to the Muslim community in the Russian Federation. Russia is an observer in the Organization of Islamic [1:09:01] Conference. About 10 percent of our population, perhaps a little more, are Muslims. They are citizens of the [1:09:07] Russian Federation who do not have another fatherland. They are making a colossal contribution to the [1:09:13] development of this country, and that pertains to both clerics and ordinary citizens. Why should I [1:09:21] speak to and build a relationship with this segment of our population by reference to the situation in [1:09:30] China without understanding thoroughly what is happening there? I think you're better off asking [1:09:37] about all these problems the foreign minister of the Chinese People's Republic or the State Department. [1:09:49] It's just a question of whether you are prepared to criticize China. China, for example, abstained on [1:09:56] Crimea at the Security Council. China's biggest banks have not contravened American sanctions against [1:10:03] Russia. Do you think you get 100 percent support from China? [1:10:07] You know, we are neighboring countries. One does not choose one's neighbors. [1:10:17] We are pleased with the level of our relationship, which, as I said, is unprecedentedly high, as it has [1:10:27] evolved over the last few decades, and we cherish it, just like our Chinese friends cherish it, which we [1:10:32] can see. Why are you trying to drag us into some kind of issues that you evaluate as you see fit for [1:10:43] building your relationship with China? I will tell you completely honestly. Can I be completely honest? [1:10:50] Please. We can see attempts at destroying the relationship between Russia and China. We can see [1:10:59] that those attempts are being made in practical policies. And your questions, too, have to do with [1:11:06] that. I have set forth my position for you. I believe that this is sufficient, and I am [1:11:15] confident that the Chinese leadership, being aware of the totality of these matters, including the [1:11:22] part of their population who are Uyghurs, will find the necessary solution to make sure that the [1:11:28] situation remains stable and benefits the entire multi-million strong Chinese people, including its Uyghur [1:11:37] world. You understand, of course. I'm just trying to question you about Russia's position in relation [1:11:48] to China and the United States. Let me ask you in a different way. Are you splitting off from the U.S. [1:11:55] space program and moving forward with China? No. No. Why would you say that? We are prepared to work with [1:12:07] the U.S. in space. And I think recently the head of NASA said that he could not imagine development [1:12:15] of space programs without its partnership with Russia. We welcome this statement and we value it. [1:12:25] I'll just explain, because the head of the Russia Space Agency has threatened leaving the [1:12:31] international space program in 2025 and specifically talked about sanctions in relation to that threat. [1:12:45] Well, honestly, I do not think that Mr. Rogozin, which is the name of the head of Roscosmos, [1:12:54] has threatened anyone in this regard. I've known him for many years, and I know that he is a supporter [1:13:00] of expanding the relationship with the United States in this area, in space. Recently, as I said, [1:13:06] the head of NASA spoke in the same vein, and I personally fully support this. And we have been [1:13:11] working with great pleasure all of these years, and we are prepared to continue to work. For technical [1:13:16] reasons, though, and that is a different matter, is that the International Space Station is coming to an [1:13:21] end of its service life. And maybe in this regard, Roscosmos does not have plans to continue their work. [1:13:26] However, based on what I heard from our US partners, they too are looking at future cooperation in this [1:13:33] particular segment in their own way. But on the whole, the cooperation between our two countries [1:13:41] in space is a great example of a situation where, despite any kind of problems in political relationships [1:13:48] in recent years, it is an area where we have been able to maintain and preserve the partnership, [1:13:53] and both parties cherish it. I just think that you misunderstood the head of our space agency. [1:14:00] We are interested, and I assure you, in continuing to work with the US in this direction, and we will [1:14:04] continue to do so if our US partners don't refuse to do that. It doesn't mean that we need to work [1:14:10] exclusively with the US. We have been working and will continue to work with China, which applies to [1:14:17] all kinds of programs, including exploring deep space. And I think there is nothing but positive [1:14:26] information here. Frankly, I don't see any contradictions here. [1:14:28] Let me ask you one more way, just to understand the relationship between China, Russia, and America. [1:14:41] If the People's Liberation Army made a move on Taiwan, how would Russia respond to that? [1:14:47] Are you aware of China's plans to militarily solve the Taiwan problem? I don't know anything about that. [1:15:06] As we frequently say, politics do not require the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is [1:15:15] inappropriate in politics. There is no could be and would be in politics. I cannot comment on anything [1:15:24] that is not a current reality of the modern world. Please bear with me. Don't be upset with me. [1:15:33] But I think that this is a question about nothing. This is not happening. Has China stated that it [1:15:39] intends to solve the Taiwan problem militarily? It hasn't happened so far. For many years, China has been [1:15:48] developing its relationship with Taiwan. There are different assessments. China has its own assessment. [1:15:54] The U.S. has a different assessment. Taiwan may have its different assessment of the situation. But [1:15:58] fortunately, it hasn't come to a military clash. I'm being told to wrap up. But if I could just [1:16:08] ask you a couple more questions. Sure, please go ahead. Our own Andrea Mitchell saw just this month [1:16:16] the last border crossing into Syria, where supplies literally keep people alive. You're threatening to [1:16:22] close that crossing in July at the Security Council. Why would you do that knowing that it will cause the [1:16:31] death of refugees? Look, unfortunately, there are already a great deal of tragedies there. And [1:16:48] all our actions in their totality need to be geared at stabilizing the situation and bringing it into a [1:16:55] normal course of events. And with support of Russia, Syria, the Syrian authorities have been able to [1:17:03] bring back under their control over 90 percent of the Syrian territory. What needs to be set up now is [1:17:09] humanitarian assistance to people irrespective of any kind of political context. However, our partners in [1:17:16] in the West, in the West in general, both the United States and the Europeans have been saying that [1:17:23] they're not going to give any help to Assad. What does Assad have to do with it? Help people who need [1:17:31] that assistance. Just the most basic things. They won't even lift restrictions on supplies of medications [1:17:36] and medical equipment, even in the context of the coronavirus infection. But that is just inhumane. [1:17:43] And this kind of cruel attitude to people cannot be explained in any way. As far as the border [1:17:51] crossings for delivery of humanitarian assistance, there is the Idlib area where combatants are still [1:17:57] robbing people, killing people, raping people. There is the Alt-10th zone, which, by the way, is controlled by [1:18:05] the US military. Recently, we caught there a group of gangsters who had come from there, [1:18:13] and they directly said that they had specific goals as far as Russian military facilities. [1:18:20] As far as border crossings, our position is such that assistance needs to be given just as it should [1:18:28] be done in the entire world and as it is provided for in the rules of international humanitarian law [1:18:37] through the central government. That is how assistance should be given. And it should not [1:18:42] be discriminated against. And if there are grounds to believe that the central government of Syria will [1:18:47] plunder something, will steal something, we'll set up observers on the part of the international [1:18:52] Red Cross and Red Crescent, who will oversee everything. I don't think that anybody in the Syrian [1:18:58] government is interested in stealing some part of this humanitarian assistance. It just needs to be done [1:19:03] through the central government. And in this sense, we support President Assad because a different [1:19:08] mode of behavior would be undermining the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. And that's all. [1:19:14] As far as the Idlib zone, the Turkish troops there effectively control the border between Turkey and [1:19:21] Syria, and convoys cross the border without any restrictions on their numbers in both directions. [1:19:27] Mr. President, you extended the constitution so that you could be president of Russia until 2036. [1:19:34] Do you worry that the longer you are in power and without any sign of someone to replace you, [1:19:43] the more instability there may be when you finally do choose to leave office? [1:19:55] What will collapse overnight? If we look at the situation in which Russia was in the year 2000, [1:20:02] where it was balancing on the brink of preserving its territorial integrity and sovereignty, [1:20:09] and the number of individuals living below the poverty line was colossal. It was catastrophic. [1:20:15] The GDP level had dropped below anything that's acceptable. Our FX and gold reserves were 12 billion, [1:20:23] whereas our foreign debt was 120 billion, if we count it in dollars. Now the situation is different. [1:20:31] There are many problems, but the situation is completely different. Of course, [1:20:34] somebody will come and replace me at some point. Why would all of this collapse? We've been fighting [1:20:40] international terrorism. We have nipped it in the bud. Is it supposed to come back to life? I do not [1:20:45] think so. Another matter is that on the political arena, different people may emerge with different [1:20:52] points of view. Well, great. Very good. You know, I have linked my entire life to the fate of my country [1:21:06] to such an extent that there isn't a more meaningful goal in my life than the strengthening of Russia. [1:21:14] If anybody else, and if I see that person, even if that person is critical of some areas of what I have [1:21:21] been doing, if I can see that this is an individual who has constructive views, that he or she is [1:21:28] committed to this country and is prepared to sacrifice his entire life to this country, not just a number [1:21:34] of years, no matter his personal attitude to me, I will make sure, I will do everything to make sure [1:21:39] that such people will get support. It is a natural biological process. At some point, naturally, someday, [1:21:48] we will all be replaced. You will be replaced at where you are. I will be replaced at where I am. [1:21:55] But I am confident that the fundamental pillar of the Russian economy and statehood and its political [1:22:02] system will be such that Russia will be firmly standing on its feet and looking to the future [1:22:07] confidently. And would you look from that person for some kind of protection the same way that you [1:22:19] offered to Boris Yeltsin when you took over? I am not even thinking about that. These are [1:22:33] third-tier issues. The most important thing, the single most important thing is the fate of this [1:22:39] country and the fate of its people. Very good. Thank you very much for your time, [1:22:47] Mr. President. We have gone over and I really appreciate it. It was a really interesting conversation, [1:22:52] so thank you.