Website of the President of Russia: President: Transcripts

Article by Vladimir Putin in the Kazakhstanskaya Pravda newspaper, Russia – Kazakhstan: a Forward-Looking Alliance Demanded by Life

2024-11-26T20:57:59+04:00

On the eve of my regular state visit to the Republic of Kazakhstan, I would like to share my vision of the current state and future of the relations between our two countries on the pages of the authoritative Kazakhstanskaya Pravda newspaper.

The cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan has been a genuine alliance, which continues to develop actively in all directions. Our partnership is underpinned by traditions of friendship, good neighbourliness and mutual assistance and relies on unwavering principles of equality and consideration of each other's interests. The peoples of Russia and Kazakhstan are connected by the bonds of similar cultural, spiritual and moral values, centuries of living in one State, as well as shared achievements and victories.

The strong good personal relationship that Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan and I have developed after the years of joint work, are yet another proof of the level of our two States’ ties. We regularly call each other and meet in various formats. We constantly coordinate our positions on pressing bilateral, as well as on regional and global issues, and make plans for the future. The most important thing is that both President Tokayev and I have always sought specific results and tried to do our utmost to ensure the best possible conditions to enable further steady development of Russian-Kazakh cooperation, the prosperity of our countries, and the improving of the quality of life of our citizens.

Russia is one of Kazakhstan's major economic partners. Our states have actively supported Eurasian economic integration and were among the founders of the Eurasian Economic Union, where we have been developing a common market of goods, services and capital, removing regulatory and trade barriers and creating a common transport and logistics infrastructure. All of this enables us to cooperate effectively in various economic areas and substantially benefits our countries.

The impressive volume of our bilateral trade speaks for itself. Last year it reached a new peak hitting the USD 28 billion mark, and already exceeded USD 20 billion between January and September 2024. Our bilateral trade has been constantly diversifying, with the share of higher value-added non-commodity goods growing continuously. Besides, settlements in national currencies have played an increasing role, which has helped protect business transactions between our countries from the negative impact of external, including political, factors.

Russian investments in Kazakhstan's economy have also been growing annually; today they amount to about USD 13 billion. More than 23,000 enterprises with Russian capital operate in the Republic. Companies of our countries are implementing a number of major joint projects in the field of industrial cooperation and high technologies and develop new full production cycle manufacturing processes, which facilitates comprehensive economic modernization and strengthens the technological sovereignty of Russia and Kazakhstan.

Our countries are engaged in equally constructive cooperation in the oil and gas sector. Due to the activities of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, over 80 percent of Kazakhstan's oil is exported to foreign markets via Russian territory and Russian port infrastructure on the Black Sea. The energy companies of our companies are jointly developing hydrocarbon reserves, processing energy resources and expanding the pipeline system.

Rosatom provides practical assistance in the implementation of nuclear fuel cycle projects and the development of the uranium industry in Kazakhstan. The Russian state corporation, which has unique competencies and technical solutions, often unparalleled in the world, is ready for new large-scale projects with Kazakhstan. Good prospects are also opening up for cooperation in the field of alternative and clean energy, environmental protection and combating climate change.

There is a whole range of promising industrial projects and initiatives in other areas of economic cooperation as well. I would like to mention, for example, the ongoing work to expand the eastern branch of the North-South international transport corridor that passes through Kazakhstan, and the creation of the Baiterek space rocket complex at the Baikonur Cosmodrome using the Russian Soyuz-5 rocket carrier.

The regions of our countries are making a tangible contribution to strengthening our mutually beneficial collaboration. Practically all of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation have established direct ties with their partners from Kazakhstan, and are working together on projects in the field of energy, industry, transport, and high technologies. These days, Ufa is hosting the 20^th jubilee Interregional Cooperation Forum that traditionally gathers government senior officials, lawmakers, representatives of ministries and agencies, business, scientific and social circles, i.e. all those who deal with the practical issues of the development of bilateral relations. Mr Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and I are going to address participants in the forum via videolink. In addition, a large-scale Programme for Interregional and Cross-Border Cooperation has been developed. It comprises some 150 joint activities and projects aimed at creating favourable conditions for further progressive socio-economic growth of the regions of Russia and Kazakhstan, and for improving the quality of life for people.

Humanitarian exchanges occupy a traditionally important place in the spectrum of Russian-Kazakh interaction. Both Russian and Kazakh sides do much to expanding cooperation in culture, sports, through social and youth communities, and, certainly, in education. Around 60,000 Kazakhstani students attend Russian higher education institutions. Branches of many leading Russian higher education institutions, including Lomonosov Moscow State University, operate successfully in Kazakhstan. In the near future already, a branch of MGIMO University of the MFA of Russia whose graduates include many famous Kazakhstanis, including Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, will open in Astana.

Russia also supports the construction of new Russian language schools in Kazakhstan, as well as enhancing the quality of school education in Russian language. We expect that soon three more such schools will open in the cities of Kyzylorda, Taraz and Turkistan. And we are naturally grateful to the leadership of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and personally Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, for the caring attitude to the Russian language and putting forward an important initiative of establishing the International Organization for the Russian language which will contribute to the promotion of the Russian language as a means of interstate and international communication.

I would like to emphasize that next year the peoples of our countries will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War. We look forward to seeing President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and our other Kazakh friends at the anniversary celebrations in Moscow on 9 May. Both Russia and Kazakhstan remember and sacredly honour the feat of their fathers and grandfathers, who fought shoulder to shoulder against Nazism. And we must certainly do our utmost to ensure that future generations remember the cost of defending peace and freedom. This is especially important now, at a time when a more just multipolar world order is formed based on equal cooperation and new opportunities for sovereign development.

Russia and Kazakhstan are at the forefront of these processes and take similar positions with regard to the key role of international law in interstate relations, and the need to take into account the interests of all countries in matters of global security, stability and sustainable development. It is on the basis of these approaches that our countries cooperate productively within multilateral organizations, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The President of Kazakhstan took part in the CIS Summit in Moscow and in the BRICS Summit in Kazan which were held in October with great success. In particular, one of the important decisions taken at the BRICS Meeting of State Leaders was the establishment of a new category – ”Partner Country“ of our Group, as well as the list of candidate countries to obtain such status was agreed. Kazakhstan was invited to join the BRICS in this capacity.

I would like to emphasize once again that Russia is willing to continue developing multifaceted relations of friendship and alliance with the Republic of Kazakhstan for the benefit of our peoples. I wish all citizens of Kazakhstan success, well-being and prosperity.

Article by Vladimir Putin for publication in Nhân Dân, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee, Russia and Vietnam: Friendship Tested by Time

2024-06-19T18:32:06+04:00

On the eve of my next, fifth visit to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, I would like to share with the readership of the respected and influential newspaper Nhân Dân my vision of the history, present-day state and future of the Russian-Vietnamese partnership.

It is symbolic that our upcoming visit to Vietnam will take place around the date that marks the 30^th anniversary of the Russian-Vietnamese Treaty on Foundations of Friendly Relations. This strategic document opened up vast opportunities to strengthen and develop the whole range of bilateral ties, giving them a powerful impetus and increasing their dynamics at the new historical stage.

Hồ Chí Minh, the great son of the Vietnamese people and a good friend of our country, stood at the origins of our bilateral cooperation. Russia honours the memory of this outstanding patriot, politician and statesman who always firmly and uncompromisingly defended the sovereignty and freedom of his Homeland. I would like to note that a monument to the first President of Vietnam was erected last year in St Petersburg to commemorate the centenary of his visit to Russia's “northern capital.”

Our country significantly contributed to the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people against foreign invaders. After the victory and complete liberation of the Vietnamese territory from the occupiers, it was Soviet builders, engineers, doctors, teachers and scientists who helped rebuild Vietnam. They put in a lot of effort to develop its economic and defence potential and address top social priorities.

These time-proven traditions of fellowship and mutual support provide a solid foundation for furthering the bilateral relations of comprehensive strategic partnership.

Vietnam is a vibrant and unique ancient civilization adding to the tapestry of a multipolar world. Hanoi pursues an independent foreign policy in the global arena and strongly advocates a just world order based on international law and principles of equality of all states and non-interference in their internal affairs.

We highly appreciate the fact that our countries have coinciding or similar approaches to pressing issues on the international agenda. We work closely together within key international forums, first of all within the United Nations. We have similar assessments of the situation in the Asia-Pacific region. We see Vietnam as a like-minded partner in shaping a new architecture of equal and indivisible Eurasian security on an inclusive and non-discriminatory basis.

We are grateful to our Vietnamese friends for their balanced position on the Ukraine crisis and their desire to facilitate the search for practical ways to settle it peacefully. All of this is fully in line with the spirit and nature of our relations.

It is important that the two countries have consistently given serious attention to enhancing mutual trade and promoting investment. Thus, according to Russian statistics, bilateral trade increased by eight percent in 2023, and gained more than a third in the first quarter of the current year compared to the same period last year. Food, mineral resources, machinery and equipment are exported to Vietnam. Many Vietnamese goods, including clothing, fruits, vegetables and other agricultural products, are in demand on the Russian market. The 2015 Free Economic Trade Agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and Vietnam helps reinforce and further develop these positive trends.

The possibility exists for our countries to carry out settlements in national currencies – the Russian ruble and the Vietnamese dong. Such transactions accounted for more than 40 percent of bilateral trade last year, and in the first quarter of this year their share rose to almost 60 percent. This is in keeping with the global trend towards phasing out the use of widely discredited currencies in international trade and investment. A major role in ensuring reliable financial settlements is played by the Vietnam-Russia Joint Venture Bank, whose opening ceremony I attended back in 2006. We hope that the Bank will continue its work, contributing actively to the strengthening of economic collaboration between our states.

The energy sector remains a strategically important area of bilateral cooperation. The Vietsovpetro joint venture, which has been exploring deposits on Vietnam's continental shelf for more than four decades, has proved highly efficient. The volume of oil it has produced over the years has exceeded 250 million tonnes. Rusvietpetro, a joint venture company established in 2008, is successfully operating in Russia's Nenets Autonomous Area. It has already extracted over 35 million tonnes of oil in the harsh conditions of the Far North. Gazprom, in its turn, is engaged in gas extraction in Vietnam, while another major Russian company, NOVATEK, intends to implement LNG projects on the Vietnamese territory.

An initiative is being considered to create a Centre of Nuclear Science and Technology in Vietnam with Rosatom's assistance. In this regard, I would like to note that the Russian state corporation is essentially ready to help Vietnamese partners develop their national nuclear power industry, including in terms of building its human capacity.

Our country has traditionally contributed a great deal to the development of Vietnam's hydropower potential. For example, RusHydro is interested in joining the project to reconstruct and increase the capacity of hydropower facilities on Vietnam’s rivers.

The Gaz Thanh Dat joint venture to assemble Russian GAZ brand automobiles is expanding its operations in Da Nang.

We expect that Vietnamese investors will, in turn, more actively use the ample opportunities offered by the Russian market. The Vietnamese company TH Group, which is constructing milk processing plants in the Moscow and Kaluga regions and in the Primorye Territory, is one example.

And I certainly cannot but mention the long-standing traditions of bilateral cooperation in education. Over the past decades, tens of thousands of Vietnamese specialists in various fields have received training or upgraded their skills in our country, and several thousand have obtained academic degrees. We intend to further prioritize partnership in this area. This includes further offering education opportunities at Russian universities to Vietnamese citizens at the expense of the federal budget. We will do our best to promote student exchanges, launch joint academic projects and programmes. The Russian-Vietnamese Tropical Research and Technology Centre, which has been engaged in applied and fundamental research for many years, provides a vivid example of such positive cooperation between our countries.

We will definitely continue to develop humanitarian contacts. I know that many Vietnamese understand and love Russian music, literature and cinema. And Russian people show genuine interest in original Vietnamese art. The Days of Vietnamese Culture in Russia, to be held early next month, will provide a better glimpse.

Tourism is a sure way to promote mutual understanding between our peoples. Vietnam has long become a popular holiday destination for Russians, and Vietnamese citizens have always been attracted by our country's tourist sights. An increase in the number of direct flights would help intensify mutual tourist flows.

Together with our Vietnamese friends, we will continue to develop bilateral ties and cooperation for the benefit of our peoples, for stability and prosperity in the region and the world as a whole. I am confident that our countries, relying on the best traditions of friendship, mutual trust and mutual assistance, will achieve all our ambitious goals.

I wish the people of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam peace, well-being and prosperity.

Article by Vladimir Putin in Rodong Sinmun newspaper, Russia and the DPRK: Traditions of Friendship and Cooperation Through the Years

2024-06-17T23:22:00+04:00

On the eve of my state visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, I would like to address the Korean and foreign audience of the Rodong Sinmun newspaper to share my thoughts on the prospects for partnership between our states and on their role in the modern world.

The relations of friendship and neighbourliness between Russia and the DPRK, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and trust, go back more than seven decades and are rich in glorious historical traditions. Our peoples cherish the memory of their difficult joint struggle against Japanese militarism and honour the heroes who fell in it. In August 1945, Soviet soldiers, fighting shoulder to shoulder with Korean patriots, defeated the Kwantung Army, liberated the Korean peninsula from colonisers, and opened the way for the Korean people to develop independently. As symbol of combat brotherhood of the two nations, a monument was erected in 1946 on the Moranbong Hill in the centre of Pyongyang to commemorate the liberation of Korea by the Red Army.

The Soviet Union was the first among the world’s states to recognise the young Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and establish diplomatic relations with it. As early as on March 17, 1949, when the founder of the DPRK Comrade Kim Il Sung paid his first visit to Moscow, the USSR and the DPRK signed the Agreement on Economic and Cultural Cooperation, establishing a legal framework for further strengthening of their bilateral interaction. Our country helped the Korean friends to build their national economy, create a healthcare system, develop science and education, and train professional administrative and technical staff.

In 1950–1953, during the difficult years of the Fatherland Liberation War, the Soviet Union also extended a helping hand to the people of the DPRK and supported them in their struggle for independence. Later on, the Soviet Union provided significant assistance in restoring and strengthening the national economy of the young Korean state and in building a peaceful life.

My first visit to Pyongyang in 2000 and the return visit of Comrade Kim Jong Il, Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK, to Russia the following year marked new important milestones in the relations between our countries. The bilateral declarations signed back then defined the main priorities and areas of our constructive multidimensional partnership for years to come.

Comrade Kim Jong Un, who leads the DPRK today, confidently continues the policies of his predecessors – prominent statesmen and friends of the Russian people, Comrades Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. I had another chance to see it when we met last September at the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia.

Today, as before, Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are actively advancing their multifaceted partnership. We highly appreciate the DPRK’s unwavering support for Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, their solidarity with us on key international matters and willingness to defend our common priorities and views within the United Nations. Pyongyang has always been our committed and like-minded supporter, ready to confront the ambition of the collective West to prevent the emergence of a multipolar world order based on justice, mutual respect for sovereignty and consideration of each other’s interests.

The United States is going out of its way to impose on the world what it calls the “rules-based order”, which is essentially nothing more than a global neo-colonial dictatorship relying on double standards. Nations that disagree with such an approach and pursue an independent policy face increasing external pressure. The US leadership views such a natural and legitimate aspiration for self-reliance and independence as a threat to its global dominance.

The United States and its satellites openly declare that their objective is to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. They are doing everything they can to protract and further exacerbate the conflict in Ukraine, which they have themselves provoked by supporting and organising the 2014 armed coup in Kiev and the subsequent war in Donbass. What is more, over the years they have repeatedly rejected all our attempts to resolve the situation peacefully. Russia has always been and will remain open to equal dialogue on all issues, including the most difficult ones. I reiterated this at my recent meeting with Russian diplomats in Moscow.

Our adversaries, meanwhile, continue to supply the neo‑Nazi Kiev regime with money, weapons and intelligence information, allow – and, effectively, encourage – the use of modern Western weapons and equipment to deliver strikes on the Russian territory, aiming at obviously civilian targets in most cases. They are threatening to send their troops to Ukraine. Furthermore, they are trying to wear out Russia’s economy with more new sanctions and fuel socio-political tension inside the country.

No matter how hard they tried, all their attempts to contain or isolate Russia have failed. We continue to steadily build up our economic capability, develop our industry, technologies, infrastructure, science, education and culture.

We are pleased to note that our Korean friends – despite the years-long economic pressure, provocations, blackmailing and military threats on the part of the United States – are still effectively defending their interests. We see the force, dignity and courage with which the people of the DPRK fight for their freedom, sovereignty and national traditions, achieving tremendous results and genuine breakthroughs in strengthening their country in terms of defence, technology, science and industry. At the same time, the country’s leadership and its head Comrade Kim Jong Un have repeatedly expressed their intention to resolve all the existing differences by peaceful means. But Washington, refusing to implement previous agreements, keeps setting new, increasingly harsh and obviously unacceptable requirements.

Russia has incessantly supported and will support the DPRK and the heroic Korean people in their struggle against the treacherous, dangerous and aggressive enemy, in their fight for independence, identity and the right to freely choose their development path.

We are also ready to closely work together to bring more democracy and stability to international relations. To do this, we will develop alternative trade and mutual settlements mechanisms not controlled by the West, jointly oppose illegitimate unilateral restrictions, and shape the architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia.

It goes without saying, we will develop people-to-people interaction between our countries. We plan to promote academic mobility between Russian and Korean higher education institutions, mutual tourist trips as well as cultural, educational, youth and sports exchanges – everything that makes communication between countries and nations people-centred, everything that enhances confidence and mutual understanding.

I am convinced that our joint efforts will take our bilateral interaction to a higher level, which will facilitate mutually beneficial and equal cooperation between Russia and the DPRK, strengthen our sovereignty, promote trade and economic ties, people-to-people contacts and, ultimately, improve the well-being of the citizens of both states.

I would like to extend wishes of good health to Comrade Kim Jong Un and those of peace and great success on the path of development – to the friendly people of the DPRK.

Article by Vladimir Putin “Russia and Africa: Joining Efforts for Peace, Progress and a Successful Future“

2023-07-23T18:35:34+04:00

On July 27–28, St Petersburg will host the second Russia-Africa Summit and Russia-Africa Economic and Humanitarian Forum. On the eve of these large-scale representative events which will bring together heads of state and government, entrepreneurs, academia and public figures, I would like to share my vision of the development of Russia-Africa relations with the readers of the leading media on the African continent, outlining priority cooperation areas for the coming decades of the 21^st century.

The partnership relations between our country and Africa have strong, deep roots and have always been distinguished by stability, trust and goodwill. We have consistently supported African peoples in their struggle for liberation from colonial oppression. We have provided assistance in developing statehood, strengthening their sovereignty and defence capability. Much has been done to create sustainable foundations for national economies. By the mid-1980s, with the participation of our specialists, over 330 large infrastructure and industrial facilities have been built in Africa, such as power plants, irrigation systems, industrial and agricultural enterprises, which are successfully operating to this day, and continue to make a significant contribution to the continent’s economic development. Tens of thousands of African doctors, technical specialists, engineers, officers and teachers have received education in Russia.

I would like to specifically mention the traditionally close cooperation on the world stage, the firm and consistent advocacy rendered by the USSR and then Russia to African countries at international fora. We have always strictly adhered to the “African solutions to African problems” principle, standing in solidarity with Africans in their struggle for self-determination, justice and their legitimate rights. We have never tried to impose on partners our own ideas about the internal structure, forms and methods of management, development goals and ways to achieve them. Unchanged remains our respect for the sovereignty of African states, their traditions and values, their desire to independently determine their own destiny and freely build relationships with partners.

We highly value the honestly-gained capital of friendship and cooperation, traditions of trust and mutual support that Russia and African countries share. We are brought together by a common desire to shape a system of relations based on the priority of international law, respect for national interests, indivisibility of security, and recognition of the central coordinating role of the United Nations.

Today, the constructive, trustful, forward-looking partnership between Russia and Africa is especially significant and important. Major centres of economic and political power and influence are emerging in the world, which are asserting themselves more and more insistently, demanding that they be reckoned with. We are sure that a new multipolar world order, the contours of which are already seen, will be more just and democratic. And there is no doubt that Africa, along with Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, will take its worthy place in it and finally free itself from the bitter legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism, rejecting its modern practices.

Russia welcomes the rising international authority of individual states as well as Africa as a whole, their desire to make their voices strongly heard and to take the continent's problems into their own hands. We have always supported the constructive initiatives of our partners. We stand for granting African countries their rightful place in the structures that determine the world’s fate, including the UN Security Council and the G20, as well as for reforming the global financial and trade institutions in a way that meets their interests.

Regrettably, we see that the situation in the world today is far from stable. The long-standing conflicts that exist in nearly every region are deepening, and new threats and challenges are emerging. And Africa feels the burden of global challenges like no other part of the world. In such a challenging environment, we look forward to working with our African partners to shape a non-discriminatory agenda for cooperation. The strategic areas of our interaction are set by the decisions of the first Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi in late October 2019. The Russia-Africa Partnership Forum was established for their effective implementation. We have set up bilateral intergovernmental commissions for trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation with many countries of the continent, and the network of Russian embassies and trade missions in Africa will be expanded. Further instruments are being actively developed to better structure economic relations and make them more dynamic.

I would like to note with satisfaction that Russia’s trade turnover with the African countries increased in 2022 and reached almost 18 billion US dollars. However, we are all well aware that the potential of our trade and economic partnership is much higher. Russian companies are interested in working more actively on the continent in the sphere of high technologies and geological exploration, in the fuel and energy complex, including nuclear power, in the chemical industry, mining and transport engineering, agriculture and fishery. The changes taking place in the world require the search for solutions related to the establishment of new transport and logistical chains, the formation of a monetary and financial system, and mechanisms of mutual settlements that are safe and free from unfavourable external impacts.

We understand the importance of uninterrupted food supplies for the socio-economic development and political stability of the African states. On this basis, we have always paid great attention to issues related to the supply of wheat, barley, maize and other crops to African countries. We have done so both on a contractual basis and free of charge as humanitarian aid, including through the United Nations Food Programme. Thus, in 2022, Russia exported 11.5 million tonnes of grain to Africa, and almost 10 million tonnes more were delivered in the first half of 2023 – despite the sanctions imposed on our exports, which severely hamper the supply of Russian food products to developing countries, complicating transport logistics, insurance arrangements and bank payments.

Many have probably heard of the so-called “grain deal,” whose initial purpose was to ensure global food security, reduce the threat of hunger and help the poorest countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America – the reason why Russia undertook the obligation to facilitate its implementation in the first place. This “deal,” however, while it was publicly advertised by the West as a gesture of goodwill that benefited Africa, has in fact been shamelessly used solely for the enrichment of large US and European businesses that exported and resold grain from Ukraine.

Judge for yourselves: in almost a year, a total of 32.8 million tonnes of supplies were exported from Ukraine under the “deal,” with over 70 percent of the exports ending up in high- and upper-middle-income countries, including in the European Union, whereas such countries as Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia, as well as Yemen and Afghanistan, received less than 3 percent of the supplies, i.e. less than one million tonnes.

In the meantime, none of the “deal” provisions relating to the exemption from sanctions of Russian grain and fertiliser exports to world markets, were fulfilled. Moreover, barriers have been mounted even to our attempts to supply free of charge mineral fertilisers to the poorest countries in need. Of 262,000 tonnes of goods blocked in European ports, only two shipments were delivered – one of 20,000 tonnes to Malawi and one of 34,000 tonnes to Kenya. The rest is still unscrupulously held by the Europeans. And this is a purely humanitarian initiative we are talking about, which should be exempt from any sanctions as such.

Considering all these facts, there is no longer any use in continuing the “grain deal” as it has failed to serve its original humanitarian purpose. We argued against further extending the “deal,” which terminated as of July 18.

I want to give assurances that our country is capable of replacing the Ukrainian grain both on a commercial and free-of-charge basis, especially as we expect another record harvest this year.

Notwithstanding the sanctions, Russia will continue its energetic efforts to provide supplies of grain, food products, fertilisers and other goods to Africa. We highly value and will further develop the full spectrum of economic ties with Africa – with individual states as well as regional integration associations and, naturally, with the African Union. We welcome this organisation's strategic course towards further economic integration and the formation of the African Continental Free Trade Area. We are ready to build pragmatic, mutually beneficial relations, including within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. We are also willing to step up cooperation with other regional integration organisations on the continent.

In keeping with the existing tradition, we intend to continue providing assistance to African states in building their national human resource capacity. There are currently about 35 thousand students from the continent in Russia, more than 6,000 of them receive Russian government scholarships. Each year we increase the number of scholarships, promote paid higher education options and facilitate inter-university ties, which have gained significant momentum in recent times.

Bringing humanitarian, cultural, sports and mass media cooperation to a whole new level would serve our common interests. I would like to seize this opportunity to invite our young African friends to the World Youth Festival, which will take place in Sochi, Russia, in March 2024. This large-scale international forum will bring together more than 20,000 participants from more than 180 countries for an informal, friendly and open dialogue that is free from ideological and political barriers, racial and religious prejudice and would consolidate the young generation around the ideals of lasting and durable peace, prosperity and creative spirit.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we attach great importance to the upcoming second Russia–Africa Summit. We expect that the Summit would adopt a comprehensive Declaration, a number of joint statements and approve the Russia – Africa Partnership Forum Action Plan to 2026. We are working to prepare an impressive package of intergovernmental and inter‑agency agreements and memoranda with individual states as well as regional associations of the continent.

I am looking forward to welcoming the African leaders in St. Petersburg and stand committed to a fruitful constructive dialogue. I firmly believe that the decisions adopted at the Summit and Forum, coupled with continuous diversified joint work will contribute to further development of Russian‑African strategic partnership for the benefit of our countries and peoples.

Vladimir Putin’s Article for People’s Daily Newspaper, Russia and China: A Future-Bound Partnership

2023-03-19T18:52:26+04:00

I am glad to seize this opportunity to address the friendly Chinese people in one of the largest and most authoritative world media in advance of the state visit of President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping to Russia. This landmark event reaffirms the special nature of the Russia-China partnership, which has always been built on mutual trust, respect for each other's sovereignty and interests.

We have high expectations for the upcoming talks. We have no doubt that they will give a new powerful impetus to our bilateral cooperation in its entirety. This is also a great opportunity for me to meet with my good old friend with whom we enjoy the warmest relationship.

I made acquaintance with Comrade Xi Jinping in March 2010 when he visited Moscow as head of a high-level Chinese delegation. Our first meeting was held in a very business-like and at the same time sincere and friendly atmosphere. I really like this style of communication. I know that people in China attach great importance to friendship and personal relationships. It is no coincidence that Confucius the Sage said: ”Is it not a joy to have friends coming from afar!“ In Russia we share this value and hold real friends for brothers. Our two peoples have very much in common here.

Three years later, about the same days in March, we met again in the capital of Russia. It was Xi Jinping's first state visit to our country after his election as President of the People's Republic of China. The summit set the tone and dynamics of Russia-China relations for many years to come, became clear evidence of the special nature of relations between Russia and China, and outlined the trajectory for their accelerated and sustainable development.

Since then, a decade has passed, which is but a fleeting moment in the history of our countries sharing a centuries-old tradition of good neighbourliness and cooperation. During this time, the world has seen many changes, often not for the better. Yet the main thing has remained unchanged: I am talking of the firm friendship between Russia and China, which is consistently growing stronger for the benefit and in the interest of our countries and peoples. The progress made in the development of bilateral ties is impressive. The Russia-China relations have reached the highest level in their history and are gaining even more strength; they surpass Cold War-time military-political alliances in their quality, with no one to constantly order and no one to constantly obey, without limitations or taboos. We have reached an unprecedented level of trust in our political dialogue, our strategic cooperation has become truly comprehensive in nature and is standing on the brink of a new era. President Xi Jinping and I have met about 40 times and have always found time and opportunity to talk in a variety of official formats as well as at no‑tie events.

Our priorities include trade and economic partnership. In 2022, our bilateral trade, which had already been considerable by the time, doubled to reach USD 185 billion. This is a new record. What is more, we have every reason to believe that the USD 200 billion target, which was set by President Xi Jinping and myself, will be exceeded as early as this year instead of 2024. It is noteworthy that the share of settlements in national currencies in our mutual trade is growing, further strengthening the sovereignty of our relations.

Long-term joint plans and programs are being successfully implemented. It will be no exaggeration to say that the Power of Siberia Russian-Chinese gas pipeline has become the ”deal of the century“ for its scale. The supplies of Russian oil and coal have increased significantly. Our specialists are involved in building new nuclear power units in China, while Chinese companies actively engage in LNG projects; our industrial and agricultural cooperation is growing stronger. Together we explore outer space and develop new technologies.

Russia and China are powers with ancient and unique traditions and an enormous cultural heritage. Now that all pandemic-related restrictions on mutual contacts have been lifted, it is important that we increase humanitarian and tourist exchanges as soon as possible, thereby strengthening the social basis of the Russian-Chinese partnership. Interstate thematic years have a special role to play in this context. For example, the 2022/2023 biennium is dedicated to cooperation in the field of physical culture and sports, which is very popular among our citizens.

Unlike some countries claiming hegemony and bringing discord to the global harmony, Russia and China are literally and figuratively building bridges. Last year our border regions were connected by two new bridge crossings over the Amur river, which has been a ”river of friendship“ since time immemorial. Amidst the ”waves and winds“ that sweep the planet, we closely cooperate in international affairs and effectively coordinate our foreign policy positions, counter common threats, and respond to current challenges, standing shoulder to shoulder as a ”rock amid a fast flowing stream.“ We actively promote democratic multilateral structures such as the SCO and BRICS, which become more and more authoritative and influential and attract new partners and friends. The work aimed at coordinating the development of the Eurasian Economic Union with the One Belt, One Road Initiative also goes in this vein.

Our countries, together with like-minded actors, have consistently advocated the shaping of a more just multipolar world order based on international law rather than certain ”rules“ serving the needs of the ”golden billion.“ Russia and China have consistently worked to create an equitable, open and inclusive regional and global security system that is not directed against third countries. In this regard, we note the constructive role of China's Global Security Initiative, which is in line with the Russian approaches in this area.

We can feel the geopolitical landscape in the outside world change dramatically. Sticking more stubbornly than ever to its obsolete dogmata and vanishing dominance, the ”Collective West“ is gambling on the fates of entire states and peoples. The US's policy of simultaneously deterring Russia and China, as well as all those who do not bend to the American dictation, is getting ever more fierce and aggressive. The international security and cooperation architecture is being dismantled. Russia has been labelled an ”immediate threat“ and China a ”strategic competitor.“

We appreciate the well-balanced stance on the events in Ukraine adopted by the PRC, as well as its understanding of their historical background and root causes. We welcome China's readiness to make a meaningful contribution to the settlement of the crisis. Like our friends in China, we advocate for the strict compliance with the UN Charter, respect for the norms of international law, including humanitarian law. We are committed to the principle of the indivisibility of security, which is being grossly violated by the NATO bloc. We are deeply concerned over the irresponsible and outright dangerous actions that jeopardize nuclear security. We reject illegitimate unilateral sanctions, which must be lifted.

Russia is open to the political and diplomatic resolution of the Ukraine crisis. It was not Russia who broke off the peace talks back in April 2022. The future of the peace process depends solely on the will to engage in a meaningful discussion taking into account current geopolitical realities. Unfortunately, the ultimatum nature of requirements placed on Russia shows that their authors are detached from these realities and lack interest in finding a solution to the situation.

The crisis in Ukraine, which was provoked and is being diligently fuelled by the West, is the most striking, yet not the only, manifestation of its desire to retain its international dominance and preserve the unipolar world order. It is crystal clear that NATO is striving for a global reach of activities and seeking to penetrate the Asia-Pacific. It obvious that there are forces persistently working to split the common Eurasian space into a network of ”exclusive clubs“ and military blocs that would serve to contain our countries' development and harm their interests. This won't work.

In fact, today, the Russia-China relations serve as the cornerstone of regional and global stability, driving the economic growth and securing the positive agenda in international affairs. They provide an example of harmonious and constructive cooperation between major powers.

I am convinced that our friendship and partnership based on the strategic choice of the peoples of the two countries will further grow and gain strength for the well-being and prosperity of Russia and China. This visit of the President of the PRC to Russia will undoubtedly contribute to that.

Article by Vladimir Putin ”Russia and China: A Future-Oriented Strategic Partnership“ for the Chinese News Agency Xinhua

2022-02-02T13:06:18+04:00

On the eve of my upcoming visit to China, I am pleased to address directly the large Chinese and foreign audience of Xinhua, the world's largest news agency.

Our countries are close neighbours bound by centuries-old traditions of friendship and trust. We highly appreciate that Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation, entering a new era, have reached an unprecedented level and have become a model of efficiency, responsibility, and aspiration for the future. The basic principles and guidelines for joint work were defined by our countries in the Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, the twentieth anniversary of which we celebrated last year. These are, first and foremost, equality, consideration of one another's interests, freedom from political and ideological circumstances, as well as from the vestiges of the past. These are the principles we are consistently building on year after year in the spirit of continuity to deepen our political dialogue. Despite the difficulties caused by the coronavirus pandemic, we are striving to dynamically build the capacity of economic partnerships and expand humanitarian exchanges.

During the upcoming visit, the President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping and I will thoroughly discuss key issues on the bilateral, regional, and global agendas. It is symbolic that our meeting will take place during the Spring Festival – the Chinese Lunar New Year. After all, as the Chinese saying goes, ”make your whole year's plan in the spring“.

The development of business ties will certainly be given special attention. There is every opportunity for this as our countries have substantial financial, industrial, technological and human resources allowing us to successfully resolve long-term development issues. By working together, we can achieve stable economic growth and improve the well-being of our citizens, strengthen our competitiveness, and stand together against today's risks and challenges.

At the end of 2021, the volume of mutual trade increased by more than a third, exceeding the record level of 140 billion U.S. dollars. We are well on the way towards our goal of increasing the volume of trade to 200 billion U.S. dollars a year. A number of important initiatives are being implemented in the investment, manufacturing, and agro-industrial sectors. In particular, the portfolio of the Intergovernmental Commission on Investment Cooperation includes 65 projects worth over 120 billion U.S. dollars. This is about collaboration in such industries as mining and mineral processing, infrastructure construction, and agriculture.

We are consistently expanding the practice of settlements in national currencies and creating mechanisms to offset the negative impact of unilateral sanctions. A major milestone in this work was the signing of the Agreement between the Government of Russia and the Government of the PRC on payments and settlements in 2019.

A mutually beneficial energy alliance is being formed between our countries. Along with long-term supplies of Russian hydrocarbons to China, we have plans to implement a number of large-scale joint projects. The construction of four new power units at Chinese nuclear power plants with the participation of Rosatom State Corporation launched last year is one of them. All this significantly strengthens the energy security of China and the Asia region as a whole.

We see an array of opportunities in the development of partnerships in information and communication technologies, medicine, space exploration, including the use of national navigation systems and the International Lunar Research Station project. A serious impetus to strengthening bilateral ties was given by the cross Years of Russian-Chinese Scientific, Technical and Innovative Cooperation in 2020–2021.

We are grateful to our Chinese colleagues for their assistance in launching the production of Russian Sputnik V and Sputnik Light vaccines in China and for the timely supply of necessary protective equipment to our country. We hope that this cooperation will develop and strengthen.

One of Russia's strategic objectives is to accelerate the social and economic upliftment of Siberia and the Russian Far East. These territories are immediate neighbors of the PRC. We also intend to actively develop interregional ties. Thus, the modernization of the Baikal-Amur Mainline and the Trans-Siberian Railway has been started. By 2024, their capacity must increase one and a half times through higher volumes of transit cargo and reduced transport time. The port infrastructure in the Russian Far East is also growing. All this should further enhance the complementarity of the Russian and Chinese economies.

And, of course, the conservation of nature and shared ecosystems remains an important area of bilateral cross-border and interregional cooperation. These issues have always been the focus of our countries' public attention, and we will certainly discuss them in detail during the negotiations, as well as a wide range of humanitarian topics.

Russia and China are countries with thousands of years of unique traditions and tremendous cultural heritage, the interest in which is persistently high both in our countries and abroad. It is true that in the last two years the number of tourists, joint mass events, and direct contacts between our citizens has reduced due to the pandemic. However, I have no doubt that we will catch up and, as soon as the situation allows, will launch new outreach and educational programs to introduce our citizens to the history and present-day life of the two countries. Thus, President Xi Jinping and I have agreed to hold the Years of Russian-Chinese cooperation in physical fitness and sports in 2022 and 2023.

Certainly, an important part of the visit will be a discussion of relevant international topics. The coordination of the foreign policy of Russia and China is based on close and coinciding approaches to solving global and regional issues. Our countries play an important stabilizing role in today's challenging international environment, promoting the democratization of the system of interstate relations to make it more equitable and inclusive. We are working together to strengthen the central coordinating role of the United Nations in global affairs and to prevent the international legal system, with the UN Charter at its centre, from being eroded.

Russia and China are actively cooperating on the broadest agenda within BRICS, RIC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as other associations. Within the G20, we are committed to taking national specifics into account when formulating our recommendations, be it the fight against pandemics or the implementation of the climate agenda. Thanks to a large extent to our countries' shared solidarity, following the 2021 G20 Summit in Rome informed decisions were made on international cooperation to restore economic growth, recognize vaccines and vaccine certificates, optimize energy transitions, and reduce digitalization risks.

We also have convergent positions on international trade issues. We advocate maintaining an open, transparent and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system based on the rules of the World Trade Organization. We support relaunching of global supply chains. Back in March 2020, Russia proposed an initiative on ”green trade corridors“ that excludes any sanctions, political and administrative barriers. Its implementation is a useful aid to overcoming the economic consequences of the pandemic.

The XXIV Olympic Winter Games starting in Beijing are a major event of global significance. Russia and China are leading sporting nations renowned for their sporting traditions and not once have hosted the largest international competitions with dignity. I fondly remember my visit to Beijing in August 2008 to attend the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony. Guests and athletes from Russia will remember the vivid performance for a long time, and the Games themselves were organized with the scale and exceptional hospitality inherent to our Chinese friends. For our part, we were delighted to host President Xi Jinping at the opening of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Sadly, attempts by a number of countries to politicize sports to the benefit of their ambitions have recently intensified. This is fundamentally wrong and contrary to the very spirit and principles of the Olympic Charter. The power and greatness of sports are that it brings people together, gives moments of triumph and pride for the country and delights with fair, just and uncompromising competition. And these approaches are shared by most of the states participating in the international Olympic Movement.

Our Chinese friends have done tremendous work to prepare well for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. I am convinced that China's extensive experience in the excellent organization of representative international competitions will make it possible to hold this festival of world sports at the highest level. I would like to wish the Russian and Chinese teams impressive results and new records!

I send my warmest congratulations to the friendly people of China on the occasion of the Spring Festival, which marks the beginning of the Year of the Tiger. I wish you good health, prosperity, and success.

Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“

2021-07-13T12:54:16+04:00

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today's situation.

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.

To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.

The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, ”Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“

Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.

The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan's devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which – most significantly – was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.

Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas – Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk – fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry Ivanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila – son of the Princess of Tver – led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.

Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.

At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. It so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes – the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky – cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.

In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. In the 14th century, Lithuania's ruling elite converted to Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.

As a consequence, in the 16–17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. In January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.

In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking ”the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. It means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.

Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would ”detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).

The name ”Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word ”Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.

On the right bank, which remained under the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.

During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa's rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.

Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate – an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure – and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country – its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.

In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian – and later Austro-Hungarian – Empire.

The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.

Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage. Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it?

The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.

I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the ”Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.

At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis – and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such ”hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.

Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War I, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.

Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.

After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. In November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.

In December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.

The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.

For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.

In November 1918 – following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary – Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that ”Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. It was now the time of the so-called Directorate.

In autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People's Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People's Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.

In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the ”heroes“ in today's Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up – in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura's forces surrendered to those same Poles.

The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks' supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.

Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic's leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that ”one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.

Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands – the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War II, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.

In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin's plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ”parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that ”the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.

In the 1920's-1930's, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.

The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.

In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.

I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine ”with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ – as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.

Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.

The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.

When working on this article, I relied on open-source documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external ”patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks' efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.

Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU's leading role. But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.

What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!

You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? I will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.

In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people's views.

The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990's and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever ”political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991–2013, Ukraine's budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.

Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.

Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.

Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine's electricity production, which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine's GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe's poorest country.

Who is to blame for this? Is it the people of Ukraine's fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.

Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.

Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine's top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the ”aggressor state“ is.

When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events – at first gradually, and then more rapidly – started to move in a different direction.

In essence, Ukraine's ruling circles decided to justify their country's independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.

Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else's geopolitical will.

I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia's repeated calls for dialogue.

Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. Inevitably, there came a time when the concept of ”Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.

The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.

Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.

All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new ”Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the ”purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.

Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on ”indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.

There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be – Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.

But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.

Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.

I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.

For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot Ivan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.

The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.

The coup d'état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.

Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.

During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine's representatives regularly declare their ”full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of ”unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the ”victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.

Apparently, and I am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk‑1 and Minsk‑2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add – under the protection and control of the Western powers.

This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military ”development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on ”indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.

This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today's generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.

The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.

In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as ”pro-Russian“ agents.

Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.

Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.

All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us.

We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.

I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.

Article by Vladimir Putin ”Being Open, Despite the Past“

2021-06-22T10:22:47+04:00

An article by the President of Russia has been published in the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit and is timed to coincide with the 80^th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic war.

Being Open, Despite the Past

On June 22, 1941, exactly 80 years ago, the Nazis, having conquered practically the whole of Europe, attacked the USSR. For the Soviet people the Great Patriotic War – the bloodiest one in the history of our country – began. Tens of millions of people lost their lives, the economic potential of the country and its cultural property were severely damaged.

We are proud of the courage and steadfastness of the heroes of the Red Army and home front workers who not only defended the independence and dignity of our homeland, but also saved Europe and the world from enslavement. Despite attempts to rewrite the pages of the past that are being made today, the truth is that Soviet soldiers came to Germany not to take revenge on the Germans, but with a noble and great mission of liberation. We hold sacred the memory of the heroes who fought against Nazism. We remember with gratitude our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, participants in the Resistance movement, and German anti-fascists who brought our common victory closer.

Having lived through the horrors of the world war, the peoples of Europe were nevertheless able to overcome alienation and restore mutual trust and respect. They set a course for integration in order to draw a final line under the European tragedies of the first half of the last century. And I would like to emphasize that the historical reconciliation of our people with the Germans living both in the east and the west of modern united Germany played a huge role in the formation of such Europe.

I would also like to remind that it was German entrepreneurs who became ”pioneers“ of cooperation with our country in the post-war years. In 1970, the USSR and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a ”deal of the century“ on long-term natural gas supplies to Europe that laid the foundation for constructive interdependence and initiated many future grand projects, including the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

We hoped that the end of the Cold War would be a common victory for Europe. It seemed that just a little more effort was needed to make Charles de Gaulle's dream of a single continent – not even geographically ”from the Atlantic to the Urals“, but culturally and civilizationally ”from Lisbon to Vladivostok“ – become a reality.

It is exactly with this logic in mind – the logic of building a Greater Europe united by common values and interests – that Russia has sought to develop its relations with the Europeans. Both Russia and the EU have done a lot on this path.

But a different approach has prevailed. It was based on the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance which was itself a relic of the Cold War. After all, it was specifically created for the confrontation of that era.

It was the bloc's movement eastwards – which, by the way, began when the Soviet leadership was actually persuaded to accept the united Germany's accession to NATO – that turned into the main reason for the rapid increase in mutual mistrust in Europe. Verbal promises made in that time such as ”this is not directed against you“ or ”the bloc's borders will not get closer to you“ were quickly forgotten. But a precedent was set.

And since 1999, five more “waves” of NATO expansion have followed. Fourteen new countries, including the former Soviet Union republics, joined the organization, effectively dashing hopes for a continent without dividing lines. Interestingly, this was warned about in the mid-1980s by Egon Bahr, one of the SPD leaders, who proposed a radical restructuring of the entire European security system after German unification, involving both the USSR and the United States. But no one in the USSR, the USA or Europe was willing to listen to him at the time.

Moreover, many countries were put before the artificial choice of being either with the collective West or with Russia. In fact, it was an ultimatum. The Ukrainian tragedy of 2014 is an example of the consequences that this aggressive policy has led to. Europe actively supported the unconstitutional armed coup in Ukraine. This was where it all started. Why was it necessary to do this? Then incumbent president Yanukovych had already accepted all the demands of the opposition. Why did the USA organize the coup and the European countries weak-heartedly support it, provoking a split within Ukraine and the withdrawal of Crimea?

The whole system of European security has now degraded significantly. Tensions are rising and the risks of a new arms race are becoming real. We are missing out on the tremendous opportunities that cooperation offers – all the more important now that we are all facing common challenges, such as the pandemic and its dire social and economic consequences.

Why does this happen? And most importantly, what conclusions should we draw together? What lessons of history should we recall? I think, first and foremost, that the entire post-war history of Greater Europe confirms that prosperity and security of our common continent is only possible through the joint efforts of all countries, including Russia. Because Russia is one of the largest countries in Europe. And we are aware of our inseparable cultural and historical connection to Europe.

We are open to honest and constructive interaction. This is confirmed by our idea of creating a common space of cooperation and security from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean which would comprise various integration formats, including the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.

I reiterate that Russia is in favour of restoring a comprehensive partnership with Europe. We have many topics of mutual interest. These include security and strategic stability, healthcare and education, digitalization, energy, culture, science and technology, resolution of climate and environmental issues.

The world is a dynamic place, facing new challenges and threats. We simply cannot afford to carry the burden of past misunderstandings, hard feelings, conflicts, and mistakes. It is a burden that will prevent us from concentrating on the challenges at hand. We are convinced that we all should recognize these mistakes and correct them. Our common and indisputable goal is to ensure security on the continent without dividing lines, a common space for equitable cooperation and inclusive development for the prosperity of Europe and the world as a whole.

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future

2020-12-24T19:51:18+04:00

75 years have passed since the end of the Great Patriotic War. Several generations have grown up over the years. The political map of the planet has changed. The Soviet Union that claimed an epic and crushing victory over Nazism and saved the entire world is gone. Besides, the events of that war have long become a distant memory, even for its participants. So why does Russia celebrate May 9 as the biggest holiday? Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump rise in their throat?

They usually say that the war has left a deep imprint on every family’s history. Behind these words, there are fates of millions of people, their sufferings and the pain of loss. Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He made the same decision as millions of Soviet citizens. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. The more years pass, the more I feel the need to talk to my parents and learn more about the war period of their lives. But I no longer have the opportunity to do so. This is the reason why I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure. They need to understand how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. Where did their sheer and unbending willpower that amazed and fascinated the whole world come from? Yes, they were defending their homes, children, loved ones and families, but more importantly, they shared the love for their homeland, their Motherland. That deep-seated and intimate feeling is fully reflected in the very essence of our nation and became one of the decisive factors in its heroic and sacrificial fight against the Nazis.

People often wonder what would today’s generation do? How will it act when faced with a crisis situation? I see young doctors, nurses and sometimes fresh graduates that go to the ‘red zone’ to save lives. I see our servicemen fighting international terrorism in the North Caucasus and fighting to the bitter end in Syria. They are so young! Many servicemen who were part of the legendary immortal 6th Paratroop Company were 19–20 years old. But all of them proved that they deserved to inherit the feat of the warriors of our Motherland that defended it during the Great Patriotic War.

This is why I am confident that one of the characteristic features of the peoples of Russia is to fulfil their duty without feeling sorry for themselves when the circumstances so demand. Such values as selflessness, patriotism, love for their home, their family and Mortherland remain fundamental and integral to the Russian society to this day. These values are, to a large extent, the backbone of our country’s sovereignty. Nowadays, we have new traditions created by the people, such as the Immortal Regiment.

This is the memory march that symbolized our gratitude, as well as the living connection and the blood ties between generations. Millions of people come out to the streets carrying the photographs of their relatives who defended their Mortherland and defeated the Nazis. This means that their lives, the ordeals and sacrifices they endured, as well as the Victory that they passed to us will never be forgotten.

We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War. I have discussed this idea on several occasions with world leaders, and they have showed their support. At the summit of CIS leaders held at the end of last year, we all agreed on one thing: it is essential to pass on to future generations the memory of the fact that the Nazis were defeated first and foremost by the entire Soviet people and that representatives of all republics of the Soviet Union fought side by side together in that heroic battle, both on the frontlines and in the rear. During that summit, I also talked with my counterparts about the challenging pre-war period.

That conversation caused a stir in Europe and the world. It means that it is indeed high time that we revisited the lessons of the past. At the same time, there were many emotional outbursts, poorly disguised insecurities and loud accusations that followed. Acting out of habit, certain politicians rushed to claim that Russia was trying to rewrite history. However, they failed to rebut a single fact or refute a single argument. It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to argue with the original documents that, by the way, can be found not only in Russian, but also in foreign archives.

Thus, there is a need to further examine the reasons that caused the world war and reflect on its complicated events, tragedies and victories, as well as its lessons, both for our country and the entire world. And like I said, it is crucial to rely exclusively on archive documents and contemporary evidence while avoiding any ideological or politicized speculations.

I would like to once again recall the obvious fact. The root causes of World War II mainly stem from the decisions made after World War I. The Treaty of Versailles became a symbol of grave injustice for Germany. It basically implied that the country was to be robbed, being forced to pay enormous reparations to the Western allies that drained its economy. French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who served as the Supreme Allied Commander gave a prophetic description of that Treaty: “This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”

It was the national humiliation that became a fertile ground for radical and revenge-seeking sentiments in Germany. The Nazis skillfully played on people’s emotions and built their propaganda promising to deliver Germany from the “legacy of Versailles” and restore the country to its former power while essentially pushing German people into war. Paradoxically, the Western states, particularly the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly contributed to this. Their financial and industrial circles actively invested in German factories and plants manufacturing military products. Besides, many people in the aristocracy and political establishment supported radical, far-right and nationalist movements that were on the rise both in Germany and in Europe.

“Versailles world order” caused numerous implicit controversies and apparent conflicts. They revolved around the borders of new European states randomly set by the victors in World War I. That boundary delimitation was almost immediately followed by territorial disputes and mutual claims that turned into “time bombs.”

One of the major outcomes of World War I was the establishment of the League of Nations. There were high expectations for that international organization to ensure lasting peace and collective security. This was a progressive idea that, if followed through consistently, could actually prevent the horrors of a global war from happening again.

However, the League of Nations dominated by the victorious powers of France and the United Kingdom proved ineffective and just got swamped by pointless discussions. The League of Nations and the European continent in general turned a deaf ear to the repeated calls of the Soviet Union to establish an equitable collective security system and sign Eastern European and Pacific pacts to prevent aggression. These proposals were disregarded.

The League of Nations also failed to prevent conflicts in various parts of the world, such as the attack of Italy on Ethiopia, the civil war in Spain, the Japanese aggression against China and the Anschluss of Austria. Furthermore, in case of the Munich Betrayal that, in addition to Hitler and Mussolini, involved British and French leaders, Czechoslovakia was taken apart with the full approval of the Council of the League of Nations. I would like to point out in this regard that, unlike many other European leaders of that time, Stalin did not disgrace himself by meeting with Hitler who was known among the Western nations as quite a reputable politician and was a welcome guest in the European capitals.

Poland was also engaged in the partition of Czechoslovakia along with Germany. They decided together in advance who would get what Czechoslovak territories. On September 20, 1938, Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski reported to Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Józef Beck on the following assurances made by Hitler: “…in case of a conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia over our interests in Teschen, the Reich would stand by Poland.” The Nazi leader even prompted and advised that Poland started to act “only after the Germans occupy the Sudetes…” (Document No. 1)

Poland was aware that without Hitler’s support, its annexationist plans were doomed to fail. I would like to quote in this regard a record of the conversation between German Ambassador to Warsaw Hans-Adolf von Moltke and Józef Beck that took place on October 1, 1938, and was focused on the Polish-Czech relations and the position of the Soviet Union in this matter. It says: “Mr. Beck… expressed his great gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded to Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The Government and the public [of Poland] fully appreciate the position of the Fuehrer and Chancellor…” (Document No. 2)

The partition of Czechoslovakia was brutal and cynical. Munich destroyed even the formal, fragile guarantees that remained on the continent. It showed that mutual agreements were worthless. It was the Munich Betrayal that served as the “trigger” and made the great war in Europe inevitable.

Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. Why? The fact that their countries once broke their commitments and supported the Munich Betrayal, with some of them even participating in divvying up the take, is not the only reason. Another is that it is kind of embarrassing to recall that during those dramatic days of 1938, the Soviet Union was the only one to stand up for Czechoslovakia.

The Soviet Union, in accordance with its international obligations, including agreements with France and Czechoslovakia, tried to prevent the tragedy from happening. Meanwhile, Poland, in pursuit of its interests, was doing its utmost to hamper the establishment of a collective security system in Europe. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Beck wrote about it directly in his letter of September 19, 1938, to the aforementioned Ambassador Józef Lipski before his meeting with Hitler: “over the past year, the Polish government four times rejected the proposal to join the international intervention in defense of Czechoslovakia.” (Document No. 3)

Britain, as well as France, which was at the time the main ally of the Czechs and Slovaks, chose to withdraw their guarantees and abandon this Eastern European country to its fate. In so doing, they sought to direct the attention of the Nazis eastward so that Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white.

That was the essence of the western policy of ‘appeasement,’ which was pursued not only towards the Third Reich but also towards other participants of the so-called Anti-Comintern Pact – the fascist Italy and militarist Japan. In the Far East, this policy culminated in the conclusion of the Anglo- Japanese agreement in the summer of 1939, which gave Tokyo a free hand in China. The leading European powers were unwilling to recognize the mortal danger posed by Germany and its allies to the whole world. They were hoping that they themselves would be left untouched by the war.

The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account. In fact, they could even create an anti-Soviet front, if needed.

Nevertheless, the Soviet Union did its utmost to use every chance to create an Anti-Hitler coalition. Despite – I will say it again – the double dealing on the part of the Western countries. For instance, the intelligence services reported to the Soviet leadership detailed information on the behind-the-scenes contacts between Britain and Germany in the summer of 1939. The important thing is that those contacts were quite active and practically coincided with the tripartite negotiations between France, Great Britain and the USSR, which were, on the contrary, deliberately protracted by the Western partners. In this connection, I will cite a document from the British archives. It contains instructions to the British military mission that came to Moscow in August 1939. It directly states that the delegation was to “go very slowly with the conversations” and that “the British Government is unwilling to enter into any detailed commitments which are likely to tie our hands in all circumstances.” (Document No. 4) I will also note that, unlike the British and French delegations, the Soviet delegation was headed by top commanders of the Red Army, who had the necessary authority to “sign the military convention on the organization of military defense of England, France and the USSR against aggression in Europe.” (Document No. 5)

Poland played its role in the failure of those negotiations as it did not want to have any obligations to the Soviet side. Even under pressure from their Western allies, the Polish leadership rejected the idea of joint action with the Red Army to fight against the Wehrmacht. It was only when they learned of the arrival of Joachim von Ribbentrop to Moscow that Józef Beck reluctantly and not directly, but through French diplomats, notified the Soviet side: “… in the event of a joint action against the German aggression, cooperation between Poland and the Soviet Union, subject to technical conditions to be determined, is not excluded (or is possible)…” (Document No. 6). At the same time, he explained to his colleagues: “… I was not against to this wording only for the sake of facilitating tactics, but our principled position with regard to the Soviet Union was final and remained unchanged.” (Document No. 7)

In these circumstances, the Soviet Union signed the Non- Aggression Pact with Germany. It was practically the last among the European countries to do so. Besides, it was done in the face of a real threat of war on two fronts – with Germany in the west and with Japan in the east, where intense fighting on the Khalkhin Gol River was already underway.

Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them. They saw how attempts were made to leave the Soviet Union alone to deal with Germany and its allies. Bearing in mind this real threat, they sought to buy precious time needed to strengthen the country’s defenses.

Nowadays, we hear lots of speculations and accusations against modern Russia in connection with the Non- Aggression Pact signed back then. Yes, Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, and the Soviet period – with all its triumphs and tragedies – is an inalienable part of our thousand-year-long history. However, let me also remind you that the Soviet Union gave a legal and moral assessment of the so-called Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The Supreme Soviet in its resolution of December 24, 1989, officially denounced the secret protocols as “an act of personal power” which in no way reflected “the will of the Soviet people who bear no responsibility for this collusion.”

Yet other states prefer to forget the agreements carrying signatures of the Nazis and Western politicians, not to mention giving legal or political assessments of such cooperation, including the silent acquiescence – or even direct abetment – of some European politicians in the barbarous plans of the Nazis. It will suffice to remember the cynical phrase said by Polish Ambassador to Germany Józef Lipski during his conversation with Hitler on September 20, 1938: for solving the Jewish problem, “…we [the Poles] would erect a beautiful monument to him in Warsaw.” (Document No. 1)

Besides, we do not know if there were any secret “protocols” or annexes to agreements of a number of countries with the Nazis. The only thing that is left to do is to take their word for it. In particular, materials pertaining to the secret Anglo-German talks still have not been declassified. Therefore, we urge all states to step up the process of making their archives public and publishing previously unknown documents of the war and pre-war periods – the way Russia has been doing it in recent years. In this context, we are ready for broad cooperation and joint research projects engaging historians.

But let us go back to the events immediately preceding World War II. It was naïve to believe that Hitler, once done with Czechoslovakia, would not make new territorial claims. This time the claims involved its recent accomplice in the partition of Czechoslovakia – Poland. Here, the legacy of Versailles, particularly the fate of the so-called Danzig Corridor, was yet again used as the pretext. The blame for the tragedy that Poland then suffered lies entirely with the Polish leadership, which had impeded the formation of a military alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union and relied on the help from its Western partners, throwing its own people under the steamroller of Hitler’s machine of destruction.

The German offensive was mounted in full accordance with the blitzkrieg doctrine. Despite the fierce, heroic resistance of the Polish army, on September 8, 1939 – only a week after the war broke out – the German troops were on the approaches to Warsaw. By September 17, the military and political leaders of Poland had fled to Romania, betraying its people, who continued to fight against the invaders.

Poland’s hope for help from its Western allies was vain. After the war against Germany was declared, the French troops advanced only a few tens of kilometers deep into the German territory. All of it looked like a mere demonstration of vigorous action. Moreover, the Anglo-French Supreme War Council, holding its first meeting in the French city of Abbeville on September 12, 1939, decided to call off the offensive altogether in view of the rapid developments in Poland. That was when the infamous Phony War started. What Britain and France did was a blatant betrayal of their obligations to Poland.

Later, during the Nuremberg Trials, German generals explained their quick success in the East. Former Chief of the Operations Staff of the German Armed Forces High Command General Alfred Jodl admitted: “… we did not suffer defeat as early as 1939 only because about 110 French and British divisions stationed in the west against 23 German divisions during our war with Poland remained absolutely idle.”

I asked for retrieval from the archives of the whole body of materials pertaining to the contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939. According to the documents, paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939, stated that, in the event of territorial-political reorganization of the districts making up the Polish state, the border between the spheres of interest of the two countries would run “approximately along the Narew, Vistula and San rivers.” In other words, the Soviet sphere of influence included not only the territories that were mostly home to Ukrainian and Belorussian population but also the historically Polish lands in the Vistula and Bug interfluve. This fact is known to very few these days.

Similarly, very few know that, immediately after the attack on Poland, in the early days of September 1939, Berlin strongly and repeatedly called on Moscow to join the military action. However, the Soviet leadership ignored those calls and planned to avoid engaging in the dramatic developments as long as possible.

It was only when it became absolutely clear that Great Britain and France were not going to help their ally and the Wehrmacht could swiftly occupy entire Poland and thus appear on the approaches to Minsk that the Soviet Union decided to send in, on the morning of September 17, Red Army units into the so-called Eastern Borderlines (Kresy), which nowadays form part of the territories of Belorussia, Ukraine and Lithuania.

Obviously, there was no alternative. Otherwise, the USSR would face seriously increased risks because – I will say this again – the old Soviet-Polish border ran only within a few tens of kilometers from Minsk. The country would have to enter the inevitable war with the Nazis from very disadvantageous strategic positions, while millions of people of different nationalities, including the Jews living near Brest and Grodno, Przemyśl, Lvov and Wilno, would be left to die at the hands of the Nazis and their local accomplices – anti- Semites and radical nationalists.

The fact that the Soviet Union sought to avoid engaging in the growing conflict for as long as possible and was unwilling to fight side by side with Germany was the reason why the real contact between the Soviet and the German troops occurred much farther east than the borders agreed in the secret protocol. It was not on the Vistula River but closer to the so-called Curzon Line, which back in 1919 was recommended by the Triple Entente as the eastern border of Poland.

As is known, the subjunctive mood can hardly be used when we speak of the past events. I will only say that, in September 1939, the Soviet leadership had an opportunity to move the western borders of the USSR even farther west, all the way to Warsaw, but decided against it.

The Germans suggested formalizing the new status quo. On September 28, 1939, Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov signed in Moscow the Boundary and Friendship Treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the secret protocol on changing the state border, according to which the border was recognized at the demarcation line where the two armies de-facto stood.

In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union, pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Their accession to the USSR was implemented on a contractual basis, with the consent of the elected authorities. This was in line with international and state law of that time. Besides, in October 1939, the city of Wilno and the surrounding area, which had previously been part of Poland, were returned to Lithuania. The Baltic republics within the USSR preserved their government bodies, language, and had representation in the higher government entities of the Soviet Union.

During all these months there was an ongoing invisible diplomatic and politico-military struggle and intelligence work. Moscow understood that it was facing a fierce and cruel enemy, and that a covert war against Nazism was already going on. And there was no reason to take official statements and formal protocol notes of that time as a proof of ‘friendship’ between the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Union had active trade and technical contacts not only with Germany, but with other countries as well. Whereas Hitler tried again and again to draw the Soviet Union into Germany’s confrontation with the UK. But the Soviet government stood firm.

The last attempt to persuade the USSR to act together was made by Hitler during Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. But Molotov accurately followed Stalin’s instructions (Document No. 8) and limited himself to a general discussion of the German idea of the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan in September 1940 and directed against the UK and the United States. No wonder that already on November 17 Molotov gave the following instructions to Soviet plenipotentiary representative in London Ivan Maisky: “For your information…No agreement was signed or was intended to be signed in Berlin. We just exchanged our views in Berlin…and that was all…Apparently, the Germans and the Japanese seem anxious to push us towards the Gulf and India. We declined the discussion of this matter as we consider such advice on the part of Germany to be inappropriate.” (Document No. 9) On November 25, the Soviet leadership called it a day altogether by officially putting forward to Berlin the conditions that were unacceptable to the Nazis, including the withdrawal of German troops from Finland, mutual assistance treaty between Bulgaria and the USSR, and a number of others. Thus it deliberately excluded any possibility of joining the Pact. Such position definitely shaped the Fuehrer’s intention to unleash a war against the USSR. And already in December, putting aside the warnings of his strategists about the disastrous danger of having a two-front war, Hitler approved Operation Barbarossa. He did this with the knowledge that the Soviet Union was the major force that opposed him in Europe and that the upcoming battle in the East would decide the outcome of the world war. He had no doubts as to the swiftness and success of the Moscow campaign.

And here I would like to highlight the following: Western countries, as a matter of fact, agreed at that time with the Soviet actions and recognized the Soviet Union’s intention to ensure its national security. Indeed, back on October 1, 1939, Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty back then, in his speech on the radio said, “Russia has pursued a cold policy of self-interest… But that the Russian Armies should be standing on this line [meaning the new Western border] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace.” (Document No. 10) On October 26, 1939, speaking in the House of Lords, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax said, “…it should be recalled that the Soviet government’s actions were to move the border essentially to the line recommended at the Versailles Conference by Lord Curzon… I only cite historical facts and believe they are indisputable.” Prominent British politician and statesman David Lloyd George emphasized, “The Russian Armies occupied the territories that are not Polish and that were forcibly seized by Poland after World War I … It would be an act of criminal insanity to put the Russian advancement on a par with the German one.”

In informal communications with Soviet plenipotentiary representative Ivan Maisky, British high-ranking politicians and diplomats spoke even more openly. On October 17, 1939, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Richard Austen Butler confided to him that “the British government circles believed there could be no question of returning Western Ukraine and Belorussia to Poland. If it were possible to create an ethnographic Poland of a modest size with a guarantee not only of the USSR and Germany, but also of Britain and France, the British government would consider itself quite satisfied.” (Document No. 11) On October 27, 1939, Neville Chamberlain’s senior advisor Horace Wilson said that “Poland would have to be restored as an independent state on its ethnographic basis, but without Western Ukraine and Belarus.” (Document No. 12)

It is worth noting that in the course of these conversations the possibilities for improving British-Soviet relations were also explored. These contacts to a large extent laid the foundation for future alliance and Anti-Hitler coalition. Winston Churchill stood out among responsible and far- sighted politicians and, despite his infamous dislike for the USSR, had been in favor of cooperating with the Soviets even before. Back in May 1939, he said in the House of Commons, “We shall be in mortal danger if we fail to create a Grand Alliance against aggression. The worst folly… would be to… drive away any natural cooperation with Soviet Russia…” And after the start of hostilities in Europe, at his meeting with Ivan Maisky on October 6, 1939, he confided that there were “no serious contradictions between the UK and the USSR and, therefore, there was no reason for strained or unsatisfactory relations. The British government was eager to develop trade relations and willing to discuss any other measures that might improve the relationships.” (Document No. 13)

World War II did not happen overnight, nor did it start unexpectedly or all of a sudden. German aggression against Poland was not out of nowhere. It was the result of a number of tendencies and factors in the world politics of that time. All pre-war events fell into place to form one fatal chain. But, undoubtedly, the main factors that predetermined the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind were state egoism, cowardice, appeasement of the aggressor who was gaining strength, and unwillingness of political elites to search for compromise.

Therefore, it is unfair to claim that the two-day visit to Moscow of Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was the main reason for the start of World War II. All the leading countries are to a certain extent responsible for its outbreak. Each of them made fatal mistakes, arrogantly believing that they could outsmart others, secure unilateral advantages for themselves or stay away from the impending global catastrophe. This short-sightedness, the refusal to create a collective security system cost millions of lives and tremendous losses.

Saying this, I by no means intend to take on the role of a judge, who is ready to accuse or acquit anyone, let alone initiate a new round of international information confrontation in the historical field that could set countries and peoples at loggerheads. I believe that it is academics with a wide representation of respected scholars from different countries of the world who should search for a balanced assessment of what happened. We all need the truth and objectivity. On my part, I have always encouraged my colleagues to build a calm, open and trust-based dialogue, to look at the common past in a self-critical and unbiased manner. Such an approach will make it possible not to repeat the mistakes committed back then and to ensure peaceful and successful development for years to come.

However, many of our partners are not yet ready for joint work. On the contrary, pursuing their goals, they increase the number and the scope of information attacks against our country, trying to make us provide excuses and feel guilty. They adopt thoroughly hypocritical and politically motivated declarations. Thus, for example, the resolution on the Importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe approved by the European Parliament on September 19, 2019, directly accused the USSR – along with the Nazi Germany – of unleashing World War II. Needless to say, there is no mention of Munich in it whatsoever.

I believe that such ‘paperwork’ – for I cannot call this resolution a document – which is clearly intended to provoke a scandal, is fraught with real and dangerous threats, since it was adopted by a highly respectable institution. What did it show? Regrettably, it revealed a deliberate policy aimed at destroying the post-war world order whose creation was a matter of honor and responsibility for the countries a number of representatives of which voted today in favor of this deceitful resolution. Thus, they challenged the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the efforts of the international community to create universal international institutions after the victorious 1945. Let me remind you in this regard that the process of European integration itself leading to the establishment of relevant structures, including the European Parliament, became possible only due to the lessons learnt form the past and its accurate legal and political assessment. And those who deliberately put this consensus into question undermine the foundations of the entire post-war Europe.

Apart from posing a threat to the fundamental principles of the world order, this also raises certain moral and ethical issues. Desecrating and insulting the memory is mean. Meanness can be deliberate, hypocritical and pretty much intentional as in the situation when declarations commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II mention all participants in the Anti-Hitler coalition except for the Soviet Union. Meanness can be cowardly as in the situation when monuments erected in honor of those who fought against Nazism are demolished and these shameful acts are justified by the false slogans of the fight against an unwelcome ideology and alleged occupation. Meanness can also be bloody as in the situation when those who come out against neo-Nazis and Bandera’s successors are killed and burned. Once again, meanness can have different manifestations, but this does not make it less disgusting.

Neglecting the lessons of history inevitably leads to a harsh payback. We will firmly uphold the truth based on documented historical facts. We will continue to be honest and impartial about the events of World War II. This includes a large-scale project to establish Russia’s largest collection of archival records, film and photo materials about the history of World War II and the pre war period.

Such work is already underway. Many new, recently discovered or declassified materials were also used in the preparation of this article. In this connection, I can state with all responsibility that there are no archive documents that would confirm the assumption that the USSR intended to start a preventive war against Germany. The Soviet military leadership indeed followed a doctrine according to which, in the event of aggression, the Red Army would promptly confront the enemy, go on the offensive and wage war on enemy territory. However, such strategic plans did not imply any intention to attack Germany first.

Of course, military planning documents, letters of instruction of Soviet and German headquarters are now available to historians. Finally, we know the true course of events. From the perspective of this knowledge, many argue about the actions, mistakes and misjudgment of the country’s military and political leadership. In this regard, I will say one thing: along with a huge flow of misinformation of various kinds, Soviet leaders also received true information about the upcoming Nazi aggression. In the pre-war months, they took steps to improve the combat readiness of the country, including the secret recruitment of a part of those liable for military duty for military training and the redeployment of units and reserves from internal military districts to western borders.

The war did not come as a surprise, people were expecting it, preparing for it. But the Nazi attack was truly unprecedented in terms of its destructive power. On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany’s satellites and military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Combat power and control had to be restored by extreme means, nation-wide mobilization and intensification of all efforts of the state and the people. In summer 1941, millions of citizens, hundreds of factories and industries began to be evacuated under enemy fire to the east of the country. The manufacture of weapons and munition, that had started to be supplied to the front already in the first military winter, was launched behind the lines in the shortest possible time, and by 1943, the rates of military production of Germany and its allies were exceeded. Within eighteen months, the Soviet people did something that seemed impossible, both on the front lines and the home front. It is still hard to realize, understand and imagine what incredible efforts, courage, dedication these greatest achievements were worth.

The tremendous power of Soviet society, united by the desire to protect their native land, rose against the powerful, armed to the teeth, and cold-blooded Nazi invading machine. It stood up to take revenge on the enemy, who had broken and trampled peaceful life, as well as people’s plans and hopes.

Of course, fear, confusion and desperation were taking over some people during this terrible and bloody war. There were betrayal and desertion. The harsh splits caused by the revolution and the Civil War, nihilism, mockery of national history, traditions and faith that the Bolsheviks tried to impose, especially in the first years after coming to power – all of this had its impact. But the general attitude of the Soviet citizens and our compatriots who found themselves abroad was different – to save and protect the Motherland. It was a real and irrepressible impulse. People were looking for support in true patriotic values.

The Nazi ‘strategists’ were convinced that a huge multinational state could easily be brought to heel. They thought that the sudden outbreak of the war, its mercilessness and unbearable hardships would inevitably exacerbate inter- ethnic relations, and that the country could be split into pieces. Hitler clearly stated that Germany’s policy towards the peoples living in the vastness of Russia should be to promote any form of disagreement and split. (Documents No. 14 and 15)

But from the very first days, it was clear that the Nazi plan had failed. The Brest Fortress was protected to the last drop of blood by its defenders representing more than 30 ethnicities. Throughout the war – both in large-scale decisive battles and in the protection of every foothold, every meter of native land – we see examples of such unity.

The Volga region and the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia became home to millions of evacuees. Their residents shared everything they had and provided all the support they could. Friendship of peoples and mutual help became a real indestructible fortress for the enemy.

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism. These were heroes who fought to the end surrounded by the enemy at Bialystok and Mogilev, Uman and Kiev, Vyazma and Kharkov. They launched attacks near Moscow and Stalingrad, Sevastopol and Odessa, Kursk and Smolensk. They liberated Warsaw, Belgrade, Vienna and Prague. They stormed Koenigsberg and Berlin.

We contend for genuine, unvarnished or whitewashed truth about war. This national and human truth, which is hard, bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through fire and hell of front trials. For my generation, as well as for many others, their honest and deep stories, novels, piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever. Honoring veterans who did everything they could for the Victory and remembering those who died on the battlefield has become our moral duty.

Today, the simple and great in their essence lines of Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “I was killed near Rzhev …” dedicated to the participants of the bloody and brutal battle of the Great Patriotic War in the center of the Soviet-German front line are astonishing. In the battles for Rzhev and the Rzhev Salient alone from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes, who for various reasons were undeservingly and unfairly little talked about or not mentioned at all in the post-war years.

Let me cite another document. This is a draft report by Ivan Maisky for the Allied Commission on Reparations from Germany prepared in February 1945. The Commission’s task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The report concluded that “the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least ten times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also drew back…four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft.” (Document No. 16) On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army “ground up” 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together.” (Document No. 17) Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine…” (Document No. 18)

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the United States lost one in 320. Unfortunately, this figure of the Soviet Union’s hardest and grievous losses is not exhaustive. The painstaking work should be continued to restore the names and fates of all who have perished – Red Army soldiers, partisans, underground fighters, prisoners of war and concentration camps, and civilians killed by the death squads. It is our duty. Special role here belongs to members of the search movement, military patriotic and volunteer associations, projects like the electronic database “Pamyat Naroda” (Memory of the People), which contains archival documents. Surely, close international cooperation is needed in such a common humanitarian task.

The efforts of all countries and peoples who fought against a common enemy resulted in victory. The British army protected its homeland from invasion, fought the Nazis and their satellites in the Mediterranean and North Africa. American and British troops liberated Italy and opened the Second Front. The United States dealt powerful and crushing strikes against the aggressor in the Pacific Ocean. We remember the tremendous sacrifices made by the Chinese people and their great role in defeating Japanese militarists. Let us not forget the fighters of Fighting France, who did not fall for the shameful capitulation and continued to fight against the Nazis.

We will also always be grateful for the assistance rendered by the Allies in providing the Red Army with munition, raw materials, food and equipment, since that help was significant – about 7 percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union.

The core of the Anti-Hitler Coalition began to take shape immediately after the attack on the Soviet Union where the United States and Britain unconditionally supported it in the fight against Hitler’s Germany. At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill formed an alliance of great powers, agreed to elaborate coalition diplomacy and a joint strategy in the fight against a common deadly threat. The leaders of the Big Three had a clear understanding that the unification of industrial, resource and military capabilities of the USSR, the United States and the UK will give unchallenged supremacy over the enemy.

The Soviet Union fully fulfilled its obligations to its allies and always offered a helping hand. Thus, the Red Army supported the landing of the Anglo-American troops in Normandy by carrying out a large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia. In January 1945, having broken through to the Oder River, our soldiers put an end to the last powerful offensive of the Wehrmacht on the Western Front in the Ardennes. Three months after the victory over Germany, the USSR, in full accordance with the Yalta agreements, declared war on Japan and defeated the million-strong Kwantung Army.

Back in July 1941, the Soviet leadership declared that “the purpose of the war against fascist oppressors was not only the elimination of the threat looming over our country, but also help for all the peoples of Europe suffering under the yoke of German fascism.” By mid-1944, the enemy was expelled from virtually all of the Soviet territory. However, the enemy had to be finished off in its lair. So, the Red Army started its liberation mission in Europe. It saved entire nations from destruction and enslavement, and from the horror of the Holocaust. They were saved at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives of Soviet soldiers.

It is also important not to forget about the enormous material assistance that the USSR provided to the liberated countries in eliminating the threat of hunger and in rebuilding their economies and infrastructure. That was done at the time when ashes stretched for thousands of miles all the way from Brest to Moscow and the Volga. For instance, in May 1945, the Austrian government asked the USSR to provide assistance with food, as it “had no idea how to feed its population in the next seven weeks before the new harvest.” State Chancellor of the Provisional Government of the Austrian Republic Karl Renner described the consent of the Soviet leadership to send food as a “saving act” that the Austrians would never forget.

The Allies jointly established the International Military Tribunal to punish Nazi political and war criminals. Its decisions contained a clear legal qualification of crimes against humanity, such as genocide, ethnic and religious cleansing, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. The Nuremberg Tribunal also directly and unambiguously condemned the accomplices of the Nazis, collaborators of various kinds.

This shameful phenomenon manifested itself in all European countries. Such figures as Pétain, Quisling, Vlasov, Bandera, their henchmen and followers – though they were disguised as fighters for national independence or freedom from communism – are traitors and butchers. In terms of inhumanity, they often exceeded their masters. In their desire to serve, as part of special punitive groups they willingly executed the most inhuman orders. They were responsible for such bloody events as the shootings of Babi Yar, the Volhynia massacre, burnt Khatyn, and acts of destruction of Jews in Lithuania and Latvia.

Today as well, our position remains unchanged – there can be no excuse for the criminal acts of Nazi collaborators, there is no period of limitations for them. It is therefore bewildering that in certain countries those who are smirched with cooperation with the Nazis are suddenly equated with World War II veterans. I believe that it is unacceptable to equate liberators with occupants. I can only regard the glorification of Nazi collaborators as a betrayal of the memory of our fathers and grandfathers, and a betrayal of the ideals that united peoples in the fight against Nazism.

At that time, the leaders of the USSR, the United States, and the UK faced, without exaggeration, a historic task. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill represented the countries with different ideologies, state aspirations, interests, and cultures, but they demonstrated great political will, rose above the contradictions and preferences and put the true interests of peace at the forefront. As a result, they were able to come to an agreement and achieve a solution from which all of humanity has benefited.

The victor powers left us a system that has become the quintessence of the intellectual and political quest of several centuries. A series of conferences – Tehran, Yalta, San Francisco and Potsdam – laid the foundation of a world that for 75 years had no global war, despite the sharpest contradictions.

Historical revisionism, the manifestations of which we now observe in the West, primarily with regard to the subject of World War II and its outcome, is dangerous because it grossly and cynically distorts the understanding of the principles of peaceful development laid down at the Yalta and San Francisco conferences in 1945. The major historic achievement of Yalta and other decisions of that time is the agreement to create a mechanism that would allow the leading powers to remain within the framework of diplomacy in resolving their differences.

The 21st century brought large-scale and comprehensive global conflicts, and in 1945, nuclear weapons capable of physically destroying the Earth also entered the scene. In other words, the settlement of disputes by force has become prohibitively dangerous. The victors in World War II understood that. They understood and were aware of their own responsibility towards humanity.

The cautionary tale of the League of Nations was taken into account in 1945. The structure of the UN Security Council was developed in a way to make peace guarantees as concrete and effective as possible. That is how the institution of the permanent members of the Security Council and the right of the veto as their privilege and responsibility came into being.

What is the power of veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, it is the only reasonable alternative to a direct confrontation between major countries. It is a statement by one of the five powers that a decision is unacceptable to it and is contrary to its interests and its ideas about the right approach. The other countries, even if they do not agree, take this position as a given, abandoning any attempts to realise their unilateral efforts. It means that in one way or another it is necessary to seek compromises.

A new global confrontation started almost immediately after the end of World War II and was at times very fierce. The fact that the Cold War did not grow into World War III has become a clear testimony of the effectiveness of the agreements concluded by the Big Three. The rules of conduct agreed upon during the creation of the United Nations made it possible to further minimize risks and keep confrontation under control.

Of course, we can see that the UN system currently experiences certain tension in its work and is not as effective as it could be. But the United Nations still performs its primary function. The principles of the UN Security Council are a unique mechanism for preventing a major war or a global conflict.

The calls that have been made quite often in recent years to abolish the power of veto, to deny special opportunities to permanent members of the Security Council are actually irresponsible. After all, if that happens, the United Nations would in essence become the League of Nations – a meeting for empty talk without any leverage on the world processes. It is well known how it ended. That is why the victor powers approached the formation of the new system of the world order with utmost seriousness seeking to avoid repetition of mistakes made by their predecessors.

The creation of the modern system of international relations is one of the major outcomes of World War II. Even the most insurmountable contradictions – geopolitical, ideological, and economic – do not prevent us from finding forms of peaceful coexistence and interaction, if there is the desire and will to do so. Today the world is going through quite a turbulent time. Everything is changing, from the global balance of power and influence to the social, economic and technological foundations of societies, nations and even continents. In the past epochs, shifts of such magnitude have almost never happened without major military conflicts and without a power struggle to build a new global hierarchy. Thanks to the wisdom and farsightedness of the political figures of the Allied Powers, it was possible to create a system that has restrained from extreme manifestations of such objective competition, historically inherent in the world development.

It is a duty of ours – all those who take political responsibility and primarily representatives of the victor powers in World War II – to guarantee that this system is maintained and improved. Today, as in 1945, it is important to demonstrate political will and discuss the future together. Our colleagues – Mr. Xi Jinping, Mr. Macron, Mr. Trump and Mr. Johnson – supported the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states, permanent members of the Security Council. We thank them for this and hope that such face-to-face meeting could take place as soon as possible.

What is our vision of the agenda for the upcoming summit? First of all, in our opinion, it would be useful to discuss steps to develop collective principles in world affairs, as well as speak frankly about the issues of preserving peace, strengthening global and regional security, strategic arms control, and joint efforts in countering terrorism, extremism and other major challenges and threats.

A special item on the agenda of the meeting is the situation in the global economy, particularly, overcoming the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Our countries are taking unprecedented measures to protect the health and lives of people and to support citizens who have found themselves in difficult living situations. Our ability to work together and in concert, as real partners, will show how severe the impact of the pandemic will be and how quickly the global economy will emerge from the recession. Moreover, it is unacceptable to turn the economy into an instrument of pressure and confrontation. Popular issues include environmental protection and combating climate change, as well as ensuring the security of the global information space.

The agenda proposed by Russia for the upcoming summit of the Five is extremely important and relevant both for our countries and for the entire world. We have specific ideas and initiatives on all the items.

There can be no doubt that the summit of Russia, China, France, the United States, and the UK will play an important role in finding common answers to modern challenges and threats, and will demonstrate a common commitment to the spirit of alliance, to those high humanist ideals and values for which our fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.

Drawing on a shared historical memory, we can trust each other and must do so. That will serve as a solid basis for successful negotiations and concerted action for the sake of enhancing the stability and security on the planet, for the sake of prosperity and well-being of all states. Without exaggeration, it is our common duty and responsibility towards the entire world, towards the present and future generations.

Article by Vladimir Putin ”The 25th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Danang: Together Towards Prosperity and Harmonious Development“

2021-06-21T23:43:45+04:00

The 25^th anniversary APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting will take place in Danang very soon, on November 10 and 11.

We greatly value the APEC forum for the ample opportunities it affords all participants to engage in discussions and coordinate positions on a variety of economic, social, environmental, and cultural issues. Our countries strive to cooperate based on the principles of consensus and voluntary participation, mutual respect and willingness to compromise, regardless of the political situation. This is what APEC’s unique spirit of partnership is all about.

As a major Eurasian power with vast Far Eastern territories that boast significant potential, Russia has a stake in the successful future of the Asia-Pacific region, and in promoting sustainable and comprehensive growth throughout its entire territory. We believe that effective economic integration based on the principles of openness, mutual benefit and the universal rules of the World Trade Organisation is the primary means of achieving this goal.

We support the idea of forming an Asia-Pacific free trade area. We believe this is in our practical interest and represents an opportunity to strengthen our positions in the rapidly growing APR markets. I want to note that over the past five years, the share of APEC economies in Russia's foreign trade has increased from 23 to 31 percent, and from 17 to 24 percent in exports. And we have no intention of stopping there.

Of course, the large-scale project to create the APEC free trade area should be carried out with due account of the experience gained from implementing key integration formats in the Asia-Pacific region and Eurasia, including the Eurasian Economic Union, in which Russia cooperates with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Our union has been developing dynamically, and we are eager to build relations with all countries and associations that are interested in doing so. Vietnam, the host of this year’s Forum, was the first state to sign a free trade agreement with the EAEU. As a result, our trade grew significantly and became more diversified. Talks on a trade and economic cooperation agreement with China concluded a short while ago. Talks with Singapore have begun, and we are working on the possibility of signing a free trade agreement with ASEAN.

On a related note, I would like to mention our idea to create the Greater Eurasian Partnership. We suggested forming it on the basis of the Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road initiative. To reiterate, this is a flexible modern project open to other participants.

Comprehensive development of infrastructure, including transport, telecommunications and energy, will serve as the basis for effective integration. Today Russia is actively modernising its sea and air ports in the Russian Far East, developing transcontinental rail routes, and building new gas and oil pipelines. We are committed to implementing bilateral and multilateral infrastructure projects which will link our economies and markets. Among other projects, I am referring to the Energy Super Ring that unites Russia, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, and the Sakhalin-Hokkaido transport link.

We pay special attention to integrating Russia’s Siberian and Far Eastern territories into the network of APR economic ties. These efforts include a whole range of measures to enhance the investment appeal of our regions, and to integrate Russian enterprises into international production chains.

For Russia, the development of our Far East is a national priority for the 21^st century. We are talking about creating territories of advanced economic growth in that region, pursuing large-scale development of natural resources, and supporting advanced high-tech industries, as well as investing in human capital, education and healthcare, and forming competitive research centres.

We hope that our foreign partners, primarily from APEC economies, will play an active role in implementing these programmes and projects. All the more so, as foreign participants of the annual Eastern Economic Forum held in Vladivostok already had a chance to gain confidence in the prospects and feasibility of our plans.

We have an equally serious approach to involving small and medium-sized businesses in APEC economic integration processes, and supporting female entrepreneurship and start-up companies run by young entrepreneurs. Of course, we attach special importance to strengthening our cultural ties and expanding our contacts in the sphere of science and education. Looking ahead, we will focus on forming a common APR education space, one of whose centres could be the Far Eastern Federal University.

We believe that establishing effective cooperation to support innovation is the most important task we face in this dynamic era. As such, Russia has put forward a number of specific initiatives. These include unifying digital economy and trade rules, harmonising national technical standards, coordinating strategies for forming high-tech markets, and creating a uniform conceptual framework for the digital space. We have also shared with our partners our experience in providing e-services to the public. In addition, we suggest starting consultations within APEC on international information security and protection of computer software.

Preventing and providing relief following natural disasters and man-made accidents, epidemics and pandemics is another challenge that requires a joint response by all APR partners. Of course, we need to tackle food security issues together and think about how to meet the region's rapidly growing demand for high-quality and healthy food. Russia is one of the world’s leaders in exports of grain, vegetable oils, fish, and a number of other foods. We expect to become the leading supplier of ecologically clean food to our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. To do so, we are taking measures to increase agricultural output and improve productivity.

We intend to engage in substantive discussions of all these topics during the upcoming summit in Danang. I am confident that, acting together, we will find acceptable solutions to the challenge of supporting the steady, balanced, and harmonious growth of our shared region, and securing its prosperity. Russia is ready for such a collaborative effort.

BRICS: Towards New Horizons of Strategic Partnership

2017-08-31T17:39:03+04:00

Vladimir Putin’s article BRICS: Towards New Horizons of Strategic Partnership was published ahead of the BRICS Summit, which will be held in Xiamen, China, on September 4 and 5.

The 9th BRICS Summit will be held in Xiamen, China, on September 4 and 5. I consider it important in this regard to present Russia’s approaches to cooperation within the framework of this large and respected association and to share my views on the future of our further cooperation.

I would like to begin by expressing our appreciation of China’s significant contribution as this year’s chair of the organisation, which has allowed the BRICS countries as a group to move forward in all the key areas of our partnership, including politics, the economy and culture. Moreover, the group of five has greatly strengthened its global standing.

It is important that our group’s activities are based on the principles of equality, respect for one another’s opinions and consensus. Within BRICS, nothing is ever forced on anyone. When the approaches of its members do not coincide, we work patiently and carefully to coordinate them. This open and trust-based atmosphere is conducive to the successful implementation of our tasks.

Russia highly values the multifaceted cooperation that has developed within BRICS. Our countries’ constructive cooperation on the international arena is aimed at creating a fair multipolar world and equal development conditions for all.

Russia stands for closer coordination of the BRICS countries’ foreign policies, primarily at the UN and G20, as well as other international organisations. It is clear that only the combined efforts of all countries can help bring about global stability and find solutions to many acute conflicts, including those in the Middle East. I would like to say that it was largely thanks to the efforts of Russia and other concerned countries that conditions have been created to improve the situation in Syria. We have delivered a powerful blow to the terrorists and laid the groundwork for launching the movement towards a political settlement and the return of the Syrian people to peace.

However, the fight against terrorists in Syria and other countries and regions must continue. Russia calls for going over from debates to the practical creation of a broad counterterrorism front based on international law and led by the UN. Naturally, we highly appreciate the support and assistance of our BRICS partners in this respect.

I have to say a few words about the situation on the Korean Peninsula, where tensions have grown recently and the situation is balancing on the brink of a large-scale conflict. Russia believes that the policy of putting pressure on Pyongyang to stop its nuclear missile programme is misguided and futile. The region’s problems should only be settled through a direct dialogue of all the parties concerned without any preconditions. Provocations, pressure and militarist and insulting rhetoric are a dead-end road.

Russia and China have created a roadmap for a settlement on the Korean Peninsula that is designed to promote the gradual easing of tensions and the creation of a mechanism for lasting peace and security.

Russia also calls for promoting the interaction of the BRICS countries in the area of global information security. We propose joining our efforts to create a legal basis for cooperation and subsequently to draft and adopt universal rules of responsible behaviour of states in this sphere. A major step towards this goal would be the signing of an intergovernmental BRICS agreement on international information security.

I would like to point out that on Russia’s initiative a BRICS Strategy for Economic Partnership was adopted at the Ufa Summit in 2015 and is being successfully implemented. We hope to be able to discuss new large-scale cooperation tasks in trade and investment and industrial cooperation at the Xiamen Summit.

Russia is interested in promoting economic cooperation within the BRICS format. Considerable practical achievements have been recently reported in this area, primarily the launch of the New Development Bank (NDB). It has approved seven investment projects in the BRICS countries worth around $1.5 billion. This year, the NDB is to approve a second package of investment projects worth $2.5-$3 billion in total. I am convinced that their implementation will not only be a boost to our economies but will also promote integration between our countries.

Russia shares the BRICS countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture, which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies. We are ready to work together with our partners to promote international financial regulation reforms and to overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies. We will also work towards a more balanced distribution of quotas and voting shares within the IMF and the World Bank.

I am confident that the BRICS countries will continue to act in a consolidated manner against protectionism and new barriers in global trade. We value the BRICS countries’ consensus on this issue, which allows us to more consistently advocate the foundations of an open, equal and mutually beneficial multilateral trade system and to strengthen the role of the WTO as the key regulator in international trade.

Russia’s initiative on the development of cooperation among the BRICS countries’ antimonopoly agencies is aimed at creating effective mechanisms to encourage healthy competition. The goal is to create a package of cooperation measures to work against the restrictive business practices of large multinational corporations and trans-border violations of competition rules.

I would like to draw your attention to Russia’s initiative on the establishment of a BRICS Energy Research Platform. We believe that this would enable us to coordinate our information, analysis and research activities in the interests of the five BRICS countries and would ultimately facilitate the implementation of joint energy investment projects.

Another priority is to build up our cooperation in the area of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). We believe that we should integrate the national SMEs’ online resources for placing crosslinks and other commercial information and for exchanging data on reliable partners.

Russia is advocating the Women and the Economy public-private dialogue. This initiative provides for holding regular debates by members of the BRICS countries’ business and expert communities, women’s associations and government agencies. The first such meeting was held in Novosibirsk on July 4, 2017, on the sidelines of the First International Women’s Congress of the SCO and BRICS Member States. Another related idea is to create a BRICS Women’s Business Club as a network of professional interaction between women in business through a specialised online information resource.

Our other priorities include cooperation in science, technology, innovations and cutting edge medicine. Our countries have a big potential in this respect that comprises a solid and mutually complementary research base, unique technical achievements, skilled personnel and huge markets for science-intensive products. We propose discussing at the upcoming summit a package of measures to reduce the threat of infectious diseases and to create new medicines to prevent and fight epidemics.

I believe our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere has excellent prospects. While working to implement the BRICS Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Culture, we hope that our partners will take part in the New Wave and New Wave Junior international contests of young pop singers. We have also advanced the initiative to create a joint television network of the BRICS countries.

Russia stands for strengthening the BRICS countries’ partnership in politics, the economy, culture and other areas. We are ready to continue working jointly with our colleagues to promote democracy and to strengthen the healthy elements of international relations based firmly on international law. I am convinced that the Xiamen Summit will help invigorate our countries’ efforts towards finding solutions to the challenges of the 21st century and will propel cooperation within BRICS to a higher level.

I wholeheartedly wish health and success to your readers and to all people in the BRICS countries.

Article by Vladimir Putin published in the German business newspaper Handelsblatt

2017-07-06T00:31:46+04:00

Ahead of my trip to Germany to take part in the Summit of the Group of Twenty, I would like to share some thoughts about cooperation within the G20 framework with the readers of Handelsblatt, one of the most popular and reputable German newspapers.

Over the years of its existence, the Group of Twenty has established itself as an important mechanism for aligning the interests and positions of the world’s leading economies. By taking coordinated action, the G20 contributed to the adoption of necessary measures that not only helped overcome the financial and economic crisis, but also laid the foundation for improving global governance, which has found itself in dire straits for a number of reasons. Importantly, by working together we have been able to find solutions to a number of long-standing issues.

For instance, Russia highly values practical steps to counter base erosion and profit shifting to so-called ‘safe havens.’ All economies suffer from such practices. Irresponsible corporate behaviour of this kind affects the quality of life of millions of people, resulting in high social costs.

Implementation of the financial regulation reform is another achievement of the G20. For example, special regulations for those banks whose bankruptcy would be undesirable or too risky because of their size.

For the first time in history, supervision bodies started monitoring transactions in the non-bank, “shadow” financial sector. Decisions regarding the key attributes for preventing and overcoming bank sector crises, organising the work of deposit security agencies and a number of other initiatives have had a major impact.

Of course, the creation of the Financial Stability Board (FSB) was a major step forward. On the back of its efforts, financial regulation reform took on a system-wide dimension and became routine, while the FSB established itself as an important partner of the IMF in its regular risk assessment studies. The FSB’s creation led to the emergence of similar structures on the national level.

Even against the backdrop of growing geopolitical risks and uncertainty, the G20 has not become less efficient as a global governance tool. This is largely attributable to the exceptional responsibility demonstrated by its presiding countries in fulfilling their mission. I am saying this based, among other things, on Russia’s own experience, since our country chaired the Group of Twenty in 2013, and benefited from substantial support and encouragement from all of its partners.

The success of the G20 is based on respect for the opinions and position of each member, regardless of the size of its economy and its place in the international monetary and financial system. Constructive discussions and the search for compromise have become the signature style of the G20, the unwritten law of relations, which its current President – Germany – is also putting into practice.

The upcoming meeting of the G20 in Hamburg is an opportunity to discuss key issues on the global agenda. We share the priorities of Germany’s Presidency and we are ready to help implement them, provided this continuity is maintained.

We welcome the decision to expand the agenda addressed by the G20 to include sustainable development, climate change, countering terrorism and corruption, healthcare, migration and refugees. It is very important that the Group is giving more attention to the digital economy as a growth driver and a new factor of global governance thanks to China’s Presidency in 2016 and Germany’s Presidency this year.

We are facing several major challenges. The old economic models have all but exhausted their possibilities. Protectionism is becoming the norm, while unilateral, politically motivated restrictions on trade and investment, as well as technology transfer, are nothing but masked protectionism. We believe that these sanctions are not only doomed to fail, but also run counter to the G20 principles of cooperation in the interests of all countries.

I am confident that only open trade based on common norms and standards can stimulate global economic growth and the gradual improvement of interstate relations. Just as it is set forth in the fundamental principles of the World Trade Organisation’s activities.

The G20 is doing substantive work on combating climate change. Human activity is greatly increasing the burden on the planet’s environment and is hence complicating the achievement of sustainable development goals. As a leading country within the international climate process,

Russia has exceeded its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, we have compensated the growing emission in other countries and regions. We view the Paris Agreement of April 2016 as a reliable international legal framework for a lasting climate settlement and intend to do our best to facilitate its implementation.

Over the past few years, the G20 has been working on the issue of migration. According to the UN, in 2017 labour migrants will remit over $500 billion to developing countries. This is three times more than the volume of official development assistance or foreign direct investment.

The G20 has been working on issues related to the migrants’ integration in the host countries’ labour markets, as well as their cultural adaptation and social protection. In addition, the G20 has formulated decisions this year that could help settle the issue of forced displacement. They are based on the strengthening of regional and global stability and the economic growth of the countries that are generating the unprecedented numbers of refugees.

Security of and in the use of ICTs is a new issue on the G20 agenda. Russia consistently advocates free access to communication technologies, including the Internet. We consider it highly important to protect human rights in the information space. At the same time, freedom in the digital sphere, just like in any other, should by no means be replaced by permissiveness and impunity. This leads to a rampage involving cyber-criminals, hacker groups and all those who encroach on the privacy of individuals or the sovereignty of states by using cutting-edge technologies.

Russia, which was among the first countries to note the danger of this challenge, has for several years been advocating the conclusion of universal international agreements under the UN auspices that are called on to combat these negative phenomena. We hope this will evoke a positive and interested response from other countries. The G20 agenda should also include digital literacy issues, a key element of protecting consumer rights in e-commerce.

I would like to note that various opportunities opened up by the digital economy and a switchover to new industrial and technological patterns simultaneously increase the gap in the development levels between rich and poor countries and aggravate inequality between various social strata. Therefore, our efforts should focus on people, their interests and concerns. I consider this to be a key-priority for G20 activities.

Obviously, the G20 can make a weighty contribution to strengthening the stability of the global economy and to maintaining its balanced development. Only by acting together and pooling our efforts can we overcome the current imbalances, ensure sustainable growth, develop fair trade and competition rules, reduce poverty and resolve acute social issues.

The Russian delegation will be actively involved in the work of the Hamburg summit, which I am sure will be highly productive. I wish our German colleagues every success in organising the summit. And, of course, we will team up with our G20 partners in implementing the agreements that will be reached at the meeting.

In conclusion, I would like to wish all Handelsblatt readers and all Germans health and prosperity.

Vladimir Putin’s article, Russia and India: 70 years together, has been published

2017-05-30T18:08:23+04:00

The article in The Times of India was published to mark the 70^th anniversary of diplomatic relations with India.

Russia and India: 70 years together

This year, we are celebrating the anniversary of a truly historic event. Seventy years ago – on April 13, 1947 – the governments of the USSR and India announced their decision to establish official missions in Delhi and Moscow. This step on our part logically followed up on our course for assisting India on its way to national liberation and contributed to strengthening its independence.

In the decades that have followed, our bilateral partnership has further intensified and strengthened, and has never been subject to expediency. Equal and mutually beneficial relations of the two States have steadily developed. This is quite natural. Our peoples have always had mutual sympathy and respect for each other's spiritual values and culture.

Today, we can take pride in what we have achieved. With Russia's technical and financial assistance, the pioneers of Indian industrialization came into existence: metallurgical complexes in Bhilai, Visakhapatnam and Bokaro, the mining equipment plant in Durgapur, the thermal power station in Neyveli, the electromechanical enterprise in Korba, antibiotics plants in Rishikesh and the pharmaceutical plant in Hyderabad.

Soviet and, later on, Russian scientists and academics participated in the establishment of research and education centers in India. These include the Indian Institute of Technology in Bombay, research institutes of petroleum industry in Dehradun and Ahmedabad.

We are proud our specialists helped develop India's space program. Thanks to this fruitful bilateral cooperation, in 1975 India's first satellite, Aryabhata, was launched, and Indian citizen Rakesh Sharma travelled into space in 1984 as a crew member of Soyuz T-11.

In August 1971, our countries signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, which set forth the fundamental principles of bilateral relations, such as respect for the sovereignty and each other's interests, good‑neighborliness, and peaceful coexistence. In 1993, the Russian Federation and the Republic of India confirmed the inviolability of these basic principles in the new Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. The Declaration on Strategic Partnership signed in 2000 provides for close coordination of approaches to ensuring international peace and security and resolving pressing global and regional issues. Annual summits have become an established practice in the Indian-Russian bilateral relations allowing us to discuss in a timely manner the efforts taken to accomplish our objectives and set long-term goals. In early June, we will have another summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in St. Petersburg. He is expected to attend the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, in which India will for the first time participate as a partner country.

The legal framework comprising more than 250 documents is being updated on a regular basis. Effective work is carried out within intergovernmental commissions on cooperation in trade and economy, science and technology, as well as culture and military-technical field. Ministries of foreign affairs, security council offices and line ministries maintain continuous dialogue. The interparliamentary and interregional ties, as well as business and humanitarian contacts are actively developing. Military cooperation is also being enhanced: joint land and naval exercises are conducted regularly.

Cooperation in peaceful uses of atomic energy is one of the fundamental components of the relationship between India and Russia. The construction of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant with our assistance is a flagship project in this field. In 2013, the first nuclear power unit was put into operation. In October 2016, the second unit was transferred to the Indian side, and construction of the third and fourth power units began. All of this contributes to the implementation of the plans to develop nuclear energy in India involving the construction of at least 12 power units in its territory by 2020. These goals are stipulated in a joint document – the Strategic Vision for Strengthening India-Russia Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. We intend to further share best practices in this important industry with India and contribute to enhancing its energy security.

Collaboration in the traditional energy sector is successfully developing. The purchase of a block of shares in the Russian company ”Vankorneft“ made by the Indian consortium of companies has become the biggest bilateral deal in the oil industry. The possibilities for the participation of Indian companies in joint hydrocarbons exploration and production projects in the Russian Arctic shelf are currently under consideration. There are also good prospects for cooperation in the solar energy filed, modernization of the existing power plants and construction of new ones in the territory of India.

Large-scale projects are carried out in mechanical engineering, chemical and mining industries, aircraft construction, pharmaceutics and medicine.

One of the priorities is to boost the trade turnover and improve its structure, as well as stimulate economic activity of our business communities. I am referring to enhancing industrial cooperation and increasing supplies of high-tech products, creating a better business and investment environment, and using systems of payments in national currencies.

The decision to start negotiations on a free trade area agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and India adopted in December 2016 is of particular importance. The possibilities of creating the International North‑South Transport Corridor are being explored. All these factors should promote the development of our bilateral and regional cooperation.

To encourage reciprocal capital inflow, a working group on priority investment projects was established under the Inter-Governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation. 19 most promising projects have already been selected. Russia is committed to long-term participation in the ”Make in India“ program initiated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Our countries cooperate intensively in the production of multipurpose weapons and military equipment. Co-production of a unique supersonic cruise missile ”BrahMos“ is our special pride. Since 1960, the overall value of contracts within the framework of military and technical cooperation has amounted to over USD 65 billion, while the portfolio of orders in 2012–2016 exceeded USD 46 billion.

India and Russia are equal partners in international affairs. Our countries support the establishment of a multipolar democratic system of international relations based on strict compliance with the principles of law and resting upon the UN central role. We are willing to further jointly counter challenges and threats of the 21^st century, promote the unifying agenda and contribute to maintaining global and regional security.

We effectively interact within BRICS – an association that thanks to our collective efforts is increasing its weight and influence. This June, India will become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. It will considerably enhance the potential of the SCO. India and Russia also work together within the G20 and other international formats.

I would also like to note that our countries closely coordinate positions on such complex issues as settling the situation in Syria and ensuring stability in the Middle East and North Africa region. They significantly contribute to the national reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

I am convinced that the enormous potential of cooperation between the two great powers will be further explored for the benefit of the peoples of India and Russia and the international community in general. We have everything necessary to achieve this – political will of the sides, economic viability and shared global priorities. All this is based on the glorious history of the Indian‑Russian friendship.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to convey the kindest regards to all the citizens of friendly India.

Vladimir Putin highly assessed the outcomes of his visit to Greece

2016-06-01T11:39:27+04:00

The corresponding message from the President of Russia was published in the Greek Kathimerini daily.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Greek colleagues for their hospitality during my visit to the Hellenic Republic on May 27 and 28. I was genuinely moved by the cordial, warm welcome accorded to the Russian delegation in your country.

The outcomes of this visit were very positive. It took place in an atmosphere of trust, and had a very busy schedule. The talks revealed that Russia and Greece are in synch on most issues. Most importantly, we are talking to each other not just as partners, but as old friends, which is largely attributable to the centuries-old spiritual and cultural affinity between our peoples.

The current relations between Russia and Greece are based on pragmatism and trust. We highly value the level of partnership we have been able to achieve and share the conviction that there is a lot of potential for further strengthening our business and humanitarian ties.

I strongly believe that the outcomes of the visit will provide new impetus and bolster mutual understanding and trust between our countries and peoples.

I would like to wish all citizens of Greece happiness and prosperity.

Greece and Russia: cooperation for peace and prosperity

2016-05-25T15:37:42+04:00

In advance of the visit by Russia’s President to Greece, the newspaper Kathimerini published an article by Vladimir Putin titled Russia and Greece: Cooperation for Peace and Prosperity.

Ahead of my visit to Athens, I would like to share with the readers of Kathimerini, one of the most popular and respected Greek newspapers, some ideas regarding the further development of the partnership between Greece and Russia, as well as about the situation on the European continent in general.

We value the centuries-old traditions of friendship between our peoples. Our cooperation rests on a rock-solid base of common civilizational values, the Orthodox culture and a genuine mutual affection. A vivid example of how closely our people’s lives are intertwined is the story of Ioannis Kapodistrias, who was a Russian minister of foreign affairs in the 19th century and later became a head of the Greek state.

The celebrations of the Millennium of Russian Monasticism on the Holy Mount Athos will be a landmark event this year. Throughout completely different periods of history, their moral courage, faith and patriotism helped our peoples to overcome severe ordeals and preserve their identity.

Hundreds of thousands of Russian tourists visit your country every year. They relax on the beautiful beaches, get acquainted with the rich heritage of the ancient Hellas and its legendary architectural monuments. Tourism makes a significant contribution to the economic development of Greece, as well as to broader direct people-to-people contacts and greater trust and friendship between our citizens.

I know that Greece remembers that its achievement of independence was due in no small measure to Russia's efforts. Russia's support for the Greek national liberation struggle largely determined the further development of bilateral relations.

These days, Greece is Russia's important partner in Europe. We are conducting a dynamic political dialogue, including at the top level. During a meeting with President Prokopis Pavlopoulos in January, we announced the opening of the cross years of Greece and Russia. The programs cover activities in the scientific, educational, and humanitarian spheres, as well as tourism. I am confident that they will help our peoples to get even more closely acquainted with each other's history, traditions and customs.

Last year, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras made two visits to our country. We had informative and very useful discussions. Contacts between ministries and agencies, parliaments and civil society organizations are growing stronger.

Unfortunately, the decline in relations between Russia and the European Union stands in the way of a further strengthening of our cooperation, with an adverse effect on the dynamics of bilateral trade that fell by a third to $2.75 billion as compared to last year. Particularly affected were Greek agricultural producers.

Russia proceeds from the need to establish dialogue with the European Union in the spirit of equality and genuine partnership on a variety of issues ranging from visa liberalization to the formation of an energy alliance. However, we do not yet see our European colleagues' willingness to follow such a mutually beneficial and promising path.

Nevertheless, we believe that our relations with the EU do not face any problems that we cannot solve. To get back to a multifaceted partnership, the deficient approach of one-sided relationships should be abandoned. There should be true respect for each other’s opinions and interests.

Today, Russia and the European Union have come to a crossroads, where we need to answer the following question: how do we see the future of our relations and which way are we going to head? I am convinced that we should draw appropriate conclusions from the events in Ukraine and proceed to establishing, in the vast space stretching between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, a zone of economic and humanitarian cooperation based on the architecture of equal and indivisible security. Harmonizing European and Eurasian integration processes would be an important step in this direction.

This work is all the more relevant, insofar as today Europe is facing increased competition from other power centers of the contemporary world. For instance, at the recent ASEAN‑Russia Commemorative Summit in Sochi we had meaningful discussions with our partners on pressing international issues, the prospects for integration projects and enhanced cooperation in the Asia‑Pacific region. Apparently, a rightful position of the Old Continent in the new international realities can only be secured by combining capacities of all the European countries, including Russia.

Multidimensional contacts between Greece and Russia are an important element of this system. I would like to single out the energy sector. We have been consistently advocating the diversification of energy transportation modes that would improve the reliability of supplies and, therefore, European energy security as a whole.

Russia has ensured regular and reliable natural gas supplies to Greece for two decades. The existing contract with Greece was extended up to 2026 on favorable terms for your country. Being aware of the intention by the Greek leaders to make the country a powerful energy hub in the Balkans, we have always included Greece in our plans to enhance hydrocarbons supply to Central and Western Europe.

Since 2006, Gazprom has been actively promoting the South Stream project. However, at a certain point, its implementation became impossible due to the unconstructive stance adopted by the European Commission. Despite the fact that we had to suspend the project, issues relating to Southern routes of energy shipment to the European Union States are still on the agenda. In February, the heads of Gazprom, Edison (Italy) and DEPA (Greece) signed in Rome a Memorandum of Understanding on the supply of Russian natural gas to Greece and Italy along the Black Sea bottom through third countries.

Russia could also help streamlining the Greek transport infrastructure. We are referring to the participation of Russian business entities in the forthcoming Greek tenders for the purchase of assets of railway companies and the Thessaloniki port facilities. Also on the agenda are a number of other projects that can considerably enhance the potential of bilateral cooperation.

I am confident that friendly relations between Greece and Russia are our common heritage and a solid foundation for a promising and future-oriented partnership. I hope that we will further intensify our dialogue in various fields and jointly implement our plans.

APEC: Towards open and equal cooperation in the interests of development

2015-11-19T11:16:57+04:00

In the run-up to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting on November 18–19 in the Philippines, an article by Vladimir Putin, APEC: Towards open and equal cooperation in the interests of development, has been published.

The latest Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Meeting will take place on November 18–19 in Manila. This year’s Leaders' Meeting takes place under the motto chosen by the Philippines presidency – Building inclusive economies, building a better world.

For a long time trade has been the driving force of economic growth in the Asia-Pacific region and other parts of the world. However, as the effect of tariff liberalisation started to wear off, it became clear that we need additional agreements covering services, investment, non-tariff barriers, competition policy, and subsidies. Of course, we cannot reach such agreements without complicated negotiations and mutual concessions.

Deeper regional economic integration offers us a possible way out of the current situation. Today, Russia and its close neighbours – Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan – have taken successful steps to develop the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Our integration project is based on the WTO’s universal, transparent principles and is designed from the outset to work together with other countries and their organisations. In May this year, we signed a free trade agreement between the EAEU and Vietnam. Another 40 countries are examining the possibility of signing similar agreements.

One example of responsible and transparent partnership is the agreement to converge our EAEU project with China’s Silk Road Economic Belt initiative. This will allow us to resolve a number of bottlenecks in transport infrastructure and procedures for cross-border movement of goods and services. It will also give a big boost to effective integration of the Asia-Pacific economies.

We hope to reach mutually advantageous agreements on traditional and renewable energy sources, emergency and disaster response, food security and agriculture at the Russia-ASEAN summit next year in Sochi.

Overall, the creation of new free trade zones will help to create good conditions for liberalising trade and investment flows in the region. At the same time however, the confidential fashion in which the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations were conducted is probably not the best way to facilitate sustainable growth in the Asia-Pacific region.

We believe that the strategic road ahead lies not only in increasing the number of free trade zones, but also in joint development and implementation of the best liberalisation practices among all APEC members, taking into account each other’s positions and interests. In this respect, we should continue our course of bolstering APEC’s role as a coordinator of various integration initiatives aimed at developing in the region a common and open market, free of discrimination and bloc-based barriers. Here, effective implementation of the Beijing roadmap for APEC’s contribution to establishing an Asia-Pacific free trade zone, approved in Beijing in 2014, is particularly important.

Realising the APEC countries’ development potential will take more than just reaching agreement on the rules of the game for today’s trade flows. We need to work out common approaches to development and regulation of the emerging markets that make up the digital technology-based ‘new economy’. We need to put in place the institutions and rules that will contribute to development and create new opportunities for our countries’ businesspeople to create modern, promising products and high quality jobs.

Russia, for its part, is active in the work of the region’s new financial institutions – the [New Development] Bank BRICS and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I am sure that their work will help to develop the region and will also help to make the global financial system stronger and more stable.

At the national level, Russia continues its efforts to create the most comfortable business climate. Our efforts have received international appraisal and over the last 4 years, Russia has moved up 69 points in the World Bank’s Doing Business rating, from 120^th place to 51^st place.

We place great importance on developing the potential of Russia’s Far East. This year, we began developing the priority development areas – economic zones offering what for Russia are unprecedented tax and other incentives. A special law was passed on a free port in Vladivostok. We plan to extend this status to other key ports in the Far East. The Far East ports, the Northern Sea Route, and modernisation of our mainline railways will all contribute to greater integration with the Asia-Pacific region and create an important infrastructure link between the Asia-Pacific region and Europe.

APEC countries are showing real interest too in Russia’s proposals to form a common education space in the region. Today, when the Asia-Pacific region has established itself ever more solidly as part of the world’s leading technology centres, it is more relevant than ever to combine our efforts to create big research platforms and centres. Recognising Russia’s sense of initiative in this area, our partners have entrusted our country, together with Peru, the right to preside over the APEC Education Ministerial Meeting, which will take place in Lima in 2016.

Rapid economic growth is not possible without guaranteed energy security in the APEC region and fair and long-term climate regulation. Russia supports APEC’s efforts to establish good conditions for investing in the regional energy transport system, develop integrated energy markets, increase the share of eco-friendly and renewable energy sources, and ensure access to low-carbon technologies.

The Paris Climate Change Conference will take place soon, in December. This conference will try to reach a global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Russia wants to see this work succeed and we have already presented our report on our country’s contribution to these efforts.

The scale and diversity of APEC’s tasks is very impressive. I believe that we will be successful in resolving these tasks if we keep to the fundamental principles of working together as partners and acting in the interests of our peoples and our efforts to create a united Asia-Pacific family.

Message to the leaders of European countries regarding the supply and transit of Russian gas across the territory of Ukraine

2015-03-20T18:00:26+04:00

The message reads:

Dear colleagues,

In early April we suggested immediate consultations in order to work out a coordinated approach to stabilise the Ukrainian economy and ensure stable deliveries and transit of Russian natural gas in accordance with contractual terms.

Over a month has passed. Consultations with the representatives of a number of non-EU countries have taken place in Moscow, in which our partners told us they completely shared our concerns over the situation with Ukrainian payments for gas deliveries from the Russian Federation and the risks due to insufficient amounts of gas being stored in Ukrainian underground storages.

As regards EU countries, we have only had one meeting in Warsaw with a delegation led by European Commissioner for Energy Günther Oettinger, attended also by Ukrainian representative Yuri Prodan. Unfortunately, we have to say that we have not received any specific proposals from our partners as to how to stabilise the situation with the Ukrainian buying company so that it can meet its contractual obligations and ensure reliable transit.

Moreover, the situation with payments for Russian gas only got worse over this period of time. Gazprom has not received a single payment for the gas supplied to Ukraine, and the total debt has grown from $2.237 billion to $3.508 billion.

And this despite the fact that Ukraine has received the first tranche of the IMF loan to the amount of $3.2 billion.

Given the circumstances, the Russian company has issued an advance invoice for gas deliveries to Ukraine, which is completely in accordance with the contract, and after June 1 gas deliveries will be limited to the amount prepaid by the Ukrainian company.

I would like to emphasise once again that we were forced to make this decision. The Russian Federation is still open to continue consultations and work together with European countries in order to normalise the situation. We also hope that the European Commission will more actively engage in the dialogue in order to work out specific and fair solutions that will help stabilise the Ukrainian economy.

Message from the President of Russia to the leaders of several European countries

2015-03-20T18:00:29+04:00

Vladimir Putin addressed a letter to the leaders of several European countries, to which Russian natural gas is supplied via Ukraine's territory.

The message reads:

Ukraine’s economy in the past several months has been plummeting. Its industrial and construction sectors have also been declining sharply. Its budget deficit is mounting. The condition of its currency system is becoming more and more deplorable. The negative trade balance is accompanied by the flight of capital from the country. Ukraine’s economy is steadfastly heading towards a default, a halt in production and skyrocketing unemployment.

Russia and the EU member states are Ukraine’s major trading partners. Proceeding from this, at the Russia-EU Summit at the end of January, we came to an agreement with our European partners to hold consultations on the subject of developing Ukraine’s economy, bearing in mind the interests of Ukraine and our countries while forming integration alliances with Ukraine’s participation. However, all attempts on Russia’s part to begin real consultations failed to produce any results.

Instead of consultations, we hear appeals to lower contractual prices on Russian natural gas – prices which are allegedly of a “political” nature. One gets the impression that the European partners want to unilaterally blame Russia for the consequences of Ukraine’s economic crisis.

Right from day one of Ukraine’s existence as an independent state, Russia has supported the stability of the Ukrainian economy by supplying it with natural gas at cut-rate prices. In January 2009, with the participation of the then-premier Yulia Tymoshenko, a purchase-and-sale contract on supplying natural gas for the period of 2009–2019 was signed. That contract regulated questions concerning the delivery of and payment for the product, and it also provided guarantees for its uninterrupted transit through the territory of Ukraine. What is more, Russia has been fulfilling the contract according to the letter and spirit of the document. Incidentally, Ukrainian Minister of Fuel and Energy at that time was Yury Prodan, who today holds a similar post in Kiev’s government.

The total volume of natural gas delivered to Ukraine as was stipulated in that contract during the period of 2009–2014 (first quarter) stands at 147.2 billion cubic meters. Here, I would like to emphasize that the price formula that had been set down in the contract had NOT been altered since that moment. And Ukraine, right up till August 2013, made regular payments for the natural gas in accordance with that formula.

However, the fact that after signing that contract, Russia granted Ukraine a whole string of unprecedented privileges and discounts on the price of natural gas is quite another matter. This applies to the discount stemming from the 2010 Kharkov Agreement, which was provided as advance payment for the future lease payments for the presence of the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet after 2017. This also refers to discounts on the prices for natural gas purchased by Ukraine’s chemical companies. This also concerns the discount granted in December 2013 for the duration of three months due to the critical state of Ukraine’s economy. Beginning with 2009, the total sum of these discounts stands at 17 billion US dollars. To this, we should add another 18.4 billion US dollars incurred by the Ukrainian side as a minimal take-or-pay fine.

In this manner, during the past four years Russia has been subsidizing Ukraine’s economy by offering slashed natural gas prices worth 35.4 billion US dollars. In addition, in December 2013, Russia granted Ukraine a loan of 3 billion US dollars. These very significant sums were directed towards maintaining the stability and creditability of the Ukrainian economy and preservation of jobs. No other country provided such support except Russia.

What about the European partners? Instead of offering Ukraine real support, there is talk about a declaration of intent. There are only promises that are not backed up by any real actions. The European Union is using Ukraine’s economy as a source of raw foodstuffs, metal and mineral resources, and at the same time, as a market for selling its highly-processed ready-made commodities (machine engineering and chemicals), thereby creating a deficit in Ukraine’s trade balance amounting to more than 10 billion US dollars. This comes to almost two-thirds of Ukraine’s overall deficit for 2013.

To a large extent, the crisis in Ukraine’s economy has been precipitated by the unbalanced trade with the EU member states, and this, in turn has had a sharply negative impact on Ukraine’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations to pay for deliveries of natural gas supplied by Russia. Gazprom has no intentions except for those stipulated in the 2009 contract, nor does it plan to set any additional conditions. This also concerns the contractual price for natural gas, which is calculated in strict accordance with the agreed formula. However, Russia cannot and should not unilaterally bear the burden of supporting Ukraine’s economy by way of providing discounts and forgiving debts, and in fact, using these subsidies to cover Ukraine’s deficit in its trade with the EU member states.

The debt of NAK Naftogaz Ukraine for delivered gas has been growing monthly this year. In November-December 2013 this debt stood at 1.451,5 billion US dollars; in February 2014 it increased by a further 260.3 million and in March by another 526.1 million US dollars. Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in March there was still a discount price applied, i.e., 268.5 US dollars per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. And even at that price, Ukraine did not pay a single dollar.

In such conditions, in accordance with Articles 5.15, 5.8 and 5.3 of the contract, Gazprom is compelled to switch over to advance payment for gas deliveries, and in the event of further violation of the conditions of payment, will completely or partially cease gas deliveries. In other words, only the volume of natural gas will be delivered to Ukraine as was paid for one month in advance of delivery.

Undoubtedly, this is an extreme measure. We fully realize that this increases the risk of siphoning off natural gas passing through Ukraine’s territory and heading to European consumers. We also realize that this may make it difficult for Ukraine to accumulate sufficient gas reserves for use in the autumn and winter period. In order to guarantee uninterrupted transit, it will be necessary, in the nearest future, to supply 11.5 billion cubic meters of gas that will be pumped into Ukraine’s underground storage facilities, and this will require a payment of about 5 billion US dollars.

However, the fact that our European partners have unilaterally withdrawn from the concerted efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and even from holding consultations with the Russian side, leaves Russia no alternative.

There can be only one way out of the situation that has developed. We believe it is vital to hold, without delay, consultations at the level of ministers of economics, finances and energy in order to work out concerted actions to stabilize Ukraine’s economy and to ensure delivery and transit of Russian natural gas in accordance with the terms and conditions set down in the contract. We must lose no time in beginning to coordinate concrete steps. It is towards this end that we appeal to our European partners.

It goes without saying that Russia is prepared to participate in the effort to stabilize and restore Ukraine’s economy. However, not in a unilateral way, but on equal conditions with our European partners. It is also essential to take into account the actual investments, contributions and expenditures that Russia has shouldered by itself alone for such a long time in supporting Ukraine. As we see it, only such an approach would be fair and balanced, and only such an approach can lead to success.

Russia-Vietnam: Together to New Cooperation Goals

2015-03-20T18:00:42+04:00

In the run-up to Vladimir Putin’s official visit to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an article by the President Russia-Vietnam: Together to New Cooperation Goals has been published in major Vietnamese newspapers.

Ahead of my third visit to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, I would like to take this opportunity to directly address Vietnamese public and share some thoughts on the future of our bilateral relations.

Russian-Vietnamese friendship has stood the test of time, having lived through the numerous tragic events of the 20^th century, drastic changes in the world as well as in our countries. The main thing has always remained the same, however – respect towards each other, traditions of confidence and mutual assistance, ability to appreciate selfless support of the partners that will never betray.

In this context, let me quote famous words of President Ho Chi Minh: ”When you drink water, think of its source.“ I consider that phrase to be a spiritual instruction to the present and future generations of citizens of our countries. One should always remember our common history and everything that unites us. This guarantees continuity and stability of future-oriented relations.

We are happy with major achievements reached by Vietnam on its path towards important economic and social reforms. Russia addresses complex national issues as well. We believe that active involvement in the integration processes, both at global and regional levels, is a powerful resource for development. We attach particular importance to cooperation with the Asia Pacific States among which Vietnam is one of the leading centers of growth.

The positions of our countries on issues relating to the global agenda are similar in many aspects. Together we seek answers to new challenges and threats. We uphold the rule of law in international relations and advocate that no alternative political or diplomatic tools should be used for resolving disputes and that every state has a right to choose it own path of development.

All these factors determine the intensity of Russian-Vietnamese strategic partnership which we can rightly call comprehensive. Last year, bilateral trade increased by 20 percent and amounted to $3.66 billion. We expect that it will reach $7 billion as early as 2015 and increase up to $10 billion in 2020.

The signing of a free trade area agreement (FTA) between the member states of the Customs Unions and Vietnam would contribute to achieving these objectives, which corresponds to the logic of political and economic integration in Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region. The negotiations on a FTA are under way, and we hope to successfully complete them.

Energy, oil and gas sectors have traditionally played a key role in the development of Russian-Vietnamese industrial and investment cooperation. For instance, our leading joint venture Vietsovpetro has accumulated a unique technological expertise of working on the continental shelf. Over the years, the company has produced 206 million tons of oil and its total profits account for tens of billions of dollars.

The companies Rosneft and Gazprom increase their presence in Vietnam. Their projects relate to the production of hydrocarbons, modernization of refining capacities and supply to Vietnam of the liquefied natural gas from the Russian Far East.

Let me emphasize that our oil and gas cooperation is two-way and reciprocal. Rusvietpetro is an example of a successful joint venture in the Nenets autonomous district. We also expect a lot of another joint company Gazpromviet which has started the development of oil and gas fields in the Orenburg region and other Russian territories.

Our cooperation in energy goes far beyond hydrocarbon production. Russia helps Vietnam to develop a nuclear industry which is a totally new sector for the country. Rosatom will be responsible for the construction of the first Vietnamese nuclear power plant in the province of Ninh Thuan. The first and second nuclear units are scheduled to be launched in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Plans are being discussed to jointly construct a Nuclear Science & Technology Center.

Peaceful use of outer space and Russia's GLONASS satellite navigation system, air and rail transportation development, engineering, mining, banking and public health seem to be very promising areas of cooperation. The goal of the above projects and initiatives is to improve our investment, technology and industrial collaboration.

Our military and technical cooperation has taken a totally new dimension. It is no longer limited to export supplies, steps are being taken to launch in Vietnam licensed production of advanced military equipment with the assistance of Russian companies.

We have always been proud of the traditions of humanitarian cooperation in the field of education, science and culture. It is meaningful that this year Vietnam has been allocated the highest quota (except for the CIS countries) for training specialists in Russian educational institutions. Today about 5,000 citizens of Vietnam receive education in Russia, about 2000 of them study under interstate agreements.

I should underline the joint activities of our scientists, including many years of work of the Russian-Vietnamese Tropical research and technological center. Specialists all over the world highly appreciate the results of its applied and fundamental research.

My visit takes place during the Days of Russian culture in Vietnam. We are pleased to see that our Vietnamese friends are truly interested in our art. On their turn Russian citizens are waiting for the Vietnamese cultural workers to come to visit Russia. I am sure that the Days of Hanoi in Moscow in late November this year will have great success. Such exchanges have already proved their importance. We intend to continue this practice.

The number of Russians visiting Vietnam shows the willingness to learn better rich history and culture of the Vietnamese people. Last year this number doubled and for nine months of this year it has grown up by 66 per cent having risen beyond 200,000 people. I think that this tendency will continue taking into account the successful development of tourist infrastructure in Vietnam.

It is difficult to enumerate the areas in which Russia and Vietnam do not develop fruitful cooperation. I expect that the future high-level negotiations in Hanoi will be constructive as usual and will give new momentum to the strategic partnership between our states and peoples.

The Syrian Alternative

2015-03-20T18:00:46+04:00

The article by Vladimir Putin published in The New York Times.

Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the Cold War. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organisation – the United Nations – was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and at America’s insistence the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorisation.

The planned strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the Pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and further destabilise the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multi-religious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Al-Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The US State Department has designated the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organisations. This internal conflict, fuelled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria, as happened in Mali following the events in Libya? This threatens us all, as the horrific attack in Boston recently showed.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the UN Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defence or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the UN Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack – this time against Israel – cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

Force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen non-proliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilised diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the President’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed at the G8 in Lough Erne, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on September 10. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.