Wladimir Putin macht im Valdai-Club klare Ansagen
von Maren Müller (Original v. Tom Luongo)
Jedes Jahr spricht der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin auf dem Valdai Economic Forum. Und jedes Jahr ist sein Vortrag wichtig. Putin ist keiner, der zu wichtigen Themen ein Blatt vor den Mund nimmt.
Die Spannungen zwischen Russland und dem Westen haben das Niveau des Kalten Krieges erreicht, und Valdai war das erste Mal, dass wir Putin seit Helsinki und den Ereignissen danach – IL-20, Khashoggi usw. – in einer langen Diskussion sprechen hörten.
Also, dieses Gespräch sollte jeder hören. Und wenn ich „jeder“ sage, dann meine ich damit jede einzelne Person, die vom Zusammenbruch des politischen Systems der USA betroffen sein könnte und wie das auf Russland betrifft. Mit anderen Worten, so ziemlich jeder auf dem Planeten.
Denn was Putin in Valdai tat, war, die neuen Verhaltensregeln in geopolitischen Angelegenheiten festzulegen. Er hat den US-amerikanischen und europäischen Oligarchen, die ich „Die Davos Clique“ nenne, eine Mahnung erteilt. Es gibt eine Grenze für eure Provokationen und Versuche, Russland zu untergraben. Also überschreitet diese Grenze nicht.
► Frieden durch Stärke
Das große Zitat aus seinem Vortrag ist das, auf das sich alle konzentrieren, und das zu Recht: die russische Politik des Einsatzes von Atomwaffen.
Es ist nicht so, dass Putins Haltung anders wäre als in der Vergangenheit. Russland wird unter allen Umständen, in denen die Zukunft Russlands auf dem Spiel steht, gegen einen Aggressor zurückschlagen. Es war seine Zusicherung, dass es
1) gerecht und rechtschaffen wäre, „wie Märtyrer zu sterben“ und
2) so schnell und brutal gehen würde, dass die Aggressoren „wie Hunde sterben“ würden, ohne die Chance, um Erlösung zu bitten.
Das sind starke Worte. Es sind die Worte eines gottergebenen Mannes. Und das Wort gottergeben, wie Jordan Peterson uns in Erinnerung ruft, beschreibt jemanden, der Waffen hat, weiß, wie man sie benutzt, und sie ummantelt hält, bis er keine andere Wahl hat. Die Reaktion des Publikums war nervöses Gelächter, aber ich glaube nicht, dass Putin es hier übertrieben hat. Er meinte es ernst. Das ist die Definition von gottergeben.
Es ist wirklich nicht anders als die Haltung von Außenminister James N. Mattis, der sagte: „Ich komme in Frieden. Ich habe keine Artillerie mitgebracht. Aber ich flehe euch an, mit Tränen in den Augen: Wenn ihr mich ficken wollt, werde ich euch alle töten.“
Männer wie diese dürfen nicht zu hart getestet werden. Und Putins Antwort auf den Abschuss des IL-20-Flugzeugs und seiner Besatzung war, einen Haufen diplomatischer Linien zu überschreiten, indem er S-300 [Flugabwehrraketensystem; ergä. H.S.] an Syrien aushändigte und eine faktische Flugverbotszone über Westsyrien und dem östlichen Mittelmeer errichtete.
Beachten Sie, dass es in den letzten Wochen keine Angriffe oder gar harte Sprüche aus Israel oder den USA gegeben hat. Das Scheitern der britischen, französischen und israelischen Operation, Trump in eine Invasion Syriens zu stürzen, ist nun vollkommen. Und ich bin davon überzeugt, dass Nikki Haley dafür den Preis zahlen musste. All dies unterstreicht das Hauptthema, das aus Putins Kommentaren hervorging.
Stärke durch Entschlossenheit. Entschlossenheit kommt als Folge der Verteidigung der Kultur.
Putin hat nicht mit der Fähigkeit Russlands geprahlt, Hyperschall-Waffen zu benutzen. Er sagte allen, dass sie stationiert sind. Er tat dies, um die neokonservative Schwätzerklasse der USA zum Schweigen zu bringen, von der er zu Recht sagt, sie flüstere Präsident Trump ins Ohr, dass man einen nuklearen Konflikt mit Russland gewinnen könne. Sie sind verrückt. Und so müssen sie behandelt werden.
► Kultur zuerst
Putin sieht sich zu Recht als Hüter des russischen Volkes und damit des russischen Staates als Spiegel der russischen Kultur. Wenn man einen Staat hat und jemand dessen Oberhaupt sein soll, dann ist das die Einstellung, die man von dieser Person erwartet. Putin stimmte in seinem Gespräch mit einem orthodoxen Priester von ganzem Herzen der Idee zu, dass „der Staat die Kultur nicht diktieren kann“, sondern bestenfalls durch die Anwendung des Rechts zu dessen Moderator wird.
In einem Schlagabtausch mit einem sehr enthusiastischen russischen Milchviehhalter, der ziemlich stolz auf seinen Käse war, erinnerte Putin daran, dass er zwar die Sanktionen (vom europäischen Wettbewerb) liebt, die sein Geschäft heute schützen, sich aber nicht daran gewöhnen sollte. Sie werden irgendwann verschwinden, und der Landwirt müsse dann auf eigene Faust handeln, um auf dem internationalen Markt zu überleben.
Putin versteht, dass Subventionen Trägheit erzeugen. Das war eine Botschaft, die er laut und deutlich machte. Als die Sanktionen 2014 erstmals wegen der Wiedervereinigung mit der Krim und während der Rubelkrise in Kraft traten, verlagerte Putin die staatlichen Subventionen weg vom Erdölsektor, der in den Jahren des 100$+/bbl Öls gediehen ist und weich geworden war, und verlagerte dieses Geld in die Landwirtschaft.
Die Früchte dieses erfolgreichen Politikwechsels hat er in Valdai mit voller Wucht angesprochen. Die russische Nahrungsmittelproduktion floriert in allen Sektoren dank eines billigen Rubels, den die USA mit Sanktionen immer wieder niederstrecken, und was dem russischen Staat Investitionen erschwert.
Damals erregte das den Zorn des Rosneft CEO Igor Setschin, aber Putin hat ihn ignoriert, sehr zur Überraschung aller. Die Botschaft war klar, wir helfen Ihnen aus Ihren aktuellen Schwierigkeiten heraus, aber es ist an der Zeit, das Geschäft anders zu gestalten. Weil es Rosneft war, das Ende 2014/Anfang 2015 die größten Rettungsaktionen benötigte, mit Dutzenden von Milliarden auf Dollar lautenden Schulden, die dank der Sanktionen nicht verlängert werden konnten.
► Die Grenzen des Imperiums
Am Ende sah Putin resigniert, wenn nicht verwirrt aus, wegen dem Wahnsinn, der von der US-Politik ausgeht. Aber es ist für ihn offensichtlich, dass sich Russland nicht in dieses Geplänkel aus Belästigungen verwickeln lassen darf, die Russlands Zukunft gefährden sollen. Er erwähnte, dass das Imperium seinen Weg verliert, weil es sich für unverwundbar hielt oder wie mein Vater immer über bestimmte Athleten sagte: „Er liest zu viel seine eigenen Zeitungsausschnitte.“
Es gibt einen Solipsismus (eine Ich-Philosophie), der dominante Gesellschaften befällt, was jene Art von Überreaktionen erzeugt, die wir heute erleben. Die Macht entgleitet den USA, und Trump hilft bei diesem Prozess und versucht gleichzeitig, den Kern dessen, was übrig ist, zu erhalten.
Und keine Interaktion während Putins Vortrag war für seine Sichtweise auf das US-Imperium bezeichnender als seine Interaktion mit einem japanischen Delegierten, der ihn nach der Unterzeichnung eines Friedensvertrags mit Japan fragte. Und Putins Antwort war klar. Es sind der Stolz Japans und die politischen Verwicklungen, die dies ausschließen. Die Unterzeichnung eines Friedensvertrags ist nicht notwendig, um das Eigentumsrecht der Kurilen zu lösen. Sowohl Russland als auch Japan werden dadurch geschwächt, dass dieses Hindernis im Weg steht.
Das Problem kann sich nach der Unterzeichnung des Friedensvertrages selbst lösen. Der aktuelle Stand der Dinge ist albern und anachronistisch und hält die Kluft zwischen Russen und Japanern von der Heilung ab. Schaffen Sie Vertrauen durch Abkommen und dann kommt man voran. Das ist es, was zwischen Russland und Ägypten geschieht.
Und deshalb gewinnt Putin den diplomatischen Krieg.
Und deshalb verliert Trump den diplomatischen Krieg.
Putin weiß, woran Trump ist. Er selbst war vor siebzehn Jahren an diesem Punkt, nur um eine Größenordnung schlechter. Die Probleme, mit denen Trump konfrontiert ist, sind die gleichen Probleme, mit denen Putin konfrontiert war. Korruption, Bestechlichkeit, Verrat, die alle zu einem Zusammenbruch der gesellschaftlichen und kulturellen Institutionen beigetragen haben. Putin weiß, dass die USA an einem Scheideweg stehen, und er hat seinen Frieden mit dem gemacht, was als nächstes kommt.
Die Frage ist, haben wir das?
Der in engl. Sprache am 19. Okt. 2018 verfasste Originalbeitrag von TOM LUONGO wurde von FritzTheCat übersetzt.
Tom Luongo ist ein unabhängiger politischer und wirtschaftlicher Analyst. Ausgesprochen und kompromisslos ist seine Arbeit bei »Seeking Alpha« in finanziellen Angelegenheiten, »Halsey News« in kulturellen und geopolitischen Fragen und seinem persönlichen Blog & Podcast »Gold, Goats 'n Guns« zu sehen. Tom ist auch der ehemalige Herausgeber des »Resolute Wealth Letter« und ein aktueller Mitarbeiter am »Financial Intelligence Report« von »Newsmax Media«. Er lebt in Gainesville, Nordflorida mit seiner Frau, seiner Tochter, seiner Herde von Milchziegen und seinen Hunden.
Am 18. Oktober nimmt Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin an der 15. Sitzung des "Waldai-Klubs" teil. Die Plenartagung in Sotschi ist der Stabilität und Entwicklung im 21. Jahrhundert gewidmet.
LIVE: Wladimir Putin nimmt am Diskussionsklub "Waldai" teil (deutsche Simultanübersetzung)
HINWEIS v. KN-ADMIN H.S.: Bitte lest die Text-Mitschrift der kompletten Plenarsitzung, einfach weiter runtercrollen!!
► Quelle: Veröffentlicht am 23. Oktber 2018 von Maren Müller auf dem Blog des Vereins "Ständige Publikumskonferenz der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien e.V.“ >> Artikel. Der Artikel steht unter der CC-Lizenz Namensnennung-Nicht kommerziell 2.0 Deutschland (CC BY-NC 2.0 DE). Die Fotos und Grafiken sind NICHT Bestandteil des Originalartikels und wurden von KN-ADMIN Helmut Schnug eingefügt. Für sie gelten ggf. andere Lizenzen, s.u..
► Über den Verein >> weiter.
► Bild- und Grafikquellen:
1. Banner / Logo (anklickbar) zum Verein "Ständige Publikumskonferenz der öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien e.V.“ Die Rechte bleiben beim Verein.
2. Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club - Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 15th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, October 18, 2018 - Sochi. Source/Quelle: President of Russia >> Presidential Executive Office >> http://en.kremlin.ru/. >> /events/president/news. All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Namensnennung 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) >> Foto.
3. MAD DOG - VERRÜCKTER HUND. Foto: David Merrigan, London. Quelle: Flickr. Verbreitung mit CC-Lizenz Namensnennung-Nicht kommerziell 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0).
4. James N. Mattis (* 8. September 1950 in Pullman, Washington) ist ein ehemaliger General des US Marine Corps (USMC) und war von August 2010 bis März 2013 Kommandeur des US Central Command. Zuvor war er von 2007 bis 2010 Kommandeur des US Joint Forces Command, außerdem von 2007 bis 2009 zugleich Supreme Allied Commander Transformation der NATO. Diesen Posten gab er nach der Rückkehr Frankreichs in die integrierte NATO-Kommandostruktur an einen französischen General ab. Seit dem 20. Januar 2017 ist der als "MAD DOG" bekannte Mattis Verteidigungsminister der Vereinigten Staaten im Kabinett Trump.
Foto: D. Myles Cullen. Quelle: Wikimedia Commons. Diese Datei ist ein Werk eines Mitarbeiters der US-Streitkräfte oder des Verteidigungsministeriums der Vereinigten Staaten, aufgenommen oder hergestellt während seiner offiziellen Anstellung. Als amtliches Werk der Bundesregierung der Vereinigten Staaten ist dieses Bild gemeinfrei.
5. Oleg Sirota, head of Russia’s Cheesemakers Union, dairy farmer, at the plenary session of the 15th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, October 18, 2018 - Sochi. Source/Quelle: President of Russia >> Presidential Executive Office >> http://en.kremlin.ru/. >> /events/president/news. All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Namensnennung 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) >> Foto.
6. Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 15th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, October 18, 2018 - Sochi. Source/Quelle: President of Russia >> Presidential Executive Office >> http://en.kremlin.ru/. >> /events/president/news. All content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Namensnennung 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) >> Foto.
7. Tom Luongo, unabhängiger politischer und wirtschaftlicher Analyst aus Gainesville, Nordflorida. Quelle: >> https://tomluongo.me/ >> Follow him on Twitter @TFL1728 . email@example.com
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 15th anniv. meeting of the Valdai Intern. Discussion Club.
October 18, 2018 - 17:50 - Sochi
Text-Mitschrift der kompletten Plenarsitzung
The main topic is The World We Will Live In: Stability and Development in the 21st Century. The plenary session moderator is Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club.
The Valdai Forum opened in Sochi on October 15. Its participants – 130 experts from 33 countries – are discussing Russia’s political and socioeconomic prospects as well as social and cultural development and place in the modern world.
The Valdai Club was established in 2004. Traditionally, the forum participants meet with Russia’s senior officials as part of the annual meetings.
Following the plenary session, Vladimir Putin held an informal meeting with several members of the Valdai International Discussion Club, including member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of China’s Communist Party Yang Jiechi, former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Lassina Zerbo, former UN Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov, General Director of the Hermitage State Museum Mikhail Piotrovsky, and public activist Natalia Solzhenitsyn.
* * *
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Plenary session moderator Fyodor Lukyanov: Good afternoon, friends,
Let’s begin our final session. As per tradition, we have President of Russia Vladimir Putin here as our guest.
Mr President, in case you have forgotten, you are here for the 15th time. How are you?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to speak to the permanent participants of our meeting. It is true, 15 years is quite something. I believe that the Valdai Club, as we called it because the first events took place in Novgorod, has become a good international platform over these years, a platform for professionals who are interested in global politics, the economy, culture as well as the work of media. Of course, in relation to Russia.
As a rule, these are experts on Russia. And we would like very much for people who work with Russia to have such a platform, so that we could meet and you could hear our position on all matters of interest for you, your countries, and for us, for Russia, not in someone’s retelling, but firsthand, from me and my colleagues.
These discussions have always presented different and sometimes even opposite points of view. I think that this is the advantage of this discussion club; we call it a discussion club because where there is only one, right point of view, there is no place for discussion.
Truth is born from comparing different approaches to the same phenomena and various assessments. Thanks to your participation, we can reach this result.
I see many world-famous politicians in this hall; here, on my right; and I would like to welcome them all, including the President of Afghanistan and our colleagues from the EAEU. I can also see scientists, cultural figures and journalists. I hope that today’s meeting will also be not only useful but interesting as well.
However, I am a bit confused about the format today. Usually we have several people on this stage, and the discussion lasts for quite some time. Of course, I am ready to fly solo, as the organisers suggest, but I hope that it will not take four or five times longer than usual.
Thank you and let’s just skip the long welcoming remarks and go straight to our conversation, our work and our discussion.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, it is true that, as you have noted, Valdai has various points of view. There have always been many opinions, and this year is no exception.
Especially as we see our membership expand not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of representation of various countries and regions, which, or course, provides for differing visions.
This year we have a very busy agenda with a subject that has not been very characteristic for Valdai recently, because we usually talk about Russia practically all the time. Last time we talked about Russia was at the 10th meeting. And you certainly remember that it was a very large event; you attended, and we decided to return.
Not only because many of our participants, club members, asked for this, but also because we believe (Valdai has prepared an annual report for this session) the world is facing some very serious changes.
It is not only being globally transformed; but in some sense, we are losing the vision on what foundations it can be built later. We looked for these foundations in our previous reports, but now, in fact, we have given this up and can say that the moment when the changing of the world could be controlled has passed.
We will talk about this later, but this means that every country – big or small – should rely on itself above all, to provide for its own stability and development. This is why it would be reasonable to consider if we are ready for this. In this sense, of course, what you say is really firsthand information.
Unfortunately, our work is darkened by a tragic event. We have heard the news from Kerch. You talked about it yesterday, and we also spoke about this tragedy.
What is the main thing here? Of course the first thought that everybody here – or everybody everywhere – had was that it was a large terrorist attack again. Unfortunately, we are getting used to this. But later it turned out that the situation was a bit different.
Why is this coming back to me now? Not only because it just happened, but because it also brings up memories of the first Valdai Forum in Novgorod. You mentioned it; it took place against the backdrop of the Beslan tragedy.
I attended that forum, and many of those who are with us today did, too. I remember it well. The discussion was, of course, erratic as everyone kept going out to see what was happening on television, for lack of smartphones.
You were at Valdai then, but during the forum you recorded a televised address to the nation, which was harsh, understandably so given the context.
In the address, you said something that would be quoted later: “The weak get beaten. Some would like to cut a big piece of our pie. Others help them. Thinking that Russia, as one of the largest nuclear powers, is still a threat that must be eliminated. Terrorism is just a tool they use.”
Afterwards, when you talked to the Valdai members, you said that we had been challenged and that we would rise up to that challenge. It’s been 15 years; do you think we have?
Fyodor Lukyanov: You are better at math.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You are naturally inducing a different reminiscence. The Valdai conference from three years ago (in 2015), took place exactly two weeks after the military operation began in Syria.
I remember one of our colleagues asked you a question: “Was it actually worth being involved at all? Because of the costs, the casualties, and it is not clear how it will end.” And you said your branded phrase, which was quoted a lot later: “Fifty years ago, I learned one rule in the streets of Leningrad: if the fight is inevitable, be the first to strike.”
Well, we struck, and three years later, the situation in Syria has indeed changed dramatically, but it is still impossible to say that the problem has been resolved. Recent events make both positive and negative impressions. So I would like to repeat the question from three years ago: “Maybe it was not worth the risk, because the casualties have proven serious?“
Fyodor Lukyanov: You said, some of the militants lost faith and understood that they were wrong. First, are you sure they lost faith? Or maybe they were just overpowered, and they realized it was pointless to continue to fight, but the situation might change a little, and they will get their faith back?
Fyodor Lukyanov: A question on current events, if I may. October 15 was a deadline set by Turkey to do certain things in Idlib. Do you think they accomplished what they were supposed to do?
Fyodor Lukyanov: We are now switching to our favourite subject, which we discuss every year, because we inherited it from our American colleagues and, let’s face it, the United States is always on the agenda.
In 2016, you made a very colourful statement. It was a difficult period, as we all remember, following the Ukraine crisis, and the Syria crisis was already in full swing. There was a question from the audience: “Is this not the time to reduce tensions?” And you answered, “We are all looking forward to seeing geopolitical tensions reduced, but not by way of our funeral. If the cost for reducing geopolitical tensions is our funeral, we are not happy about it.“ Funeral is nowhere to be seen yet, but this method, I think, continues to be considered in some parts of the world as an option.
You had the experience of talking with the President of the United States recently, and, in general, much is going on, but things are exclusively negative. I may be wrong as an onlooker, but I have a feeling that your meetings with Mr Trump lead to results that are the opposite of what’s expected. In this regard, I have a question. Perhaps, it makes sense to even stop trying and take a break? They have their own big internal problems, let them figure it out.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Several books about Donald Trump have been released, one after another.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, they are very interesting. They create this image of a person who only listens to and hears himself. When you meet with him, does he listen to you?
Fyodor Lukyanov: You know that commentators and political scientists often say that when a relationship is deadlocked and this appears to be the case, a “sobering” crisis is beneficial because the countries realise that the danger is real and something needs to be done to move beyond the abyss.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was like that. Some suggest we need a similar crisis today to help the Americans shift their view from their domestic issues, and realize that the stakes are high and positive steps need to be taken.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you, that’s a comprehensive answer.
However, I will then mention another of your quotes. Speaking about antimissile systems in 2011, you said more broadly that Russia is not afraid of conflict. Back then it was one type of conflict, but today it’s different. What kind of conflict are we not afraid of today?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Okay. You said we were not creating problems for anyone, but I think that some people in this hall will challenge you on this later, because the impression is that Russia is creating a lot of problems.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Okay, I’m sorry.
Still, let’s assume this is the case. But if we aren’t creating any problems, others may be creating them for us.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You once coined a wonderful phrase (a well-known metaphor that compares Russia to a bear): “The bear will not ask anyone for permission. He is the master of the taiga and he will not move to other climatic zones, but he will not give up his taiga to anyone, either. And everyone should be clear about that, that’s all there is to it.”
Is anyone encroaching on our taiga today, or are we already living in the “that’s all” era?
Fyodor Lukyanov: With regard to us not going anywhere and not needing anything, clearly, there are people who will disagree with you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: They will say, “What about Crimea?”
Fyodor Lukyanov: Now, about the people. I just remembered that at the 10th Valdai meeting in 2013 you mentioned Alexander Solzhenitsyn. One of his key ideas was that saving people is more important than anything else. Indeed, in the modern world, the competition for the people, the souls and minds and for human capital is more fierce than for the territories that may be acquired or not. Natalia Solzhenitsyn spoke on this issue at our session. We are discussing conventional conflicts here, but if we talk about conflicts or competition, certain rivalry, for human minds and souls, do you think we are prepared for it? Are we winning?
Editor-in-Chief of Russia Today TV channel Margarita Simonyan: You have our invitation.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Well, that is nice.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s continue this subject as it is important, I believe. In the now historic speech of 2014, which is now called the Crimea Speech in connection with Crimea rejoining Russia, you mentioned the Russian world, compatriots and a divided nation. It was exciting and impressive. However, by doing so you touched on very delicate strings and awakened very powerful emotions, because this national identity, what you think about yourself and your country, your land is, of course, a very powerful weapon which can be either positive or negative. Since then, we have seen many events that have occurred, including in the Russian world, and are still unfolding, such as the Ukrainian church, and, clearly, there will be more. Here is a question that may sound somewhat audacious: Do you regret raising this subject and touching it the way you did now that we know the results?
Fyodor Lukyanov: You have repeatedly said, including at Valdai forums, that nationalism and chauvinism of any kind cause a lot of damage, first, to that people and to that ethnos, whose interests nationalists are allegedly concerned about. In 2014, you told us that you are Russia's biggest nationalist. Are you still?
Fyodor Lukyanov: I prepared.
Fyodor Lukyanov: If there is only you, then this is not enough. Do you have like-minded people, the same kind of nationalists?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Great.
Ok, Mr President, then it is agreed that Russia should not be destroyed. But you also made one very harsh statement not long ago.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Well, I'm sorry, it’s my job, they pay me for it.
Fyodor Lukyanov: One minute please. Everything in its time.
Can you please explain to me? You didn’t say this at Valdai: “Why do we need the world if Russia isn’t in it?” Many interpreted this in their own way, that you meant “after me, the deluge,” you know the expression. Is this what you meant, or, I suspect, you meant something else?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, in the film.
Fyodor Lukyanov: I feel the urge to address Metropolitan Tikhon right away, however, I will do this a bit later, if you do not object.
I take it that you, Mr President, are bored with me as an interlocutor, so let me ask you one more question and then people from the floor will ask questions.
As a follow-up to what you said regarding a reciprocal counter strike and who will go where, last evening we had a remarkable meeting where Valery Gergiev gave a speech. He, in addition to being a great musician, is a man who plays an active role in social life and civil society.
He spoke about many things. He also said this: in his opinion, three countries and their three leaders have a great responsibility. These countries are – you can name them in any order – the US, Russia and China. Everything depends on them. They can achieve things and prevent things. In general, I agree with this.
I think it is obvious that there are three countries that have more opportunities and a greater potential, both destructive and creative. As a leader who carries this burden, do you ever feel scared? Or do you not think of it at all? What do you mean by ‘scared’?
Fyodor Lukyanov: It is a great responsibility.You are one of the three people responsible for the entire world.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You have no fear?
Fyodor Lukyanov: All right, no further questions.
Fyodor Lukyanov: There are two aspects to fear. On the one hand, what you are talking about is your internal feeling, and on the other hand it is a leadership style. Do you think ruling by fear is an effective way to govern?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Let us move on to joint efforts. Sheng Shiliang is our old-timer.
Sheng Shiliang: Mr President, you have rightly noted that, indeed, Russia never creates problems for others. But, as a Chinese proverb goes, the trees want to remain quiet, but the wind will not stop. We are not left in peace. Firstly, both China and Russia have been labelled “revisionist states.”
Secondly, Russia and China are declared, along with Iran and North Korea, to be the main adversaries of the greatest, most peaceful, and most offended country in the world and of all times.
Thirdly, there are the sanctions imposed on you, and the trade war waged against us. The situation is very serious. I have a quote from a well-known Hong Kong mafia film: the uncle is very angry; the consequences will be very serious.
This means we have much in common. I would like to ask you how Russia is going to respond. And what recommendations would you give to us, to China?
Fyodor Lukyanov: To use the wind metaphor – let the east wind blow some more. Let us hear from our colleague from Japan.
What do you think he will ask, Mr President?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Neither do I.
Question: Sorry, but I have to ask. Two years ago, I asked you here in this hall how realistic it was to expect a favourable atmosphere for Japan and Russia to sign a peace treaty in the near future, say within two, three or four years. You said it was wrong, impossible and even harmful to set a fixed timeframe, because there was not enough trust between us at the time.
In September 2018, during the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, you suggested to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, “Let us sign a peace treaty, not now, but by the end of the year without any preconditions.”
Could you please clarify: does this mean that enough trust has already been established between us to sign a peace treaty, bearing in mind what you said two years ago, or does it mean something else?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Your Grace Metropolitan Tikhon, please.
Chairman of the Patriarchal Council for Culture Metropolitan Tikhon: The round table I took part in here, at Valdai, dealt with cultural issues, or to be exact, whether and how culture can affect the life of society in the 21st century and today.
At the onset of the discussion Mr Zanussi asked the following question, Can we even grasp, can we assess a nation’s culture today? An opinion was voiced that the level of charity in society may be such an assessment criterion. I mean general culture, not its specific manifestations.
It may seem that it was a fairly abstract discussion. But the events in Kerch, even though we do not fully understand the motives behind this ill-fated person’s actions, let us see how aggression and intolerance are on the rise not only in Russia but also generally everywhere.
My question is as follows: Firstly, what do you yourself think of the conclusions we have made at this round table regarding charity as a key criterion of society’s general culture?
Secondly, we talk a lot of about state culture policy nowadays. There is a lot of debate. We are all aware that the state will not regulate culture in a rough or intrusive way, and this is probably absolutely correct. But can the state deliberately support all those creative and historical spiritual and cultural keynote dominants that have developed in Russia, something we call spiritual and cultural values?
Fyodor Lukyanov: SinceHis Grace raised the issue of charity, I cannot but give the floor to Nyuta Federmesser.
Founder of the Vera Hospice Charity Fund Nyuta Federmesser: Thank you very much. First, thank you for the chance to be here. Yesterday there was also a very important discussion on the interaction between society and the authorities. Thank you for bringing me in on this issue.
During the first half (I hope the second half is still to come), you spoke and the questions that were asked were mostly about war. As a representative of a totally different side of life, since we will all die anyway, I do not understand why this pain could be induced…
Nyuta Federmesser: Yes, absolutely.
In palliative care, in hospices, dying is always preceded by a tremendous concentration of love. Because when people know that this is to come, that it is ahead and that they do not have much time, they spend all that time saying, “Forgive me,” “I forgive you” and “I love you.” Whereas what we talked about here was about a different kind of death: death related to hate.
You said you have no fear, no fear of the responsibility for the world. We have an incredible number of people in our country totalling 18 million with family members, 18 million of those who have fear because their loved ones are severely ill or dying without getting adequate help.
It is clear that this is not the first time I speak about palliative care and hospices, and we have been drafting a priority project, you know about that, it was done in part following your instructions. About a year ago, incredible funds were allocated to palliative care development, which, unfortunately, will not be spent. They were allocated in such a way that as of today only 12 percent was spent on palliative care while the rest of the funds will go back to the budget. And I am terribly afraid that I will have no right to say to you, “Mr President, can we revisit the palliative aid issue?” because you will say, “But the funds were returned, so they were not needed.”
I would very much like that alongside considering Russia’s totally different role in world history and sanctions from all sides, we would also discuss the people who make up the country. Eighteen million is a huge figure. There are 1,300,000 – one million three hundred thousand – of those who die each year while needing that care. I want to see care for those people, who are afraid, also to become a priority area. I want them to reply as easily as you did to that question, “I have no fear.” No fear because they know that the state will protect them, the system will protect them, and this help is very inexpensive.
And to protect them, there is no need to reshuffle the economy and re-shape the GDP or whatever. What is needed is your very firm decision, as firm as regarding the issues discussed earlier. Well, that is probably all. I just want those people to also be able to quietly say “We have no fear” thanks to your efforts. Thank you very much. I have the relevant papers with me.
Fyodor Lukyanov: I seem to be the chief militarist here. I am going to prove this is not true. Behind me is the world’s most cheerful man, a food producer, who made an indelible impression during the conference.
Head of the Cheesemakers Union of Russia Oleg Sirota: Good afternoon, Mr President. I am a farmer from Moscow Region, I make cheese. Let me begin by saying on behalf of the farmers, we have been telling you this repeatedly over the last four years….
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr Sirota, the concise version, please.
Oleg Sirota: I wanted to thank you for the sanctions. In fact, we had a long discussion about this with experts at our session…
Oleg Sirota: That is what we were debating, who to thank, Obama, Merkel or you? Anyway, thank you for all of that.
Russian agriculture is clearly thriving. Take me: I sold my flat, my car, my business, made an investment, and my cheese-making factory has been growing 300 percent a year. The agricultural breakthrough is boosted by protectionism, the sanction shield, the cheap ruble, and care, such as record subsidies.
Oleg Sirota: Hard and semi-hard. We are thinking about exporting them. Next year, our cheese will make Vienna, Munich and Berlin tremble. I assure you, we already have an agreement.
Oleg Sirota: Because it is delicious.
Oleg Sirota: Our cheese is tasty, hard and cheap thanks to the ruble rates.
It is attracting investors, including international ones. Everyone has begun investing in Russia’s agriculture. We have partners from Switzerland who relocated to Russia and are building farms. I was asked repeatedly during the session about what would happen if the sanctions were cancelled. What would I do? Would it be a disaster?
So I have a question myself: will the Government continue to pay close attention to our industry, to support it and to continue with protectionism, if the sanctions are lifted? Because we need to be able to sleep well for a few years.
And a personal question, if I may. Mr President, I am Russia’s record holder in that I have tried nine times to give you my cheese as a gift, and nine times it was confiscated by your security detail, who must be doing a great job.
Oleg Sirota: It would seem so. So my question is whether they have let the cheese through, Mr President, or not? One time I even wrote a message thanking you for the sanctions. They said they were going to pass it on. Did they? Or did they eat it themselves?
Oleg Sirota: I see.
Oleg Sirota: Excellent. Thank you.
Mr President, let me jump on the occasion before they take the mic…
Fyodor Lukyanov: Stop, Oleg, you are not the only one here.
Oleg Sirota: I have got a head of cheese for you. Please, come and get it, it has been waiting for you for four years.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Here it comes.
Oleg Sirota: Good.
Oleg Sirota: Istra, Moscow Region.
Oleg Sirota: On the shelf in storage.
Oleg Sirota: It has been waiting for you for four years.
Fyodor Lukyanov: What is more, the quality has not deteriorated.
Oleg Sirota: You must have tasted it while stationed in Germany. It is Bergkäse, a hard Alpine cheese.
Oleg Sirota: We call it Istra Cheese.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do inform Karin Kneissl that they are going to tremble over there in Vienna. After all, the cheese is coming.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Of course.
Ragida Dergham, go ahead, please.
Ragida Dergham: Thank you, my name is Ragida Dergham. I am Founder and Executive Chairman of Beirut Institute. It’s a think tank for the Arab region with a global reach. So I have specific question about three countries, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
On Saudi Arabia, of course, the world is preoccupied with the developments, and I’m wondering what consequences or… Do you see that there may be consequences, on your particular relationships, Russian-Saudi relations, given that you have been eager to have good relations and beyond.
On Egypt, you had magnificent success yesterday with President el-Sisi. Did you agree also that Egypt would play a role in Syria, particularly, in rehabilitating the government of Syria with the Arab League and the Gulf states?
And lastly, on Iran. Why, Mr President, don’t you feel comfortable asking the Iranians to withdraw from Syria since you have said in the past all forces would go. Why can’t you be specific? That would help probably in bringing your own troops back home. And maybe the public would be more comfortable then being worried about their troops. And also, this is a big issue between you and the United States. And I think I have heard you say you would like to have good relations. Can you solve that? Do you feel comfortable to deal with the Iranian question and have better relations with the United States? Thank you, sir.
Ragida Dergham: As you know, because of the developments in Istanbul, at the Saudi Consulate, there is a big interest worldwide in the investigation regarding the assassination or the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist who was our colleague and has been a participant in the Valdai Group. So this is what I am talking about. Right now, of course, there is pressure on President Trump that may reflect on the mid-term elections, and there are countries pulling out and countries being concerned, I mean, media and others are concerned about continuing to be present in Saudi Arabia given the alleged feeling that maybe someone in the government may be involved in this atrocity, of killing of Jamal Khashoggi. That is what I meant. Do you think it will impact your relations with Saudi Arabia at all? And please do not forget the questions about Egypt.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, a practical question to follow: Is flight security in Egypt no longer an issue? Has it been resolved?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Professor Toloraya, please.
Georgy Toloraya: Georgy Toloraya, the Russky Mir Foundation and the National Committee for BRICS Studies.
Mr President, in the morning we widely discussed Asia, the east wind and Russia’s European-Pacific characteristics. In fact, I think that this autumn marks a milestone with respect to Asian politics: the Eastern Economic Forum was attended for the first time by all the leaders of Northeast Asia except North Korea; I also know that you will attend the East Asia Forum in Kuala Lumpur.
There are big problems in Asia, and one of them, my favourite, is the Korean problem. Now we can see significant progress. Last year when we met it seemed that we were on the brink of war, but now we may be on the brink of peace.
How do you think Russia can help the peace process, in particular, the agreement between North Korea and the US? It is no secret that the Russian diplomats do a lot, but maybe they can do more.
And regarding sanctions. We suffer under the sanctions. Our trilateral project, Rajin-Khasan, suffers. Isn’t it time for us to take some measures in this regard?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yerlan Karin.
Yerlan Karin: (Director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan): Good evening, Mr President. I would like to take the Asian issue further. Five years ago, during his visit to Kazakhstan, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke about the Belt and Road Initiative.
Two years later, you and the Chinese President adopted a joint statement on integrating the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative.
Today, given the current events in the international political arena, all these sanctions and more trade disputes between China and the United States, are these initiative still relevant? Are they losing their importance, or are there new prospects? I would like to hear your point of view.
And the second question. In August, together with your colleagues, leaders of Caspian states, you adopted a very important document in Aktau, a convention that, as many think, has become a sort of constitution of the Caspian region. How do you see the further cooperation in the region and the resolution of other issues related to this area?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Andrei Sushentsov, welcome.
Andrei Sushentsov: I am Andrei Sushentsov from the School of International Studies at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).
There have been media reports on a number of countries developing biological weapons agents, and the issue of the presence of the United States' biological laboratories on the territory of other countries has long been a concern among experts.
Recently, the former Georgian minister of state security presented documents to the media regarding this. There is a convention that prohibits the development of biological weapons. What measures can be taken in response? And is this data true?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yaroslav Lisovolik.
Chief Economist of the Eurasian Development Bank Yaroslav Lissovolik: Good evening, Mr President. During today's discussion, you mentioned the refocusing Russia's foreign trade towards Asia. The question is to what extent this can be expressed in currencies other than the dollar. Are there opportunities for the de-dollarization of the global economy?
There are different opinions, and this issue is being actively discussed not only in Russia but internationally as well. It would seem that given the exaggerated role of the dollar in past decades, there is a lot of room for de-dollarization. On the other hand, the developing markets' currency volatility poses certain questions here. What is your opinion regarding the opportunity for the de-dollarization of the global economy?
Fyodor Lukyanov: We have people here in this room who know how to live without the dollar. Mr. Sajjadpour from Iran, please.
Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour: Thank you, Mr President. I am Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour, Institute for Political and International Studies, Iran. Thank you again.
I have a question about militarisation of the Middle East. Three facts. First, there is military activity in Syria beyond the control of the Syrian government. Second, there are people in the United States imagining that we are responsible for the invasion of Iraq <…>. Third, there are some actors in the region who really want a military confrontation, bringing the US to a broader military confrontation.
How do you see the picture and what would be the US response? Do you feel there is more militarisation in the region? And does this militarisation need to be contained? Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you say that monopolism is a bad thing. America, for example, used to artificially dismember monopolies on the market to create competition. Should we perhaps do the same in politics?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.
Timothy Colton: Thank you very much. Timothy Colton, Harvard University. I have a question about Russian public opinion.
As is well known, since you became leader of the country all those years ago in 2000, you have had very steadily positive ratings in the eyes of your fellow citizens. Approval of your work in office is usually higher than 60 percent and sometimes is as high as 80 percent. This is quite extraordinary. But Russian sociologists also ask a number of other questions, but one in particular, which is very interesting. It is a question about the direction that the country is taking.
And if we look back, we have this information all the way back to the 1990s. There is often a rather large difference or gap, that very commonly has been the case that support for you personally coincides with many Russians actually thinking that the country is going in the wrong direction. Now, after 2014, the so-called ‘Crimea bounce’ occurred, your ratings went even higher than usual but at that point for several years, more Russians, a lot more Russians thought that the country was going in a positive direction and not in a so-called ‘tupik.’ But this has changed this year, all of a sudden. It seems that more Russians think that the country is going in the wrong direction even as they continue to support you. So what is your interpretation of this disparity?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Sabine Fischer, please.
Sabine Fischer: Thank you. My name is Sabine Fischer, and I work for the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP).
Good afternoon, Mr President. I would like to continue the discussion about Russian society. Last week, the Civil Initiatives Committee published a new report that says the Russian society has a growing demand for changes, and which is proved by the recent opinion polls.
What do you think about what the report authors call a change in the collective consciousness of Russian society, and how are you going to deal with it?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, do you want any changes for yourself?
Fyodor Lukyanov: So my question was well-timed.
But let us take some more questions?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mikhail Pogrebinsky, please.
Mikhail Pogrebinsky: (Director of the Kiev Centre for Political and Conflict Resolution Studies): Mr President, I think the conversation would be incomplete without mentioning Ukraine, the fraternal country I come from. Although Mr Lavrov described in detail the homeostasis in this difficult matter, maybe you can add something optimistic here?
I believe my country’s Government is doing its best to drive the solution to this problem into a dead end, and the US, as represented by Kurt Volker is helping it, while at the same time the Normandy format seems to have frozen and nothing it happening there.
Is there, in your opinion, maybe not in the immediate future, but in the medium term, any chance of healing this bleeding wound in our relations and steering the situation out of the deadlock?
Jean-Pierre Raffarin: Thank you, Mr President, for this large and deep discussion.
I am in politics for 40 years, and I have never seen the world so dangerous. We have a lot of conflicts, and we have a lot of threats, and we have a lot of war everywhere; school for wars. We have never schooled for peace. But we know that peace is not something coming from the sky; peace is work, hard work. So I would like to know how we can promote peace, promote antiterrorism, make reforms – for example, for multilateralism, for the WTO, for the Security Council? How can we develop a dialogue with people we do not agree with? And I think it is very important for people to know that no one wants a war in their country. They know that war is awful, as you said, a disaster. So, in this matter, how can we have some development of the culture of peace? Such a very big point for everybody in society. And so, maybe together we can make peace great again.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, there is another question standing between you and the changes, and I cannot just sweep it under the rug , because there is a winner of the Valdai Award this year. Actually, there are two winners, but this is of particular importance. Our colleague Piotr Dutkiewicz was rightfully awarded the prize and let him ask the final question.
Piotr Dutkiewicz (Director of the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Carleton University, Canada): Mr President, you have taken part in the Valdai Club for 15 years now. It is a long period of time, and many changes have taken place.
Permit me to ask you a question. During these 15 years, how has your perception of Russia and what surrounds it changed? And what is most important is how did your perception of yourself as Russia’s leader change?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, of course, the Valdai Club cannot compete with the wisdom of the Russian people, which you have been partaking of all these years. However, we will commit ourselves and try and come up with some sort of an intellectual surprise for you next year. I hope we can make it happen if we pool all our efforts.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your time, and we hope to see you again next year.
Vladimir Putin: On my part, I would like to thank all the Russian and foreign experts who have been participating in this work for so many years now. Special words of gratitude go to my colleagues who have held or are holding now high government positions, because they have places to go where they can be useful, but they nevertheless choose to come to Russia in order to participate in discussions with us.
It is important and good for us, because it gives us a chance to convey to you our position on key development matters and listen to what you have to say. Even the way you frame your questions is important for us, because it also provides an important perspective for us.
I would like to wish you all the very best and thank you all very much indeed.
Quelle: http://en.kremlin.ru/ >> http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/58848