Inside Krasnodar | 2008

Congratulations to Mr. Putin and to the country of Russia for being named “The Man of the Year.” While Time is correct to recognize the growing influence and importance of Russia in today’s world, it still fell back on old cliches and tired stereotypes in its cover story. Fortunately, Time magazine also printed the full transcript from its interview with President Putin. I often find that when one actually reads Putin’s words and has direct access to his thoughts and opinions one is surprised at how bright, logical, and insightful he can be. Sure you say but he’s still scary. Really? Read the transcript below and decide for yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Putin Q & A: Full Transcript

TIME: Despite the cold war, Russia and the United States have found themselves aligned in many of history’s big conflicts: World War I, World War II and now, thanks in large part to your response to 9/11, there seems to be some alignment in the war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. With that history in mind, how do you envision the relationship between Russia and the U.S. going forward?

PUTIN: Indeed, Russia and the U.S. were allies during the two tragic conflicts of the Second and the First World Wars, which allows us to think there’s something objectively bringing us together in difficult times, and I think—I believe—it has to do with geopolitical interests and also has a moral component. Of course, the cold war marked a tragedy in relations between our two countries, and I wouldn’t want to see the vestiges of those relations prevailing in the future. And I’ll be frank with you. In the past decade or so, maybe in the last 50 years, the idea that the United States is a unique nation seems to have taken root in the U.S. public psyche. It’s perhaps not an absolutely groundless notion. It’s a historical phenomenon that in 250 years, a nation could move from a colony into the most prosperous nation of the world and the leader of the world. It is indeed an achievement, a tribute to the talent of the American nation, the American people and an optimal political and economic system. However, as a rule, leaders do not have rights; they mostly have commitments and obligations. When they come to think that they have rights, they tend to lose their position and authority. When we used to have two world groupings, the so-called Western bloc headed by the United States and the so-called Eastern bloc headed by the Soviet Union, both sides instilled strict discipline among members of their communities. That worked at the time. Today, when the vast majority of actors in the international scene do not feel such an external threat, this manner of conduct of dictating to anyone—please don’t take offense at this—indicates a lack of understanding and utter rejection. Today other forms and instruments of international intercourse are called for, as well as other means of countering the prevailing threats. Today to be successful, one must be able to reach agreements, to compromise. The ability to compromise is not a diplomatic politeness toward a partner but rather taking into account and respecting your partner’s legitimate interests.

TIME: Can you give us an example?

PUTIN: The North Korean nuclear issue. We were full of patience. And we treated the issue very seriously. We were thinking about each other’s interests and at the same time about the interests of the country in question, the problems, the issues we were trying to address. Based on such an approach, in the end we resolved the issue to a large extent. At the same time, where we fail to be guided by those basic principles, where we push forward some economic or political self-interest, we fail to arrive at solutions that would realistically address the issue. You mentioned terrorism, and here I wouldn’t add to terrorism such an attribute as Islamic. In our view, terrorism—and I’m convinced terrorism doesn’t have national, ethnic or religious attributes—is an international phenomenon and radicals can be found in any environment, in any nation and in any religion. From time to time, something abates, something surfaces, these things are fluid. We’re not encountering religious demonstrations but rather an ideology of intolerance, regardless of what colors it paints itself. Where we try to take into account each other’s interest, we achieve lasting results. Where we cannot abandon our political or economic self interest, we fail to find such solutions. It is productive to behave precisely in such a way, taking into account each other’s interests, and of other international actors. This understanding is now gaining momentum and gaining authority. As an example, I would cite the recent Middle East conference in Annapolis. I’m convinced that President Bush has taken upon himself an enormous personal burden, and I would like to congratulate you as a nation that that risk was a worthwhile endeavor, quite a serious step toward resolving one of the most complex and acute crises in the world. For our part, we would do everything to support him, and I would do everything to work together precisely in this vein.

TIME: What do you think should be done in Iraq?

PUTIN: Well, our position on Iraq is well-known. From the very beginning, I considered that it was a mistake, and I was public about it. The developments in recent years have proved that we were right. If one looks at the map of the world, it’s rather difficult to find Iraq, and one would think it rather easy to subdue such a small country, but this undertaking is enormous. Iraq is a small but very proud nation, and problems have emerged that were not apparent previously. People consider the occupation not as a fight against Saddam’s regime. They take it as a personal matter, and terrorism is capitalizing on this, and terrorists who were not present in Iraq are now present there. As for what we do today and in the near future, overall I agree with President Bush when he says that everything must be done so that the Iraqi authorities are able to deal with security issues on their own. They need help in creating their army, security forces and police, so that questions of this order can be handled by the Iraqis themselves. What we differ over is that the U.S. believes it is impossible to impose time frames for the withdrawal. In my view, it would prompt the Iraqi authorities to be more proactive. If they know they will always have American armed forces behind their backs, they may feel comfortable under such an umbrella, but if and when they know that the deadline is there, they would be forced to think about what they need to do from then on. At the end of the day, that’s a decision that we must take together. At the level of the United Nations.

TIME: Undoubtedly, you’ve followed the revelation by the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not have an active nuclear program. You had months before, I believe, said the same thing yourself. What was your reaction to why the U.S. government revealed this now and does this make war with Iran less likely?

PUTIN: Well, that’s a question best addressed to the CIA director and the top managers of the U.S. Administration. Why did they reveal it only today, or reveal it at all? Why did they destroy interrogation tapes and so on and so forth? If they released that report not in order to deflect Iran’s attention from real preparations for hostilities—which is theoretically possible and which I believe is extremely dangerous, because in my view, any military action against Iran would be a mistake.But in order to give an objective, unbiased description of the situation, it only supports the idea that Russia’s foreign-policy stance is guided by objective and verified data and intelligence. It is also proof of the fact that within the U.S. Administration, there are people who believe that it’s better the truth be told.

TIME: The American media have portrayed your nomination of Dmitry Medvedev as President, and the likelihood that you will become Prime Minister, as an effort by you to succeed yourself, becoming a so-called national leader. You have mentioned Franklin Roosevelt as a model and, of course, FDR did run for a third and fourth term, but after that, the American presidency was regulated to two terms. A lot of Americans feel President Putin is trying to get around that by assuring a leadership position for himself in the future by making the prime ministership strong and the presidency weak.

PUTIN: One could have thought that, if I indeed were to either change the Russian constitution to suit my cherished and beloved self, dropping the limit on terms, or if I were to change the constitutional legal correlation between the offices of the government and the President. I believe that neither is admissible nor acceptable for Russia. Russia is a nation, like the United States, with a balanced but strong presidential power, and I am adamantly against stifling and restricting the authority of the President. I’m prepared to accept Dmitri Medvedev’s offer to serve as the Premier, in which case I would be guided by the constitution and law within the authority as prescribed by law. Roads, housing, education—these are the things that are the most important to our people. At the same time, the key prerogatives of administrative personnel and the political area and the defense area of course would remain the purview of the President. Now speaking about that idea of a national leader, I believe that is not an administrative or even a political category. It cannot be defined in terms of the number of telephone units on your desk. It’s a moral category based on the trust of the people. Speaking of our political model, we have analyzed very attentively the experiences of other countries throughout the world and what has happened in the history of Russia and other countries. Roosevelt is a very notable figure and we treat him with great sympathy. He was a figure of global stature, our ally throughout the Second World War. Let us remember in what period he was President. First, there was the depression in the United States. It was he who instilled optimism into the souls of the American people and trust in the future. He won the war against the Nazis, as our ally, together with the Russian people, but he was the head of the United States at the time, and at the time, perhaps, such forms of political construction as unlimited presidential terms were called for. Later, the American people decided otherwise, which is the absolute right of the American nation. How we arrange our own business is up to the Russian people. I believe that the presidential term should be limited.

TIME: In America even a sitting President would envy your popularity ratings. That’s one reason that I think our readers and Americans in general wonder why the recent Russian election could not have been more open and they wonder why, for example, Garry Kasparov was put in jail, however briefly.

PUTIN: Well, what do you think: Why did Mr. Kasparov, when arrested, speak out in English rather than Russian? Just think about it. The whole thrust of this thing was directed toward other countries rather than the Russian people, and when a politician works the crowd of other nations rather than the Russian nation, it tells you something. If you aspire to be a leader of your own country, you must speak your own language, for God’s sake. I wouldn’t like to offend anyone but let’s remember that the first election of the current U.S. President wasn’t free of difficulties. It was decided through the court. We in Russia have a direct and secret ballot, but you have the Electoral College. We are not trying to force you to change your internal procedures. This is your sovereign right. Why would anyone think that they are entitled to interfere into our internal affairs? That is the main issue and problem in our relations. In recent years, we have been told, We are looking forward to meeting you and welcoming you to our civilized Western family of nations. Well, why would you decide that your civilization is the best? There are much more ancient civilizations in this world. Secondly, they tell us, or they hint to us, we are prepared to accept you but our family is a patriarchal family and we are the patriarchs here. In the modern world there may no longer be such relationships. The bloc system of relations must be replaced by an altogether different system based on common rules that are called international law, and those rules should be strictly abided by. At the end of the day, only this may ensure stability and respect for the interest of small nations and not just large ones and superpowers like the United States. As regards detention and so forth, everybody enjoyed the right to campaign, to express one’s own opinion according to law. All the participants in the parliamentary and presidential race have access to the mass media. Just look at the TV channels here: so-called opposition figures were always on some channels. There was very serious financial support given to them. They were given all possibilities to publicly express their views, their positions, in the street, in the squares and elsewhere—but only where it’s allowed by the law and the local authorities, of course. But if they assign themselves the tasks not only of making their views known but also of provoking law enforcement agencies to see that they will be detained and then appeal to their supporters not in this country but abroad, we will ask that everybody abide by the laws of the Russian Federation.

TIME: It sounds like the reason Mr. Kasparov was challenged was because he speaks English. I want you to explain what the problem is there, and why that’s a matter of law.

PUTIN: Well, you don’t need to explain to me. You are asking to interview me, so I know why he did that. I don’t need his explanation. If you want to ask me something ask me. It’s not about him here.

TIME: We asked why a prominent opposition figure was detained and your original answer was because he speaks English. I wanted to ask you, is that in fact what you meant? But secondly, it makes one wonder, are you worried about the seeds of a destabilizing opposition? You have very high popularity numbers, but are you concerned that an “orange revolution” could take place?

PUTIN: Well, look at the outcome: 0.9%. The right opposition didn’t even get 1%. Why should we be worried or concerned? In the political sense, there is no worry at all. It’s not about this. It’s about something else. The issue is, the tools foreign states are using to interfere in the domestic political affairs of Russia. This is the story. Now as regards to his detention, once again, all the people who have different views from authorities, all of them are given the right, and will be given the right, to express their view. Publicly. That’s not the problem. The problem is they not only want to express their view, they want to be detained. They want to provoke authorities to take tough action. They were told, O.K., you can have demonstrations here, you can have slogans. It’s not what they want. They want to go somewhere where it’s prohibited, where they will violate the course of life in the city. When they consciously breach those laws, then the authorities correspond accordingly. And the authorities will continue to respond.

TIME: Let’s talk about the U.S. election. Who do you think would make a good American President?

PUTIN: Well, probably you didn’t get my point. The basis of our approach is we believe that it’s detrimental to interfere in foreign affairs. We don’t allow others to interfere in our politics, but we are not prepared to meddle in other people’s affairs. Well, you know, strange as it might seem, one of my colleagues in Europe, said once, “I thought that Moscow supported this candidate.” I was very surprised. It’s not our policy. We think it’s not decent. We don’t have any preferences on this score. On top of that, I’m deeply convinced that whoever is going to be elected to such a high post as U.S. President, naturally there will be different colorings depending on personal preferences, sympathies or antipathies, but there is an objective development in the world. Reciprocity of interests, of Russia and the U.S., for that matter, inevitably will push both the Russian and American leadership to build on a good partnerlike relationship with each other. Just look at it. What’s going on in the world right now? There is a rise of new powerful centers of economy and political influence. The world is drastically changing and in the coming 30 to 50 years, will change even more. India, China, Brazil, South Africa, some other countries. Japan also is becoming stronger. I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad. What I’m saying is that it’s going to be different, and in this regard I’m fully convinced that Russia and the U.S. will need each other and we will be forced to have good relations with each other. Future leaders of Russia and the U.S. will understand this.

TIME: You grew up in the Soviet Union, but you are now building a new system in a very old country. Could you talk about the most profound differences between the two systems and what, if anything, needs to be preserved from the old Soviet Union?

PUTIN: First and foremost, you’re right, Russia is an old country with very deep roots and traditions, and a very powerful moral foundation. And this foundation is about loving one’s country. Patriotism in the best sense of this word. Incidentally, I believe to a large extent that this is inherent with the American people as well. Now what should we get rid of? We should get rid of the period of our Soviet history when we tried to be at the head of the world communist league and to be world leaders of that movement and impose that way of life on other countries. I believe this was a mistake that was committed both by the Soviet Union but obviously, also, by others. This should be taken off the table of the current agenda.

TIME: During the cold war there were two superpowers. Now there is one hyperpower. Where do you see Russia’s place 30 or 50 years from now?

PUTIN: I’ve just said that the Soviet Union wanted to be the leader of the world communist revolution and we don’t need that. This was a blunder. We don’t want to repeat such blunders in the future. We don’t want to give commands to others. We don’t want to be a superpower to dominate and impose decisions on others, but we want to have enough force to protect ourselves, to protect our interests and to build up good relations with our neighbors and others so that our partners are interested in helping develop and consolidate the Russian Federation. This is a difficult task and it can be achieved by consolidating Russian society first on the basis of economic growth. If we achieve that end, then Russia’s worthy place in the world will be secured.

TIME: Do you think the U.S. wants to see a strong Russia, or a weak Russia?

PUTIN: I believe the U.S. already understands and will understand more and more that only a strong Russia will respond to the genuine interests of the United States.

TIME: What is NATO’s purpose today? If Russia were invited to join would it do so?

PUTIN: I wouldn’t call NATO a putrid corpse of the cold war, but it is a leftover of the past, indeed. Let’s be frank. First, NATO was set up. Then, in response, the Warsaw Pact was established. There were two military-political blocs. While we’re talking about the need to seek mutual understanding, we must now introduce new principles in international life. We have a multipolar world; it’s as it should be. How can NATO efficiently fight terrorism? Did it stop the terrorists on 9/11? Where was NATO then? They were not there. They couldn’t be there, because such threats can be addressed only if you have a trusting relationship with the actors that are capable of stopping this threat, including Russia. Russia has no intention of joining military-political blocs because that would be tantamount to restricting its sovereignty. But we want to have good relations, both with the U.S. and with other countries, including NATO countries. But today it’s not possible to militarily corner others, to make other people obey. Formerly the U.S. was loaded with extra burdens and even perhaps compromised its position while trying to protect other countries from the Soviet Union. Now that context has changed. Therefore, internally this organization will need to reorganize around different principles. As regards the need to fight terrorism, drug trafficking, organized crime, poverty, which is a source of terrorism—all this requires a broader cooperation than the framework of a single military-political bloc.

TIME: On the topic of organized crime, one of the perceptions that Americans have about Russia is that corruption is endemic here. How do you handle and control that?

PUTIN: Badly. We badly control it and handle it badly. I must say that in the transitional economy, and especially under the conditions of restructuring the political system, it is difficult to address such problems. Unfortunately, we have not worked out a system of oversight by civil society of the activities of government authorities. But I’m fully convinced that down the road these problems will be tackled more efficiently than they are today.

TIME: One of the issues that is being discussed in our presidential election is the role of faith in government. One of the old stereotypes that Americans have about Russia, and certainly the Russia of the U.S.S.R., is that it was a godless country. You have talked about your own faith. What role does faith play in your own leadership and what role should faith play in government and in the public sphere?

PUTIN: First and foremost we should be governed by common sense. But common sense should be based on moral principles first. And it is not possible today to have morality separated from religious values. I will not expand, as I don’t want to impose my views on people who have different viewpoints.

TIME: Do you believe in a Supreme God?

PUTIN: Do you? … There are things I believe, which should not in my position, at least, be shared with the public at large for everybody’s consumption because that would look like self-advertising or a political striptease.

TIME: How does a lifelong KGB man raised in the Soviet Union become a believer in free markets, and is it a matter of continuing education for you?

PUTIN: Well, first of all, I graduated from the Leningrad State University. And my major was international private law which is very closely linked to economics. Secondly, one doesn’t have to be a particularly bright highbrow to see the obvious, that the market economy has major advantages over an administrative system. If we remember the discussions during the Great Depression in the United States, then we can remember that even in the United States there were experts who believed that elements of state interference in the economy to overcome difficulties were not only possible but also desirable. President Roosevelt was precisely of that opinion. But today market tools are called for and are more efficient, though without the regulating function of the state, nothing would work, basically. This view has nothing to do with my service as a KGB officer in the Soviet Union, but it has to do with my education. We were always taught to analyze the prevailing realities and to constantly learn on our own from the experience of the prevailing world, and later, you know, I defended my Ph.D. thesis in economics. We’ve achieved success in recent years. We have had GDP growth of about 7% a year on average over the past seven or eight years. We’ll do even better this year. We have paid off all of our multibillion debt and accumulated great resources. The real income growth is about 12% for the population, and for me, that is the main achievement. We are reestablishing and developing whole sectors of the economy. Principles are there, but, not unlike in the realm of foreign policy, much is done on the artistic level.

TIME: Could you explain the success of the Russian tennis program and why there are so many great Russia tennis players?

PUTIN: The successes scored by Russia’s sportsmen and sportswomen can of course be explained in part by the successful development of the Russian economy. This is very important for us. This is our export product. And it raises the spirit of the nation and unites society.

TIME: You must feel lucky that the price of oil is so high, that demand for oil is so high.

PUTIN: Fools are lucky. We work day and night! Yes, there are positive foreign economic factors. But let us remember, during the Soviet Union, there were times when oil and gas were very expensive. Sky-high, with no benefit for the Soviet Union. We just dumbly bought some goods from the West and spent everything here. Now we pursue altogether different economic policies. We are retooling our taxation system. We’ve created reserve funds. We’ve restored and rehabilitated entire economic industries. We not only drill the earth for oil and gas, we are now diversifying our economy on the basis of innovation. We have set up special economic zones. As a result of all of this, we are paying special attention to the development of our education and science. Going forward we would like to develop based on innovation.

TIME: As President of the new Russia, it makes you a petroleum executive, it makes you a television executive. Do you have relationships with big industrial leaders around the world and do you study their practices? How hands-on are you as a business executive?

PUTIN: Well, for myself, I established a set of rules for dealing with businesses, even at the time when I worked as first deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, I do believe these are the people on which much of our economy depends. I’m speaking about budget revenues, social issues, job creation, creating appropriate conditions for citizens to work. These people, as we say, are captains of industry, their main task is to generate profit. That is the essence of their activity. Yet that is not the main purpose and task for the state. The main task for the state is to improve the standard of living and prosperity of the people. I’ve always believed that you have to have good and friendly relations, but they must know that despite their being owners of major assets, they must all live by the law, like any other citizen. So that they have no illusion that they are allowed to do otherwise, I exercise an arm’s-length principle, which I developed during my work in St. Petersburg, working with people of whom I have the highest respect.

TIME: Could you speak to us about the state’s role in regulating or curbing Russian industrialists? There have been some very notable cases where there have been arrests and seizures of companies. Why were they seized and their owners arrested?

PUTIN: Well, thou shalt not steal. They didn’t have difficulties with me. They had difficulties with the people of the country and with the law. When people do not live by the law, and thus get rich, while dozens of millions of Russians at the same time lose their meager lifetime savings, that creates distrust and alienation. My task was, as I’ve seen it, first of all, to teach everyone to live by the law, abide by the law, regardless of the thickness of their checkbooks. Secondly, to make our business more socially responsible and to remove the wall of alienation between the population and Russian business. We need business to understand its social responsibility, that the main task and objective for a business is not to generate extra income and to become rich and transfer the money abroad, but to look and evaluate what a businessman has done for the country, for the people, on whose account he or she has become so rich. And lastly, we have to do everything to defeat poverty.

TIME: It seems Russian people genuinely support the President. However, many also believe that some of the people closest to you are getting rich through corrupt means. There might be a tolerance for that as long as incomes are growing and everyone’s getting richer. But that’s not possible to do every year. Is there the threat of social upheaval at a point where living standards do not continue to increase, and if the perception of corruption gets worse?

PUTIN: If the standard of living is improving then there will be no threat of social upheaval or explosion. But we could not be satisfied with that. You said that some people got rich because of corruption. Then you know who and how. Write to us, to the Foreign Ministry, if you are so confident, then I presume you know the names, you know the systems and the tools, and I can assure you and everyone who would listen to us, watch us and read us, that the reaction would be swift, immediate, within the prevailing law. In recent years, I was not only talking about the problem, but I made sure law-enforcement agencies and NGOs did not tolerate this.

TIME: Long centuries of Russian history have exposed a paradox: only a centralized, autocratic power, be it under the Czars or the Bolsheviks, could hold such an enormous country together. However, the same autocratic regime twice led this country to breakups—in 1917 and 1991—precisely because it had been stifling and arresting its development, which required individual initiative, decision-making and entrepreneurship—the very qualities restricted by autocratic government. What is your solution to this paradox?

PUTIN: This is indeed one of the most difficult and complicated questions: how to organize the authority and the system of power. The authority in Russia should be strong enough to ensure sovereignty, security and defense. It should be strong enough to ensure territorial integrity of the country. At the same time, it must be responsive to regional and municipal sensitivities, and to sensitivities of citizens.

TIME: Then why did you abolish elections of regional governors?

PUTIN: That’s untrue.

TIME: Well, to be precise, you abolished direct elections of the regional governors by a popular vote. So you don’t believe at this stage the people can be trusted to elect their governor directly?

PUTIN: The thing is that unfortunately civil society is not mature enough. And as soon as people reach the heights of the governorship, they abandon the needs of the population. We cannot afford this. Today in the Russian Federation, given its enormous territory and national ethnic entities, I believe that this option, as was suggested by me, is optimal for here and now. The people by direct secret vote elect their deputies who elect a governor as proposed by the President. Thus we achieve a situation where a leader of a region is directly tied to the general interests of the nation and should be sensitive to regional issues.

TIME: But you just criticized a similar mechanism—the U.S Electoral College—as archaic. Why then such an approach at this stage of Russian society?

PUTIN: Our mode of developing the authorities in the region is much more advanced than in other countries. In India, governors are directly appointed by New Delhi. In France, prefects are appointed directly by the government. In the United Kingdom, in Her Majesty’s government, there is a Minister for Northern Ireland, there is a Minister for Scotland, and there the main authority rests. Whereas at the municipal level, as we say in Russia, the chimney is not so high and the smoke is not that thick. That’s in fact what we’re doing too.

TIME: What do you do for fun?

PUTIN: I don’t have much time for leisure. I occasionally go to the theater. I like classical music: Brahms, Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Schubert, Liszt. Beautiful tunes. What else? Every day for two hours I work out in the gym, usually in the morning or other times depending on my work schedule. That’s about it, I guess. And I work.

TIME: Has your KGB training helped you as President? There’s an old saying, once a spy, always a spy.

PUTIN: Well, those are lies. We’re all human beings. Naturally some of that background can be of help. What was positive I think is that at my university and subsequently in the KGB where I was placed upon graduation from law school, they taught me to think independently. They taught me to gather information, objective information, first and foremost. To analyze this information and on the basis of objective information to adopt decisions independently. That’s the first thing of a positive nature that I learned and use in my practice today. The second thing, from working in intelligence, is learning the skill of working with people. Above all, to respect the people you’re dealing with. I will tell you something very intimate here about the workings of intelligence, of the basics of dealing with sources of information, with people who help special services, let’s call them agents. There can be different sources of interest, of material support, different cases of dependence involved or unity of political views, but the most solid basis—without which it is not possible to do anything, for that matter, is trust and respect for the partner. One needs always to understand the person you are working with, at least to regard him as an equal to you and to understand that there are things he’s better at than you. So when working with the people who cooperated with the Soviet intelligence community, I always thought that, above all, this person is better than me, at least for the reason that I don’t have such risks in my life as he does. And this in itself made me respect greatly those individuals and I believe people sensed this attitude. I had good, kind relations with the people I worked with, and this respect is very important in politics as well.

TIME: And what about dealing with foreign journalists?

PUTIN: In the first place, what I might say about foreign journalists here, what I always liked about them, as a rule they are very professional people, many of whom are experts in the problems they are exploring, which is cause for respect. It’s always interesting to deal with the people who know things in detail. They are exploring, that’s interesting, but also I want to be frank with you here, whether you want to publish it or not I don’t know, but I will share it with you. Some people in the Western or American press are simply working for the money they are paid. And they don’t want to quarrel with their bosses. There are generally independent people who are not afraid of losing their jobs and will write their mind, but there are not many. I don’t live with any journalists, but generally speaking they are very passionate people.

TIME: In Russia, a number of journalists have lost their lives in ways that are not quite understandable. Is there some kind of pattern? Is there something that you or the government can do to prevent it?

PUTIN: Well, I will be very frank in my answer. And I will not try to politicize my answer. I’m also very concerned. I will not tell you now what’s going on in other countries regarding journalists, that they also perish in Iraq, for that matter, even more journalists have died there. But it’s not the core of the matter. I don’t want to shift the burden. Let’s talk about Russia. There are many components involved in the matter. First, the journalist community is part of Russian society. There are folks who want to leave Russia, to make more money, and so forth. They want to use all the benefits of civilization for that matter, and under the circumstances when the initial accumulation of capital is taking place here, many people, including journalists, are tempted to make a little bit more money here and there, which means they get involved with entrepreneurs, sometimes with criminal businessmen. And they get involved, and start to protect the interests of certain circles against the interests of other groups. That’s one group. And then there are genuine fighters against corruption, against the criminal elements. This is something the state should pay top attention to, and where such losses have occurred, I take them as my personal losses. Such people necessarily work for the interests of consolidation of Russia internally. We do whatever it takes to protect them, to ensure their security, and to work professionally as they should.

TIME: In which category would you put assassinated journalist Anna Politkovskaya?

PUTIN: Well, you know, each situation is unique. In the case of Politkovskaya, it was implied that she was a danger to the state. You know that’s nonsense. If you’re a Russian expert you know that Ms. Politkovskaya did not play any meaningful role in Russian political life. She was no threat, no danger whatsoever. Her murder was a provocation against the authorities, I believe. Nobody ever so much as mentioned her until she was killed. Her activities were known within just a restricted circle of people. You could count them all on one hand—but now the entire country and the whole world are talking about her. I see it as deliberate provocation: they chose a sacrifice and destroyed a woman. Still, we’ll do whatever it takes to complete this investigation to the successful end.

TIME: I’m curious what you think are the American misconceptions about Russia, about the Russian people, about you, about the Russian government. If you were speaking directly to the American people, what misconceptions would you try to clear up?

PUTIN: Well, you know, I don’t believe these are misconceptions. I think this is a purposeful attempt by some to create an image of Russia based on which one could influence our internal and foreign policies. Russia has demonstrated that we don’t want simply to be a partner, we want to be a friend of America. Sometimes one gets the impression that America does not need friends. Sometimes we get the impression that you need some kind of auxiliary subjects to take command of. We cannot build our relations on such grounds and this creates frictions now and then, and this is precisely the reason why they always seek to find some problems inside our country. This is the reason why everybody is made to believe like it’s O.K. to pinch the Russians somewhat. They are a little bit savage still or they just climbed down from the trees, you know, and probably need to have their hair brushed and their beards trimmed. And have the dirt washed out of their beards and hair. That’s the civilizing mission to be accomplished out there. But I believe this is a tool to affect others, which is a wrong way to go. The right way would be to find common ground and take account of each other’s interests in the first place.

TIME: When you were growing up, and even as a mid-career intelligence officer, did it ever occur to you that you could end up running this country and taking it through such a period of tumult and change?

PUTIN: It never occurred to me, no. It never struck me. Never.

TIME: Does it still surprise you?

PUTIN: Yes, it still surprises me. I came to Moscow from St. Petersburg in 1996. I was chairman of the government three years later, of the government of Russia. And half a year after that I became the President. When I came to Moscow I didn’t have any connections or friends to rely on in the right places. I came because the person I worked with in St. Petersburg, Mayor Anatoly Sobchak, lost an election, and they had difficulty finding me a job there. Nobody would hire me there, in fact. I’m surprised myself. Well, this happened because people close to the first President of Russia, Mr. Yeltsin, realized, should I say, that I would be totally sincere and would spare no effort to fulfill my duties and be honest with the President, and I would do whatever it takes to see to it that the interest of the country be secured. I would think this was what really mattered. This was the motivation of Yeltsin himself and the people around him.

TIME: Yeltsin saw something in you, that you could do the job—it’s that simple an explanation?

PUTIN: Yes, I would think so. We talked with him several times on this score. First time when he offered this to me, I gave him a negative answer. I realized what was the state of the country at the time. It was quite a surprise to me, too, and I told him I really don’t know. Well, of course, it happened after the 1998 financial meltdown, and I told him, I really don’t know. This is a difficult challenge, and I’m not sure I am ready for it. But President Yeltsin was insistent. He said, O.K., we’ll revisit this matter later on. He said, don’t tell me no.

TIME: Can you tell us more about Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Gorbachev?

PUTIN: I was never a major Soviet leader. I was not a party functionary. I was not a member of the Politburo. I didn’t work in the regional party committees. Even though I worked in intelligence, I was an ordinary citizen of the Soviet Union, as much as a secret-service officer can be an ordinary man. Mr. Yeltsin belonged to the top level of the Russia “nomenclature.” Nevertheless, I believe that both Yeltsin and Gorbachev did something that I probably would not be in a position to do. They moved toward destruction of the system that no longer could sustain the Soviet people. I’m not sure I could have had the guts to do that myself. Gorbachev made the first step in that direction. Yeltsin completed the job. This is a very important change in the history of the Russian people, and it gave Russia her freedom. This is an important and very clear achievement particularly of the Yeltsin presidency.

TIME: You speak confidently about world affairs, but people say it took you some time to find your feet when you first became President. When did you become a national leader? What was the defining moment of your presidency?

PUTIN: Well, you know, I never gave it a thought frankly. I never thought, like I said, that I would be a President and even now, I try not to reflect on that too much. When one starts to think of himself as a national leader, he loses connection with the real world. I have never referred to myself as national leader. Other people invented this notion. I didn’t prompt anybody to do so. But the truth of the matter is, when I became a President, the country at the time, whether we liked it or not, was involved in the mayhem of civil war in the Caucasus, faced immense economic difficulties, destruction of the social sphere, large numbers of people who found themselves—over 30%—below the poverty line. I decided for myself, yes, I am ready to do whatever it takes, whatever sacrifices I need to bear, to restore the country. I define that as the main point of my whole life. I decided that life gave me a chance to play some sort of a positive role in the history of my people. And it seems to me that, to a large extent, these objectives have been realized and now we have new tasks and objectives of a larger scale—but these are entirely new challenges and we have a chance to move forward. I have never felt myself as a leader. I feel like a workhorse pulling a very heavy cargo, and I measure my success depending on how fast and well I move with it.

TIME: How would a national leader fall within the context of Russia’s government structure? In the 16th century, there was a precedent, when the Czar Ivan Vasilyevich, Ivan the Terrible, for a whole variety of reasons retreated to the village of Alexandrov, and decreed that Prince Simeon Bekbulatovich would function as the Czar. All the boyars, officials and the commoners had to defer to the Prince, even if they all knew who and where the real Czar was. When it suited him, the Czar Ivan came back to resume the throne. However, the episode brought a certain discord in the system of government and weakened the country. Is anything of the kind possible now?

PUTIN: No, because we’re no monarchy. We live within the context of the standing constitution. Everyone including the high executives should understand this. They must live by the basic law. The Constitution. That’s all.

TIME: Some theorists say Gorbachev and Yeltsin made a mistake by putting glasnost before perestroika, that if they had done things the other way around, Russia would look different today and might not have gone through the upheavals that is has. Do you accept that?

PUTIN: Well, I don’t believe that democratization, if you mean by glasnost democratization, should be postponed. It is equally clear that market transition could be postponed to a later date. Well, everything in its good time, and what happened happened.

TIME: Were the 1990s a time of paradox for you? On the one hand, you say it gave you the Gorbachev freedoms; on the other hand, in your statements you have stated that there was a period of total collapse and the tragedy of the destruction of the Soviet Union.

PUTIN: I don’t see a paradox here. The administrative planning system that prevailed in economic life, and the complete domination of the Communist Party in the political area, resulted in a collapse of the country. When people no longer cared about the state they lived in, they didn’t need such a state, therefore there was no surprise that the people couldn’t care less about that state. They believed that things couldn’t get any worse, but it turned out that they could, and did. The tragedy is that people were utterly dissatisfied and disillusioned because the free-for-all was declared as democracy, the theft of billions of dollars was described as the free market and the theft of enormous assets belonging to the people were declared privatization. What did the collapse of the Soviet Union mean? Twenty-five million Soviet citizens who were ethnic Russians found themselves beyond the borders of new Russia. Nobody gave thought to them. Twenty-five million would make up a major European nation. Before taking a decision, one should consult the population. Do you want to live separate from the state you live in now? I’m confident that if we were to hold a referendum in many of the former Soviet republics, the vast majority would say no. But nobody asked them. Was that a democratic solution? Of such a difficult problem? Well, we’re not trying to revisit this but that was so. Who asked us or them? Twenty-five million Russians found themselves outside the Russian Federation, without any economic means, amid growing local nationalism. When they couldn’t possibly come to the new Russia, to their historical motherland, because they didn’t even have money to buy a train or a plane ticket. Is it not a tragedy?

TIME: Let’s talk more about how Russia interacts with the former Soviet republics.

PUTIN: As I’ve said, I believe the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy, but what happened happened. I believe that we should build our relations with the former Soviet republics on the basis of absolute equality. Through this approach, we can embark on a process of economic integration, realizing our natural competitive edge in the global economy. We have a common energy system. Electricity. We have a common transportation system. Like in the European Union, we do not have to invent the rules of use of national languages. We have a lingua franca in the former Soviet Union, Russian. We have many other things that bring us together. Many economies, many industries are not able to sustain themselves without relying on countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other former Soviet republics. I believe that we must build our relations based on those principles.

TIME: What about some of the conflicts you’ve had with the former Soviet republics on gas prices?

PUTIN: What conflicts? There are world prices, international prices for gas. And we sell gas to everyone at world market prices. Why should we sell to anyone below the world market prices? Do Americans sell to anyone below the market price? Could you come to a store in the United States and ask, well, I’m from Canada, we Canadians are close neighbors, give me that Chrysler at half price. What would you hear from the salesman? Go away!

TIME: Well, if I were California I might sell gas at a discount to Nevada, to benefit a neighboring state.

PUTIN: I believe that this is a violation of the market principles, damaging the economies in question. Within Russia, we’ve adopted a program of reaching the world price levels for domestic consumption. Any other approach would distort economic indicators and economies, making one sector dependent on other sectors, leading to cross-subsidies and destroying the economy. We do understand the difficulties of our partners. For 15 years, we were selling them energy resources way below the market prices subsidized to the tune of $3 billion to $5 billion a year for Ukraine. This cannot last forever. The Europeans are always criticizing us. They want us to introduce international pricing standards. Otherwise, they say, our enterprises would enjoy an unfair advantage over European enterprises. So within the country we should sell at world prices while to our neighbors we should sell below the world prices? This is discrimination. Let’s be frank and speak directly and call a spade a spade. What I’m about to say is not aggressive in any way, but I urge you to be frank. The United States somehow decided that part of the political elite in Ukraine is pro-American and part is pro-Russian, and they decided to support the ones they consider pro-American, the so-called orange coalition. Well, O.K., you decided to support them. Do as you please, although we don’t believe it’s right. Of course, they have people with different outlooks there and with different political tastes, but as I’ve already mentioned, if a politician wants to be popular, he or she must protect the national interests first of all, be Ukrainian nationalists in the good sense of this word. And they are. They are not pro-Russians. They are not pro-Europeans. They are not pro-Americans. They are all pro-Ukrainians, but somehow Americans divided them all into pro- this or that. We believe that is a mistake. Let them settle their issues themselves. Everything that’s been done there is unconstitutional, which has created distrust among various political groups and citizens, thus undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and economy. That’s what the United States has done and is doing in Ukraine and in Georgia. What we say is, leave them alone, without choosing sides. When everyone saw that destabilization was under way in Ukraine, they tried to force Russia to subsidize the Ukrainian economy at our expense. Why? If you want to support someone, you pay for it. Nobody wants to pay. In this room, I once discussed this with a European politician and I said, you pay for it, and he replied, am I an idiot? Well, I’m not an idiot either. One has to look at the real problem. We should not be guided by generalities, and the situation prevailing there is very dangerous in my view. Everything must be done to consolidate society, consolidate the country. Strategically, it would be right that the pro-Russian, pro-Western groups would unite and think about the future of their own country and create such a power structure that would only further consolidate the nation rather than divide it among the Westerners, Southerners or Easterners, or whatever. What is happening now is a movement toward further destruction, which is a pity because Ukraine is very close to us and because almost half of the population have either friends or relatives in Russia. There are 17 million ethnic Russians there, officially. Almost 100% of the people consider Russian as their mother tongue.

TIME: Do you think Ukraine will ever again become part of Russia?

PUTIN: Of course not. We don’t want it. We do not want to include anyone into Russia again because for us it would only bring an additional economic burden. We want to realize our national competitive advantage in the world economy. We can only speak of economic integration. It’s quite useless to try to force upon anyone new state structures without the will of the relevant people. In the modern world, it’s not even necessary. Look at Europe, where national borders are no longer as important as they used to be.

TIME: President Bush famously said that he looked into your eyes and got a sense of your soul. So my question for you is, Have you gotten a sense of President Bush’s soul, and if so, what did you see there?

PUTIN: I do not wish myself to give a character description of this President because when he said that he looked into my eyes, he said what he felt. But I have a very good personal relationship with Mr. Bush, and I cherish it very much. I consider him a very reliable partner, a man of honor. When I have the pleasure of conversing with some American intellectuals, whom I won’t name, they argue with me on this. I do not agree with those, both in my country and in the United States, who deny that Mr. Bush is a man of honor and of principle. Yes, Iraq was a mistake, but he is a person who has had a very rich personal life and experience governing a state. He is a fair and honest man. I have no doubts about this.

TIME: Do you think there was a missed opportunity after 9/11 for the United States and Russia to work more closely on the antiterrorism front because of Iraq?

PUTIN: We could have acted in a more coordinated and therefore more efficient way. That is true. But cooperation between our Secret Services is happening, and is achieving results, including in terms of ensuring the direct security of the citizens of Russia and of the United States. What I am saying is not small talk. It’s based on the results of specific action to prevent very specific acts against both Americans and Russians.

TIME: Can you describe this cooperation? Are there institutional structures that now exist between American and Russian intelligence in the field of fighting terrorism?

PUTIN: Yes: the so-called partnership channels. Recently the work has been quite successful, including cooperation to prevent terrorist acts against the citizens of the Russian Federation and the United States, including possible large-scale terrorist acts. These involved timely exchanges of information, and preventive action on both sides, which haven’t been publicized. I recently discussed this with President Bush over the telephone. I gave him specific examples and informed him about some joint activities in this area.

TIME: So you’re saying that Russian intelligence helped avert an attack in the U.S.?

PUTIN: It had to do with a threat to both the United States and Russia. It had to do with countering the threats against both nations. I cannot say anymore at this stage.

TIME: What is the state of Russian-Chinese relations?

PUTIN: Russia and China are very natural partners. We are neighbors with an immense common border. For 40 years, we’ve been negotiating with China to settle border issues, and I’ll now pay close attention to that. The quality of Russia-China relations today is unprecedented. Never before was there such a trustworthy relationship between us.

TIME: You’ve also dealt with President Clinton. I’d love to hear you compare Bush and Clinton, their styles, their intellect, their actions.

PUTIN: Well, I respect both politicians too much to allow myself to make any comparisons or comments or remarks like that. But I can talk about how I first got to know Bill Clinton. President Yeltsin sent me to New Zealand to the APEC summit in 1990. I was then prime minister, with still unclear political prospects. I didn’t have a clue at the time, what was going to happen. Clinton at that time, however, was a renowned man, well respected in his own country and elsewhere in the world. At a dinner there, Clinton walked past a long table with many APEC leaders and approached me and spoke to my ear: Volodya, I suggest we walk out together from this room. To me it was quite a surprise. What happened next was, we were both on our feet. Our colleagues moved aside, and we walked down the corridor and everybody applauded. I will remember that forever. I am very grateful to him for that, and despite our different views, we share a special personal chemistry.

TIME: Are there any other world leaders with whom you enjoy a special personal chemistry? It’s been said that you’re friends with Mr. Berlusconi. Mr. Sarkozy has said admiring things about you. You and Madame Merkel speak in which language?

PUTIN: With all the people you mentioned, yes, I have very good relations. With some of them, we have very close, friendly, comradely type relations. With Mrs. Merkel, we usually talk German. Though now we’ve started to speak Russian more frequently. She has good pronunciation in Russian. Probably she has to work more to remember her vocabulary. With more practice, she’ll do that.

TIME: Earlier you used the phrase, Thou shalt not steal. Have you read the Bible?

PUTIN: Yes, I have. And the Bible is on my plane. I fly frequently, you know. And on the plane I use, there is a Bible. I also have an icon there with some sewing on it. I fly long distances. We’re a vast country. So I have time there to read the Bible.

TIME: I understand that you don’t want to be public with your religion. But is there some way we can characterize your faith?

PUTIN: You could say that it is my deep conviction that the moral values without which humankind cannot survive cannot be other than religious values. Now, as regards a specific church or other establishment, that’s a separate matter. As somebody said once, if God exists, he does know that people have different views regarding church.

TIME: Now the situation is emerging whereby the Russian Orthodox Church is apparently becoming a dominating force in Russia. It’s the only church that has signed official relations on cooperation with the Ministry of Defense, law-enforcement agencies and the Foreign Office.

PUTIN: It’s not about agreements. It’s about the law.

TIME: Well, I understand. But when it’s prohibited by law, for one church to become dominant in a secular society…

PUTIN: It’s not true. Our law recognizes four traditional religions in Russia. Our American partners criticized us for that, incidentally, but it has been defined by our lawmakers. These traditional Russian religions are the Orthodox Church, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.

TIME: I’m sorry, I wasn’t referring to that exactly. Yes, it’s still hardly proper in a secular country for the top military brass of the General Staff under the command of their Chairman to hold a service together with the top hierarchy, as occurred at the Orthodox Church at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Soviet nuclear bomb.

PUTIN: Well, I would say that if those General Staff brass were Jews, Muslims or Buddhists and would have chosen to celebrate this wonderful event at other religious shrines, I would welcome that. So you cannot talk about the inequality of any of those religions. But still some 80% of the Russians consider themselves Orthodox Christians, which makes the Russian Orthodox Church the largest of them all.

TIME: The new civil religion in America is the environmental movement. Its high priest is probably Vice President Al Gore, who as you know just won the Nobel Peace Prize. How do you see the green movement unfolding in Russia and what are your own policies as far as that’s concerned?

PUTIN: First, as regards people in the environmental protection movement, I support them a lot. And I associate with them a lot, to protect the environment, one of the top priorities of the human race. The people who dedicate their time and effort to that end deserve our credit and support. Obviously, the development of humankind cannot be stopped. There will always be conflict between development and preserving nature. What really matters is that mankind understands the whole drama and develops along a pathway that will be minimally detrimental to Mother Nature. To resolve this problem will be easier today than 15 years ago, there is no longer mortal opposition between the two groups. There is no need today to destroy nature as was done earlier. Today, we have a unique political environment to protect what God himself has created for the benefit of all people. Now as regards our system, it’s very vulnerable. It’s a surprise that the earth is still in existence. It, you know, was created through billions of circumstances and incidents that occurred and it is still in existence today because of billions and billions of circumstances that are still interacting. It faces a constant threat to its survival. We live in a very thin layer of ozone and air. And the threshold beyond which irreversible repercussions might occur is very sensitive.

TIME: If there becomes a substitute for oil, something like hydrogen, how would that affect the Russian economy?

PUTIN: One of the main goals of our economy is to diversify. We proceed from the assumption we should use intellectual capacity rather than oil, to develop, and we will need to correspondingly change the structure of the economy, which we can do. I have no doubts about that. Talking about energy, Russia has undertaken certain steps involving developments in thermonuclear energy, nuclear energy, hydrogen and others. We are thinking about so-called alternative sources of fuel. We’re not optimists in this regard. We are not pessimists. We will work on it.

TIME: One last question, earlier you talked about one’s authority being linked to how many telephones they have on their desk. It’s a very old-fashioned image. So my question is how technologically connected are you? Do you send and receive e-mail? Do you have a BlackBerry? Do you blog?

PUTIN: Well, it’s a big shame, I don’t use these technologies. I don’t even use a telephone. My operators, my staff do it for me. But they do it wonderfully, and I’m very envious. Well, it’s not important how many telephones you have. How can you measure authority? It’s the trust of the people. No other measure matters; others are just illusions. I am very thankful to the people, that they sense that indeed over these eight years I have been working honestly. I’m grateful for this trust.