Putin: Good evening, I am very glad to see and welcome you in the Kremlin. On the eve of my official trip to the United States, I will have the pleasure of answering the questions of interest to you.

I would not like our time to be occupied with some general introductory phrases so I suggest that we get down straight to work. I turn the floor over to you. Yes, please.

Question: Mr. President, you supported the United States at this difficult and responsible moment in the war with terrorism without any preliminary conditions. What would you like to see in return and what result would you like to obtain. This is the first question.

The second question concerns the statement-or-allegation by bin Laden, quoted in the mass media, to the effect that he has nuclear weapons.

Do you think that this corresponds to reality? And a related question. Are you confident of the security of the Russian nuclear potential being reliably safeguarded?

Putin: First regarding our vision of the results of joint work in the struggle with terrorism and what we would like to see as the output of our joint activity. First and foremost, we would like to see positive results of our joint struggle with terrorism, we would like to achieve positive result, to see terrorism liquidated not only in Afghanistan but in the whole world.

We would like to see the eradication of the conditions that generate extremism of the most diverse kind. We would like to see the destruction of the channels of funding extremism in all its manifestations. We would like the citizens of our countries to feel secure.

And finally, as the product of this joint work, we would like to establish such new relations between Russia and the United States that would enable us to develop relations in all the other areas of interaction. We would like to impart a new quality to our relations. And it goes without saying that we would like to see the United States as a reliable and predictable partner.

This maximum task, it seems to me, is much more important than obtaining some immediate material advantages.

As regards international terrorists' threats to use means of mass destruction, we have already faced this in the Caucasus. And as a rule, the threats of this kind are uttered and implemented in order to generate fear and uncertainty among the population, and to influence the political leadership of the countries which are fighting against terrorism.

With us, in the Caucasus today, this ended in an attempt to utilize some home-spun, hand-made devices that could have a negative effect on the ecology. Such attempts on their part were, it is true, not effective. I think that, in this sense, the man that you mentioned differs little from his disciples who are operating in North Caucasus, in Russia. But I would not exaggerate this danger. And it would also be wrong to belittle the danger first and foremost because we know about bin Laden's ties to some of the radically-minded circles in Pakistan. And Pakistan is a nuclear power.

And of course, in this connection, we must support general Musharraf in every way in his efforts to consolidate the public forces in the country, support his efforts aimed at Pakistan's participation in the efforts of the international community to combat terrorism.

Question: Mr. President, previously, presenting your position on ABM issues, you said that now it was more flexible than before. Could you specify in what aspects this position has become more flexible? Among other things, does it involve the possibility of the United States setting in place ABM systems in Alaska? And if this is indeed so, could you explain in what way is your position now more flexible compared to what it was before?

Putin: I don't think I will disclose a big secret if I say what I also told President Bush during our recent meeting in Shanghai. I told him that our position was indeed much more rigid, especially when we conducted a dialogue with the previous administration. I will repeat that thesis and tell you with absolute frankness: indeed, this was so because we proceeded, among other things, from the assumption that we would conduct the dialogue in earnest with the man who would be in the White House for the coming four years or maybe eight years.

It is very pleasant for us and it is very pleasant for me that the man turned out to be President Bush with whom we have developed a very good personal relationship. And today we say: we are prepared to discuss the parameters of the 1972 ABM Treaty. But for this we must get a "probing" statement of the position from our US partners: what do they specifically propose to change? What specifically hinders the implementation of the program which was conceived by the US administration?

In addition, we say, and in my conversations with the US President I stressed it that we deem it correct to consider the defensive systems together with the offensive arms, i.e. these are the two sides of one coin. And it is very gratifying for us to note that our links today are characterized not only by good personal relations of the two presidents but also by a desire to agree to compromises. And today we know the proposals of the President and his opinion that the offensive weapons can and must be cut. This is already a certain compromise, a compromise in the right direction.

All politics is the art of compromises. We are also prepared for compromises. The question only is what we shall be offered for discussion and what compromises are expected from us. We must see this in the concrete proposals of our American partners. This is already to be decided by specialists: lawyers, military specialists and diplomats. And after the options have been presented, it will be up to the political leadership only to make the choice between the different options drafted. And I feel great optimism that the options can be found.

Question: I would like to ask a question concerning the kind of possible changes that one can, in your opinion, envisage in Russia's role in the campaign now being waged by the United States. I have in mind the role of your country as a US partner in the military component of the operation.

The second part of the question concerns bin Laden's allegation of possessing nuclear arms. In this connection, can you confidently state that the Russian nuclear potential is reliably protected and that there is no link between bin Laden's statement and Russia's nuclear arsenal?

Putin: Regarding the possible increase in Russia's contribution to the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan, I will remind you about what we are doing today.

We have made our corridors available for flights of US aircraft -- air corridors. We are providing intelligence data, and I assure you that this is very valuable information. We have agreed our position with our partners and allies in Central Asia concerning assisting the US. We are providing military and technical assistance to the Northern Alliance, worth scores of millions of dollars.

And we have very close contacts with the legitimate, internationally recognized government of Mr. Rabbani. I assure you that these contacts are not confined solely to supplying arms. We are helping them in many other areas.

We are prepared, and I have already said this, to participate, if need be, in providing assistance in the rescue of US citizens and US crews (if, I repeat, this is necessary), including through the use of the possibilities that we have today in the territory of Afghanistan, where we can do it.

There is yet another circumstance and yet another field of activity which cannot pass unnoticed. We are waging a land operation against international terrorism in the territory of North Caucasus. The problem of Chechnya is much more complex than simply a problem of international terrorism. But it is a fact that international terrorism is present there.

Different countries assign a thousand or two thousand men to participate in the land operation. In our North Caucasus already over three thousand people have died by now. This is not an empty statement and this is not some kind of propaganda. About 500 mercenaries have by now been destroyed, coming from Arab countries. Our special services have lists of people reliably identified. This list now contains over 100 people and another 300-odd people are being identified.

According to our data today from 500 to 700 mercenaries are now fighting there, coming from different Islamic states, many of whom are harboring the intention to return to Afghanistan (and some of them came to the Russian Federation territory precisely from Afghanistan) in order, as they themselves say, to kill the Americans. Our armed forces are containing this potential. As soon as we relax our activity, they will immediately find themselves in Afghanistan and get down to doing what they are doing in Russia's North Caucasus.

I have to correct the interpreter, they are talking not about destroying the US military. Messages intercepted by our special services, speak of destroying Americans. I showed those documents to President Bush during our most recent meeting in Shanghai. This is the first thing I would like to point out.

There is yet another aspect we must think over when we talk about Afghanistan. Firstly, I would like to point out that the events are developing the way that we expected.

Regrettably, with us in the North Caucasus and in Chechnya, we cannot erect a firm barrier to stop the transfusion of the fundamentalist forces. Overall, I think that our special services will be ready even to present the lists, we have the lists of people who have now, via Georgia and Turkey, left the territory of North Caucasus and are preparing to be taken to Afghanistan. These are lists with the names.

Regarding the development of the situation in Afghanistan itself, I must say once again that, in principle, it is developing according to the scenario which we expected. At the present time, as we see, the Northern Alliance has passed over to operations that have been planned. Actually, it is putting the entire northern part of Afghanistan under its control.

I repeat that this is the way we saw the development of the situation. In principle, this is what we agreed with President Bush. And it is precisely about this that I talked with the leadership of Afghanistan, the Islamic State of Afghanistan, when I was returning from Shanghai and made a stopover in Dushanbe.

In the process, we must, of course, take into account the whole experience of past years, when we talk about the future of Afghanistan, including the negative experience of the Soviet Union. Incidentally, they frequently speak about a defeat sustained by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But if we look, attentively and professionally, not in terms of propaganda, at what was happening in Afghanistan in those years, we shall see that, strictly speaking, there was no military defeat of the Soviet Union. It attained all, all objectives that it had set for itself. In military terms.

Unforgivable political mistakes were committed. The results in the military sphere were such that even after the complete withdrawal of all the Soviet troops from the territory of Afghanistan, and the withdrawal was conducted especially ably from the military viewpoint, the Najibullah's regime lasted there for three years. This is a lot for such an unstable country.

The political error was that the Najibullah's government had no broad support from all the political forces and all the ethnic groups of Afghanistan and did not enjoy a broad international support.

But the former Soviet leadership could not avoid committing an error of this kind. The error was predetermined by the split of the international community along the ideological lines. Thank God, there is no such split now, and we are capable of neutralizing the error. We can avoid errors of this kind. This, strictly speaking, is the principal value of the international anti-terrorist coalition.

As regards the weapons of mass destruction that the terrorists in Afghanistan might have, I have already said that, in my opinion, this is little possible, but neither can we, of course, neglect the possibility that they may get hold of weapons of mass annihilation. But at any rate the weapons cannot be of Soviet or Russian origin. I am absolutely confident of this. Absolutely!

And I think that this also adds to the value of the situation in which the whole of the civilized world and the whole of mankind find themselves after the end of the Cold War. This is the principal value. And, strictly speaking, the current state of affairs gives us the chance to hope that the heads of the leading countries of the world, including us with President Bush, will be able to formulate such conditions that the people will feel much more secure than yesterday or today.

Question: Mr. President, we are all witnessing a surprising thawing in the relations between Russia and the United States, that occurred after September 11. In your answers to the previous questions you said you would like to make this improvement and these good relations permanent and you would like to regard the United States as a long-term reliable partner.

In this connection I would like to ask what other issues are of especial importance to you in addition to the strategic arms and the ABM defense? To what do you attach especially big significance? And in this connection, how do you regard the NATO-related questions, cooperation with NATO and the problem of NATO's enlargement? Among other things, how would you react if the United States took the decision and agreed to the request of the three Baltic states to accede to NATO?

Putin: Such questions, which are of significant interest to us, are many. The first of them is, of course, resolving the problems of international security with account for the national interests of the Russian Federation. This is economic cooperation, at least on standard conditions with no discrimination.

As regards NATO, this is a topic apart. The organization was established to counterbalance the Soviet Union, which today does not exist. And at the time of the disintegration of the Soviet Union it was necessary to understand that the very nature of NATO could not fail to change. I feel sorry for one who does not understand this because he is not keeping up with the development of events. People who do not understand this will of course make mistakes. And apparently they are making mistakes.

We proceed from the assumption that NATO is a serious instrument of the realities of today's international life and we strive to develop cooperation with NATO.

I think that the body which was established, -- the Permanent Council, the so-called SPS, -- has on the whole been useful at a certain stage. Today this body is totally insufficient to change the quality of relations between Russia and NATO.

I think that all understand the thesis according to which we will act effectively, vigorously and persistently to attain the objectives and to accomplish the tasks which will be drafted with our participation. And if we do not participate in the drafting of these tasks, then, correspondingly, one may expect a certain kind of behavior of the Russian Federation. I think it is obvious to any man and to any country.

One of the first questions was our participation in solving the problems of struggle with terrorism in the territory of Afghanistan. You know that we have stated that quality and that scale of support which have previously never existed and which it was difficult to imagine. But I can say that we can also think about building up our joint efforts. This will already depend on the change in the quality of relations between Russia and the leading countries of the West, on our relations with the United States and, of course, with such an organization as NATO.

We are now speaking about the struggle with terrorism. But there are also other challenges today which are no less dangerous and they have already been mentioned here. One such problem is the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, and I think that it is not less important and not less dangerous a problem, but may be even more. It is no coincidence that we have repeatedly linked these two topics here.

Now any, even the most ordinary citizen understands that we shall be able to effectively oppose these and other threats and challenges of modernity only if we pool our efforts. And we shall be able to unite our efforts for effective work only if we raise the plank of confidence in each other in terms of quality.

In this sense, it is not only Russia that is interested to see a qualitative change in the relations between Russia and NATO, but equally, I think, in no small measure, to our Western partners -- the United States, the other leading countries of NATO and the whole of that organization as such.

I will tell you frankly that I have ideas of the most general character, and I am not now prepared to formulate them. It seems to me that President Bush and the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, also have very promising and new thoughts, and we have talked with them about it, as well as some other heads of the leading NATO countries.

Regarding the possible entry of the Baltic states into NATO, I would say the following. What was NATO established for? It is a defense organization. It was established in order to enhance the level of security at least of the member countries.

Whether in New York, in Washington, in Paris, in Berlin, or in Rome -- just walk out into the street and stop any citizen and ask him: will, in his opinion, the security of his country and his own security increase after the Baltic countries have acceded to NATO? The answer will be obvious: no. I am absolutely convinced, whatever my opposite numbers from the Baltic states say, this will not increase their own security. Although, of course, each country has the right to, and must, make its own choice with regard to ways of ensuring its security and no one takes issue with that.

But if we think and reason in accordance with new categories, not the categories of the Cold War, we must understand what is threatening us today and with what we can counter these threats. And when we have understood this, we will quickly conclude that we need to change the character of the organization, to bring Russia in so that Russia can precisely do a lot so that, together with all others, to makes its substantial and real contribution to safeguarding international security, including that of the leading NATO countries.

And with our NATO partners we are prepared for this work, we are doing it, and we have grounds to assume that, considering the positive mood of our partners, we can get positive results.

A mechanical enlargement of NATO, which does not accommodate the national interests of Russia is not, I think, heading in the correct direction. And we, of course, object to this.

Question: In addition to developing and maintaining contacts with Western countries, Russia continues to maintain very warm relations with such countries as North Korea, Iraq and especially Byelorussia. These are countries where democracy can hardly be described as developed.

Could you comment on how Russia, with its quite close relations with these countries, could help moving them toward democracy so that these countries could more fully join the overall international community, move them into the main stream of the international democratic community?

Putin: Would you remember who of the leaders of the Soviet Union said: "Somoza is, of course, a scoundrel, but he is our scoundrel"? I think I made a mistake, did I? Those were not Soviet leaders, it was someone from the American leaders, but let us not get into history. I don't think it was a correct thesis. There are no scoundrels among our partners. But each country has its own complex previous history. And Russia also has its previous history of relations with these states.

Russia has changed very much during this decade. And of course, our relations with these states have also changed. This is not noticed only by those who do not wish to see it. But we are not going to neglect any of the positive luggage of interstate relations.

In general, one has to treat partners with respect. Only watchers from the sidelines seem to think that it is simple to accomplish this or that in this or that country. But when you begin to immerse yourself into the problems of a particular state, it turns out that all is not that simple. And acting like an elephant in a china shop is by far not the best way of pursuing interstate relations.

The most erroneous approach would be to try to isolate someone, to isolate a country from the international contacts. This is true of any country, including the countries you have listed. We do indeed maintain relations with all these countries, but with each of them we have particular relations. And these relations are absolutely open. We do not hide anything. Moreover, as you know, we are maintaining permanent contact with our partners in other countries of the world, including the United States.

Concerning North Korea, this is a country which has a border with us, it is our neighbor. A large number of people from Korea live in Russia. And like the United States, we wish to have peace on the Korean Peninsula so that conditions could be formulated for a positive development of the country and the Korean nation.

As you know, I visited Korea before that summit in Okinawa. And I must say that my observations, meetings with the leader of North Korea, information which I shared with my colleagues in the Eight, was received very positively and with great interests. Moreover, I think, for instance, that this largely contributed to the development of Korea's relations with some countries of the world: with Canada, if one talks about the Western hemisphere, and with some countries of Europe. Involving North Korea in the general world processes, it seems to me, is quite a positive tendency.

As far as we know, the US Foreign Policy Department is also looking for ways to develop relations, including with North Korea, takes an active part in the inter-Korean dialogue, and I think that here Russia can play a very positive role.

As regards Iraq, Russia has its own opinion about, and its approach to, the development of the situation in that country. This position of Russia is absolutely devoid of confrontation, is not at variance with the opinion of the international community, the Western community, over how the situation ought to develop. Essentially, here we have common objectives, the main substance of the objectives is to be convinced that Iraq does not have any more means of mass destruction, that the means are not manufactured there, their production is not planned there, and so on. And we also wish to see this, so we have a common objective.

The question is how to bring this about? Through tougher sanctions? I don't think that imposing more rigid sanctions against a country, even against the political establishment, is always effective, with regard to any specific country. We may have different approaches and it seems to me that the Russian approach is not the worst.

What we propose is: to obtain from the Iraqi leadership access for international observers to facilities which are of interest to the international community, on the one hand. On the other hand, it is to lift the sanctions. But I must tell you that, regrettably, it has so far not been possible to agree on this issue with the Iraqi leadership. That is why it is quite a complex process.

Regarding Byelorussia, this is a special situation. We all realize that this is one of the republics of the former Union, with which we have special relationship. There is a big desire of the people in both states -- in Byelorussia and in the Russian Federation -- to establish some joint state structures. And it would simply be stupid not to take this into account. The Byelorussian and the Russian peoples are ethnically very close, and in culture, in language too, they largely have a common history and big reciprocal sympathy.

Question: Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov not long ago said that he in general agrees that the ABM defense now is not an untouchable instrument and that one could think about reviewing it.

Do you not believe in this connection that the ABM Treaty has indeed become obsolete? How would you comment, say, this change of position on the part of Sergei Ivanov, compared to what was said earlier -- several months and several years ago -- about the ABM Treaty being a cornerstone of the entire security system?

And the second part of the question. It is regarding the agreements that you hope to reach with President Bush during your stay in the US next week: will it be some formal agreement or you will say that you have agreed on everything?

Putin: Concerning defining the 1972 ABM Treaty as a treaty which is the cornerstone of international security, we now think exactly that. What is the basis for this thesis? The basis is that a whole system of other agreements in the sphere of international security is linked to this ABM Treaty. In this sense, Ivanov's position has not changed at all. I assure you that I know it very well. It is true that we have many Ivanovs, but the position has not changed with the other one either. This does not mean, however, that we do not acknowledge the justified concern of the US administration over the future system of international security.

President Bush agreed that the offensive and defensive systems can be considered together. He did more. He now states the US readiness to cut down on offensive weapons. For our part, we are prepared to examine the problems that the US faces in developing its ABM defense, but I repeat that for this we must get the "request" position in the military and technical meaning of the word from our US partners, and so far there is none.

This is to say that we see that the US administration is capable of reaching agreement and we ourselves are prepared to demonstrate this capability to reach agreement, only we have to understand what they wish from us in the military and technical meaning of the word.

As regards specific agreements, we have different proposals over what results we could reach with President Bush. But, if you allow me, I would wish first to tell him this in person, not through your newspaper, although I very much respect it.

Question: Because I represent The Wall Street Journal, an economic paper, I would like to know what effect future or forecast dynamics of oil prices could have on the economic prospects of Russia. And another question. Isn't the state planning to ask the oil exporters to cut exports?

Putin: Internal consumption of oil and petroleum products increases in winter in this country. In America, as far as I know, it drops a little bit in winter because there is less air conditioning, but we are a northern country, and over here consumption of fuel oil and other petroleum products grows. So, we have no need to take any measures to cut exports, they drop as a matter of course. That's one thing.

We coordinate our actions with OPEC, but we are not a member of OPEC. We coordinate our actions by looking attentively at what is happening and engaging in consultations. But, I stress, we are not members of OPEC.

As for oil prices, our attitude to them is as follows. We favor the so-called fair price corridor. We believe that the corridor indicated by OPEC meets that description. That's between 21 and 26-27 dollars per barrel. It is a price corridor that would create conditions for oil-consuming countries, for their effective economic development and enable the oil-producing countries to solve their economic and social problems.

As for the impact of oil prices on the Russian economy, there is an impact, of course. You know that this has not been created by us or in recent years. It has been created by the entire history of the economic development of the Soviet Union. I can't help agreeing with those economists who believe that after Samotlor oil was discovered we lost the incentive for economic development and everyone in the Soviet Union came to live off petrodollars. There were perhaps more minuses than pluses there for the development of the Soviet economy.

At present 40 percent of currency revenues come from trade in oil and petroleum products, so the dependence is fairly high. Perhaps, the dependence of the social sphere is even higher than that of the economy. And as you know very well, unfortunately, in the last ten years little has been done to restructure the Russian economy and end its excessive dependence on the energy sector, to make it a truly modern and effective economy.

But, as is also well known, in the last year or a year and a half much has been done to get rid of such dependence. What amounts to revolutionary changes have been made in the tax sphere, in de-bureaucratizing the economy, and other market laws have been passed which, in my view, have given a good impetus to development. The fact that the economy grew by 8.3 percent of the GDP last year is attributable not only to oil prices. The light industry has registered the highest growth.

I don't think that a drop of world oil prices would have a serious negative impact on our economy because the budget is based on a pessimistic scenario of oil price dynamics. But if the prices continue to go down and drop below the boundary fixed in the budget, well, we will have to take additional measures, to improve administration, and improve our work in other ways. Even so, we intend to implement liberal reforms and, if necessary, we will, of course, work with international financial institutions. At present, as you know, we are paying our debts to the International Monetary Fund ahead of schedule. In general, there is no panic on the issue. But there is, of course, some concern, we are thinking about it and we are considering various scenarios of developments.

We continue to develop the energy sector. And there we are cooperating actively with our American partners. You probably know that Exxon Mobil has decided to start a large investment project worth 12 billion dollars, between 12 and 15 billion. The total cost of the project may be as high as 30 billion. I think that is a very sound decision both from the economic and political points of view because the world economy must diversify risks and have multiple sources of energy. Russia in its present shape can well solve such tasks.

Question: The Russians' perception of America and Americans' perception of Russia has changed. Some people, probably even in your administration in Russia, may think and say that Putin continues along the path on which Gorbachev embarked in the times of the Soviet Union and which was then followed by Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin who was meeting the United States half way but got little in return. On the other hand, some Americans may think and are probably thinking that America is now helping Russia and in 10-15 years time will foster an enemy. Could you comment on that?

Putin: First about the motives for our cooperation with America. These are not motives aimed at gaining temporary benefits, these are not tactical motives of any kind. Of course, a marriage can only be a happy one if there is mutual love. And we count on a real change of United States policy with regard to the Russian Federation. Judging from what we hear at present, that is possible.

But it is not so much this reaction that matters. We are acting as we do in making decisions on various international issues not because we expect approval on the part of the United States or other Western countries, but because we believe that our steps meet the national interests of Russia.

Some think that the Russian Federation may in the future challenge the United States, but then all countries in the world arena are rivals of each other. And if somebody thinks that Russia may again become an adversary of the United States, I think such people don't understand what has happened in the world and what has happened to Russia and what kind of country is has become.

What the Russian leadership is doing at present has not only been prompted by the political philosophy of the Russian leadership. The Russian actions at present are prompted by its internal state and the mood of the population.

The main thing is that the overwhelming majority of the Russian population want to live with effective democratic institutions. The overwhelming majority of the Russian population want to live in the context of a social market, want to see themselves and their country as a natural component of modern civilization, want to be aware of it at the inter-state level and at the everyday personal level. People want to move freely around the world, they want to enjoy all the benefits offered by a normal modern democratic society.

But it doesn't mean that Russia does not have its own national interests, like any other country. You can even look at NATO countries which would seem to be states within a single defensive bloc. But aren't there disputes among these countries over the protection of their national interests? And look at the WTO countries. Aren't any problems unfolding there in this sphere, in the sphere of the free market or movement of goods? A fair number of such situations arise in inter-state relations. And of course, the Russian Federation will clearly formulate these national interests and uphold them. But I think the time has passed when we thought that we should do it through confrontation. These times have long passed.

And if you look at modern challenges, it will be clear that the Russian Federation, for the entire civilized world, including the United States, will most probably be an effective partner, if not an ally, in neutralizing the threats that we face today and may face in the near future. It's a fact.

Question: Mr. President, I would like you to elaborate on what you said at the very start of our talk. You have said that the Islamic terrorists fighting in Chechnya plan to move to Afghanistan and to kill the Americans there. Could you tell me in some more detail whether these are isolated threats or, on the contrary, you have managed to uncover a conspiracy, a concrete plan?

And my second question is about Chechnya and whether you have any intelligence on the so-called Chechen trail in the terrorist acts of September 11.

Putin: Let me start with the second part. We have no information that the terrorists operating on the territory of the Russian Federation, including the Chechen Republic, have anything to do with these terrorist acts. We only know what you know very well yourselves: the people suspected of committing these crimes on September 11 told their relatives that they were going to Chechnya.

But what we definitely have -- and it is an established fact not contested by the special services of the United States -- is the fact of the links between some international terrorists already active on the territory of Chechnya with international criminal terrorist organizations, including bin Laden's al-Qaeda. That's for sure.

These are simply people practically belonging to one organization. They were trained together in the same terrorist centers. They consider bin Laden to be their teacher. He trained them on his bases in Afghanistan. They fought together against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and so on.

Since Russia left the territory of Chechnya, in 1995 as you know, more than two thousand bandits and militants have been trained on the territory of Chechnya, on a very conservative estimate, and they later took part in military operations in other hot spots on the planet: in Kosovo, Kashmir, Sudan and Afghanistan. It is in effect a single system, a single network. It is even hard to tell where is the center and where is its branch. They are the same people, they know each other very well and they have the same sources of financing. This, too, is not much of a secret, we have conveyed that information to our American partners. We have a rough idea of the sources of financing. There is no secret there, not any longer.

As for information on possible movement of bandits from our North Caucasus to Afghanistan, these are simply authentic operational data. I repeat, we even have the lists of the names of the persons who are currently heading for Turkey via Georgia. We even know of the reaction of the Turkish authorities. I wouldn't like to go into these details because, frankly, I don't think it is quite the presidential level although we are aware of the nuances of the negotiations between the official representatives of Georgia and Turkey on this matter.

You have asked me there about their intention to move to Afghanistan. Well, I have nothing to add to what they say themselves. And they say in so many words: "Enough fighting here. We will come back here in two or three years time and complete our business here in Chechnya and in the North Caucasus. At present they need us more in Afghanistan". They are simply looking for ways to move there, that's all. And that, of course, is difficult considering that our troops and special services are blocking everything fairly tightly.

Question: The Soviet Union and the United States have a long history of rivalry in Southern Asia.

Putin: And you see where this rivalry got us. We should have stopped at a certain point. But we didn't realize it was time to stop.

Question: In the 1990s there was rivalry over oil fields in Central Asia. Many critics in Russia say in this connection that the current alliance with the United States could eventually give the US strategic advantages and that it would use the current situation to derive strategic benefits in the Central Asian region in particular. How could you prevent that, especially considering that the United States is apparently getting an opportunity to set up its bases on the territory of Tajikistan and possibly Uzbekistan? In other words, what in your view are the limits of the current cooperation between Russia and the United States? Where do you draw the line in terms of your strategic interests?

Putin: You know that what was important in the former frame of reference is becoming largely irrelevant at present. If Russia becomes a full-fledged member of the international community, it need not and will not be afraid if its neighbors develop relations with other states, including the development of relations between the Central Asian states and the United States.

First, they are independent states. Yes, of course, we have traditional links, and we mutually influence each other. They influence the situation in Russia and I think we can influence the situation there owing to historical features. But, I repeat, these are independent states and they make their decisions independently.

Of course, in determining their policy and the position that we have all taken in support of the United States, the position of Russia is important for them and their position is important for us. Many Russians live in these countries. There are strong economic ties between us. And of course what is happening there is a position agreed by all of us, by Russia and our Central Asian partners.

If in working out our foreign policy we are guided by our former fears, nothing good will come out of such a policy. The United States will have problems with international terrorism and we have seen the extreme manifestations of it already. We should react promptly to everything happening in those regions of the world which are de facto occupied by fundamentalists and the people we call radicals, and Russia and the Central Asian states will have similar problems.

So, we must understand that if we want to get rid of it, we should cast aside the former fears, trust each other more and act together and act in concert and effectively.

The same holds for the economic aspect of cooperation in developing mineral deposits if you are interested in these concrete issues.

If Russia is a full-fledged member of the international community, it may, in upholding its national interests in this sphere, derive benefits from such cooperation, for example, our joint work in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium which we have recently completed together with our American partners, or the development of Sakhalin deposits, I have already mentioned this project that we are pursuing together with our Indian partners -- and together with Exxon Mobil. I have already spoken about that company's investments.

Ultimately, if there is more confidence and cooperation, both the United States and Russia will gain from this.

What is an alternative to this kind of policy? It is what you mentioned at the beginning of your question, continued rivalry. We know the results of such rivalry. The United States has created or at any rate has done nothing to prevent the creation of the Taliban movement in the struggle against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union itself has done a lot of "good" to the United States by supporting all its rivals and enemies. We forgot that sooner or later all this gets out of control. As a result, we got, on the territory of Afghanistan, bases for training international terrorists who have regularly been sent to the territory of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya, and the United States have faced an unprecedented terrorist attack on Washington and New York on September 11.

I think we should end this bad practice and I have a feeling that President Bush and I are capable of doing it.

Question: A short specific question. You have just spoken about the movement of Chechen militants to Afghanistan via Georgia and Turkey. Would it be correct to infer from your words that the government of Georgia is deliberately and actively helping that movement?

Putin: It is hard for me to say to what extent the top leaders of Georgia are involved in this. But there is no doubt that it is happening with the connivance of the official authorities.

At present we know for a fact that many wounded militants are being treated in hospitals in Georgia, including the main hospital of the Georgian army in Tbilisi. And anyway, how can one imagine free movement of large bands numbering several hundred members from one part of Georgia to another (I mean, of course, from the Pankisi Gorge to the Kodori Gorge) across the whole territory of the country? It is not something that can be done secretly. That is simply impossible.

All this provides grounds for believing that certain quarters in Georgia are at least conniving at the activities of international terrorists on their territory.

Question: Have you discussed this issue with the Georgian government?

Putin: Yes, we have repeatedly discussed this topic. And when we talk about these problems, we hear in reply: "Yes, we know very well what terrorists are".

"We remember, we are told, how these international terrorists were killing Georgians and (forgive me for such details) were playing football with the heads of murdered people. We remember all that".

They say one thing and then we hear something quite different in their public speeches. I was very surprised, for example, to hear from the Georgian president that he did not regard as terrorists some people who have been put on the international wanted list as criminals and who have numerous bloody crimes to their names.

I think that an attempt to use any armed groups, especially terrorist groups, to solve political problems in any country, including Georgia, is a very dangerous way of resolving internal political issues absolutely unacceptable in international affairs and, most importantly, is totally without a future. This was how our experts saw the attempt to use the militants who have come from the territory of the Chechen Republic, and there are some international terrorists and foreigners among them, to solve the problems of the relations between Georgia and Abkhazia. It is an absolutely futile and very dangerous idea.

And this is, to put it mildly, a behavior that is anything but partner-like behavior with regard to Russia. Because without any warning to us they have created a threat on a rather serious section of the border for us that was at that time a poorly protected stretch of the border in the area of Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachayevo-Cherkessia. And that, as you know, is within a few kilometers of the main holiday resorts of the Russian Federation on the Black Sea coast. I don't think it is partner-like behavior on the part of our Georgian colleagues. But our latest contacts with the Georgian president suggest that he seeks interaction and is in the mood for such interaction.

I am absolutely sure that the problem that has arisen in connection with the presence of the international terrorists on Georgian territory (and the presence of terrorists there has indeed become a problem for Georgia) can only and solely be solved through cooperation with other countries, and above all, with Russia, through close pooling of efforts in the struggle against terrorism.

Thank you very much.


___________________________________________________________
© Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.