Question: Esteemed Mr. President, if I may, the first question from Polish television.

Once, back in the era past, it was used to say that between us, ie our peoples, friendship and brotherhood reigned supreme. There were such slogans then. Now we prefer to speak of joint interests.

Mr. President, with what in our bilateral relations are you satisfied, and what would you like to change in these relations?

President Putin: First of all, I want to say that such a formulation of the question seems to me warranted, it fully suits us. If we speak of common interests, it means we're building relations on a solid foundation. That's the only way to build relations for the long term.

Let us not forget that we are bound not only by problems of the past, but also by very many things of positive value in the past. It is enough to recall the friendship of Mickiewicz and Pushkin. One must say that in spite of the Poles' continual struggle for their freedom and independence now with western neighbors, now with eastern, feelings of sympathy for the Polish people were always present in Russia, and unbiased people know that very well.

Based on this mutual sympathy, it is possible to build relations of, above all, an economic character and here, of course, one must speak of a pragmatic interest in each other. Trade between us is 5.5 billion dollars now, even more. This is a considerable figure. But we must bear in mind that the mutual trade exhibits a considerable deficit on the Polish side. No way can this make us glad, because it speaks of a disbalance. We must achieve balance in this regard.

Both Russia and Poland must be reciprocally interested in developing trade-and-economic ties in the first place. It was to this aspect of our partnership that we paid particularly much attention in the talks both with Mr. Kwasniewski and with the new Polish Prime Minister.

It seems to me that if we, based on this approach, find the right avenues of cooperation, then our collaborative effort will be very effective. Such avenues do exist. It is above all infrastructural projects, and in this sense Poland can well occupy the place it nearly always held in history, that of an East-West bridge in best sense of the word, and will effectively use this position in terms of the development of energy programs between Russia and Europe, in terms of transport programs and in terms of the taking to a new level of certain branches of the economy of both Poland and Russia. I mean agriculture, the mining and metallurgical industry, and so on.

There is, I think, a very good Polish proverb: concord is the builder, discord the destroyer. We in Russia know that and try not to forget it.

Question: Mr. President, first, thanks for your finding the time for us, we know how busy you are. But we had a common friend, I was on friendly terms with Anatoly Sobchak. Once he told me as we talked that there was a problem in Russia, that there was freedom in Russia, but there was no democracy yet, no such institution.

Please say, once you stated that you are for a controlled democracy. Could you explain that?

President Putin: I do not remember where I spoke of controlled democracy, and it will be difficult for me to define now, to give a definition to this term.

If you are interested in my attitude toward what is happening in Russia, how the institution of democracy is being built, I can say that here, in my opinion, we don't have to reinvent the wheel, we need to follow the path which all industrially developed and democratic countries have been following.

I think that Anatoly Alexandrovich Sobchak told you about that, and he spoke, evidently, about that almost ten years ago. Over this time, first, a lot has changed, but on the whole he is right. Freedoms are many, institutions of democracy are few. And to these institutions belong freedom of speech and political parties operating in free conditions and so on. It is all the same like there's money, you know, but an efficient banking system doesn't yet exist. Now there are such countries. And this only indicates that they are in a transitional period of their development. Same also with freedoms and with democracy.

We, of course, need to create a durable, reliably functioning legal base of democracy. Democracy is not anarchy after all, not all-permissiveness. It is rules prescribed in the laws adopted by a constitutionally elected representative body of power - the country's parliament.

It is along this path that we are moving, and moving quite confidently, consistently. Last year, as you know, a new Law on Parties was passed in our country. It aims precisely to create in Russia strong nationwide political organizations representing the interests of different sections and groups of society. Now when that balance has been achieved between the interests of the various groups and sections of society, as stated in the position of this or that party, it will be possible to speak of the construction of the bases of democracy.

Of course, not in the last place must we provide an economic base for free mass media, create a civil society, help the formation of new functions of the trade unions, which both in your country and ours were once called only the "school of communism" (it is incomprehensible what kind of school they then were when they worked under one power-monopolizing party in the country), and help the formation of other institutions of civil society, of public organizations. This is multipronged work in several areas at once, but there is no way to build it except within the framework of existing law.

Adam Michnik: If I may, this is my gift for you. This is a book which I wrote... It was published in London back in Brezhnev's times.

President Putin: In the 80s, yes?

Adam Michnik: Yes. It is about the church and about the democratic opposition in Poland, and so on.

President Putin: Thank you, I'll have a look with pleasure.

Question: Where do you see a threat to your policy? Today you have a brilliant popularity rating. No one has ever, no Russian President ever had anything like that. But we remember the forces that hindered Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin alike.

President Putin: You know, I would not start speaking of threats, I would speak of problems, of difficulties. It seems that they are much alike in our countries. Indeed, all countries of the so called former Eastern Bloc have some problems of a common character. And it is, above all, the perception by the people of their relationship with the state, of the state's responsibilities to the people.

Once, not so long ago, in both your country and ours, when the state was the monopoly owner of all things, it, naturally, was also responsible for everything. And so it went on for decades. In Russia that continued much longer than in Poland, therefore in Russia the consciousness that the state must deal with all the problems has deeper roots, regrettably. Regrettably, because that's so today in the conditions of a market economy, and to everybody it is clear that there is no alternative to market economy and democracy now. The other road of development just means stagnation, a lag in everything. But the realization that a market economy and democracy need to be developed is there, while an awareness that the state in this case cannot bear the responsibility for everything - somehow people find it hard to agree with this.

Now this, in my opinion, is a very serious problem, which should be paid special attention to, but one has to act here in a well-considered, tactful way. It is necessary that each ordinary, common citizen should grasp and become a supporter of the idea, according to which on his stance, on the stance of his family, on the stance of a region, on the stance of a district, on their contribution to common work, and on the quality of their work the material well-being of the particular individual, district, region and the country as a whole depends. There must come the personification of one's own contribution to the overall condition of the economy and to the prosperity of the whole people. This is a sufficiently long process and not simple.

Question: In all the countries, I would say, post-communist nations, there is a nostalgia for the era of communism. In Poland we see that, and in East Germany. Please say aren't you afraid that there are forces and people in Russia who are just against your policy and the market economy and, say, after September 11, your friendship with the West and with America in particular? I've read, for example, in communist newspapers that President Putin is a betrayer of his country, a capitulationist.

President Putin: You know, first, in my present capacity I have no right to fear anything, it's simply prohibited by definition. It would then have been better not to occupy the office in which I now am.

It is not a question of fearing or not fearing. It is a question of our own awareness of what we're doing and the awareness whether we act correctly, whether I act correctly or not. I believe I do absolutely correctly. And the problem is and always was, you know, where? In respect for one's own people. This respect must show itself in a patient explanation of your own position. Under no circumstances can you think that all you're doing will unambiguously be hurrayed by all without any comments. You have consistently, persistently and, I will repeat it once more, patiently to explain your own stand, to explain why you act just so, not differently, and where is the interest of the country as a whole and of the ordinary citizen of Russia with some or other acts being performed by the country's leadership.

I am absolutely sure, I know that even an ordinary citizen is in a position to understand the interest of his own country, the interest of his own state. Now who in our country is interested in Russia's confrontation with the entire remaining world and with one of the world's leading nations - the United States? Who is interested in this? There are no such people! There are only groups of persons who are motivated by their own interests in order to somehow return to power or break through to it. But this has nothing in common with national interests. And if you speak of this straightforwardly, plainly and clearly, the number of supporters will not be dwindling.

The same thing I have many times heard about the military: well that the Russian generals resent what the President is doing, and so on. I can tell you that our generals in no way differ from civilians in the worse direction. They are intelligent people and certainly not stupider than their colleagues in other countries. They perfectly understand what confrontation is and what a military standoff is. Today's generals perfectly understand the interconnection between the development of the Armed Forces, the real state of the Armed Forces, their battle readiness and the social protection of service members and the economic development of the country. This understanding is there, I assure you.

To ensure the military component at the high level, a high level of economic development is needed. And in order to ensure economic development, we need favorable foreign policy conditions. For this purpose we must build our relations both with Europe and with the United States and with the countries which are far from the borders of Russia and with our traditional partners - such as Poland, for example. This understanding is also there.

The question is, perhaps, of tactics. Here it is possible to take issue with that something can be done in one format, something in another, and something in still another. It is possible to speak of a varying pace, but that's a matter of taste and, I repeat, tactics. In reality there are no serious opponents in Russia of our development of relations with leading states of the world or with political organizations, including NATO, because this is not contrary to the most important thing for which any leadership of any country must function - the enhancement of the well-being of one's people and the foreign policy positions of one's state.

Adam Michnik: Many people are wondering, thinking that you are a President for whom there is no framework: neither a left-, nor a right-winger, neither a pro-Westerner, nor...

President Putin: It was you who were recalling our common friend.

Adam Michnik: Yes, I very much loved and respected him.

President Putin: He was just such a person, by the way. For him there existed no authorities either on the left or on the right. If he saw that somebody was erring from among his traditional allies in the then-democratic opposition, in the early 1990s, he quite openly and bluntly spoke of this rather sharply, practically always criticized our left political spectrum. This you know no worse than I do.

I think that this is the only correct approach to politics in general. We began our conversation today by stating that evidently the most correct approach is building relations between our countries on the basis of pragmatism and the pragmatic interests of each other in the building of these relations. The same must apply in all other areas. One simply needs, I think, not to be guided by bare schemes and speak in general terms, but to speak of concrete things, and then everything will be clear.

We have very often got used, you know, to operate with stereotyped images and theoretical concepts behind which little stands. So just now a good acquaintance of mine told me a fine joke: on January 1 sociologists conducted a telephone survey; 13 percent replied "Hullo," 25 said "Yes," the rest had difficulty replying. (Laughter.) Now what conclusions can be drawn from this?

You understand, if we guide ourselves not by any such investigations, but look at the root of each problem, study it and make decisions proceeding not from some general political considerations, but from the particular interests of our country, then we are going to measure up to the level of tasks at which we have found ourselves.

Question: I remember such debates, you are still a young man. Debates between Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Do you think these debates are still relevant to Russia or not?

President Putin: What do you mean?

Adam Michnik: When Solzhenitsyn wrote letters to the leaders of the Soviet Union, there was the thesis there that there would be no democratic system in Russia, and Andrei Dmitriyevich Sakharov said that no, this was a normal country and here democracy was possible as in other countries.

President Putin: Well, all this depends on how you understand what these people put into what they were saying. Maybe they were speaking of one and the same thing, but we know the distinctions and peculiarities of the views of Alexander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. He is a man who very much loves Russian history, bases himself on it in the analysis of tomorrow and in the definition of the future of the country, and I think that this is very important.

At the same time my personal view is that for all the distinctiveness of Russia, just as of any other country, which we undoubtedly must take into account, for all the distinctiveness - there are some common principles without the establishment of which in the theory and practice of building our state we can not manage. And if by these common principles we understand the bedrock principles for the construction of democracy and freedom, then I think that, I repeat, without these generally recognized principles it is impossible for us to build a normal democratic state.

Question: Your opponents are saying that the liquidation of NTV, the Segodnya newspaper and TV-6 is practically a threat to media freedom, to the opposition, and so on. How could you comment on that?

President Putin: Honestly, I do not even know what happened to Segodnya. I am for the first time hearing even that it has ceased its existence.

Comment: Yes, of course. Back in the spring.

President Putin: I did not even notice that, honestly. As to NTV and TV-6, I certainly could not have been unaware of that, I was and am aware of it.

There are several aspects here. The first one is strictly legal. When I hear such talk, I do not exactly know what people want of us. Want that we should in a nonjudicial manner, using the so called telephone right, intervene in the prerogative of the court? The question then is, where's democracy? And what is better and what is worse? Better if administrative bodies trample down an independent branch of power, the judicial one, and give orders and directions what is to be done there? Is that the assertion of the principles of democracy? Probably not. This applies to NTV and the more so it does to TV-6 because a dispute is under way there between absolutely independent economic structures, to which the state has practically no relationship whatsoever.

To speak to the point, it seems to me that just as there was no firm, stable multiparty system in our country, so the free press is in fact only in the stage of formation. And in this sense we have to do the main thing: create an economic base on which a free, independent press could exist on its own.

By the way, without solving this problem we will not be able to create a full-fledged democratic state. We have this understanding, we do - and there can be no doubts about it.

And, finally, the third circumstance - quite important, in my opinion. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergency of the new Russia things began to occur that could have occurred only in a country with a weakened political regime, with a political regime that has not yet established itself. The threat arose of Russia developing along the oligarchic path, when individual people, having come near power, and partly monopolized it, influenced political processes in the country, motivated not by national interests. And getting around democratic institutions, the representatives bodies of power, and using precisely the material resources they obtained in the course of privatization or in the course of other processes, far from always by lawful means used them for solving their own group interests.

We know how much ink has been used in the Western media on this issue, how widely and with what concern this has been discussed. It often happens in our country that a man who got drunk with vodka and bashed his neighbor's face is jailed for five years for hooliganism. And he who stole a bag of potatoes is jailed for theft, he is considered a thief. But those who stole or illegally made a fortune running into tens and hundreds of millions of dollars - well, they are political figures, you see.

These people have nothing to do with democracy and, by subjecting media to themselves, defend not the freedom of speech, but their personal commercial interests.

I repeat, in order to create a base for a truly free press, it is necessary to create an economic base for its own development. On this matter we are going to work of course, strengthening in parallel the judicial and administrative system, creating, I repeat, conditions that will enable journalists to fulfill their professional duties without depending on anybody.

Question: There is a questionnaire, made through our editorial board with Moscow friends, where there is just this question: Does Poland need to have a feeling of guilt, looking at Russia, for history? 30 percent of Russians say "Yes"; 33 percent "No."

So for what may Russia have complaints against Poland? In the first place, for a lack of gratitude to the Red Army during the Second World War. And secondly, for there being a Chechen information center in Poland. Could you comment on this?

President Putin: Yes, I can. You know, my comment will be somewhat unexpected. I prefer to love Poland for its giving the human race Chopin. I prefer to love Poland for Mickiewicz. I prefer to love Poland for the Polish spirit and for the Polish character. And the cause for my anxiety now is that we have, in spite of the high level of goods exchanges, a disbalance.

I believe we have so many mutual interests that we should and can deal with these present-day problems together. But if we allow ourselves, as in a shared kitchen, to rake up every old problem or petty issue, we will not think of the future but let the problems of the past, long dead problems, drag us by the sleeve and keep us from moving forward. And that would be a very gross mistake.

Question: Please say, I don't know who has already asked you about this, which Russian writer is your favorite?

President Putin: Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy - classics. Lermontov I love very much. I love Block's poems, Mandelshtam's.

Question: Please say if there were any "intra-Russian" debates, whether Russia is Europe or Eurasia, or what? From your point of view, it is a Eurasian country or European? I've read in the Russian press the following slogan: "President Vladimir Putin is a pro-Westerner."

President Putin: You know, I treated Likhachev with great respect and do so today. There was in Russia, in St. Petersburg, such a scholar and public figure.

And I find it difficult not to agree with him in that the essence of any country, the substance of a country, the substance of a people is determined first and foremost by the culture it has.

From the geographic point of view, Russia is, of course, an Eurasian country. But, in spite of the different level of material well-being in its eastern part or, say, in the capital city, I assure you - these are people of one and the same culture. And in this sense, and that, I repeat, is my opinion and on this issue, let me stress once more, I absolutely agree with Likhachev, that's exactly what it is all about. In this sense Russia, without a doubt, is a European country, because it is a country of European culture. There can be no doubt at all.

For it has always been so. That's a perennial question in the internal political life of the country, the one you asked. I would, in more exact terms, define it thus. Of course, Russia is a very distinctive country, with its own history, with a rich history, with its peculiarities. But almost each country has such peculiarities. Russia in this sense is no different from any other European country. But it is, I want once again to stress, a country of European culture, and so it is a European country.

Question: What is Stalin's place in the history of Russia?

President Putin: This is such a provocative question to some extent.

Adam Michnik: Slightly.

President Putin: Well, not slightly. (Laughter.) Stalin was, of course, a dictator. That's beyond any doubt. This was a man who was guided to a significant extent by the interests of retaining personal power, and this explains very much, I think.

The problem is, it was under his leadership that the country won in the Second World War, and this victory is largely associated with him. And to ignore this fact would be stupid.

Well, this incomplete answer, I suppose, must satisfy you.

Question: He is closer to Ivan the Terrible, from your point of view, or to Peter?

President Putin: To Tamerlane.

Question: Please say, if it is possible, you very often speak of pragmatism, is there in your pragmatism a place for the Russian idea? What can be the idea of a Russia post-Soviet, without the Soviet Union? If this is a traditional path, it is expansion, you are against the policy of expansion? Where do you think the roots of your thinking about modern Russia are?

President Putin: A very simple question, it's just primitive. This is economic development of the vast areas that have turned out to be under the control of the Russian Federation and joint work with Europe and the other civilized world on the development of these areas with the simultaneous raising on this basis of the living standards of the Russian people itself and natural integration into political, economic and defense structures of civilized countries.

Question: And what do you think about the future of the CIS?

President Putin: This, above all, depends on the countries themselves that emerged on the ruins of the former Soviet Union. It seems to me that many of them, having traveled their own road of development, will be in the sphere of influence of the very same European culture of which we spoke, for all their distinctiveness. And I think that we ought to bear this element in mind, to use it. This may be a very substantial positive factor for the development of the future Europe.

It appears to me, though, that some questions, shall we say, of an institutional character, of a radical nature we have been quite consistently dealing with over a period of several years now, and this creates a good basis for the development of a market economy and democracy alike. Various-speed is our development with many countries of the CIS, none the less. Well, say, in the field of development of market relations some of these countries have moved even further in some areas than Russia. For example, Kazakhstan. A series of laws have been adopted there that by and large from the point of view of the construction of market relations are an example, including for Russia.

As far as the creation of a political system is concerned, I have difficulty saying now how this is in the other countries, but I think that the Law adopted by us, of which I already said, the Law on Parties, may be a model for many other states if they deem this suitable for themselves.

Question: But there are people who are saying that the Law on Parties can block the creation of new political parties?

President Putin: Nothing of the sort. The Law on Parties can only block anarchy in the political sphere. Until a normal viable multiparty system has been created, we will have no parliamentary democracy in the full sense of the word. Until then we will have but small political groups and an orientation in national elections not on party values, for which the party bears responsibility, but on particular individuals.

I think that while this is more or less acceptable for states which are at the transitional stage of their development, it shouldn't remain so for the long term. Therefore the creation of legal conditions for the growth of political influence throughout the territory of the country, the creation of nation-wide parties is extremely important. Without this, it is simply impossible to develop parliamentary democracy.

Question: And lastly now - what will happen to Chechnya? I know that everyone is asking you about this.

President Putin: There is nothing unusual here. We know prehistory, we know how all this developed as early as a century ago. I already spoke of this publicly once, so it remains for me only to repeat my position. There, without doubt, we observe a rattling mixture of international terrorists and separatists.

As far the international terrorists are concerned, here, I think, there is no need to prove anything, they are to be either condemned and isolated, or destroyed. Which, strictly speaking, we now observe, say, in Afghanistan. And this raises no doubts in anyone. And in the territory of Chechnya - there a symbiosis of separatism and international extremism, steeped in extreme manifestations of Islamic fundamentalism, has taken place. I think that no one has a desire to back any extreme forms of fundamentalism.

As far as separatism is concerned, here, too, there is a question which, if asked, has no answer. As of now, nearly all countries of the world are faced with problems of separatism - both such large ones as India, and many countries of Europe. I do not even want to name them so as not to stir the very theme. You know these countries both in Western Europe, and all the more so in Eastern.

And if we will only allow ourselves to support separatism in one of Europe's regions, not to mention other regions of the world, there will be no end to attempts at a re-division of borders. We will plunge Europe into an interminable process of division of powers and territories. This especially concerns Eastern Europe.

We do not support that in other countries and very much hope that separatism will not be backed in Russia, as well. I said about Europe, but let us step a little aside.

The Kurdish people has been fighting many years for its independence. 40 million people! And they live in several countries, including about 20 million in Turkey, I think, or about as many. So what? Do you support the tearing away of a territory from stable national governments? That would be an extremely short-sighted policy.

Terrorism, fundamentalism and other manifestations of extremism develop, you know, on territories that turn out to be not under the control of internationally recognized governments. That's exactly what under no circumstances should we allow. But it does not mean that we should not consider the lawful demands and interests of a people, a group of population, and so on. This also applies in full measure, of course, to the people of Chechnya. Sufficiently complicated processes are occurring there.

The army, by the way, is there actually conducting no combat actions at present, only local operations are being carried out there. But in parallel with this a political dialogue is going on with the population and with those who want this dialogue. And only, of course, on the road of this dialogue that a final solution can be found.

We intend to follow this road in order to achieve a final solution of the question.

Question: In Poland everyone was telling me that I should necessarily tell you that there is a great desire of the Pope to come to Moscow. Does something depend on you, Mr. President?

President Putin: You know, if you have taken notice, I treat the Pope with great respect. I visited him in the Vatican and am very grateful to him for his receiving me.

In general, I do not know how it will seem to you, unexpected or quite natural, but we even have a feeling of pride that a member of the Slavic peoples has become the Pope. This is a Pole, and it is especially pleasant to us.

If it concerns interstate relations, there are no problems here at all. I am ready to invite him at any minute. But the Pope himself wants, if he is to come to Moscow, that this would be a full-fledged visit involving full-fledged relations with the Russian Orthodox Church. That, regrettably, does not depend on me.

Question: You will be in Poland for the first time?

President Putin: Yes, I am looking forward to this visit with great interest.

Adam Michnik: We are also looking forward to seeing you in Poland with great interest.

President Putin: Thank you very much.


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