Question: We have come here as friends of Russia and, of course, many questions are important for us. The most central one is, of course, your visit to Finland. We, of course, would like to hear from you about the upcoming visit too, but of still greater interest to us are your perception, your attitude to Finland, which exceed the limits of this one visit.

Answer: The President of Finland and I long ago agreed about my visit. And I am very happy that very soon these plans will be carried out, because, I shall say frankly, I entertain special feelings for Finland, feelings very warm. And not only because I lived next to Finland for many years and was born in Petersburg, but also because for a sufficiently long time I was professionally concerned with the development of Finnish-Russian relations.

In Soviet times about 60 percent of Finnish goods used to be sold on the Soviet market. Today, by our approximate estimates, but I think this corresponds to the realities, around 50 percent of Finland's enterprises are linked with the Russian economy one way or another. Over the past year we have succeeded in accomplishing quite a lot together. We increased our trade turnover by 49 percent. Of total Finnish trade, according to the data that I have at hand, Russia accounts for seven percent. And this is much, because, I think, Germany accounts for between 12-13.

Finnish entrepreneurs know Russia very well. And we know that the Finns are very reliable partners. All this: a good knowledge of each other, the Finns' ability to work in market economy conditions, and mutual penetration is a very good prerequisite for the expansion of contacts.

But there is something important, very important, that, strictly speaking, lies at the heart of this state of affairs. It is what was built up by the previous generations of Finnish and Russian, further back Soviet, politicians. This situation may be called a high level of trust toward each other. This is very important. It has provided a very good basis. And we must cherish that.

Question: Did you, Mr. President, have any wishes with regard to Finland?

Answer: You know, I would refrain from wishes. I think that would be impolite. But I can make an offer.

Our country, as you know, has the lowest income tax in Europe - 13 percent irrespective of the level of individuals' income. In Finland it is up to 60 percent. And we have just approved a tax on the profit of enterprises and legal entities - it is 24 percent, also one of the lowest in Europe. Finland's is known to be over 40. This is a good prerequisite for the placement of production in Russia.

I know that some Finnish entrepreneurs suffered as a result of the 1998 crisis. We remember that and are making necessary efforts to ensure that such a situation never arises any more. And I must tell you that all our actions are directed to guarantee investments in Russia - both Russian and foreign.

Question: How do you assess Russian relations with the European Union? How do you assess the Northern Dimension, its possibilities for the development of cooperation?

Answer: Russia is a European country, and therefore the European thrust of our foreign policy is one of the priorities.

After World War II, the origination of blocs and as a result of the Cold War Russia suffered the most from the division of Europe, from that isolation. We have well learned these lessons and, of course, all our actions are directed now, and will be so in the future, to ensuring that there are no dividing lines in Europe.

The Northern Dimension. We support this initiative of Finland, and believe that it is very correct. But we think that together it is possible just more vigorously to act to fill it with concrete content, both from the point of view of the working-up of specific projects and in terms of the attraction of financing.

We have now been talking about this Northern Dimension for several years. All is correct there, but what's required, I think, is to act more energetically. Finland and Russia are interested in this alike. You know not worse than I do what is bureaucracy not only of the Russian, but also of the European variety.

Question: Mr. President, the Baltic countries by virtue of their historical experience have made it their aim to join NATO. Why is it so difficult for Russia to accept that?

Answer: NATO came into existence as a response to the threat from the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no longer there, no one threatens. We do not consider that there is something which is an objective factor for the expansion of NATO. In our opinion, it would be more correct to create a unified security architecture in Europe which would not create any new dividing lines.

What problems is NATO solving? Protecting from whom? For the real threat today is terrorism, the spread of narcotics, organized crime, the traffic in arms. That is what really can threaten us today. What is real and does threaten. That's what it is necessary to fight by common efforts. And, I repeat once more, to create a unified system of security, equal for all European states. Only then is it possible to create the main prerequisite for developing the European continent as a center of world power - that is to attain trust among all.

Question: To create a unified system of security an exchange of opinions is necessary, a discussion. This, in its turn, presupposes a more confidential character of relations between Russia and its neighbors. In this case I mean the Baltic states. Is something occurring in this direction?

Answer: Yes, sure. I think the most incorrect, erroneous thing would be to hold demands against each other and not to dialogue.

I am very satisfied with my meeting with the leader of Lithuania. And I had a very positive dialogue with the President of Latvia. When you begin to talk, you understand the genuine problems of your partners, obtain better insight and understand possible ways to solve these problems. And see for yourself that people who are interested and want interstate relations to be developed are by far more in number than those who hinder this.

For the Russians in the Baltic countries, we want nothing else but the generally recognized European standards in the sphere of humanitarian rights. The Scandinavian countries and Finland give us a very good example - the example of the use of languages of national minorities.

Therefore, recalling what is now happening in the south of Europe, say, in Macedonia, we understand how acute that is. But I think that here it is necessary for us to consider all together elaborating certain Europe-wide standards. Different standards must not exist for the south of Europe, for the north, for the east or the west if we are to speak of a united Europe.

If the 20 percent Moslem population raises the question of having proportional representation in the bodies of power and administration, including in the police, if they raise the question that the language of a minority be recognized as a state language, and many in Europe support this, then why, say, the Russian-speaking population in some Baltic states does not have a right to raise the question in the same way? How are they worse? The Russian-speaking population in Latvia exceeds 30 percent, I think. And the figure for Estonia is about the same. I do not remember exactly now, but the percentage is considerable.

I do not say that that is incorrect as applied to Macedonia. I am generally not giving any assessments now. But I'm saying that there must be a Europe-wide standard. Lest no one hold too high demands, create problems, but that bodies of power and administration, the official authorities of European countries could orient themselves to these general standards.

And one more point concerning the Baltic states. Unfortunately, the anti-Russian rhetoric is still on a rather high level there. I think this would be counterproductive if with the entry of the Baltic states into Europe it became a regular feature of European institutions. This needs someday to be stopped, moving to a constructive dialogue.

Question: If I correctly interpret your statements, solving the issues of the Russian-speaking minority in the Baltic states, when that occurs, to a significant extent can improve relations between Russia and the Baltic states? Though I fully share your point of view on the necessity of uniform standards, the culture, history, and the standard of living of states is so different that quite a lot of time will pass before such uniform standards can operate.

Answer: True, but unless we think of introducing those standards, they will never arise. Everyone will refer to the difference in culture, in the standard of living, and so on. It is difficult for me not to agree with this, this, of course, has to be taken into account, but in international law, as a rule, there are no directive norms, only recommendations are given there, working out and suggesting the principles for solving problems.

With regard to the status of the Russian speakers in the Baltic states I want to say just this. I do not intend to make a problem of it, hindering the development of interstate relations, because this will harm the Russians themselves living in the Baltic area.

And we will be combining our efforts with the sober-minded politicians in the Baltic states who sincerely want to develop contacts with us. We understand our interdependence in the economic field, in the field of transportation in the first place. Of course, we are now building a port in Primorsk, in Ust-Luga, and can further build a great number of port facilities and in principle weaken our dependence on the port structure of the Baltic states. But we are not setting even this task, for we want that our relations with the Baltic states would be natural and mutually beneficial. Our actions will not be directed to acting from a position of strength or placing them in a difficult economic position. No, we think that if we conduct a normal dialogue, then from our participation in the European division of labor we will, if we correctly build joint work, only benefit.

Question: Mr. President, George Bush Jr. Has been the President of the United States for half a year now. You have met with him, in particular, in Slovenia. What conclusions have you drawn with regard to him, with regard to the policy of the Bush administration? And what do these conclusions mean for the future of Russian-American relations?

Answer: First of all, the President of the United States is a very serious politician. Of course, he has to proceed from existing realities that have developed in international relations and are developing in the economy of his country. He is, in my opinion, a convenient and interesting partner in dialogue and in dealing with the most serious questions.

At the same time the correctness of the saying is known, that the "suite plays the king." Surely, it is he who makes a final decision, but we have the feeling that his team still has not defined itself in certain priorities. After this has been done and we've been offered variants of the solution of the questions relating to strategic stability, and in some other matters, our dialogue will assume a substantive character. But the very fact that our agreements to hold consultations on these complicated issues are being implemented - we assess this as a positive fact. And the very fact that it has been Bush who has declared that he will not regard Russia as an opponent or enemy is also for us an important ground to believe that this is the man with whom, despite the toughness of his positions on certain questions, it is possible to dialogue and to come to an agreement.

Question: Certain recent events, in particular the passing of the NTV television company to Gazprom's control, have suggested that freedom of speech, freedom of the press is being narrowed in Russia. What is your opinion of the recent events in this regard?

Answer: Substantial changes, not substantial but historic changes on the expanses of the former USSR have become possible exclusively thanks to the extension of the boundaries of the information society. And in this sense the presence of freedom of the press, its development is beyond doubt a prerequisite for the preservation of democracy and freedom. An essential precondition.

And support of the press, without a doubt, a free press is one of our priorities. Yet the press can be truly free only if it rests on its own economic base. Appropriate economic conditions must be created for that.

At the same time, if some or other organs or mass media engage solely in serving the interests of concrete oligarchs who have made their fortunes in an unknown or, more precisely, semi-criminal way, this has nothing in common with freedom of the press. It has something to do only with the protection of their economic interests.

As for the passage of control of the NTV company to Gazprom, it is quite simple here. The previous owner of the NTV company gathered more than a billion dollars in credits, a billion two hundred thousand approximately. Furthermore, he got the lion's share of those credits either directly from Gazprom or against the guarantee of Gazprom, about a billion, and has repaid nothing. By the way, a regular payment, of about 200 million dollars I think, is due again. And the previous owner created a criminal system of pay for a number of members of the journalistic staff in circumvention of existing legislation. The package system directly paid in circumvention of existing legislation into the pocket without any taxation. The pay bill for specific members of the staff ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Both this and the credit affair are an object of investigation in the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia. This also has nothing in common with freedom of the press. We will allow no one to blackmail us through mass media or by other means, but will proceed from the necessity to defend the interests of the state.

Question: Mr. President, you once said that you thought of the German Ludwig Gerhard or the French Charles de Gaulle as an example. Do you think your assessments have changed now, perhaps Peter I (Peter the Great) is more relevant for Russia?

Answer: You know, in Russia, apart Peter the Great, there were also other outstanding personalities who did very much for the Russian state: Catherine the Great, for example, or Stolypin. And in Europe too, apart from Gerhard and de Gaulle, there are many outstanding personalities who have made an enormous contribution to the development of their own country and the European continent. I think that the most dangerous thing is idolatry. But we do not forget and do not intend to forget the outstanding personalities of Russia. We, of course, turn today to what they did, how they did it, but we commensurate this with the requirements of the present day.

The aim is one: to make Russia a truly effective modern state, a reliable, effective partner who by its fact of existence and development would maintain European civilization and create necessary conditions for a worthy life for its own citizens.

Question: Europe is concerned by relations between Russia and the USA. At a point in the past it was noted that Russia, more precisely the Soviet Union and the USA had built a bridge and it remained only for Europe to wonder. You, Mr. President, even during this evening repeatedly emphasized the desire of Russia to participate in European cooperation. And here there is some basic contradiction.

Vladimir Putin: Where is this basic contradiction?

Question: It consists in that, if Russia and the United States build the bridge between themselves which is now being discussed and rumored, this will weaken the position of Europe.

Answer: I do not think so. That's not the way I see it. You said Europe is somewhat concerned by relations between Russia and the USA. I would like to reassure you. Russia, in any case, will do nothing of the kind that would complicate the international situation. And this is because Russia has itself greatly changed. And because it is not a good idea for us. The main aim of Russia's foreign policy is to create a climate around our country that would be favorable for solving our internal economic and political tasks. And this presupposes stability in the world, it presupposes a benevolent relationship with neighbors and with the main partners, among whom we, undoubtedly, regard the USA.

Take notice of our foreign policy moves in the field of security. We have acceded to all international obligations. We had long been urged to ratify the START-2 Treaty to reduce strategic offensive arms. We did it, our American partners haven't yet. We're now saying: "Weapons of mass destruction should not be placed in space." Now there are no weapons of mass destruction there, this first and very dangerous step ought not to be taken. We will see how our American partners will react to this.

We have no such computers for modeling nuclear explosions as do the Americans; moreover, we have given up nuclear testing. And we do not intend to carry out nuclear explosions, in any case until our partners, above all American, do so. We have suggested cutting down offensive arms to 1,500 warheads. But this makes sense, I want to stress, only in the case of preservation or creation of confidence and verification measures on both sides, in the case of the impossibility to use the so called return capability. That is, you can simply unscrew a warhead, put it nearby and at any second place it back - there should be no such thing.

We are not violating the obligations assumed. Everything suits us. We are being told that, for example, something has become outdated, like the ABM Treaty of 1972. We aren't saying that, we are being told so. We do not agree that this Treaty has become outdated, but still, showing a good will, we are ready for negotiations.

Of course, the most extreme approach is possible, the toughest toward talks on any question, that America is so strong that it doesn't need any talks or any treaties. Well, what is to be done? If such is the case, we can only throw up our hands, but we in this case too will not stir up any hysteria.

I want to stress that in this case the issue is not even about us, but simply about the international security architecture. This has to be understood, because we have enough missiles to still guarantee our security for many decades ahead, but for the international community, for Europe - I am absolutely convinced of this - it is important that this sphere should be maximally transparent and comprehensible. Everybody must know what is happening there, in order to feel calmer.

Question: Mr. President, when two years ago you became Prime Minister, one of your first tasks was to resolve the situation in Chechnya. How do you now assess to what extent this was accomplished?

Answer: I believe that all the tasks then set were done for this period of time. I had not expected that it would be otherwise. All that happened, and the condition we have today, is the expected result.

You know that Chechnya became a criminal enclave primarily because actually the men who began to govern there have nothing in common with the interests of the Chechen people. Large armed bands have now been destroyed, a socioeconomic rehabilitation of the republic is beginning. We cannot and will not speed it up until we have solved the task of ending organized crime, because to restore just to have it destroyed tomorrow makes no sense. But, nevertheless, this process has begun, and efforts in this direction will be built up.

I have already spoken of this many times, but I would like for your readers to repeat some basic things. As we know, in 1996 Russia, while not recognizing the sovereignty of Chechnya, actually gave it full state independence. From the territory of Chechnya all the troops were pulled out, and all the power, administrative and police bodies, the courts, and the prosecutor's office dismantled. All the Russian bodies of power and administration were dismantled, and the entire staff left the territory of Chechnya. The only thing Russia was doing from 1996 to 1999 was to regularly send considerable sums of money to pay the pensioners in Chechnya. Not one ruble reached the pensioners though. All this money, as the prosecutor's office later found out, all of it to the last ruble had been stolen.

After the withdrawal of Russia from this territory a vacuum formed up - a power, political, ideological vacuum, which was instantly filled by fundamentalism from a number of Moslem countries. The entire territory of the republic was divided into fiefs, at the head of which the so called field commanders placed themselves. The economy and social sphere turned out to be completely destroyed. The only source of livelihood was the plunder of adjoining Russian territories, a continuous string of crimes. There began the criminal assimilation of Russia's economy on the part of Chechnya, drug trafficking, narco-business, the production of narcotics, and thefts of people.

Since Russia was going through such an unpleasant syndrome after the events of 1996, it did not react to all these crimes in any way. All this, of course, only widened and radicalized the ambitions of those who ran the show on this territory, and led in the summer of 1999 to a large-scale attack on the neighboring Republic of Dagestan under the slogan and with the objective of tearing away some additional territories from Russia and creating a Moslem caliphate extending from the Black to the Caspian Sea - a United States of Islam.

But the attackers had miscalculated, because the Moslem population of Dagestan did not support them. On the contrary, they took up arms and began organized resistance. To us it became clear that these people - for the most part the ideologists are abroad and there are very many mercenaries still fighting there from some Moslem countries - will not leave us alone. For us the most important thing is to prevent this territory from being used as a bridgehead for attack on Russia and for rocking it from within. Russia has already gone through this experience and will not allow such behavior toward itself any longer.

And many Chechens support us today. That is why the bandits are increasingly killing their own citizens, primarily those who cooperate and exert the maximum efforts to restore their freedom.

Of course, political questions can only be solved by political means. And as the situation ripens, we, undoubtedly, will shift precisely to this. In the final analysis we will have to hold elections there, to elect both the head of the republic and parliament. This is a matter of the future, I hope, not so distant. We have just taken a decision and in accordance with the operating legislation in Russia transferred the ownership of municipal property to the republic: the schools, hospitals and other social facilities. And, accordingly, sent financing for their restoration, maintenance and development. And we will continue to enlist the local population for administration, will hand over the levers of administration to the local population, because without the Chechens the Chechen problem is impossible to solve.


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