Question: After September 11 Russia took a historic decision to join the so called world antiterrorist coalition. How far do you think this alliance may go, considering the fact that your opponents of yesterday already hold strategic places in southern Russia, in Central Asia?

President Putin: Russia was one of the first countries to face international terrorism in its own territory. And for quite a long time we fought against international terror practically single-handed. I cannot say that there was an adequate response to our worries throughout the world, though we spoke of that more than once.

I also repeatedly pointed out that, in our firm conviction, on a sufficiently vast space - from the Balkans to the Philippines - a certain arc of instability had emerged, the arc on which, one might say, the so called international terrorist international had taken shape. So the fight against it - if we want it to be effective - should be based on broad international cooperation. Therefore the choice which Russia made by supporting international efforts to combat terror was not unexpected for us. That was a natural choice.

As to the presence of our American partners in Central Asia, this is, above all, a matter for the United States and the states of Central Asia to decide on a bilateral basis. The latter are our independent partners and allies in Central Asia - former republics of the former Soviet Union. Today they are independent states, and they have a right to independently define their foreign policies. Just as Greece once made its choice in NATO's favor, whether someone liked it or not. In this way, the Greek people deemed, it would be more expedient to tackle security issues.

Of course, we are not indifferent to what will be happening in this region of the world. Of course, we are bound up with this region by special relations: historical, cultural, economic. But, first, as far as I know from my conversations with the leaderships of Western countries, including the leadership of the United States, and from the public statements of the US President, it does not intend to stay there for a sufficiently long historical term. This is not the issue though.

The issue is the quality of our relations with Western civilization and with the United States among other nations.

If the relations with these nations alter qualitatively in the security and defense field, then we will have no worries about the development of all-round relations between the states of Central Asia, and the United States and other leading Western powers.

Question: Mr. President, one can just see that Russia has indeed since those well-known events come closer to the West and primarily America. Your recent visit to the United States was evidence of that. Yet the NMD problems remain unresolved, which to Russia are problems of strategic importance.

So is the NATO question, which concerns all the Alliance member countries, including Greece. Recently in Moscow the NATO Secretary General, on the one hand, insisted that NATO's eastward expansion was to be. On the other hand, he sort of invited Russia to closer cooperation with this organization. Even the pronouncements there were that Russia was on the point of joining NATO. How do you look upon this?

President Putin: There are two parts to your question, quite independent from each other.

The first is the problem of missile defense and the preservation of the ABM Treaty of 1972. Russia considered and does so now that this Treaty is the cornerstone of international stability and security. We proceed from a whole variety of circumstances, the main one of which is that many other agreements and understandings in the field of world security are based on this Treaty. That's precisely what we are really worried about in the first place, not our own security. Because the implementation of these plans, of which the US administration speaks, will in no way affect the security of Russia itself, over the next decade anyway. We have a sufficient stockpile of arms, and of the level and the quality which no national missile defense system can withstand at the present stage. This is the first point.

Secondly, we believe that the main threats today come not from intercontinental ballistic missiles, against which, strictly speaking, this national missile defense system should or can be created. For we know who and in what way inflicted those dastardly blows on New York and Washington, and by just what methods this almost irreparable moral, physical and political damage was inflicted to international relations and to the United States itself. Were those ballistic missiles? And of what threat are we talking today? Of the threat of the use of other weapons of mass destruction within reach of terrorists, such as biological weapons, chemical weapons, and some other possible weapons of mass destruction. That's what we think it is necessary to ponder today. And if we want to act effectively, we must search for ways which unite our efforts, not disunite them to national "apartments."

Yet we believe that the positive dialogue can proceed on this theme. But with any solution option, it seems to me, we will no longer return to the situation that existed before September 11. Whatever that option, I repeat it, we will search for mutually acceptable solutions, arrange them for the long term and search for mutually acceptable ways to disentangle the knot. This is what concerns antimissile defense - very briefly, of course, because the problem is very big.

As to NATO and the possible expansion of NATO to the East... Our position here has not changed as of now. We hold that this is a more or less futile and useless exercise. For NATO was born in its time to counter certain threats, which emanated, as we understand, from a certain center. And that center was the Soviet Union. Today the Soviet Union is no more. Yet the NATO-centrist foreign policy lingers on. That's what we consider a big mistake.

I have already sounded this thesis more than once - well, I don't mind repeating it yet again. Please come out onto the streets of any large city of any one of the NATO countries: come out in Washington, please, or New York, or London, or Paris, or Berlin, or Rome or Athens and ask an ordinary citizen in the street: will the NATO expansion improve his own security, will he feel more secure or not? The answer, I assure you, will be one and the same - no. And if Russia cooperates effectively with today's bloc, will that improve the security of an ordinary citizen in all these countries? Almost certainly the answer will be "yes." And this is true. One does not need to be an expert in the field of international security and stability to see that the possibilities of Russia, if it is cooperative with the civilized world - and it is ready for that - will help to increase the security of all these countries.

Russia is ready to alter the quality of its relations with the North Atlantic bloc. This does not mean that Russia seeks a full-format membership in it. No, for a whole variety of reasons, I will not even dwell on them right now, but we do not seek that. But to alter the quality of relations in counteraction against today's real, not imaginary, threats - well, we are ready, can and are quite in a position to do so. We are ready to cooperate not only with NATO, but also with the security systems coming into being on the European continent. They, though, are not yet there.

And here I would like to draw you attention to the fact that we would not like and consider it wrong to connect these two problems.

I do not think that the temporary absence of these structures in the form in which they are proposed to actually function in Europe in the coming years, should serve as an obstacle to the construction of a new relationship between Russia and NATO.

Moreover, it seems to me that the new relations between Russia and NATO, which are possible and a groundwork for which the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has proposed among others, can be a good bridge also to future relations between Russia and the united Europe in this very sensitive area.

Question: Vladimir Vladimirovich, there is opinion that the antiterrorist operation now going on in Afghanistan is not really achieving its aim. For example, bin Laden so far has not been caught, the terrorist threat still remains, and very many innocent civilians are getting killed there.

What is your approach to this problem? Are you satisfied with the course of the operation? And what could you say regarding the likelihood that such bombings, even in the very near future, may begin also in other countries?

President Putin: You know, I recently spoke to one of very authoritative leaders of the Islamic world. I will not name him, because I do not know if I have the right to do so, he did not authorize me to sound this part of our conversation, but he told me that no one had noticed that in the Islamic world itself the struggle against fundamentalism, against the extreme manifestations of Islam has now been going on for about 50 years. The world only paid no attention to that. And in the last decade the world paid almost no attention also to the growing threat of terrorism.

So we now speak of September 11, we're speaking of these horrible terrorist acts... Often special services are being accused that they overlooked something, there is talk of the failure of special services... One can, of course, and should lay on them a part of the blame - but that was not a failure of their activities. It was the failure of the last decade of foreign policy of the Western community, which had failed to grasp the depth and scale of the changes that had occurred in the world and did not place the emphasis on the real threats of today in time.

This, then, is very closely connected with the previous question about NATO: is it necessary to alter the relations between NATO and Russia or is it not? It is necessary if we realize where the danger is, what and how we should withstand together.

As to the quality of the antiterrorist operations now being conducted, it was no coincidence that I said this threat had for a long time been mounting, brewing and that the disease had progressed too far. To resolve all the problems in one go within the space of several weeks or several months is impossible. We should be clearly aware of that. Hence no too high expectations should be given rise to. Say, today the international coalition with the use of the entire economic and military might of the United States has landed in Afghanistan, and in just a couple of months, in a couple of weeks settled it all. No, there will be no easy solution. Because the international community slept for a long time, and in fact missed this threat. Therefore it is necessary to pay the bills now, necessary to prepare for serious, long-term and cooperative work - for joint work.

How is the operation developing today? I think that we must be satisfied with its course. All the aims which the antiterrorist coalition has set itself are being achieved within a specified time. We see what has happened to the organized resistance of the Taliban movement. We see that the process of normalization in Afghanistan is gradually, with problems, but still moving principally onto political lines, and so on, and so forth.

Unfortunately, the struggle against terror - if it, in essence, has launched itself onto the course by which it already occupies whole countries and begins, of course, with the poorest countries like Afghanistan - in this case requires both time and energy and joint efforts. But this fight is not limited to military actions. Here we must think also about implementing the relevant United Nations resolutions on the suppression of all the funding for terrorists. And here I think we - when I say "we," I mean the international community - have a right to expect more cooperative and effective joint work also with the leaderships of Saudi Arabia and some other Middle Eastern countries - the Gulf countries, for example - to cut the sources of funding for the activities of the various fundamentalist organizations.

Here we must take note of the necessity to settle regional local conflicts, such as the Middle East conflict. Despite the fact that this is a complicated and chronic problem, it has to be dealt with, and it is necessary to get the opposing parties to meet each other halfway, it is necessary to work out a system of international legal measures at the level of the United Nations, which should occupy a fitting place in this joint work, and it is necessary to solve another global issue - that of war against poverty in the world.

So if we understand the depth and scope of these tasks, then it will not seem to us that what has been recently done is insignificant or not worthy of support. It is worthy, only we should further act perseveringly, vigorously and in several directions at once.

Question: You will support possible bombings against specific countries?

President Putin: As far as a possible delivery of a strike against other countries is concerned, we must see what the talk is really about and we ought to discuss this question within the United Nations.

Question: The political level of relations between Russia and Greece, as is known, is high. Do you think trade and economic relations between our countries satisfy this level?

Besides, I know that when you met with the Greek Prime Minister, you exactly expressed your political support for a very interesting Burgas-Alexandropolis project. On this project there are different opinions; among other things, articles are appearing that allege the Russians have no oil, and so on. So exactly against the background of your visit to Greece, how do you perceive the Greece-Russia complex of relations precisely in economic terms? Can Greece be a strategic partner of Russia in the Balkan region in the matter of energy resources?

President Putin: I think that when someone says Russia does not have a sufficient volume of oil, it is simply those who do not want wider Russian cooperation with Southeastern Europe and Greece in this sphere. But it is exactly the same people who urge us to cut oil export volumes in connection with energy problems today and with oil prices, and so on. It is simply an element of competitive struggle, and there's no need to dramatize anything here. I treat this very calmly. Oil is there in Russia, plenty of it. Moreover, we are ready to increase further our export deliveries.

Apart from all other things, as you know, we are very actively working jointly with some CIS countries, in particular with Kazakhstan, in the Caspian area. We have many fields being developed and explored in Western, and especially in Eastern Siberia. In general, this is not a problem as a matter of fact.

Russia is interested in developing energy cooperation with Europe as a whole. We, as you know, on the initiative of Mr. Prodi are now working on a concept of energy cooperation between Russia and the European Community.

Of course, in the context of relations with Greece, bearing in mind their special confidential character - this element of cooperation is very important for us. We are now studying this project. Russian specialists are engaged in a feasibility study for it. In general, ours is a very positive reaction. It is necessary for us to understand the position of Bulgaria. And now, as far as I know, some of our companies are even considering the possibility of investing in the Greek economy, in energy projects. As far as I know, it concerns a possible purchase of a package of shares in a Greek state company which is being planned for privatization.

We are willing to consider gas-supply projects. I am afraid to make a mistake with figures, but, as far as I know, it is Greece that has chosen 1 billion 800 million cubic meters of gas today, although Russia is willing to supply a greater amount. Contracted, anyway, is more, significantly more. The expansion of this cooperation to a significant extent depends on the Greek side, on the readiness of the corresponding facilities and on the expansion of the economy of Greece, capable of consuming a greater quantity of energy resources.

By and large - I am absolutely certain - we have very good prospects here.

Question: Vladimir Vladimirovich, do there remain any strategic interests in the Balkans for you, for Russia,? And what do you think could be Russia's specific role in the settlement of conflicts, which after all do not abate in our peninsula?

President Putin: You know, the question whether Russia is interested in this or that region of the world, will it engage in global politics, does it withdraw from it and so forth, throughout our history used to arise and then die by itself many times. One of the outstanding figures in our history once said to the question whether Russia was withdrawing from Europe: "No, Russia is concentrating: neither being angry, nor withdrawing - it is concentrating."

You know, after the collapse of such a world power as the Soviet Union, and after our country met with problems of a transitional character from a planned-directive economy, from a totalitarian regime to a market economy and democracy; after we lived through or are living through still - though I hope we are already at the exit from it - this complicated period Russia is gradually regaining the quality of a country which is not indifferent to what is happening in specific regions of the world. And then it is impossible to imagine a Russia which is not interested in and does not influence these processes. It is enough to look at its territory: Russia is in Europe and in Asia, in the South and in the North. Simply by virtue of its presence in these regions of the world it is a power European and Asian, southern and northern. Moreover, all this has a practical significance in the tackling of concrete tasks.

As far as the Balkans are concerned, with this region of the world both us, Russia, and Greece are bound by centuries-old history and many threads of an economic, spiritual and other character. It is hard to imagine the Balkans without cooperation with Russia. We do not claim any special role there. But I am certain that these deep-going ties exactly - they will not only not disappear overnight, they never will disappear at all, bearing in mind, I repeat, our spiritual and religious closeness, bearing in mind the language closeness, cultural, and so on.

Without claiming a special role there, we at the same time will play a constructive role in the efforts of the international community to stabilize the situation in the Balkans. In the first place, we will work for the implementation of the Resolution 1244 of the United Nations.

It appears to me that the No. One problem in the Balkans today is to prevent a division of borders. Because if we pass this moment, do not see - or if we pretend that we have not understood what is happening there - and close our eyes to the recarving of borders in Eastern Europe, then this might have very serious consequences for Europe as a whole. This should not be allowed to happen. And it should not be allowed that extremists of all kinds would use cultural, national or language pretexts for the achievement of one aim - that of recarving the borders in the Balkans.

More generally speaking, it should not be allowed today that someone would venture with arms in hand to solve his own political tasks. Such people must be placed in a certain position. The sign of equality must stand between them and terrorists. If we rigidly and consistently uphold these principles, then at the end of the day, despite all the complexity of the problems in the Balkans, we will achieve both reconciliation there and the solution of every problem in the interests of all the ethnic groups and peoples that inhabit this difficult region in the south of Europe.

Question: What is your approach to the question of the relation between the Soviet past and the new Russia?

President Putin: The Soviet period of development of our state occupies a large number of years. To pretend that it wasn't there would be inadmissibly stupid. Over this time the country, of course, brought itself to such a state that it disintegrated, and this, of course, is the main thing. Not to think of this would be simply foolish. But over these years in the most diverse fields our country also achieved certain successes. And ignoring that would be, it seems to me, absolutely wrong.

Therefore just as any state, I think, we must treat our past with respect. With this is also linked the return of certain symbols of the Soviet era. I must tell you that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Russia, and then also very many citizens of other republics of the former Soviet Union, went through an ordeal after the breakup of the Soviet Union, through trials of a psychological, economic and social character. But Russia is gradually - I think that this is becoming increasingly obvious - on a new basis, on the ground of a market economy and democracy acquiring the quality and the role which it must play in the world.

Of course, the collapse of not only the Soviet Union, but also of the bipolar world had a number of serious consequences, led to a regrouping of forces. But I must tell you that thanks to the decision of ten years ago on the establishment of the CIS, we nevertheless managed to avoid a so-called "Yugoslavization" on the expanses of the former Soviet Union. And I think that this was due largely to the positive role of this organization - the Commonwealth of Independent States - which has emerged on the basis of republics of the former Soviet Union.

It appears to me that if the positive trends that now exist in both the economic and political fields in the Russian Federation continue, then in purely emotional-psychological terms also a certain watershed, a certain bar will be scaled. And if Russia thanks to this occupies its own, proper place in the international arena, many questions will be dealt with considerably more softly, I would say, in a more balanced way and with due consideration of the interests of all the peoples living in our continent. For it was not without meaning that I mentioned that special relations bind us with certain regions of Europe. We always will think of what position, as we earlier used to say, the fraternal peoples, the brother peoples for Russia, among whom we rank, by the way, also the people of Greece, have found themselves in.

Question: Mr. President, Greece is very often being criticized for the issues of ensuring security. You will soon visit our country. Besides, you most likely will come to Greece in three years to the Olympic Games of 2004. So how do you think after all - does a security issue exist for the Greek Olympics? And in general, are you worried about the problem of security, as you come to our country?

President Putin: I am not particularly worried about the problem of security, because I have specially trained people who must be concerned on that score.

As to the questions of security and the solution of security problems in holding large international events, sporting events, of course, we have no right to ignore these questions. And I am absolutely certain that when Olympic Games-2004 are prepared and held in Greece, the Greek government will do everything within its power to ensure that these matters are solved in the best manner.

Question: Vladimir Vladimirovich, the last question. This has a special significance for our Orthodox countries. Neither a czar, nor a general secretary, nor a president ever visited the Holy Mount of Athos. You are the first President of the Russian Federation, of the new Russia, who will visit Athos. What are your feelings?

President Putin: It is now hard for me to say something on that score. Perhaps this question will have to be asked, to be brought up again after I have visited Athos. And well, right now I can only confirm that I do have such a wish.


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