Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and chairman of United Russia, gave a large interview to Russian media, including TASS, in which he spoke about expectations for 2024, scenarios for Ukraine, relations with the United States and the threat of nuclear war, answered questions about domestic Russian affairs and other relevant topics.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, first of all, thank you for the invitation, which has already become traditional.
— Yes, at this round table.
— If the beginning of the year, then the first question will be just global. Judging by your January and February posts on social networks, subtle arguments about the prevention of existential threats — it's just your quote, but it's easier to write than to pronounce — this year ...
— Practice.
— I've been training for a very long time. We shouldn't expect such subtle arguments from you this year. What do you expect from 2024?
— The year is already, in fact, in full swing, it is already the middle of February. So it is quite obvious that certain trends have formed. What am I waiting for? Well, I think, like the absolute majority of our citizens, I am waiting for victory in a special military operation. And this is probably where all our efforts are focused. I am waiting for the return of all our defenders who are taking part in this operation. Whether it will work out or not is a question that will be resolved this year. But the trends that have formed now are not bad.
Everything else — the country lives, works, develops, despite all the difficulties of current life. I hope that all this will continue during the remaining months of the year.
— good.
— About subtle existential problems. You know, there is always a more subtle, less subtle reasoning. The question is the degree of depth of analysis of certain problems.
So, since you are reading my writings, you probably notice that there are subtle arguments interspersed with very ordinary, simple, sometimes harsh ones. Therefore, there will be both.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, I will continue. When you were president and prime minister, both in Russia and in the West, you were considered, if you look at the top of the Russian government, a very liberal democratic politician. In recent years, your political image has changed a lot, and you are called the main hater on behalf of the Russian government on the Internet. I've written out some of your expressions that have become famous. I'll read it out. In relation to colleagues from the USA and the EU: "Atlantic impotents", "a pack of barking dogs from a western kennel", "a motley pack of grunting piggies". And in relation to the French Foreign Ministry, you even — which we did not expect from you at all — used an obscene word. It is interesting that, fortunately, we do not hear this in relation to you and our authorities. The question, in fact, is that history is cyclical and sooner or later you will have to put up with it and somehow come to an agreement. Are you personally not afraid to become a non-handshaking politician in the international arena? Surely you would like to continue your political career in this direction?
— Look at this. The qualities that have been attributed to me and are attributed to me are always someone's subjective assessments. Those who wanted to see me as a liberal politician — and these are certain circles in the West and in our country, some circles or people - they saw. So, in fact, what I was, I remained that way, as they say in the Russian people. Another question is that, of course, in the current situation, the assessments have changed, but they have changed for one simple reason — because we believe that we, the Russian Federation, have been treated unfairly, and therefore tougher assessments have appeared.
But as for my internal assessments and feelings, I can assure you, they have not changed fundamentally. Probably, like any politician, I had some illusions, some slightly different ideas, but they did not change much. Recently, the president said that we had been flirting with them for too long. Well, probably, yes, our country had such a phase of development. It was necessary to give them an answer to all their questions in an extremely strict form earlier.
As for the fact that I'm afraid that someone there won't say hello or won't shake hands. Let them also ask me to give them a hand. Secondly, when relations normalize, the vast majority of current politicians in the West will go into political oblivion, they will disappear. And I'll say about some of them the way I've been saying lately: some of them will just die. And therefore, those who want to build relations with Russia should show it in a direct, undisguised, frank form. There are such people, and, of course, their number will grow, but in this sense, I am absolutely sure that in the near future there will be no major rapprochement with the West, with Western Europe, with the United States of America, with the Anglo-Saxon world. The gap between us is too deep, a watershed, if you will. And it will be very, very difficult to overcome it.
— Recently, a number of Western publications have published articles on the topic that one should not dream of some possible defeat of Russia in Ukraine, because the focus of the West, the focus of the United States has switched to the Middle East. What do you think such publications say, to whom they are actually addressed, and what conclusions should the Western audience and the Western elite draw from these publications?
— These publications, of course, are designed primarily for the Western elites themselves, who need to be properly nurtured and given the right signals. Before that, the main calculation was for the defeat of Russia, taking into account the hybrid war that has been unleashed against us, taking into account the fact that the entire Western world opposes us. Naturally, all the Western media — you all know very well, because you are following this — were full of headlines that Russia was about to collapse, split into parts, Russia would not have enough power to resist the Atlantic war machine, and so on. Events are developing in a completely different scenario. Naturally, they have to react to this somehow.
If we talk about signals that it's time to take a break, it's time to start negotiations, then to a large extent this is, of course, such a cunning move. Not very cunning, to be honest, but the proposals are designed to ensure that we stop our own, military actions will not take place, Russian lands will not return to their native bosom, and at this moment they will get a break, concentrate, supplies of diverse Western weapons will be carried out, and after that they will stage another counteroffensive, which will turn out to be somewhat more successful than the failure that took place last year. This is also what such publications are designed for.
In part, if you like, this is part of such a propaganda campaign and even those visits that special services make, breaking this story in a variety of environments. That's probably what they're designed for.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency. In recent days, we have seen a great success of the Russian Armed Forces near Avdiivka. Yesterday, the president met with the Minister of Defense, they discussed all the details, but in Ukraine immediately after that, naturally, many began to accuse the new commander-in-chief that it was his fault, they recalled his Russian origin. In your opinion, are Syrsky and I so lucky, or is it still the result of long-term combat work? And I will immediately allow myself to ask in continuation of this question. Avdiivka was taken, but the shelling of Donetsk continues, unfortunately. What, in your opinion, are the limits of a special military operation in general? Should we go to Kiev, maybe to Lviv? Will there even be any part of Ukraine that we will consider a legitimate state, whose borders we will be ready to recognize?
— If we talk about Avdiivka, an analysis of what happened was given yesterday. This is certainly a major success for the Russian Armed Forces. Everyone who took part in this operation is a hero. And we need to talk about this directly. Of course, these are not some kind of Cheese, but our valiant Armed Forces, which concentrated, conducted long-term training and made this breakthrough.
You probably all noticed — after all, such a fortified area, which was created in the Avdiivka area, was not created for a year or two. These are really very serious structures, fortifications, defenses, and this made it possible to keep this settlement. Therefore, it was a difficult task, but our Armed Forces coped with it brilliantly. I want to congratulate everyone once again on this event.
As for where to go, I will express my point of view, which, in my opinion, corresponds to the current picture of the day. We need to fully ensure our interests. What is it to fully ensure our interests? First, to fulfill the tasks of the CBO, which the president said. Secondly, to create the necessary protective cordon that will insure against all kinds of encroachments on our lands: not only shelling, but also active offensive operations. And only in this case it will be possible to recognize that the tasks have been completed.
Where to stay? I don't know. I think that given what I have said, we will still have to work hard and seriously. Will it be Kiev? Yes, it probably should be Kiev. If not now, then after some time, maybe in some other phase of the development of this conflict. For two reasons: Kiev is a Russian city, and from there comes a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation. An international threat, because although Kiev is a Russian city by its roots, it is governed by an international brigade of opponents of Russia, led by the United States of America. All those who formally perform their functions there are puppets who have no conscience, no fear for the future of their country, and no opportunities. All decisions are made overseas and at NATO headquarters. This is quite obvious. Therefore, yes, it can be Kiev.
If something remains of Ukraine as a result of all that is happening, then, probably, such a state has a chance to survive, although not very great. And in any case, this is certainly not a question for today, but it will be on the agenda in a while. We must guarantee the future of Russia, and without the defeat of this nationalist, pro-fascist clique in Kiev, this is impossible, this regime must fall, it must be destroyed, it must not remain in the white world.
What will remain in this territorial entity, I can't call it a country now, I don't know, maybe the Lemberg region with the center in the city of Lemberg, if the Poles are going to bother a lot about it, or some other regions. But this is a complex not only military, but also political process. And not only the Armed Forces, not only the troops, but also the people themselves who inhabit these lands must play or say their word in this process.
I have repeatedly said that the current Ukrainian state is dangerous for Ukrainians themselves. And for them, this choice looks like this: either life in a normal, common state with Russia, or, in any case, on some close principles to a common state, or endless war. They have to make this choice for themselves.
— Continuing the topic of Ukraine, how do you assess Zelensky's prospects today? In your opinion, how loyal are his subordinates to him? Could there be another coup in Ukraine? And if so, who should we negotiate with, if at all?
— I think this is a secondary issue, from the point of view of who to negotiate with. A holy place is never empty. As for this character, his fate is certainly sad — in the history of his country, in the history of the world, he will remain as a bloody clown who became famous thanks to famous publications and who did not bring anything good to his people. Well, he will probably be remembered for the fact that he played the piano with filigree parts of his body. That's all I can say about him.
But it's not about him. And the fact is that the elites themselves, who now rule in Kiev, must leave. Someone will pick up well, and someone forcibly. And there should be completely different people who realize their responsibility for the future of the people who inhabit this complex, still existing formation called "Ukraine". That's when such people appear, you can somehow negotiate with them.
Although we did not refuse to negotiate even with this clique, but you know what they did.: they have banned these negotiations for themselves, and even attempts by Western countries to push them in this direction have not yet been successful. You can understand why. Because they will realize as soon as they say: "We are ready for negotiations with the Russian Federation" — and their terms are clear: this is a recognition of the results of their own — they will instantly have their heads torn off, they will be demolished. And so, of course, they try to delay as much as possible the moment when they have to pack their bags and leave for Warsaw or London, but this is at best. At worst, it is clear what will happen.
— Thank you!
— Please!
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, you had a forecast of three options about how Ukraine will disappear from the world map. You considered the third best, when the Western lands join a number of EU countries, the people of the central and some other mismanaged regions declare self-determination by joining the Russian Federation. Hungary, Romania and Poland, as you know, presented their own territorial claims at the end of last year, this year. As you just said, there are more and more supporters in the West to fix the situation along the line of combat. Nevertheless, at the moment, the end of February, which of your options are events developing now?
— In fact, none of these options can be rejected yet. The main thing is that events are developing in general in the trend that I wrote about. It is difficult to say how it will all end — with slow erosion and the fall of power in Kiev or with the instant collapse, collapse of the entire political system and the rapid replacement of the main political characters. But this process is underway, and, obviously, it cannot be stopped. And everything that happens on the line of contact, everything that happens in the area of the military operation, is the best proof of these trends.
I do not know how this will happen, but it will undoubtedly happen. And everyone understands this. Therefore, a lot of analysts there are either openly, or those who are still afraid and shy, somewhere on the sidelines, say that yes, that's right, we will certainly not be able to defeat Russia in this sense. Although they publicly declare all sorts of nonsense, they carry some kind of political blizzard that: "We must not allow Russia to win this war." I recently had to speak out on this topic. What does it mean to "prevent victory"? On the terms Kiev is talking about? That is, to take away from Russia our territories that were included in the Constitution of the Russian Federation as a result of a referendum and our new lands that were annexed, our subjects of the Federation that returned to Russia? Of course, this is a global catastrophe, this is a real, full-fledged third World war.
Therefore, these irresponsible statements by all sorts of Scholes, Borrels and others, they are designed only for the public, they do not believe in it themselves, but they have to repeat it like a mantra. Just to justify the huge spending on the corresponding military budgets.
So far, everything is developing according to this scenario. I will not make any more accurate forecasts yet.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, former President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko in his interview with Deutsche Welle (recognized as a foreign agent — approx. TASS) stated: "The question is not about Putin. The bearers of Putinism are 140 million of these "little Putins" who must be destroyed." Do you think our media should retransmit such statements in order to show the essence of this Nazi regime and all the elites in Ukraine, or, conversely, it is better not to focus on such statements, which are essentially calls for genocide?
— My opinion: it should be emphasized to the maximum extent. Yushchenko is a rare freak with a lumpy, disgusting face, with a muzzle so nasty that it is unpleasant even to look at on TV. But it is necessary to convey this information to everyone: to the world community, of course, to our citizens, to the military personnel who defend our country. This is an opinion, despite my assessment of this character, the former president of Ukraine. They are trying to blame us for something, and the former president of Ukraine makes such statements. However, its essence was clear to me, in any case, already in 2010, when, as president, I was forced to give the toughest possible assessment to the head of Ukraine, which was extremely unusual for that period in general — we still tried to build relations with them somehow. But even then, in fact, he actively began to move towards NATO and to prepare for war with Russia. It's not even Kuchma who said that Ukraine is not Russia. This is a completely different character. Therefore, my opinion is that it needs to be told so that everyone knows.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, back in October last year, President Vladimir Putin said that Odessa can be both a bone of contention and a symbol of conflict resolution. Since then, monuments to Empress Catherine II have been demolished in Odessa, and in recent months discussions have been underway to dismantle the monument to Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, which even stood in Soviet times. How do you assess such a policy of the Ukrainian authorities? What can Russia oppose to the destruction of Russian cultural and historical heritage except military force? And what fate would you wish for Odessa and its residents?
— About Odessa, I can just say: Odessa, come home. That's all. We have been waiting for Odessa in the Russian Federation, even because of the history of this city, what kind of people live there, what language they speak. This is our Russian, Russian city.
As for their behavior, this Kiev clique, the Kiev regime, at least, this is short-sighted, because they thereby simply alienate some people, even those who were loyal to their government until recently. And anyway, it looks monstrous, because it is already about countering the entire Russian culture and our common path.
Here they are demolishing monuments. But we have never, even in our thoughts, had such a thing! All the main Ukrainian characters, with the exception of outspoken Nazis, Bandera of various kinds, have always been treated with respect by us. I'm not talking about those people, those classics, who are, in general, the pride of Ukrainian. I mean Shevchenko, although he wrote a significant part of his works in Russian, Lesya Ukrainka. I'm not talking about Gogol, who is generally one of the outstanding Russian and Ukrainian writers.
As if immediately answering a sub—question that may arise here: I proceed from the fact that, in general, Russians and Ukrainians are one people. These are not two fraternal nations. This was discussed only in the XX century after the destruction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This is one nation. Yes, there are linguistic features, there is classical Russian, there is a South Russian dialect, there is a Little Russian dialect, including Surzhik, which is used by a significant part of the population there, there is a classical Ukrainian language. However, this does not mean that these are different peoples. These peoples have been together for a thousand years, they were separated by different historical events. I'm not even talking about the fact that at some point Russia was forced to come to the aid of the inhabitants of these Little Russian territories and drive out all the uninvited guests, Poles and others, to conclude the necessary agreements that allowed this part of Russia to develop autonomously, and not under the heel of individual Western countries.
It is true that certain territories that are not directly related to Russia were included in Ukraine. But there are different moods and approaches there, and they were looking in a certain direction all the time. You know, it's always been that way. I remember my school years: the first time I came across this, I was probably 15 years old, and we went to Tallinn with the school. Tallinn also had its own moods, it was known, but we were accepted as schoolchildren, as I remember now, they put us to sleep on mats in the gym. And suddenly, we were almost there, as they say, the crowd comes in. The guys are like this, and dressed up, excited: "Let's go talk!" Well, we went to chat. I ask, "Where are you from?" The students are the same as us. "We are from Lviv," he says. No, everything was decent, we chatted there, talked, talked. But you know what I noticed — it was extremely surprising for me, I was a normal, ordinary Soviet schoolboy, is this some kind of 1980 or 1981? In their words, and they were children, there was an undisguised hatred for everything Soviet and partly Russian. For me, as a person who was brought up in international traditions — we didn't know who was of what nationality in the class at all — it was very surprising. Maybe I didn't even attach such importance to this at first, but then I realized: these children who came to get acquainted with us, including children from the families of those Bandera people who were brought up in this atmosphere, and already, as they say, absorbed hatred of everything Russian with their mother's milk.
But this is a very special part of that territorial community. I cannot call it a country in the full sense, and then it was not a country, it was just a republic within the USSR, which was called Ukraine, as you know, appeared there as a result of the political events of the first half of the 20th century.
— I wanted to talk about relations with the United States. In your opinion, if Trump wins the American elections, will it be more convenient for Russia to build relations with him? And in general, is it possible in the future to improve relations between Russia and America in the coming years, if so, under what conditions could this happen? And is it possible to return at least to the discussion of agreements that have ceased to be valid now?
— My current position allows me to speak more categorically and openly than in certain other periods, without regard to the need to build any direct diplomatic communications there.
My answer is simple: impossible. In the coming years, decades, there will be no normal relations with the United States of America after what happened. And by and large, we absolutely do not care who is at the helm of the United States government. Yes, they have personality characteristics. Although, looking at the current president and the previous one, I constantly have the feeling that I am watching comic book characters, in a sense, heroes who utter memes, form memes and who are the reason for endless jokes and all that the Internet and social networks are full of. Why am I talking about this? Compare, for example, Biden, on the one hand, and Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, and even Reagan. Well, these are fundamentally different policies. And this is probably a big problem for America.
I'm going to say one more thing now: what is America's strength? I ask you not to think about any conspiracy theory, speaking about it quite seriously. When they talk about the deep state, if you do not take all sorts of stupid theories, but speak seriously, this deep state is just a very strong state apparatus at the middle level, which does not care who is in power: a Democrat or a Republican, a funny grandfather who forgets the names of leaders of other countries, or a quite strong leader. This state apparatus holds everyone in its hands. And this is exactly what allows America to overcome a variety of obstacles. In fact, creating such a state apparatus is a very serious and big task, and it needs to be treated with respect, it allows them to overcome a lot of difficulties. But even this state apparatus is not able to fully remove the problems and contradictions that one or another leader is capable of bringing. When you look at what's going on at the border with Mexico... I can hardly imagine this under another president. Well, there is direct disobedience to the federal government, and the supreme ruler of the United States cannot do anything about it when the head of the state says: "I will not follow your instructions. We will not enforce the decisions of the Supreme Court. We do not obey the National Guard, we obey our own laws, and we have our own guard. We will carry out these tasks." This is such a very colorful touch, showing the depth of contradictions. And they are connected with the fact that the United States is trying, despite its waning forces, to play the first fiddle in the international arena.
Instead of — in this case, it is really difficult to disagree with a number of legislators in America — strengthening their own country, dealing with these problems at the border, solving the most acute social problems that exist in any state, including in rich America, they spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a country that is unknown to most Americans where it is located. Well, it's a well-known thing. Ask, where is this Ukraine? They will spend a long time searching the world map for where it is and what it is.
It is clear that this money is largely spent on maintaining the military-industrial complex of the United States, but, on the other hand, it is not spent on social tasks, on economic tasks. Therefore, giving a detailed answer, who is better for us to work with, it doesn't matter who we work with. Because we have a direct antagonism now, and this gap will not be bridged in the coming years.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, developing the previous question: when will Europe stop listening to the United States and being their satellite?
— You know, according to the feelings that I have now, this will not happen in the coming years. There are several reasons. First, the Americans took advantage of Europe's weakness very well. They have recaptured a number of economic spheres from them, fully ensure their security, that is, the Europeans march in formation on the orders of the United States.
Secondly, in Europe, as I have repeatedly said, the leaders have disappeared. A generation of lackluster technocrats has arrived who share only Euro-Atlantic ideals. Instead of dealing with their national problems, they are following instructions from Washington. Yes, there are exceptions, like [Robert] Fico or [Viktor] Orban, but this only confirms the rule. And all the others are people who don't have their own position.
Again, compare [Emmanuel] Macron and many of his predecessors. Yes, the same [Francois] Mitterrand, whom [Joe] Biden confuses with Macron. Francois Mitterrand and Emmanuel Macron are different presidents. Maybe it will be important information for them. But I'm not talking about General [Charles] de Gaulle anymore. Compare the liver sausage of [Olaf] Scholz and [Helmut] Kohl (Helmut Kohl — Federal Chancellor of Germany from 1982 to 1998 — approx. TASS) or Schmidt (Helmut Schmidt — Federal Chancellor of Germany from 1974 to 1982 — approx. TASS). These are different policies.
The previous generation had, as they say, the inner strength to object on issues important to their countries. This does not mean that they came over to our side or abandoned some European ideals. No, but they could object. To the extent that during the period when de Gaulle was president of France, France suspended participation in the military component of NATO, considered it right. Can you imagine anyone mentioning this right now? Yes, they will tear him apart, they will say: "Yes, we will be attacked immediately, the Cossacks will be galloping around Paris again, and there will simply be a world collapse!" Therefore, there is no one to talk to. If such people appear, it will be easier to find a common language with them. I hope that they will appear, if not tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow. It's just that people will ask such people to come, because they will feel that the current generation of politicians does not justify their hopes.
— Can I talk about Texas?
— Yes, it's a great place.
— Bush Sr. has a ranch there too.
— Yes, I was there.
— You have already touched upon and raised the topic of possible independence of the state of Texas several times on social networks. Could the situation with illegal migrants lead to the loss of the star on the US flag and the emergence of a new independent state?
— I wrote in my humorous forecast that it would be. Now we are all waiting for the conclusion of an agreement on friendship and cooperation between the TNR and the DPR — the Texas People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic. But in fact, to be serious, even 20 years ago it would have seemed nonsense. Yes, the United States is a federation, the federation has more internal problems, we know from the experience of the Soviet Union and our experience too, but nevertheless it is a very strong country. And now it is quite negotiable.
The most important thing is why? Because there was such a division of values, if you will, even civilizational, between the parts of America. And the relationship between supporters of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We used to laugh and talk: "Yes, it's all the same, it's all big capital, but they have a common position, there are only some moments that they use during the election campaign." And now you can't say that anymore. It's not about the difference in ideology, but the fact that they don't hear each other and even hate each other. Here's a look at the attitude of the nuclear Democratic electorate towards Donald Trump. They hate him more than all of us put together because they see him as a threat. Conversely, the Trumpists, the conservative wing of the Republican Party, believe that this course, the course of the Democrats, with this frenzied globalization, will lead America to a dead end. Hence, Make America great again is the slogan of the revival of America's internal forces. This is their problem, actually, but it was impossible to imagine that this would happen 20-25 years ago. And this happened precisely because of the incompetent course pursued by the US leadership after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
— So a new state may appear?
— I think that's what I said. Anything can happen. Now this is really not an excluded option. That's how they talk about it themselves.
By the way, if you think that we are very happy about this, then no. Because with all the costs of coexistence, let's be honest, hostility with the United States, it is more important for us that there be a calm situation there than there would be a managerial collapse or some unpredictable civil war broke out, as in the XIX century. For one simple reason: America is still the most important global player. America has enormous military potential, America is our direct opponent in this sense, and on the other hand, a partner for negotiations on nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately for the global economy, America is the leading issuer of the reserve currency. And if this currency crashes, then in fact there will be consequences for everyone. You need to be aware of this. It is necessary to gradually displace the dollar from the first positions, there should be a set of reserve currencies — something that we have been talking about for decades. But if you pull out the dollar at the same time, there will be no economic prosperity in the world. There should be a balance between reserve currencies in the world, digital currencies need to be developed — this is the future, but you need to understand the risks that exist.
— The situation in the Middle East is also tense, and what will happen if Iran becomes involved in a military conflict? Could this completely shift the West's attention away from supporting Ukraine? And in general, how will this affect global processes?
— Well, this is a terrible dream of the character who is currently sitting in Kiev, that all attention will be switched to other events. By the way, this is an element of the psychotype: if a person is used to acting, playing, as I said, on different instruments, then the lack of attention makes him completely insecure, because "I am not needed." But in fact, the world lives, of course, according to other laws. Attention has already been largely diverted from Ukraine by events in the Middle East and in a number of other regions.
Iran, which you mentioned, it seems to me, takes a very balanced, calm position, does not allow itself to be drawn into any kind of showdown. This speaks to the wisdom of the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But ultimately, as corny as it may sound, the United States is to blame for everything that is happening there. Who is blocking the implementation of the 1947 United Nations resolution on the establishment of a Jewish and Arab State? The Americans have been blocking it for many decades. For the first few decades, they behaved more or less normally, and then they stopped being active here. And we understand that the controlling package of settlement in this region largely lies in the pocket of the United States. And no matter how much the Israeli authorities play with the autonomy of decision-making, this is certainly not the case, and they are largely dependent on financial and military assistance from the United States.
Therefore, if the United States wanted peace in the Middle East, at least through the creation of two States, these decisions would have been implemented. But it is much better to manage the conflict from the point of view of the leadership of the United States of America. Divide and conquer. It's easier for everyone to give away a little bit and show their indispensability. Moreover, they believed in it, again after the disappearance of the Soviet Union from the world map. Because the Soviet Union was still quite active in pursuing its policy in the Middle East. Then there was a vacuum, and the United States decided that they were running everything there. But the result is the conflict that is going on now. Thousands died. It is sad.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, you just spoke about the United States as a nuclear power. I have a question about the use of nuclear weapons: if a year ago it seemed like some kind of horror stories and you also talked about it quite easily, now your rhetoric is changing to a tougher one and you are talking about the threat of using nuclear weapons, as it seems in public space, quite seriously. We all understand that if Russia presses the nuclear button for one reason or another for itself, then there, across the ocean, they press back. Well, either on the contrary, they click — we click. This is a threat to all of humanity, and probably there are not so many masochists even in the highest echelons of power. Still, explain how scary these are, or do you really believe in the realism of such a scenario? Do we need to run to some kind of bunker now, at least for all of us?
— There is no need to run now, but, sad as it may sound, this scenario is real. We must do everything to prevent it from taking place, but these very clocks, which are ticking in a certain direction, have now accelerated very much. And in this, too, I see the inability, sorry, impotence of these Western authorities, who constantly repeat the same thing: "No, it's all the Russians scaring, they'll never do it." They're wrong. If we are talking about the existence of our country — I also said this recently — what choice will remain for the leadership, for the head of state? None. Therefore, unfortunately, this is a real threat, a direct and obvious threat to all mankind.
There are still arguments that, unfortunately, can be made in this direction. Firstly, when humanity created something from weapons, it always used them. Do the Americans think that they struck — by the way, an unnecessary blow at that time — at Japan, which was our common enemy, and after that that's it, no one will ever take it out of the arsenal? That's not so. There can be a lot of motives. This is the first one.
And the second thing. There are still accidents that no one is immune from. And the accidental, unintended start of a nuclear conflict cannot be discounted, so all these games around Ukraine are extremely dangerous. Well, look, if someone comes to mind, and periodically these smart guys in NATO talk about it, they will put planes — they have nowhere to fly from Ukraine so far — and take some plane from a NATO country - what is it? The attack on Russia. I won't even describe further what might happen. Although this may happen almost by accident, rather than intentionally, it may not even be authorized at the level of the entire leadership of NATO and the United States. Therefore, alas, such a development is possible.
We must do everything to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, all full-fledged instruments of control and deterrence of nuclear weapons have now been destroyed, in our opinion, thanks to the efforts of Western countries, because even the last treaty that we once signed with [Barack] Obama and which was extended by Vladimir Vladimirovich together with Biden, it has now exhausted itself. Other agreements are also practically not valid.
This is not whipping up passions. It's just an excuse to think about where we are. For some reason, people, you know, when they think that Khrushchev and Kennedy almost started a nuclear war there, it was a long time ago, it was not true, it was because of Cuba, it was also because of something, but currently it is impossible. What is the difference? Nothing. The situation is even more tense. There was no conflict between Russia and America then, but now there is. Like that.
— I would like to defuse the situation a little, so let's talk about a bright future. In particular, let's turn to the internal agenda and talk about the returned Russian regions. How does the Russian leadership assess the situation in terms of political construction and economic recovery? Surely there is such a problem as the zhduns — these are the people who received Russian passports because it is more convenient, but deep down they are waiting for the arrival of Ukrainian tanks — what to do with them? And there is another nuance, it is quite subtle and probably painful. There are probably people who are registered according to documents somewhere in the regions of Donbass, but it so happened that they are fighting in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And when it's over, when it's over, when we win, of course, what will happen to them? Will they get Russian passports or what?
— Regarding the general situation with the new subjects of the Russian Federation. They are developing, there are obvious changes for the better, the housing stock is being restored, industry is being restored, the social sphere is being restored, payments are being made — this is seen by the people who live there. And the situation is different everywhere, there are settlements that live, in fact, on the line of contact. This is a very difficult story, our people risk their lives there every day, and everyone needs to remember this. These people are, in fact, at the front. Nevertheless, life is changing, and a lot has already been done there, but not at all enough to normalize life to the level we expect.
There is a task set by the president by 2030: to make the inhabitants of these territories and these regions equal other regions of our country in terms of basic parameters. This task is absolutely feasible, just look at the experience we have gained in Crimea.
When I first got there, it seemed to me that a generation separated us in terms of the development of the social sphere, medicine, and education. Well, nothing, everything has been greatly tightened in five years. And here the same thing can be done, but only when everything is finally resolved in the military direction. This is the first one.
As for the people. You know, there are different people there. You said they are sitting and waiting for Ukrainian tanks — I think there are not so many of them there. There are just people sitting there thinking: "Whoever is stronger, we will serve." There are certainly such people there. But nevertheless, we must work with everyone. Well, we need to convince these people that we are back for good. If these are people who harm Russia, they should be exposed and punished, sent to Siberia. Like that. For re-education in correctional labor camps.
As for those who are fighting now. You see, here you can recall the events of the history of the XX century. When the Second World War ended, the leaders of Nazi Germany, activists of the NSDAP, SS, and the party political apparatus were tried. Someone was executed, there were few of them, someone was simply convicted. But the vast majority of the participants in the German war machine returned home, they were forgiven if they were not convicted of crimes against humanity, genocide, extermination of people on a national basis, and so on. In a sense, the same scale should be applied here. We don't destroy prisoners. On the contrary, we treat them humanely. You see, they have been actively surrendering lately, because they understand that if they stay there, they will die, if they are captured, they will most likely return home sometime.
— Is United Russia taking part in the preparation of Putin's election program? And your forecast for the elections, what do you think the result will be?
— The President is the leader of our country. The United Russia Party, as it is known, unanimously supported his candidacy at its congress. We are doing our best to help promote our candidate, although Vladimir Vladimirovich is fine in this sense, he has tremendous authority in our country.
As for the election program, the president forms it himself. Moreover, I will say it bluntly: the president's program may be broader than the United Russia program. Even taking into account the fact that the president is supported not only by those who vote for United Russia. Therefore, we will certainly be ready to implement the ideas with which the president goes to the polls. Some of them, in fact, in this pre-election way, he will probably voice during the delivery of the message at the end of this month.
As for the forecasts, I think there is no doubt that Vladimir Vladimirovich will win these elections and show the highest result.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, it's no secret that you are an active Internet user.
— It's not a secret at all, about 20 years, probably, if not more.
— In this regard, it is your opinion that is very interesting. Do I need to block the external Internet? And how to provide some kind of protection for our Internet space from toxic content, from the intensified Internet scammers who simply demonstrate the wonders of ingenuity in trying...
— Well, that's why they're scammers.
— ...yes, to extort money. But the saddest thing is that these funds often go to our enemies to support the Armed Forces and some destructive things for us. This is one moment. And I also have a subquery. It is not directly related, but indirectly. We often talk about the need to ensure intellectual sovereignty, and here, too, the savvy of our citizens probably plays an important role. In your opinion, is it necessary to accelerate the announced steps on education reform?
— You have a few questions. So, I'll start with whether we need to separate ourselves. No, of course, and this is almost unrealistic in the modern world. You can tweak something there a little bit, you can block something, let's face it, but it's unrealistic and unnecessary to completely isolate yourself. The more such segments arise, the more interest there is in them, this must be understood. Another question is that it is necessary to really put blocks on destructive things, destructive, various kinds of criminal activity. For example, with the same drugs. But it has to be very, very selective.
As for protecting our critical technologies, our critical information infrastructure elements, this is a crucial task. It has been set a long time ago, we need to move faster. You know, I head the commission on digital sovereignty, on critical information technologies. There is a task to transfer all software in relation to critical infrastructure to Russian rails by 2025. The task is not easy, because we do not have everything. Plus, there is a conservatism of thinking in companies, such as the fact that a foreign one is better than ours and therefore let us work on it more. But everyone was convinced that such threats exist after the way Western countries behaved, for example, with ordinary cars. People bought and bought cars from them, then — bang, there is no update. But this is just a car or some other kind of equipment, and when it comes to power plants, elements of other infrastructure, transport and others, this is already a very serious threat. Therefore, we will definitely promote this topic.
As for the education reform... I really didn't really understand, do you mean what exactly is in the reform?
— We are trying to build a patriotic upbringing and education. And a savvy person is much easier to resist the same destructive content, it just bounces off him, he is not led to any provocations.
— An educated person is always able to distinguish black from white.
— Of course, yes. Therefore, then it's not scary, there is no need to be fenced off by some kind of iron curtain in terms of the Internet and so on.
— Now I understand. Yes, of course, it is absolutely certain that a person who is well advanced in these areas is easier to navigate, and it is more difficult for scammers to have a conversation with him, although they come up with something new every time. But this is a matter of general enlightenment. Look at how it happened — I remember it, probably, the growth of Russia into the Internet environment. When the Internet became popular in general — I'm not talking about the 1990s, although I've been an Internet user since the 1990s - some people, especially the older generation, believed everything that is on the Internet: "They always tell the truth on TV, don't they? The newspapers always tell the truth."
— And Wikipedia writes the truth.
— Well, Wikipedia is still half the trouble. In general, any information on the Internet has been prepared by someone, it is visualized, with pictures, usually written in good Russian - this can also be believed. And then came adulthood. I'm not saying that you can't trust anyone, but still, almost everyone in our country today understands that there can be lies, fakes, and everything related to it on the Internet.
Therefore, education in this area is necessary, you are right, but this, you know, is not just some kind of courses, it seems to me, the general maturation of the audience. Strangely enough, our children are often better savvy in this sense than we are, than their parents, because they have been using it all since childhood. They speak a different language, if you pay attention to how millennials communicate, zoomers communicate, this is a slightly different language. Although, to be honest, it annoys me, but this is already the grumbling of an adult. Therefore, society will grow up, it is obvious. But we must move society towards this. Probably, it is necessary to make some decisions in education. To be honest, I don't really imagine which ones.
— Fundamentals of information hygiene.
— It seems to me that this is a course that is unlikely to be easy to teach. I say again: today's educated youth already have skills, but those who are more likely to fall for the bait are just older people who have not had this information hygiene, which you said, since childhood. You just have to fight scammers. This is absolutely obvious.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, let's talk about the economy.
— Come on.
— Is there any hope that the frozen assets will be returned to Russia? Do we need them? Or will we be able to live without these 280 billion dollars? If the West does come up with a withdrawal mechanism, how can we respond?
— I think the chances of getting this money back are slim, although it's a pity. But this is an element of confrontation, part of the hybrid war that has been unleashed against us. Moreover, I want to draw attention to one point: what is understood in the West. Look, because the West is not legally, officially, a participant in the war with our country. The West has not declared war on Russia, and we have not declared war on the European Union or Western countries. Yes, we understand there is a hybrid war going on, they are pumping them with weapons, money, instructors, but officially — and this is very important — we are not in a state of war.
Now the continuation of the thought. Why does the country pay compensation and reparations in certain cases? Because something is being seized from her, confiscated, because other countries are parties to the conflict with her, are at war. And the West is with us, and it talks about it all the time, it is not at war. Then on what basis do they want to take it away from us? And that's the hardest part. Because of this, they have such confusion in their brains. I want to take it away, I want to give this money to the Ukrainian government, but on the other hand, this is an explosion, this is a hacking of the legal world order. This is a rejection of the basic principles of protecting private property, which has been going on for hundreds of years. Therefore, this task is still difficult for them, but if they want, of course, they will spit on their principles, give up everything and take it all away. We can survive without it.
As for our answers, they may be different. There are even a number of decisions on this issue, but they are still fragmentary. For obvious reasons, we do not have foreign investments on our territory that we could impose our own penalties on, as for our investments there, for example. But we have a fairly large fund of obligations, according to which we must fulfill something in relation to Western investors. This set of obligations is estimated in different ways, but it can be in the range of 250 to 300 billion dollars. This is a completely different story, but in principle it is an asymmetric response. In this case, the fulfillment of obligations will not be received by a private investor, although we would, frankly, not really want to go down this path.
But this is just speculation out loud, especially since no decisions have been made there either, even with regard to income on our assets. But it's more likely to happen, I think. We are preparing for this.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, you mentioned Texas, but I will slightly aggravate the Texas problem in terms of what is happening on the border. From the Russian side, if we talk. In January, an interethnic conflict led to a major fire on a well—known marketplace - the losses were quite large, and once again raised a painful issue around the topic of migration: This is ethnic crime and unwillingness to follow the norms of our society. And in the current conditions, there are risks of using migrants who are here with us for sabotage purposes. You yourself said that the situation should not be allowed to destabilize due to conflicts between migrants and the local population. Maybe it's time to tighten migration policy, in your opinion?
— If we talk about various kinds of criminal acts, you mentioned sabotage, in fact, unfortunately, not all acts of sabotage are committed by migrants. Some of them are committed by Russian criminals. They are just people who have been bought, they are traitors. Yes, the migration problem is complicated. The American example that we just talked about proves that there are migration problems that are much more complex than those facing our country. Or look at the experience of Europe, everything is extremely difficult there too.
In short, I will say this: those who commit crimes on the territory of Russia, from migrants, are subject to strict criminal liability. There can be no doubt about it. Those who are law-abiding participants in economic relations can actually come and work. You and I understand that it is very often impossible to live without this source of labor resources. But what needs to be done — and this is probably the main thing — is to put everything under control. And this can be done through digital services, which are now being actively implemented. And such a task has been set.
After all, what is the problem? Some people enter under a false name, there is even such a topic as the difficulties of transliteration. One letter changes, and we no longer understand whether it is the same person, not the same person, whether he has a ban on entry or not. This database needs to be digitized, and then the situation will become much more manageable.
— That is, how do Europeans introduce biometrics now?
— Yes, that's what I mean. This includes biometrics, but it is an even broader statement of the problem besides biometrics. So that all this is in a single database, and not scattered, scattered according to different sources, because often in one place they do not know what was done in another. Such a universal database with elements of biometric information will allow you to put this under control. And of course, the practice of applying Russian administrative and criminal law should also be fully used. Those who were told "goodbye" at some point should not return.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, I will touch on the military topic again, but from a slightly different angle. We all saw the "Armata" at parades, but in the end, when the war began, we had to remove the old tanks from conservation. Did someone really throw dust in the eyes of the leadership, talking about the successes of the Russian defense industry? Now you are visiting enterprises, inspecting. In your opinion, is there enough capacity to achieve the goals of the SVO? Are there any problems with personnel, because enterprises work 24/7? Are there enough specialists?
— I see. Parades are parades. War is war. These are completely different things. The Armata tank is a new tank, it has not yet been fully tested. Not the cheapest tank. We have other tanks that proved themselves brilliantly during the period of their military operation — this is the T-90M "Breakthrough", which the president recently called the best tank in the world. I would like to fully share this position. All my conversations with those who take part in their military training both at the training grounds and on the line of contact prove that this is exactly the case.
The combat commanders who returned from the front line, forming a unit, asked for help to get the T-90M. This is a very good weapon. Well, other tanks, if we're talking about them, are the T-80BVM and T-72B3M. Why do I call these letters with numbers? These are upgraded tanks. Yes, their project of the 1980s and 70s, but these tanks definitely show themselves not worse, but better than the Western ones, especially in the modernized version. But the most important thing is that we have recently been able to supply armored vehicles in maximum volumes to the Armed Forces. And this technique is used. These are thousands and thousands of armored vehicles.
Now about the military-industrial complex. It should be understood that the military-industrial complex works differently during the period of hostilities and in everyday life. No one has ever been engaged in the production of equipment of weapons of destruction only "to the warehouse". This is absolutely obvious. And during the period of military operations, all this takes completely different forms. As you said, working in three shifts is a huge defense order. In our individual positions, in terms of weapons of destruction, I mean missiles, shells, bombs, production has increased from 2 to 10 or 15 times, that is, by 1000-1500 percent. This allows us to actively use them in combat work and achieve results.
Therefore, our military-industrial complex, in my opinion, has withstood the test of its own and has proven itself in the best possible way. By the way, it is enough to read Western analytics. At first they mocked, they said: they're pulling out something old, they don't have enough of it, they don't have enough of it, and now we're going to pile on all of NATO and we're going to supply them with all this: tanks, shells, radios, and UAVs. And now they are no longer laughing, they see that we surpass them in a significant part of the components.
A separate topic is unmanned aerial vehicles. Before the start of its development, this component was not really well developed. But, to the credit of the defense industry, we must admit that over the past literally one and a half years this gap has been overcome. And now our drones operate in all segments, starting from large vehicles and ending with barrage ammunition, that is, one-time drones that perform a separate task, destroy an object and disappear. All this is also put on stream. Therefore, I can only say that our defense industry has passed the test of a special military operation, and I can thank everyone who works in this complex. They are actually enthusiasts of their business, real patriots.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, the Western media wrote that in 2024 the spending of the Russian federal budget on defense will increase. At the same time, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov insists that the country's budget cannot be called military. So, has the Russian economy switched to military tracks, have social issues been ignored, and what is more important at the moment — military or social spending?
— Actually, I think Anton Germanovich Siluanov is right. Our budget is not military in the highly specialized sense of the word. For example, if you compare it with the budget of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the Great Patriotic War. For us, just to understand the figures and volumes, about 30 percent of the federal budget expenditures, which are trillions of rubles, are social expenditures: education, healthcare. Not a single social obligation has been lost, money is being paid for all, salaries are being paid in this sector, benefits are being paid and even individual positions are growing. That's a third. The second third is simply the development of the country, it is the economy, transport, urban development, the development of various communications.
And the rest of the budget is somehow related to its own in the broadest sense of the word. This is not in the narrow sense of defense spending, but in a broad sense. This is exactly the proof of what the Finance Minister said: this is the budget of a developing state, but, of course, with very significant spending on defense needs, this is true.
Let's wait and see what happens next. I can only say that even after the completion of the active part of the special military operation, of course, we will have to work on defense for a very long time. So that everyone understands, we have a very strong stock. And no one even thought of encroaching on our interests. Plus, returning to the defense industry, I am sure that after what has been done, our military equipment will be in demand on world markets even more than it was before. It's one thing to just show beautiful pictures, but another thing is to really fight.
— Let me continue a series of tense and probably not very convenient questions for you, but I have to ask. After the death of Alexei Navalny (included in the list of terrorists and extremists — approx. TASS) In the colony, many people in different regions of the country carried flowers to the monuments to the victims of political repression. In Moscow, law enforcement officers acted tactfully, let's call it that. In St. Petersburg, people were grabbed in packs into paddy wagons, in Salekhard, a man who brought flowers separately to the monument was brought to the police station, put a gun to his head and demanded to explain why he brought flowers. Navalny's mother cannot receive the body. Yesterday, she appealed to the president, did not receive a response, they explain by investigative actions. But it turns out that this only raises additional questions about the causes of his death and additional excitement among Navalny's supporters. I have a question: why do the authorities, as it turns out, continue to fight with Navalny even after his death and why are people given 15 days for silently laying flowers, not for picketing monuments, which, in fact, are not even monuments to Navalny, these are monuments to victims of political repression?
— Regarding what is being done in the regions, frankly, I am not ready to comment on it. There are always some costs. If we are talking about laying flowers, then, probably, there is no corpus delicti or even an administrative offense. No one is fighting him now, this is also understandable, because the man is no longer there. I will not develop this idea further, because, as we say, it is either good or nothing about the departed. I can't say anything good about him, I won't say anything bad about him. If there are supporters, well, we must take this into account, but do not exaggerate this factor. Now the country lives differently.
I would rather say something else: how did they react to this, not in our country, but abroad. Here is the same Borrel who agreed to the point that it is necessary to call the sanctions packages by his name. It all looks amazing, because they don't even have data yet on what happened. Nevertheless, all this has already turned into a political program, it has all turned into propaganda. Although the same Borrel… It's not for him to talk about it. In his place, I would have been preparing for earth in general, bearing in mind his venerable age, and somewhere at the Madrid Technological, Polytechnic Institute, in my opinion, which he was graduating from, I would have already agreed on scholarships in his name, and would not have thought about calling some sanctions lists by the name of a stranger to him a human being.
In general, there are always such incidents, they are tragic, of course, they give rise to very different emotions. Now that you mention it, look at the smiling, happy face of Navalny's widow. It feels like she's been waiting for this event all these years to turn her political life around. And she's already said that. But it's all sad, I think it's really sad.
— The second question. Coincidentally, there are two such high-profile deaths at once. Maxim Kuzminov, a former Russian military defector pilot who hijacked an Mi-8 helicopter to Ukraine six months ago, was killed in Spain. Earlier, the Russian military threatened Kuzminov with death. Well, now, respectively, there are comments from Russia and from the West. Everyone agrees here that this is retribution. But, actually, the main question is: whose retribution is this and how would you comment on this whole situation?
— Very briefly. For a dog— a dog's death.
— It doesn't matter from whose hands?
— I've said it all.
— Dmitry Anatolyevich, you recently spoke very harshly about the relocants, but at th
