putin press conference transcript

What President Biden and His Media Chorus Revealed about Their War-Fighting Capabilities
John Helmer, Dances with Bears, Jun 16 2021


The Russian security guard at President Putin’s aircraft on the Geneva airport tarmac, awaiting his descent from the gangway. The Geneva press reported that Putin had requested no ceremonial welcome by Geneva canton or federal Swiss officials, implying the Russian president was snubbing the Swiss. In fact, this was a security issue: no Swiss personnel were allowed inside the perimeter formed by the Russian guards and vehicles. Putin met the Swiss federal president later in the day indoors, when the combined Swiss and Russian security was optimum. Putin then gave President Guy Parmelin more time and attention than President Biden had given him.

President Joseph Biden spent 33 minutes speaking at his press confernce to a group of US reporters pre-selected, coached, and programmed by name, organisation and text of question. This operation made it impossible to allow Russian reporters to attend. Biden’s speech to his press was longer than he managed by himself in the restricted-format session with President Vladimir Putin and their two foreign ministers and interpreters, which began the summit on Wednesday, and lasted 108 minutes. The 33-minute performance was also longer than Biden managed at the expanded format of the talks, which included press spokesmen, national security advisers, deputy foreign ministry officials and the two state ambassadors. That session lasted 91 minutes. Biden demonstrated he can rehearse, recite, repeat. He added nothing, nor did he subtract anything from the G7 communiqué of three days ago, in which he accused Russia of “destabilising behaviour and malign activities, including its interference in other countries’ democratic systems, and to fulfil its international human rights obligations and commitments. In particular, we call on Russia to urgently investigate and credibly explain the use of a chemical weapon on its soil, to end its systematic crackdown on independent civil society and media, and to identify, disrupt, and hold to account those within its borders who conduct ransomware attacks, abuse virtual currency to launder ransoms, and other cybercrimes.” Biden, together with the American journalists appearing at the two presidential pressers, also repeated the accusations of the NATO communiqué of two days ago. Biden’s 33-minute performance demonstrated the clinical motor and cognitive symptoms which remain state secrets in Washington. They are now better understood in Moscow than by US experts on the 25th Amendment.

In the few impromptu remarks Biden recorded there were flashes of hostility. About China’s President Xi Jinping, he said: “Let’s get something straight. We know each other well. We are not old friends. It’s just pure business”. Asked what he would do if Alexei Navalny dies, Biden said: “That’s not a satisfying answer: ‘Biden said he’d invade Russia.’ You know, it is not — you know. By the way, that was a joke.  That’s not true. But my generic point is, it is — it is more complicated than that.”

“I’m not confident he’ll change his behaviour,” Biden rounded on a reporter challenging his capacity to deter Putin, as he tried to leave the press room. “Where the hell — what do you do all the time? When did I say I was confident? I said — I said — what I said was — let’s get it straight. I said: What will change their behavior is if the rest of world reacts to them and it diminishes their standing in the world. I’m not confident of anything; I’m just stating a fact.”

When Putin was asked by a Russian reporter if he has “any new illusions as a result of this meeting?”, he replied: “ I didn’t even have the old ones, and you’re talking about the new ones. Where did you get the idea about illusions? There are no illusions and there can be no illusions.”

According to Biden, “the reason it didn’t go longer is when the last time two heads of state spent over two hours in direct conversation across the table going into excruciating detail? You may know of time; I don’t. I can’t think of one. So we didn’t need, as we got through and as we brought in the larger group, our defence, our intelligence, our foreign – well, my foreign minister, foreign minister, my Secretary of State was with me the whole time, our ambassador, et cetera, brought everybody in, we had covered so much, and so there was a summary done by him and by me of what we covered. Lavrov and Blinken talked about what we had covered. We raised things which required more amplification … And — and so it was — it was — kind of, after two hours there, we looked at each other like, ‘Okay, what next?’”

Compare what the two presidents said and how they said it:

  • Confiscation of diplomatic property, expulsion of officials.
    PUTIN said: “With regard to the ambassadors returning to their stations – the US ambassador to Moscow, and the Russian ambassador to Washington, we agreed on this matter, and they will be returning to their permanent duty stations. When exactly – tomorrow or the day after tomorrow – is a purely technical issue. We also agreed that the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation and the US State Department would begin consultations on the entire range of cooperation on the diplomatic track. There are things to discuss, and an enormous backlog has piled up. I think both sides, including the American side, are committed to looking for solutions.”
    BIDEN: “He knows I will take action, like we did when — this last time out. What happened was: We, in fact, made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow this to go on. The end result was we ended up withdrawing — they went withdrawing ambassadors, and we closed down some of their facilities in the United States, et cetera. And he knows there are consequences.”
  • Ukraine:
    PUTIN: “With regard to Ukraine, indeed, this issue was touched upon. I cannot say that it was done in great detail, but as far as I understood President Biden, he agreed that the Minsk agreements should be the basis for a settlement in southeastern Ukraine. As for Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO, this issue was touched upon in passing. I suppose there is nothing to discuss in this respect.
    BIDEN: “I communicated the United States’ unwavering commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. We agreed to pursue diplomacy related to the Minsk Agreement.”
  • Strategic arms limitation:
    PUTIN: “I think it is obvious to everyone that President Biden made a responsible and, we believe, timely decision to extend New START for five years, that is, until 2024. Of course, it would be natural to ask what next. We agreed to start interdepartmental consultations under the aegis of the US Department of State and the Foreign Ministry of Russia. Colleagues will determine at the working level the line-up of these delegations, the venues and frequency of meetings.”
    BIDEN: “I am pleased that today we agreed to launch a bilateral strategic security dialogue – diplomatic speak for saying get our military experts and our diplomats together to work on a mechanism that can lead to control of new and dangerous sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene now…”
  • Cyber-war:
    PUTIN: “The question of who, on what scale and in what area must make commitments should be resolved during negotiations. We have agreed to start such consultations. We believe that cyber security is extremely important in the world in general, for the United States in particular, and to the same extent for Russia.”
    BIDEN: “We agreed to task experts to work in both our countries to work on specific understandings about what is off limits and to follow up on specific cases that originate in other countries, in either of our countries.”
  • Syria:
    PUTIN was not asked and did not say anything.
    BIDEN spoke of “the urgent need to preserve and reopen the humanitarian corridors in Syria so that we can get food, just simple food, and basic necessities, to people who are starving to death… They asked me why I thought that it was important to continue to have problems with the President of Syria. I said, ‘Because he’s in violation of an international norm. It’s called a Chemical Weapons Treaty. Can’t be trusted.’”
  • Arctic: “Question: …The US has long accused Russia of militarizing the Arctic, and so have its allies. Recently, in May, we heard from Secretary Blinken about his concerns about the actions of the Russian military. What exactly was said?
    PUTIN: Yes, we discussed this topic in a broad format and in sufficient detail. This is a very important and interesting topic, bearing in mind that the development of the Arctic in general and the Northern Sea Route in particular is of great interest to the economies of many countries, including non-regional ones. These concerns of the American side about militarization have absolutely no basis. We don’t do anything there that wasn’t done in the Soviet Union. We are restoring the infrastructure that was once completely destroyed. Yes, we are doing this at a modern level: the military and border infrastructure, and what was not there-the infrastructure related to nature protection. We are creating an appropriate base there for the Ministry of Emergency Situations-the Ministry of Emergency Situations, meaning the possibility of saving people at sea, if it comes to that, God forbid, or protecting the environment.”
    BIDEN: “We discussed how we can assure the Arctic remains a region of cooperation rather than conflict. I caught part of President Trump’s, uhh, Putin’s uhh, press conference, and he talked about the need for us to have some kind of modus operandi dealt with making sure the Arctic was in fact a free zone.”
  • Elections:
    BIDEN: “Let’s get this straight. How would it be if the United States is viewed by the rest of the world as interfering directly with the elections of other countries? And everybody knew it? What would it be like if we engaged in activities that he’s engaged in. It diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a major world power.”
  • Biden’s mother:
    PUTIN: “If you asked me what kind of interlocutor and partner President Biden is, I can say that he is a very constructive, balanced person, as I expected, very experienced, it is immediately evident. He remembered a little bit about his family, about what his mother talked to him about-these are important things. They do not seem to be directly related to the case, but nevertheless still show the level or quality of his moral values.”
    BIDEN: “There were — as a matter of fact, I heard he quoted my mom and quoted other people today. There was — it was very, as we say — which will shock you, coming from me — somewhat colloquial. And we talked about basic, basic, fundamental things.”
  • Red lines:
    PUTIN: “I can tell you that in general, we understand what our American partners are talking about, and they understand what we are talking about when we talk about ‘red lines’. I must tell you frankly, we have not reached this point, of course, by placing accents and dividing things up so far and in such detail. But bearing in mind that we agreed to work on cybersecurity and strategic stability during these consultations, as well as on joint work in the Arctic and in some other areas, I think all this should gradually be the subject of our discussions and, I hope, agreements.”
    BIDEN: Question: Did military response ever come up in this conversation today? Did you — in terms of the red lines that you laid down, is military response an option for a ransomware attack? And President Putin had called you, in his press conference, an ‘experienced person.’ You famously told him he didn’t have a soul. Do you now have a deeper understanding of him after this meeting? THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much.”

News conference following Russia-US talks
Kremlin.ru, Jun 16 20 2119

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Friends, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I am at your service. I think there is no need for long opening remarks since everyone is familiar with the topics of discussion in general: strategic stability, cyber security, regional conflicts, and trade relations. We also covered cooperation in the Arctic. This is pretty much what we discussed. With that, I will take your questions.

Q: Good evening, Perhaps, you can name the topics that were discussed especially closely? In particular, Ukraine is of great interest. In what context was it touched upon, was the situation in Donbass and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO discussed? One more thing: before the talks, there were great expectations about the ambassadors of the two countries returning to their stations in the respective capitals. In particular, your assistant, Yury Ushakov, said that this was possible. Have these decisions been made? How did the talks go in general? Thank you.

A: With regard to the ambassadors returning to their stations – the US ambassador to Moscow, and the Russian ambassador to Washington, we agreed on this matter, and they will be returning to their permanent duty stations. When exactly – tomorrow or the day after tomorrow – is a purely technical issue. We also agreed that the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation and the US State Department would begin consultations on the entire range of cooperation on the diplomatic track. There are things to discuss, and an enormous backlog [of unresolved issues] has piled up. I think both sides, including the American side, are committed to looking for solutions. With regard to Ukraine, indeed, this issue was touched upon. I cannot say that it was done in great detail, but as far as I understood President Biden, he agreed that the Minsk agreements should be the basis for a settlement in southeastern Ukraine. As for Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO, this issue was touched upon in passing. I suppose there is nothing to discuss in this respect. This is how it was in general terms.

Q: Mr President, you said strategic stability was one of the topics. Could you tell us in more detail what decisions were made on this issue? Will Russia and the United States resume or start talks on strategic stability and disarmament, and, in particular, on the New START Treaty? Do they plan to start talks on extending New START, perhaps revising its parameters or signing a new treaty altogether? Thank you.

A: The United States and the Russian Federation bear special responsibility for global strategic stability, at least because we are the two biggest nuclear powers – in terms of the amount of ammunition and warheads, the number of delivery vehicles, the level of sophistication and quality of nuclear arms. We are aware of this responsibility. I think it is obvious to everyone that President Biden made a responsible and, we believe, timely decision to extend New START for five years, that is, until 2024. Of course, it would be natural to ask what next. We agreed to start interdepartmental consultations under the aegis of the US Department of State and the Foreign Ministry of Russia. Colleagues will determine at the working level the line-up of these delegations, the venues and frequency of meetings.

Q: Hi, Matthew Chance from CNN. Thank you very much for giving me this question. First of all, could you characterise the dynamic between yourself and President Biden? Was it hostile or was it friendly? And secondly, throughout these conversations did you commit to ceasing carrying out cyberattacks on the United States? Did you commit to stopping threatening Ukraine’s security? And did you commit to stop cracking down on the opposition in Russia?

A: I will begin with a general assessment. I believe there was no hostility at all. Quite the contrary. Our meeting was, of course, a principled one, and our positions diverge on many issues, but I still think that both of us showed a willingness to understand each other and look for ways of bringing our positions closer together. The conversation was quite constructive. As for cyber security, we have agreed to start consultations on this issue. I consider this very important. Now about the commitments each side must make. I would like to tell you about things that are generally known, but not to the public at large. American sources – I am simply afraid to mix up the names of organisations (Mr Peskov will give them to you later) have said that most cyberattacks in the world come from US cyberspace. Canada is second. It is followed by two Latin American countries and then the United Kingdom. As you can see, Russia is not on the list of these countries from whose cyberspace the most cyberattacks originate. This is the first point. Now the second point. In 2020 we received 10 inquiries from the United States about cyberattacks on US facilities – as our colleagues say – from Russian cyberspace. Two more requests were made this year. Our colleagues received exhaustive responses to all of them, both in 2020 and this year. In turn, Russia sent 45 inquiries to the relevant US agency last year and 35 inquiries in the first half of this year. We have not yet received a single response. This shows that we have a lot to work on.

The question of who, on what scale and in what area must make commitments should be resolved during negotiations. We have agreed to start such consultations. We believe that cyber security is extremely important in the world in general, for the United States in particular, and to the same extent for Russia. For example, we are aware of the cyberattacks on the pipeline company in the United States. We are also aware of the fact that the company had to pay 5 million to the cybercriminals. According to my information, a portion of the money has been returned from the e-wallets. What do Russia’s public authorities have to do with this? We face the same threats. For example, there was an attack on the public healthcare system of a large region in the Russian Federation. Of course, we see where the attacks are coming from, and we see that these activities are coordinated from US cyberspace. I do not think that the United States, official US authorities, are interested in this kind of manipulation. What we need to do is discard all the conspiracy theories, sit down at the expert level and start working in the interests of the United States and the Russian Federation. In principle, we have agreed to this, and Russia is willing to do so. Give them a microphone – part of the question remained unanswered.

Q: That’s correct and thank you very much for coming back to me, sir. So, there were two other parts to the question. The first one is: did you commit in these meetings to stop threatening Ukraine? Remember the reason this summit was called in the first place, or the timing of it, was when Russia was building up lots of forces close to border. And the second part of the question, third part of the question was: did you commit to stopping your crackdown against the opposition groups inside Russia led by Alexei Navalny?

A: I did not hear that part of the question – either it was not translated, or you just decided to ask a second question. With regard to our obligations regarding Ukraine, we have only one obligation which is to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. If the Ukrainian side is willing to do this, we will take this path, no questions asked. By the way, I would like to note the following. Back in Nov 2020, the Ukrainian delegation presented its views about how it was planning to implement the Minsk Agreements. Please take a look at the Minsk Agreements – they are not a confidential document. They say that, first, it is necessary to submit proposals on the political integration of Donbass into the Ukrainian legal system and the Constitution. To do so, it is necessary to amend the Constitution – this is spelled out in the agreements. This is the first point. And second, the border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine along the Donbass line will begin to be occupied by the border troops of Ukraine on the day following election day – Article 9. What has Ukraine come up with? The first step it proposed was to move Ukraine’s armed forces back to their permanent stations. What does this mean? This means Ukrainian troops would enter Donbass. This is the first point. Second, they proposed closing the border between Russia and Ukraine in this area. Third, they proposed holding elections three months after these two steps. You do not need a legal background or any special training to understand that this has nothing to do with the Minsk Agreements. This completely contradicts the Minsk Agreements. Therefore, what kind of additional obligations can Russia assume? I think the answer is clear.

With regard to military exercises, we conduct them on our territory, just like the United States conducts many of its exercises on its territory. But we are not bringing our equipment and personnel closer to the state borders of the United States of America when we conduct our exercises. Unfortunately, this is what our US partners are doing now. So, the Russian side, not the American side, should be concerned about this, and this also needs to be discussed, and our respective positions should be clarified. With regard to our non-systemic opposition and the citizen you mentioned, first, this person knew that he was breaking applicable Russian law. He needed to check in with the authorities as someone who was twice sentenced to a suspended prison time. Fully cognisant of what he was doing, I want to emphasise this, and disregarding this legal requirement, this gentleman went abroad for medical treatment, and the authorities did not ask him to check in while he was in treatment. As soon as he left the hospital and posted his videos online, the requirements were reinstated. He did not appear; he disregarded the law – and was put on the wanted list. He knew that going back to Russia. I believe he deliberately decided to get arrested. He did what he wanted to do. So, what is there to be discussed?

With regard to the people like him and the systemic opposition in general, unfortunately, the format of a news conference precludes a detailed discussion, but I would like to say the following. Look, I think I will not say anything complicated, it will be clear for everyone. If you find it possible to objectively convey this message to your viewers and listeners, I would be very grateful to you. So, the United States declared Russia an enemy and an adversary. Congress did this in 2017. US legislation was amended to include provisions that the United States must maintain democratic governance rules and order in our country and support political organisations. This is in your law, US law. Now let’s ask ourselves a question: if Russia is an enemy, what kind of organisations will the United States support in Russia? I think not the ones that make the Russian Federation stronger, but the ones that hold it back, since this is the goal of the United States, something that has been announced publicly. So, these are the organisations and the people who are instrumental in the implementation of the United States’ policy on Russia. How should we feel about this? I think it is clear: we must be wary. But we will act exclusively within the framework of Russian law.

Q: Pavel Zarubin, VGTRK. I wanted to continue with this subject. We still see that the Americans keep talking about the so-called political prisoners in Russia. Did you discuss the matter of Navalny at all during your talks with President Biden? In what manner did you discuss it, if at all? Here is one more important topic. We are all aware, of course, that, let’s say, a new stage in Russia-US relations after President Biden took office began with a very harsh statement aimed at you. Have you settled this matter in any way? Thank you very much.

A: President Biden touched upon the matter of human rights and those who, as they believe, represent these issues in the Russian Federation. Yes, we talked about that at his initiative. This is the first thing. Second, regarding harsh statements. What can I say? All of us are aware of these statements. President Biden called me after that and we discussed the matter. I accepted his explanation. He also suggested that we meet – it was his initiative. We have met, and, as I have already mentioned, we had a very constructive conversation. I saw once again that President Biden is an experienced person, which is absolutely obvious. Our face-to-face discussion lasted almost two hours. It is not with all leaders that such a detailed conversation can be held face to face. As for all kinds of accusations, you may recall that his predecessor was asked the same question, and he evaded answering it. The incumbent US President decided to reply in this manner, and his reply was different from Mr Trump’s answer.

Generally speaking, responsibility for everything that takes place in our countries ultimately rests with the political leadership and top officials, that is, regarding who is guilty of what and who is the killer. You see, people, including the leaders of various organisations, are killed in American cities every day. You can barely say a word there before you are shot in the face or in the back, regardless of who is nearby, children or other adults. I recall a situation when a woman left her car and started running, and she was shot in the back. All right, these are criminal matters. Take a look at Afghanistan: as many as 120 people were killed there in one blow; entire wedding parties were wiped out. Yes, this could have been a mistake; such things happen. But using drones to shoot people who are obviously civilians in Iraq – what was that? Who is responsible? Who is the killer? Or take human rights. Listen, Guantanamo is still open. This is contrary to all imaginable rules, to international law or American laws, but it is still functioning. The CIA prisons that were opened in many countries, including in Europe, where they subjected people to torture, – what is this? Is this respect for human rights? I don’t think so, do you? Hardly anyone in this room will agree that this is how human rights must be protected. But this is the existing political practice. Taking into account this practice and knowing that this was done and can still be done shapes our attitude to what I have mentioned here, and to the people who receive foreign funding to protect the interests of those who pay them.

Q: Murad Gazdiev, RT. I have a question about the Arctic. You mentioned that you discussed it. The United States and its allies have been accusing Russia of militarising the Arctic for a long time. Just recently, in May, we heard US Secretary of State Antony Blinken voice his concern over the actions of Russia’s military. What exactly did you discuss?

A: Yes, we discussed this issue in a broad format and in some detail. This is a highly important and interesting issue as the development of the entire Arctic region and the Northern Sea Route in particular has tremendous economic significance for many countries in the region and beyond it. The US concerns regarding militarisation are absolutely groundless. We are not doing anything new there compared to the Soviet era. We are restoring the local infrastructure that was lost and demolished completely some time ago. Yes, we are doing this using up-to-date technology. We are restoring the military and border control infrastructure, and we are creating nature conservation infrastructure, which has never been done in the past. We are creating a relevant base for the Emergencies Ministry, which will give us the opportunity to conduct high-seas rescue missions in case of emergency and to protect the environment. I told our colleagues that I see no concerns here. On the contrary, I am deeply convinced that we can and should work together in this field. Just like the United States, Russia is one of the eight Arctic Council members. This year, Russia chairs the Arctic Council. Moreover, Alaska and Chukotka are separated by a well-known strait, with the United States on one side and Russia on the other. All this taken together should motivate us to pool our efforts. The use of the Northern Sea Route is regulated by international law. In fact, there are two main laws: the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Polar Code, which consists of several documents and was ratified in 2017. I drew our partners’ attention to the fact that Russia intends to fully honour these international legal norms. We have never violated anything. We are ready to assist all the interested countries and companies in developing the Northern Sea Route. They say that the navigation season in the region now lasts six months without any problems. In reality, it is even longer, and navigation will become practically year-round due to climate change and as we launch our new icebreakers, including the Lider. Russia has the most powerful nuclear icebreaker fleet which is in high demand here.

Let me remind you that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea describes the legal regime in international waters, including internal waters, the inland sea, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the open high seas. An inland sea is located inside a country’s territory. Then there is a territorial sea extending 12 nautical miles [from the baseline]. The contiguous zone adds another 12 nautical miles. A coastal state must allow peaceful passage for ships, including warships, through its territorial sea. We do not oppose this concept; we fully support it. The inland sea is covered by a special regime, and we don’t have to provide anyone with any privilege here. There are five such inland sea spaces, if I remember correctly, including the Gulf of Ob, Yenisei Bay and so on. In all, there are five bays or gulfs. This route is almost 1,000 nautical miles long – 960 nautical miles, I think. It is our sovereign right to allow or not to allow foreign ships to sail there. But we do not abuse this right, and we grant free passage to everyone. We received 1,000 applications last year. As far as I know, we turned down just ten applications, mostly Russian-flagged ships that, according to our relevant oversight agencies, did not meet the Polar Code’s requirements. The Polar Code deals with the quality of various ships and stipulates the standards for them and their equipment. If all of us, all concerned countries, including and, maybe, primarily the Nordic Council members work together to resolve all these issues, and some of them require additional examination, then I simply have no doubt that we will find all the solutions and troubleshooting options. I cannot see any problems that we could not resolve.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr President. Good or at least fair relations between Russia and America have always been a guarantee of global stability and calm. Our relations today are such as you characterised them before this meeting. Mr Biden has agreed with you. Now you are saying: Mutual respect, sufficient calm and warmth have been the companions of this conversation. Before the meeting, you were speaking about the “red lines,” the concept of “red lines” for Russia. The Americans clearly have “red lines,” too. Did you manage, at this meeting, to come to terms on not crossing these “red lines?” This concerns everything in all matters – the “not crossing” that would improve or at least stabilise our relations. Thank you.

A: I can tell you that on the whole we understand what our US partners are saying and they understand what we are saying, when we speak about the “red lines.” I must tell you frankly though: Of course, we have not gone as far as putting detailed emphases or dividing something. But keeping in mind the fact that during these consultations we have arranged to work both on cyber security and strategic stability, as, incidentally, [we have agreed] on joint work in the Arctic and on some other dimensions, I think that all of this should gradually become a subject for our discussions and, hopefully, agreements.

Q: Mr President, thank you so much for taking my question. President Biden has said that he would respond if cyberattacks from Russia do not stop. I am curious, what did he tell you? Did he make any threats? And a quick follow-up, if I may, sir. The list of your political opponents who are dead, prisoned or jailed is long. Alexei Navalny, his organisation calls for free and fair elections and an end to corruption, but Russia has outlawed that organisation, calling it extremist. And you have now prevented anyone who supports him to run for office. So my question is, Mr President, what are you so afraid of?

A: Let me reiterate what I said about various so-called foreign agents and individuals who are positioning themselves as the non-systemic opposition. I already replied to your colleagues – CNN, if I am not mistaken – but obviously the laws of the genre define what should be said when answering your question directly. Here you are, it will be my pleasure to do that again. The United States has adopted a law, which says that the US will support certain political organisations in Russia. At the same time, it has declared the Russian Federation its enemy and said publicly that it will contain Russia’s development. This begs the question: What political organisations should the United States and other members of the Western community support in Russia, if simultaneously they bankroll them? It is clear that we, like the Americans in the 1930’s, have declared them foreign agents. But their operations are not banned, they can work. Organisations that have been declared foreign agents are not obliged to stop their operations. But if it is an extremist organisation, this is quite another matter. The organisation you have mentioned openly called for mass riots and tried to involve underage people in them, which is illegal, contrary to Russian laws, and it also openly issued instructions on how to make Molotov cocktails for use against law enforcement officers, and also published personal information about police officers. The United States recently had to grapple with the severe consequences of the events all of you remember, after the murder of an African American and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. I will not comment on this right now, but I would like to say that we watched the footage of pogroms, violations of the law and so on – we feel for the Americans and the American nation, but we don’t want the same to happen in our country, and we will do our best to prevent this from happening. Fear has nothing to do with this. Would you like to add anything? Please, pass over the mike.

Q: You didn’t answer my question, sir. If all of your political opponents are dead, in prison, poisoned, doesn’t that send a message that you do not want a fair political fight?

A: Speaking of who can be killed or thrown in prison. People went to Congress with political demands after the election. Criminal cases have been opened against 400 people, who face up to 20 or even 25 years in prison. They have been declared domestic terrorists and accused of other crimes. As many as 70 people were detained immediately after those events, and 30 of them are still under arrest. It is unclear on what grounds, because the US authorities have not provided us with this information. Several people died; a woman rioter was fatally shot by a police officer on the spot, although she was not threatening him with a weapon. What is happening in our country is also taking place in many other countries. I would just like to point out once again: we feel for the Americans, but we don’t want the same to happen in our country.

Q: Good afternoon. Dmitry Laru, Izvestia newspaper. Did you manage to make any arrangements with the US side regarding the repatriation of certain Russians who are serving their sentences in US prisons? If so, when can this take place? Thank you.

A: We discussed this matter. President Biden raised it with regard to US nationals who are in prison in the Russian Federation. We discussed this. Compromises are possible in this area. The Foreign Ministry of Russia and the US State Department will be working on this.

Q: Good afternoon. Mikhail Antonov, Rossiya-1 TV channel. You said you discussed trade with President Biden – it is probably the most positive agenda possible. Businesses in both countries are interested in development. What prospects do you see there? Thank you.

A: It is not up to us; it depends on the American side. We do not impose any restrictions. I think the US lost as much as Russia after certain restrictions were put on the economy and trade. Yes, it did have some effect on our development, so in this sense, the United States partly achieved its goal of constraining Russia’s development, but not critically. This is my first point. The second point has to do with American businesses’ interest. The largest delegation at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, 200 people, was from the US. As a result of the restrictions, including for American companies, some Americans suffered losses and went out of business playing into the hands of their competitors from other countries; we talked about this. What was that for? It got them nowhere but brought losses. Russia’s trade with the United States is about $28b, I think. In the first quarter of this year, it grew by 16.5%. If this trend continues, I think it will benefit everyone. We talked about it.

Q: Ann Simmons, The Wall Street Journal. Mr President, thank you very much for the opportunity to ask you a question. You met with President Biden a few years ago when he was vice president. He said he looked you in the eye and he did not think you had a soul. You said, it means that we understand each other. Please tell me, did you look him in the eye? And what did you see there? Did you see someone you can work with? Please tell me, has President Biden invited you to visit the White House? If so, did you agree to go? Thank you.

A: President Biden did not invite me to visit. I have not yet made any invitation either. It seems to me that the conditions need to be ripe for such trips, for such meetings, for such visits. As for this ‘looking into someone’s soul’ and seeing or not seeing anything there – this is not the first time I have heard this. To be honest, I don’t remember that conversation, but I admit it could have somehow escaped my attention. But if you asked me what kind of interlocutor and partner President Biden is, I can say that he is a very constructive and balanced person, as I expected, very experienced, this is immediately evident. He recalled some things about his family, about what his mother told him – these are important things. They do not seem to be directly related to the subject, but they still show the level and quality of his moral values. That was quite endearing, and I did feel like we generally spoke the same language. This does not mean we have to peek into each other’s souls, look into each other’s eyes and swear eternal love and friendship – not at all. We defend the interests of our countries, our peoples, and our relations are always primarily pragmatic in nature. Andrei, you please.

Q: Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper. Mr President, have you got any new illusions following this meeting?

A: I did not have any old illusions, and you are talking about new ones. Where did you take this line about illusions? There are no illusions, nor can there be any.

Q: Hello, Pavel Remnev, Zvezda TV channel. Mr President, I also have a couple of questions. Have you and President Biden discussed global climate change? My second question is about the US media. Quite recently, you were interviewed by NBC. Do you think it is fair that you grant interviews to the US media, while US presidents do not grant interviews to the Russian media? Do you find that these interviews have a positive impact, if your remarks are constantly distorted and, honestly speaking, the interviewers are not exactly polite? Thank you.

A: You know, what concerns distortions, innuendos, or, on the contrary, certain attacks, this is the practice of today’s international relations. One can do nothing about it, I am long used to this, and all of us have been living with this for decades. As for who grants what interviews, this is decided by a relevant leader or side, if they want to bring some additional information across to people. We are seeking to do this and my interview with the US press is related precisely to this. As for the Russian media activities in general, President Biden, for example, raised a question about the operation in Russia of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, which we have declared foreign agents. I had the impression that the members of the US delegation did not know that before that – we have just two media outlets, Russia Today and Sputnik, working for foreign audiences – that before that the US side had declared them foreign agents in the United States and stripped them of their accreditation. What we did, we did in response. Moreover, Russia Today has been meeting all the demands posed by the US regulator and by US law. It is registering there in an appropriate manner, and so on, although they are confronted with quite a lot of problems regarding personnel employment, financial items, and so on. There are no problems like this in Russia and, regrettably, the US media do not meet in full the requirements posed by the Russian law. We have had a talk on this. I hope that in this sphere, too, we will be able to streamline this work by employing the good offices of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Q: Galina Polonskaya, Euronews. We all saw that you shook hands with Joe Biden at the very beginning of the meeting. My question is: did you reach a new level of mutual understanding and, most importantly, a new level of trust with the US President? Do you consider it possible at this stage to reach a new phase in bilateral relations, when they will be absolutely clear and transparent, that is, what both countries are striving to achieve?

A: You know, Leo Tolstoy said once, there is no happiness in life, only flashes of it – cherish them. I believe that there cannot be family trust in this situation, but I think we have seen flashes of it. Yes, please.

Q: Ivan Blagoi, Channel One. The coronavirus pandemic is undoubtedly one of the most pressing issues for the entire planet. Did you discuss it at the meeting with the US President? If so, what are the prospects of working together with the Americans on combatting this disease? Maybe the measures could include the mutual recognition of vaccines?

A: We have touched upon this issue, but only briefly. As you know, during the previous administration, we responded to the US request and even sent our equipment as humanitarian aid. The United States is a large and powerful country, and it was not that they did not have the means; they just needed ventilators urgently at that time. We supplied them, as you know, without seeking to make a profit. We are ready to cooperate in this area in the future, but we did not discuss that in detail today.

Q: Three years ago, you met with President Donald Trump. After that meeting, relations between the two countries deteriorated even more. Is there anything that could prevent this from happening again? Have we hit rock bottom with our relations with the United States so that the only way is up? Thank you.

A: It is hard to say because all actions that led to the deterioration of Russia-US relations were initiated by the United States, not us. Members of Congress are quite inventive people, so I have no idea that they will come up with next time. Yes, please.

Q: Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda. I am not sure if you have heard, but we won against Finland, 1–0.

A: Great, congratulations.

Q: If we apply the same criteria to the Biden-Putin meeting, what will the score be? And the second question. Before coming to Geneva, the Americans said almost every day that they would put pressure on Russia, on President Putin. Did you feel this pressure and how did you counter it? I think the main question that Russia is interested in is how our President held up in Geneva. I think that’s enough questions.

A: I think so too.

Q: Thank you.

A: There was no pressure even though the conversation was open, honest and without any unnecessary diplomatic deviations from the agenda. I reiterate, there was no pressure either from our part, or from their part, and this would have been pointless; this was not the point of the meeting. What was the first part of your question?

Q: What score?

A: The score. I believe that before the meeting, President Biden said that it was not a sports competition, and I absolutely agree. Why would we make up some score? The meeting was fruitful overall. It was meaningful, concrete and was held in a result-driven atmosphere. And the main result is these flashes of trust that I just mentioned in response to the question your colleague from Euronews had asked. BBC News, please.

Q: Thank you. Steve Rosenberg, BBC News. Mr President, Joe Biden is calling for stable and predictable relations with Russia. But it is believed in the West that unpredictability is a feature of the Russian foreign policy. Are you ready to give up unpredictability for the sake of improving relations with the West? Thank you.

A: You are a famous wordsmith who has reached a high degree of perfection in this field; this is to be envied. In the first part of your question, you said “it is believed in the West.” In the second part, you asked if we are ready to give this up. If something is believed in the West, this does not mean that it is true. Let me begin with the first part of your question. You said it is believed in the West that Russia’s foreign policy is unpredictable. Let me return the puck. The US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 was an absolutely unpredictable decision. Why was it necessary to do this, thereby destroying the basis of international stability in the field of strategic security? Then pulling out of the INF Treaty in 2019. Is this stability? Absolutely not. The withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, is this stability? There is almost nothing left in the sphere of strategic stability. Thankfully, President Biden adopted an absolutely adequate decision to extend the New START Treaty for five years. Or take the situation with Ukraine and Crimea. Is it a song and dance situation? Was it for the sake of stability that coup d’état was supported in Ukraine after former President Yanukovych had agreed to accept all demands of the opposition? He was actually ready to step down and to hold new elections in three months. But no, it was decided to stage a bloody coup d’état, which has led to the consequences everyone is aware of, in the southeast of Ukraine and later in Crimea. And you say we are unpredictable? No, I don’t think so. In my opinion, we are responding absolutely adequately to the arising threats. I believe that for the situation to be really stable we should coordinate the rules of conduct in all the spheres you have mentioned: strategic stability, cyber security, and the settlement of regional conflicts. I think that it is possible to come to an agreement on all these issues; at least this is my impression after the meeting with President Biden today. Let us give the floor to a foreign publication. Bloomberg, please, and this will be all.

Q: Ilya Arkhipov, Bloomberg News. Mr President, the US imposed another round of sanctions very shortly after your meeting with President Trump in 2016. Did you receive any guarantees during your talks with Joe Biden today that no US sanctions would be imposed against Russia in the near future? Regarding the results you have mentioned, when you said that there were signs of trust. Do you trust President Biden more to implement the initial agreements you discussed today? Are you positive that he will do this, because it is believed that the US state machine is showing more support for the US President’s line now than during Donald Trump’s term? And lastly, regarding what you said about consultations on cyber security and Ukraine. It’s not clear to me if working groups on cyber security will be established. And the “red lines” you mentioned: have you marked them clearly for each other? Can you tell us about this? Thank you.

A: I have mentioned the “red lines” on many occasions. Understanding regarding this comes during negotiations on the key areas of interaction. There is no sense in trying to intimidate each other. This is not the thing to do when people meet to talk; otherwise, there is no sense in meeting. As for sanctions and economic restrictions, I have already pointed out that we are not aware of the domestic political mood and the line-up of forces [in the US], or rather we know, but we cannot fully understand the developments. Some forces are against improving relations with Russia, and others support this. I cannot say which of them will win. But if steps are made after this meeting such as in 2016, which you mentioned, this will be yet another opportunity missed. Please, and let’s wrap it up.

Q: Good evening. Mr President, thank you for the opportunity. I am Tamara Alteresco from Radio Canada in Moscow. You said to a couple of my colleagues you wanted unbiased, fair questions and coverage. I have a fair question for you. It actually comes from my nine-year-old daughter, who asked me before I left to come here: “What is the big deal with the summit?” And that’s quite a complicated answer for a nine-year-old, so I’d like you to explain to us, in your own words, Mr President, why is this relationship so complicated? And also, she’d like to know – and I’d like to know – why are young people not allowed to protest in Russia?

A: It is just wonderful that your nine-year-old daughter takes an interest in these matters. The answer is very simple. Just take a look around and say: “Do you see how beautiful our world is? Adult people, the leaders of two countries, the world’s two largest nuclear powers are meeting to make this world a safe, reliable and prosperous place for all people on this planet. They will discuss the matters of horrible weapons, which we need to scale down and to coordinate common non-use terms. They will speak about environmental protection, so that all rivers and seas are clean, without floods and droughts, and so that all people on the planet have enough to eat no matter where they live. They will talk about healthcare, so that our children feel well and are able to study and look into the future confidently.” Ladies and gentlemen, I would be delighted if you covered our meeting today from this angle. Thank you for your attention. All the best!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.