“我没有预设的立场，我的立场仅仅基于基本事实。”——本博主之言。
以下是本博主在买买提上发的一个帖子。时间是在普京答记者问之前。Link如下：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Military/41198121.html
发信人: TNEGIETNI (lovewisdom), 信区: Military
标 题: 普京有极大可能不会尝试鼓动东部独立并与俄合并
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Mar 3 21:23:33 2014, 美东)
我突然间隐若地感到，俄罗斯和普京有极大可能不会（在此次军事行动中——本文加注）尝试策动东部独立并与俄合并。即便是克里米亚，也很可能依然让它呆在乌克兰版图内。
图尔奇诺夫表示不会签署此前关于废止俄语为官方语言的法案，表明那一派有点妥协的迹象，但或许只是一个缓兵之计。
美欧不会谴责基辅现政权的任何不当做法，而是要通过继续保持对俄的压力来维持自己所认为的道义上的制高点，并以此继续在道义上贬损俄罗斯，进而在未来的大选中为自己所支持的人加分。
如果普京就此表现出软弱和退让，东部以后就更难进入俄版图了，因为后续的协议有可能会约束这一点。一旦如此，此次出兵的俄罗斯能够取得的历史性战果将是非常有限的，且很可能转瞬即逝。
我认为俄罗斯此次至少应该将克里米亚拿回来，尽管会因此而遭受美欧的强烈反对，但如果始终在民意的基础上坚持和平、理性和民主的方式，则可以在所不惜。
反之，如果俄罗斯放弃了此次机会，美欧便达成了其最高的战略目标，为今后的进一步行动打下了基础。但如果俄罗斯拿回了克里米亚，美欧将不会为此开战，只是会在其它方面进行惩罚俄罗斯。
--
思想出自心灵，又复归心灵。
(Thoughts come from mind then return to mind.)
※ 修改:·TNEGIETNI 於 Mar 3 21:24:25 2014 修改本文·[FROM: 96.]
※ 来源:·WWW 未名空间站 海外: mitbbs.com 中国: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 96.]
Youtube：普京在正在进行的记者会上
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_4D_qR18s
乌克兰局势最新消息：在俄罗斯联邦委员会(议会上院)批准普京对乌克兰使用武力、俄军进入克里米亚后，欧美威胁孤立普京严惩俄罗斯。俄罗斯总统普京昨主持记者招待会，称乌克兰新政府是“违宪政变”，尖锐批评腐败的乌克兰执政集团，详细阐述对乌克兰政策以及俄对乌使用军队条件，嘲笑西方双重标准，强硬回击欧美的制裁威胁。观察者网全国独家翻译3月4日普京记者会全文。感谢扬云飞网友提供翻译支持。以下是观察者网站的原文原址，在此仅对翻译者及网站编辑做出感谢。
http://www.guancha.cn/europe/2014_03_05_210916.shtml
此前观察者网曾转摘国内媒体的摘要翻译，但原摘要翻译仅仅选取了普京讲话的很少部分，未能体现原味。为满足读者对乌克兰-克里米亚局势的关切，观察者网特发表全文翻译如下（俄文和英文原文附后）：
普京总统与媒体代表见面并且回答了一系列问题，其中包括乌克兰局势：
普京：大家中午好。你们知道（今天）记者招待会的规则吗？我建议这样做。不要把我们今天的会面搞成采访，而是聊天。所以希望你们先尽可能地提问题，我会记住它们，尽我最大能力进行回答。然后再发表我自己的看法，谈（乌克兰事件）的各个方面，尤其会深入谈那些大家特别感兴趣的细节。
问题1：普京总统（原文为敬语）。我想提个问题(由于您很久不露面，我们这里积攒了很多问题)，您如何评价在基辅发生的事情？是否认为目前基辅存在合法政府和实权总统？您会在哪些前提下和他们进行外交往来？最后，大家现在经常谈到2月21日达成的妥协文件，您是否认为乌克兰局势还有可能回到这个协议的框架内？谢谢
问题2：普京总统(原文为敬语)。俄罗斯许诺对克里米亚进行财政支持，昨天（俄罗斯）财政部已经接到（相关）任务。你对此是否已有规划？我们究竟会出多少钱？从哪凑集这些钱？会以什么条件付款？何时会付款？要知道，那里的形势相当危急。
问题3：在何种情况下，您会在乌克兰实施大规模军事行动？这和俄罗斯此前的国际承诺相符吗？您刚刚举行过军事演习，最终动武的可能性有多大？
问题4：关于克里米亚想了解一下。依您所见，现在那里还有针对俄国人或是俄罗斯族的威胁吗？局面现在是在转好还是恶化？我们现在得到的是很矛盾的消息。
问题5：如果您最终决定开战，您是否考虑过战争对您自己，对国家，对整个世界带来的风险？比如经济制裁，全球动荡、西方国家拒绝给我们签证或更严酷的封锁？西方政客经常谈论这些问题。
问题6：昨天俄罗斯（金融）市场对上议院的（动武）决议有剧烈反应，卢布汇率降到历史性的低点。您对此有准备吗？您认为对经济会有冲击？是否需要采取紧急措施，比如？举两个例子，您不认为央行关于卢布转为自由浮动汇率的决定过早吗？是不是需要临时取消这项决议？
普京：好的，提问暂时结束。我现在开始（回答），然后我们继续（提问）。不要着急，我尽量可能多回答。
首先，我要对在基辅、对乌克兰全境发生的事情做个评价。评价只可能有一个——这是违宪政变和武装叛乱。这点不容任何人反对。有人反对这点吗？
我对此也有一个问题不解，我那些最近经常通电话讨论乌克兰问题的同僚们（指欧美领导人）也回答不了。这个问题是这样的：我为什么（退让）到这个地步？
希望大家注意。(2月)21日，三个欧洲国家——波兰，德国和法国的外长——以及我的代表（俄罗斯联邦人权问题全权代表弗拉基米尔*彼得罗维奇*卢金）的见证下，亚努科维奇总统和反对派已经签署了协议。而根据这份协议——我想强调的是无论协议好坏，只是根据事实来说——亚努科维奇已经基本上让出了自己全部的权力。反对派的一切条件他都答应了：他同意了提前议会选举，提前总统选举，答应返回到2004年宪法，这都是反对派的要求。他答应了我们的要求，也答应了西方国家的要求，也首先答应了反对派的要求，不使用武力。他可没有发过任何向可怜的游行者们开枪的命令。他，不仅仅如此，还下令全部警力撤出首都，而警察们也执行了这个命令。然后他去了哈尔科夫参加仪式。就在他刚刚到哈尔科夫的同时，本来反对派应该让出被占领的政府机关。相反，反对派立刻占领了他的总统官邸，占领了政府大楼，许诺的那些条款全部被推翻。
我现在也问自己这些问题：为什么？我也想弄明白，为什么当初这样做？亚努科维奇本来已经实质上交出了权力。而我认为，正如我亲口对他所说：他没有任何重新选上的可能性。而（周围）所有人也都赞同我，包括最近经常给我打电话的那些同僚们。
那么，反对派为什么一定要搞非法的、违宪的行为，并把国家（乌克兰）拖入我们今天看到的混乱当中？至今基辅到处是带面具，手持武器的匪徒在游荡。而这个问题压根就没有答案。他们是想侮辱谁？是想示威吗？
这在我看来是无比愚蠢的行为。并制造了他们意料以外的结果。就是这些行为导致了乌克兰东部和东南部的动荡。
现在可以谈谈，为什么会产生这种情况。
在我看来，这种变化在很久以前就有预兆了。从乌克兰独立的第一天起。普通的乌克兰公民，普通的乌克兰汉子，就必须忍受尼古拉*克罗沃夫的统治。克拉夫丘克、库奇马、尤先科、亚努科维奇依次上台，人民始终被折磨，生活没有发生任何改变，或者说基本没有发生任何好的改变。贪污腐败达到了如此的程度，以至于我们在俄罗斯做梦都想不到。财富集中和社会分化问题，在俄罗斯已经是超出容忍标准的程度，在俄罗斯已经导致了尖锐矛盾，但在乌克兰，这些问题是俄罗斯的平方，或者立方。你们知道吗，那简直不可容忍。原则上说，人民需要改变可以理解，但我不能鼓励非法的变革。
在前苏联地区，政治结构非常脆弱，经济停滞，所以我们更应该绝对在宪法框架内解决问题，任何违宪的做法都是根本性的错误。说起来，我理解那些“买单运动”的拥护者（майдан，maidan，买单，乌克兰语赶集市场的意思，2013年抗议活动的名称就叫“欧洲买单”运动，后来所有反对派被称为“买单分子”看起来要一语成谶了---译者），虽然我不欢迎这种更迭政权的方式。
与此同时，我也理解那些买单分子，那些坚决要求根本性变革的人们。为什么他们这么要求？
因为他们已经习惯看到这样的变革：一个小偷被其他小偷与诈骗犯所替代。不仅如此，各地人民甚至都不能参与地方政权的组建。有段时间，俄罗斯的地方领导人由总统提名，但仍然需要地方议会批准。在乌克兰，地方领导人完全由中央直接任命。我们这里已经有了地方选举了，而那里连(选举的)味道都闻不到。在东部地区，第一批州长都是寡头，亿万富翁。人们当然没法接受，因为人民认为他们的财富是在私有化过程中偷来的。说起来俄罗斯也有很多人赞同这样，而现在这些人还被拉来执政了。
在第聂伯罗彼得罗夫斯克，卡拉梅斯基先生被弄来当州长。他正是一个罕见的诈骗犯，他甚至在两三年前把我们的寡头阿布拉莫维奇忽悠了。或者像我们这里开明的知识分子圈子的用词，“给耍了”。签了合同，搞了个什么交易，阿布拉莫维奇就转给了他几亿美圆，而这厮没有完成交易，却把钱给吞了。我曾经问他：“嗨！您为何干的如此不体面？”他回答：“我自己也没想到，这样还能(骗)钱”。我的确不知道后来这事怎么样了，（阿布）拿回自己的钱了吗？交易最终完成了没？我都不知道。但最迟到两三年前，现实中还有这样的事。然后这种骗子就被推选为州长，被派到了第聂伯罗彼得罗夫斯克。人们当然不满意，原来不满意，之后继续不满意，因为自称自己是合法政权的家伙，每个都干得出这种事。
不可忽视的一点，必须要在在平等的基础上让人民选择自己的命运、自己家庭的命运、自己故乡的命运，这里我想强调：不管人们在哪里居住，在国家的哪个地区居住，他都有权平等地改变国家命运。
那么今天的政权是不是合法的？一部分议会是，但其他的一切都不是，尤其是那个临时总统的所谓合法性，那里压根没有任何合法性。我只认一个合法总统（亚努科维奇）。当然大家都知道，都明白，他没有任何权力了。虽然我已经反复强调，但还想重复一下：毫无疑问，从法律角度来说，合法总统只有亚努科维奇一个人。
根据乌克兰法律，有三个办法把总统解职：一是总统自然死亡，二是他自己辞职，三是弹劾。宪法里有弹劾条款。而这要由宪法法庭，最高法庭，拉达(议会)共同参与。这是一个复杂的，漫长的过程。这个程序从未被启动，所以从法律角度上来说，亚努科维奇当总统是无可争议的事实。
不仅如此，我认为，正是因为这些法律的限制，新的伪政权才决定解散宪法法庭。而在乌克兰乃至欧洲的法律框架里根本就没有这种条款。但非法驱散宪法法庭还是小事——大家仔细品味一下这句话——(反对派政府)下令总检察院启动对宪法法庭成员的起诉流程。这要搞什么？这是自由审判吗？怎么能这样呢——下令展开刑事调查？如果有什么违法行为，刑事犯罪，法律机构自己就会发薪并且按程序处理。而你们直接下令展开起诉调查——这是无法无天，这是彻底疯了！
现在谈谈关于对克里米亚的经济援助。你们知道，我们已经决定，针对克里米亚提出的人道主义援助申请作出回应，俄罗斯已经开始组织相关的工作。我们当然会完成承诺，但多少钱，什么时候，资金筹措方式，我还无法确定。俄罗斯中央政府现在正在做这些事情。那些与克里米亚接壤的州地方政府也需要支持，以便他们更好的支援克里米亚人。这些我们当然都会去做。
关于出兵，使用军队。目前还不必要，但是有这种可能性。对了，马上可以说的是，我们刚刚举行的军事演习，他们和乌克兰的局势一点关系都没有。我们很早就准备演习，只不过没有宣布，因为这就是有突然性的部队应急测试行动。计划很早就已经制定，国防部长很久以前就向我汇报过。现在，如你们所知，演习结束了，昨天我已经下令相关部队返回常驻地。什么情况下会动用武装力量？这个当然是极端情况了，非常极端的情况。
首先，关于动武的合法性。就像你们知道的那样，我们这里有现任合法的总统、我反复确认过。乌克兰总统亚努科维奇关于动用武力的直接请求，目的是保护乌克兰公民的生命，自由和健康。
我们最担心乌克兰发生什么？我们看到新纳粹分子、种族主义者、反犹太主义者在乌克兰的部分地区，包括基辅到处乱窜。你们，作为媒体的代表，肯定都看到过，一个合法的州长被用铁链和手铐锁在广场上的一座建筑，冬天，很冷的时候，他被浇上冷水，在此之后还被关到了地下室受到拷打。这是什么事？这是什么——民主吗？这就是民主运动？说起来，他刚刚被任命，就在12月份。就算那里的官员人人都是贪污犯，但这个还压根没来得及偷到一毛钱呢。
而当占领“地区党”总部大楼的时候呢？你们知道吗，当时发生了什么？那里根本一个党员都没有。出来的是两三个工作人员，技术职员，一个工程师对袭击者说：“小伙子们，放了我们吧，放了女人吧，求你们了。我是工程师，我和政治没有任何一点点的关系”。结果他就被人群开枪打中眼睛。第二个同样的技术职员被赶到地下室，有人朝他扔“莫洛托夫鸡尾酒”（燃烧瓶），然后他被活活烧死了。这难道也是民主的体现？
所以当我们看到这一切的时候，我们就理解了乌克兰公民的忧虑——乌克兰公民包括俄罗斯人，包括乌克兰人，包括所有住在东部和南部的俄语居民。他们担忧什么？他们担忧的就是无底线（行为）。所以如果我们看到这些无底线行为在东部区域蔓延，如果人们请求我们的帮助，，那么我们就会依照现任总统的合法求助，保留使用一切力量的权利，以保护这些居民。我们认为，这是合法的行动。当然这是最极端情况。
除此之外，我还想对你们说：我们过去，现在和将来都认为，乌克兰，不仅仅是我们的邻居，也是我们真正的兄弟国家。我们两国的武装力量——他们是拿同一支武器的同志，朋友，他们当中很多都有私人友情。而我相信，并且想强调，乌克兰军人和俄罗斯军人不会站在战壕的两边，一定会站在战壕的同一边。
说起来，我说的情况，说的两国的一致性，就是目前在克里米亚发生的事实。请注意看，感谢上帝，那里没有任何人开枪，也没有任何牺牲者。除了一周前的广场上踩踏事件。那里发生了什么事情？人们自动聚集起来，封锁了军营，军队和他们谈判，认可军队应该服从本地人民的要求和意愿。没有任何的军事冲突，没有任何人开枪，没有任何一声枪响。
这种情况下，在克里米亚动武的必要性，就自然消失了。这里没有任何的必要性。我们采取的唯一必要行动是加强我们军事基地的安保，因为一直有针对他们的威胁。正如我们所见，种族主义武装已开往克里米亚。我们这样做，正确而且及时。所以从这点来说，我们在东乌克兰(暂时)不需要采取类似的行动。
再强调一下。我下面说的内容不是我的职权，我们(俄罗斯)也不准备进行干涉（乌克兰内政）。但是我们认为，乌克兰全体公民，重复，无论他们居住在哪里，都必须拥有同样参与国家决策，决定未来命运的权利。
如果我坐在那些自封的合法领导人的位置上，我会尽快加快完成相关的授权法律程序，因为他们没有任何关于管理内政，外交，经济政策的能力，更别说取得乌克兰未来的全民授权了。（金融）市场的问题。关于市场么，就像你们都知道的那样，在乌克兰局势恶化之前，市场就表现出一定焦虑。这首先和美联储政策有关系。他们改变了金融方阵，为了刺激美国经济，所以吸引资金从发展中国家回流美国。这是整体趋势，完全和乌克兰无关。我印象中，金融市场损失最大的是印度（而不是俄罗斯）。金砖五国的其它国家也受损了，俄罗斯的确也在这个范围内，说起来比印度损失的小点，但是也有损失。这（美联储政策）是根本性的原因。说到乌克兰的局势，是的，政策总会对市场有各种影响，钱喜欢安宁，平静和稳定（不喜欢变化）。但是我觉得，（市场做出的调整）是战术性的，是暂时的波动。
问题7：普京总统，请问，您是否预计到了西方各国对俄罗斯的举动有如此强硬的回应吗？您能讲讲您和西方领导人们的谈话细节吗，因为刚刚新闻发言人宣布了一些事实，比如G8峰会将不在在索契举行，您怎么认为？
普京：说到预计的反应，G8峰会是否召开，以及其他谈话内容。我必须指出，我（和西方领导人）的谈话带有保密性质，部分内容甚至是通过专线电话进行。所以我不认为我有权利公开这些谈话的内容。当然我可以引用部分我的西方同僚们的公开发言，不点名，做个总体评价。
我最注意他们的哪些发言？我们经常被指责为行为非法。而我反问这个问题的时候：“你们认为，你们的都是合法的？”他们（西方）回答：“是”。我不得不提醒他们，美国和盟国对阿富汗，伊拉克和利比亚做的事情。在那里，他们要么无视联合国安理会的决议，要么扭曲了这些决议内容，比如说在利比亚。那里，如你们所知，联合国只要求对政府军设置禁飞区，结果（北约）进行了轰炸，派出特种部队参与地面进攻。
我们的西方朋友，尤其是美国，总是清晰明确的指出自己在全球和国内的利益，然后坚定的要遵循利益最大化原则。他们以这句有名的话勉励自己：“不和我们站在一起，就是我们的敌人”（美国前总统小布什语——观察者网注），然后他们把整个世界都拖下水。谁不跟着搅合进去，那么马上就会被敲打，根据经验最终都会被抓点小辫子。
我们的出发点（与西方）完全不同，我们的行动都必须完全合法。而且我本人也是国际法准则的支持者。我想再次强调，我们认为，即使我们最终下定动武决心，即使我最终决定动用武装力量，那么这一行为也必然合法，必然完全符合国际法准则。我们有合法（乌克兰）总统的请求，我们依据自己的义务，也遵循我们的利益，我们需要保护那些有历史渊源的人民，有有紧密经济联系的人民。保护他们！——符合我们的国家利益。而且这是人道主义任务。我们不想奴役谁，不想命令别人做什么。但是，如果我们看到那些人被压迫，毁灭，被侮辱，我们不会坐视不理。我希望现实不要逼我出手。
问题8：您如何预测西方对乌克兰局面的反应，如何评估他们对我们的威胁？比如拒绝索契G8峰会，比如经济制裁。
普京：谈到制裁。制裁造成的后果，首先要由那些发起制裁措施的人来考虑。我想，在现代世界里，所有的（经济）事件都互相联系在一起，并且互相依赖。制裁当然会相互造成一些损失。但是这种损失是相互的。这是他们需要考虑清楚的问题，这是其一。
其二，最重要的一点。我已经说过了我们行动的理由。那么我们的（西方）伙伴们的制裁依据何在？他们支持违宪政变和武力夺权，宣布这些人合法并且努力支持他们。说起来，就算在这种情况下我们也是耐心等待，甚至准备和伪政权合作。我们不想停止合作。就像你们知道的那样，前几天我甚至下令给政府部门研究如何与基辅伪政权保持联络，而我们其实并不认为这些人是合法代表。我的目的是保持经济和工业领域的协作。我们认为我们师出有名，而各种针对俄罗斯的威胁——都是无效的和有害的。
说起G8，我不清楚到底会如何。我们在作G8会议的准备工作，准备在这里招待我的同事。如果他们不想来，那就不用来。
问题9：请允许我提问关于沟通的事情。根据我的理解，您认为克里米亚的阿克谢诺夫是合法的权力代表。那么您是否准备以某种形式和基辅自封的合法政权沟通？
普京：我刚刚说过了，您，可能没有听清吧。
问题10：我的意思是。您在他们的高层领导内是不是有特殊联络，为了解决政治问题。
普京：在基辅高层我没有朋友。那里没有总统。而且在全民选举之前也不可能有。说到克里米亚，当然了，克里米亚的议会是在2010年成立的，如果我没记错的话，是在2010年12月份。他由100个议员组成，分别代表6个党。在之前的总理辞职后，克里米亚议会根据程序和法律在克里米亚议会上院选出新的总理。当然他就是合法的。那里完成了法律规定的全部流程，没有任何的违规。前几天有些武装分子企图强占克里米亚议会大楼，这当然引起了克里米亚人的很大担忧。人们以为有人想把克里米亚变成基辅，制造恐怖事件与混乱。当然克里米亚人会非常担心了。所以他们才设立了自卫委员会并且控制了全部（本地）武装力量。
说起来，我昨天看了一下文件，他们手中的力量很强，简直是一个加强的军区。那里有几十台C-300防空导弹，几十台白杨导弹，2万2千军人和其他各种武器。但是，感谢上帝，就像我已经说过的那样，这些武器没开一枪就落到了克里米亚人民的手里。
问题11：普京总统，可以确认一下嘛？那些包围克里米亚地区乌克兰军队的的人——都穿着非常像我们俄罗斯的军服。他们是俄罗斯的士兵？
普京：您自己去看看前苏联（的商店）。那里到处都是类似的制服。。。。随便去我们这里的商店，就可以买到任何制服。
问题12：但是那是俄罗斯的士兵还是不是？
普京：那是地方自卫队。
问题13：（自卫队）训练的这么好？如果我们拿他们和基辅的自卫队来比较的话。
普京：我亲爱的同事，请看看那些砸了基辅的人吧，他们训练精良。他们，众所周知，都是在边境的基地接受了训练：在拉脱维亚，在波兰，在乌克兰本土。都是有备而来。他们由接受了长期的训练，他们以几十人或几百人为一群行动，他们的行动有指挥，他们由良好的通讯系统。就像发条一样运行。你没有看到过他们的行动吗？他们看起来非常专业，就像特种部队。为什么你会认为克里米亚的人们会比不上他们呢？
问题14：如果是这样，是否可以得到您的明确说法：我们（俄军）是否参加了训练克里米亚的自卫队？
普京：没有！我们没有！
问题15：你对克里米亚的未来有何看法？你认为它是否可能并入俄罗斯？
普京：不会。我认同这样的观点：一个国家的居民，必须在拥有安全保证和自由决定权的情况下，才能决定自己的未来。不过，如果科索沃的阿尔巴尼亚人享有这个权力，如果世界不同地点的人们都能享有这个权力，那么没有人能阻止其他国家自决的权力。据我所知，这是联合国多项文件所规定的。尽管如此，我们将不会煽动任何此类的决定，也不会鼓励这种情绪。
我想要再次强调，我认为只有本地居民才有权决定自身的未来。
（全文完）
俄文版：
http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2014/03/140304_putin_presse
Путин говорит о мире, но сохраняет свобод
у рук
Артем Кречетников
Би-би-си, Москва
Последнее обновление: вторник, 4 марта 2014 г., 18:26 GMT 22:26 MCK
На пресс-конференции Нажать 4 марта, посвя щенной ситуации на Украине, Владимир Пути н постарался снять возникшую напряженнос ть и избежать возобновления "холодной вой ны" с Западом, одновременно сохранив за со бой свободу рук.
По оценкам экспертов, решение об использо вании российских войск на территории Укр аины пока носит декларативный характер и направлено не на смену власти в соседнем государстве, а на обеспечение неприкосно венности своих сторонников и их участия в политическом процессе.
Дальнейшая тактика во многом не определе на, Кремль намерен действовать по обстоят ельствам, считают аналитики.
Военное давление
В субботу, когда прозвучали слова о вводе войск, многим сделалось не по себе. Казало сь, Москва вознамерилась проутюжить всю У краину танками, как Чехословакию в 1968 год у.
Во вторник Владимир Путин высказался в то м духе, что законодательное разрешение на применение вооруженных сил и их фактичес кое использование - не одно и то же, ничего особенного не случилось, и даже Нажать от рицал участие российских военных в блоки ровании частей украинской армии в Крыму, приписав его местным активистам, купивши м обмундирование в магазинах. По его словам, ввод войск - крайняя мера, к оторая последует лишь в случае "беспредел а" в отношении жителей восточных областей Украины.
Слово сказано и услышано. Вероятно, власт и Украины сделают все, чтобы не дать Москв е повода для эскалации.
Хотя пророссийские активисты на юго-вост оке захватывают административные здания, срывают флаги своего государства и бьют политических оппонентов, никто пальцем и х не трогает, и, скорее всего, не тронет, да же если у кого-то и было такое намерение.
"Проблема сузилась до локального крымско го вопроса, хотя он сам по себе достаточно острый"
Алексей Титков, Высшая школа экономики
Можно ли считать, что вопрос о вводе войск более или менее снят с повестки дня и теп ерь начнется разрядка?
"Хочется верить, но я все же сопроводил бы благие пожелания некоторым скептическим комментарием, - заявил Русской службе Би-б и-си независимый политолог Дмитрий Орешк ин. - Владимир Путин подчеркнул, что у него развязаны руки, раза три под разными раку рсами повторил, что, если мы и введем войс ка, это будет абсолютно законно".
"Предыдущие действия России отличались н епредсказуемостью, а сегодняшние объясне ния - неопределенностью, - соглашается экс перт Высшей школы экономики Алексей Титк ов. - Обстановку пока нельзя считать стаби льной. Самый большой источник нестабильн ости - действия вооруженных людей в Крыму, кто бы они ни были".
"При этом нужно четко отличать Крым от ост альной Украины, - считает аналитик. - На ос тальном юго-востоке объединительные наст роения не так сильны, как может казаться. Для населения не все сводится к националь ному и языковому вопросу, популярны антик оррупционные лозунги, близкие к майданов ским. Старая номенклатура, связанная с Па ртией регионов, скептически относится к в ласти в Киеве, но и явно пророссийскую поз ицию предпочитает не занимать, а делает у пор на своей способности самостоятельно решать все проблемы. Ввод войск в Донецку ю или Харьковскую область крайне маловер оятен, и сегодняшняя пресс-конференция Вл адимира Путина подтверждает это".
"Вероятно, предполагалось, что вдохновлен ные российской поддержкой активисты на в остоке тут же проложат для России сухопут ный коридор в Крым, а вооруженные силы Укр аины начнут массово переходить на россий скую сторону, однако этого не произошло. В вод войск не принес реального результата, не создал ощущения победы",- указывает Дм итрий Орешкин.
"Проблема сузилась до локального крымско го вопроса, хотя он сам по себе достаточно острый", - подытожил Алексей Титков.
Отношения с Киевом
До вторника оставалось совершенно неясны м отношение Москвы к взаимодействию с нов ым руководством Украины и статусу Виктор а Януковича.
Днем ранее Нажать МИД РФ потребовал выпол нения соглашения от 21 февраля между Януко вичем и оппозицией. В каком смысле? После всего случившегося вернуть Януковича к в ласти? Вероятно, с таким же успехом можно было требовать вернуть в Россию династию Романовых, поскольку революция 17-го года тоже было нелегитимна.
На встрече с журналистами в Ново-Огарево Владимир Путин расставил точки над "i", ска зав, что, хотя Янукович и остается в его гл азах легитимным президентом, политическо го будущего у него нет.
По его словам, Москва по-прежнему считает смену власти на Украине неконституционны м переворотом, но готова к сотрудничеству на уровне министерств и ведомств, а также премьеров Дмитрия Медведева и Арсения Яц енюка.
Путин заявил, что ему не о чем говорить с и .о.президента Украины Александром Турчин овым, которого он не считает законным гла вой государства, но дал понять, что после выборов 25 мая вопрос о легитимности украи нской власти для России будет закрыт.
Он также не исключил визита в Москву бывш его премьера Юлии Тимошенко, правда, указ ав на отсутствие у нее официального стату са.
"Понятно, что Януковича больше нет, что на Украине существует власть, пользующаяся поддержкой населения и контролирующая си туацию"
Дмитрий Орешкин, независимый политолог
"В этой части пресс-конференции тоже заме тна большая неопределенность. Однако Пут ин пошел на определенные уступки, частичн о признав легитимность Верховной Рады и п ремьера Яценюка, а также допустив возможн ость контактов с Турчиновым, но не как с п резидентом, а как со спикером Рады", - комм ентирует Алексей Титков.
"А куда нам деваться? - заметил Дмитрий Оре шкин. - Понятно, что Януковича больше нет, что на Украине существует власть, пользую щаяся поддержкой населения и контролирую щая ситуацию. Можно упрямо отрицать очеви дное, но это было бы не по-путински, он все- таки прагматик".
"Владимир Путин косвенно признал легитим ность украинского правительства, начав д авать ему разные советы", - добавил экспер т.
"Легитимность - понятие не столько юридич еское, сколько социологическое, она опред еляется поддержкой общества, - указывает Алексей Титков. - В этом смысле, как ни пар адоксально, своим заявлением о вводе войс к Владимир Путин немало поспособствовал укреплению легитимности нынешней власти".
Категоричными заявлениями о нелегитимно сти Москва сама загнала себя в угол, счита ют аналитики. Теперь найдено решение, поз воляющее не отказываться от своих слов и сохранить лицо: взять паузу на два с полов иной месяца до украинских выборов.
Правда, отвечая на вопрос из зала, Путин з аметил, что Россия может и не признать их результаты, если выборы пройдут "в услови ях террора". Таким образом, по мнению эксп ертов, он оставил себе свободу маневра и р ычаг давления на Киев.
Роль Запада
Частичная корректировка позиции Москвы в о многом вызвана реакцией Запада, уверены собеседники Русской службы Би-би-си.
"Владимир Путин не ожидал такой жесткости , - уверен Дмитрий Орешкин. - Вероятно, он р ассчитывал, что пресса пошумит, а ответст венные лица, принимающие решения, промолч ат. После войны с Грузией разговоры о санк циях звучали из уст парламентариев, а сей час он услышал крайне неприятные слова от Нажать президента Соединенных Штатов Ам ерики. При этом Путин понимает, что Обаме очень не хотелось произносить их, но, раз уж произнес, то за словами последуют дела".
"И Россия, и европейско-американская стор она проявили достаточно много неадекватн ости, относясь к Украине как к пространст ву для своих маневров"
Алексей Титков, Высшая школа экономики
"Президент не может не прислушиваться к с воему окружению, - полагает Алексей Титко в. - Часть его занимает последовательно ан тизападную позицию, но экономический бло к правительства добивается такой коррект ировки, чтобы Нажать санкции, если и состо ятся, были символическими. В отличие от На жать Сергея Глазьева, полагающего, что "Ро ссия выйдет из санкций с выгодой для себя" , там думают не о том, как жить в условиях с анкций, а о том, как их избежать".
В вышеупомянутом заявлении МИДа от 3 март а говорилось о возможности переговоров п о украинской проблеме между Россией и Зап адом. Владимир Путин об этом не упомянул, и, по мнению собеседников Русской службы Би-би-си, правильно сделал. В конце концов, Украина - суверенное государство, а не ме ждународный протекторат, чтобы решать ее
судьбу на какой-то новой Мюнхенской конфе ренции.
"Возможность управлять событиями в любой стране извне не следует переоценивать, - з аявил Алексей Титков. - Начиная с декабря прошлого года и Россия, и европейско-амер иканская сторона проявили достаточно мно го неадекватности, относясь к Украине как к пространству для своих маневров. Это в полной мере относится к соглашению от 21 ф евраля, которое было достигнуто при посре дничестве представителей ЕС, но не учитыв ало главную сторону - протестующих на Май дане. Шансов на его выполнение с самого на чала было немного".
Будущее Крыма Владимир Путин заявил, что не видит Крым в качестве субъекта Российской Федерации.
"Абхазский вариант" чреват большими пробл емами, прежде всего, для самих крымчан. В ч астности, они не смогут путешествовать с паспортами государства, не признанного н икем, кроме России.
Существует еще одна возможность. На рефер ендум 30 марта, вообще-то, вынесен вопрос н е о выходе из состава Украины, а о расшире нии прав автономии. Это понятие неконкрет ное. Ну, выскажутся граждане за расширени е автономии, и что дальше? Как это понимат ь?
"Крымская элита и большинство населения н е желают быть под Киевом, и почти в такой ж е степени не желают быть под Москвой"
Дмитрий Орешкин, независимый политолог
"Думаю, что Россия настроена на абхазский сценарий, однако будет проявлять крайнюю осторожность, - считает Алексей Титков. – К иев уже делает все возможное, чтобы загла дить явную ошибку с законом о языке. Не ис ключаю, что, в конце концов Крым формально останется в составе Украины, но будет пол итически и экономически контролироватьс я Москвой. Правда, трудно прогнозировать, чем закончится подобное двоевластие".
"Нажать Ясности с Крымом нет, - говорит Дми трий Орешкин. - Крымская элита и большинст во населения под Россию вовсе не хотят. Ес ть так называемая "русская партия", но бол ьшинство не желает быть под Киевом, и почт и в такой же степени не желает быть под Мо сквой. Заветная мечта любого начальника - быть суверенным, иметь красную дорожку к самолету и называться президентом чего-н ибудь".
"Вполне вероятен вариант, когда руководст во Крыма вступит в переговоры и будет выт орговывать себе полномочия и преференции , опираясь на результаты референдума и си лу российского оружия, а Киев многим пост упится, чтобы сохранить формальную целос тность Украины", - прогнозирует политолог.
"Правда, тогда будет непонятно, в чем закл ючается достижение Путина. Для победного пиара нужно что-то более существенное", - д
обавляет он.
英文版：
The President of Russia met with media representatives to answer a number of their questions, in particular with regard to the situation in Ukraine.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,
How shall we do this? This is what I’d like to suggest: let’s have a conversation, rather than an interview. Therefore, I would ask you to begin by stating all your questions, I will jot them down and try to answer them, and then we will have a more detailed discussion of the specifics that interest you most.
Let’s begin.
QUESTION: Mr President, I would like to ask (you took a lengthy pause, so we have quite a few questions by now) how you assess the events in Kiev? Do you think that the Government and the Acting President, who are currently in power in Kiev, are legitimate? Are you ready to communicate with them, and on what terms? Do you yourself think it possible now to return to the agreements of February 21, which we all talk about so often?
QUESTION: Mr President, Russia has promised financial aid to Crimea and instructions were issued to the Finance Ministry yesterday. Is there a clear understanding of how much we are giving, where the money is coming from, on what terms and when? The situation there is very difficult.
QUESTION: When, on what terms and in what scope can military force be used in Ukraine? To what extent does this comply with Russia’s international agreements? Did the military exercises that have just finished have anything to do with the possible use of force?
QUESTION: We would like to know more about Crimea. Do you think that the provocations are over or that there remains a threat to the Russian citizens who are now in Crimea and to the Russian-speaking population? What are the general dynamics there – is the situation changing for the better or for the worse? We are hearing different reports from there.
QUESTION: If you do decide to use force, have you thought through all the possible risks for yourself, for the country and for the world: economic sanctions, weakened global security, a possible visa ban or greater isolation for Russia, as western politicians are demanding?
QUESTION: Yesterday the Russian stock market fell sharply in response to the Federation Council’s vote, and the ruble exchange rates hit record lows. Did you expect such a reaction? What do you think are the possible consequences for the economy? Is there a need for any special measures now, and of what kind? For instance, do you think the Central Bank’s decision to shift to a floating ruble exchange rate may have been premature? Do you think it should be revoked?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fine, let us stop here for now. I will begin, and then we will continue. Don’t worry; I will try to answer as many questions as possible.
First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.
I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? I want to understand why this was done. He had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. Everybody agrees on this, everyone I have been speaking to on the telephone these past few days. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer. Did they wish to humiliate someone and show their power? I think these actions are absolutely foolish. The result is the absolute opposite of what they expected, because their actions have significantly destabilised the east and southeast of Ukraine.
Now over to how this situation came about.
In my opinion, this revolutionary situation has been brewing for a long time, since the first days of Ukraine’s independence. The ordinary Ukrainian citizen, the ordinary guy suffered during the rule of Nicholas II, during the reign of Kuchma, and Yushchenko, and Yanukovych. Nothing or almost nothing has changed for the better. Corruption has reached dimensions that are unheard of here in Russia. Accumulation of wealth and social stratification – problems that are also acute in this country – are much worse in Ukraine, radically worse. Out there, they are beyond anything we can imagine. Generally, people wanted change, but one should not support illegal change.
Only constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space, where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal mistake in such a situation. Incidentally, I understand those people on Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another. Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming their own regional governments. There was a period in this country when the President appointed regional leaders, but then the local legislative authorities had to approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly. We have now moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this. And they began appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have been brought to power.
For example, Mr Kolomoisky was appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich two or three years ago. Scammed him, as our intellectuals like to say. They signed some deal, Abramovich transferred several billion dollars, while this guy never delivered and pocketed the money. When I asked him [Abramovich]: “Why did you do it?” he said: “I never thought this was possible.” I do not know, by the way, if he ever got his money back and if the deal was closed. But this really did happen a couple of years ago. And now this crook is appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. No wonder the people are dissatisfied. They were dissatisfied and will remain so if those who refer to themselves as the legitimate authorities continue in the same fashion.
Most importantly, people should have the right to determine their own future, that of their families and of their region, and to have equal participation in it. I would like to stress this: wherever a person lives, whatever part of the country, he or she should have the right to equal participation in determining the future of the country.
Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.
There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact.
Moreover, I think this may be why they disbanded the Constitutional Court, which runs counter to all legal norms of both Ukraine and Europe. They not only disbanded the Constitutional Court in an illegitimate fashion, but they also – just think about it – instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to launch criminal proceedings against members of the Constitutional Court. What is that all about? Is this what they call free justice? How can you instruct anyone to start criminal proceedings? If a crime, a criminal offence, has been committed, the law enforcement agencies see this and react. But instructing them to file criminal charges is nonsense, it’s monkey business.
Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you may know, we have decided to organise work in the Russian regions to aid Crimea, which has turned to us for humanitarian support. We will provide it, of course. I cannot say how much, when or how – the Government is working on this, by bringing together the regions bordering on Crimea, by providing additional support to our regions so they could help the people in Crimea. We will do it, of course.
Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces. So far, there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. I would like to say here that the military exercises we recently held had nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This was pre-planned, but we did not disclose these plans, naturally, because this was a snap inspection of the forces’ combat readiness. We planned this a long time ago, the Defence Minister reported to me and I had the order ready to begin the exercise. As you may know, the exercises are over; I gave the order for the troops to return to their regular dislocations yesterday.
What can serve as a reason to use the Armed Forces? Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort.
First, the issue of legitimacy. As you may know, we have a direct appeal from the incumbent and, as I said, legitimate President of Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych, asking us to use the Armed Forces to protect the lives, freedom and health of the citizens of Ukraine.
What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev. I am sure you, members of the media, saw how one of the governors was chained and handcuffed to something and they poured water over him, in the cold of winter. After that, by the way, he was locked up in a cellar and tortured. What is all this about? Is this democracy? Is this some manifestation of democracy? He was actually only recently appointed to this position, in December, I believe. Even if we accept that they are all corrupt there, he had barely had time to steal anything.
And do you know what happened when they seized the Party of Regions building? There were no party members there at all at the time. Some two-three employees came out, one was an engineer, and he said to the attackers: “Could you let us go, and let the women out, please. I’m an engineer, I have nothing to do with politics.” He was shot right there in front of the crowd. Another employee was led to a cellar and then they threw Molotov cocktails at him and burned him alive. Is this also a manifestation of democracy?
When we see this we understand what worries the citizens of Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainian, and the Russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. It is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. Therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate President, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. We believe this would be absolutely legitimate. This is our last resort.
Moreover, here is what I would like to say: we have always considered Ukraine not only a neighbour, but also a brotherly neighbouring republic, and will continue to do so. Our Armed Forces are comrades in arms, friends, many of whom know each other personally. I am certain, and I stress, I am certain that the Ukrainian military and the Russian military will not be facing each other, they will be on the same side in a fight.
Incidentally, the things I am talking about – this unity – is what is happening in Crimea. You should note that, thank God, not a single gunshot has been fired there; there are no casualties, except for that crush on the square about a week ago. What was going on there? People came, surrounded units of the armed forces and talked to them, convincing them to follow the demands and the will of the people living in that area. There was not a single armed conflict, not a single gunshot.
Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defence of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. We did this, it was the right thing to do and very timely. Therefore, I proceed from the idea that we will not have to do anything of the kind in eastern Ukraine.
There is something I would like to stress, however. Obviously, what I am going to say now is not within my authority and we do not intend to interfere. However, we firmly believe that all citizens of Ukraine, I repeat, wherever they live, should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country and in determining its future.
If I were in the shoes of those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities, I would not waste time and go through all the necessary procedures, because they do not have a national mandate to conduct the domestic, foreign and economic policy of Ukraine, and especially to determine its future.
Now, the stock market. As you may know, the stock market was jumpy even before the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. This is primarily linked to the policy of the US Federal Reserve, whose recent decisions enhanced the attractiveness of investing in the US economy and investors began moving their funds from the developing markets to the American market. This is a general trend and it has nothing to do with Ukraine. I believe it was India that suffered most, as well as the other BRICS states. Russia was hit as well, not as hard as India, but it was. This is the fundamental reason.
As for the events in Ukraine, politics always influence the stock market in one way or another. Money likes quiet, stability and calm. However, I think this is a tactical, temporary development and a temporary influence.
Your questions, please.
QUESTION: Mr President, can you tell us if you expected such a harsh reaction to Russia’s actions from your western partners? Could you give us any details of your conversations with your western partners? All we’ve heard was a report from the press service. And what do you think about the G8 summit in Sochi – will it take place?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding the expected reaction, whether the G8 will meet and about the conversations. Our conversations are confidential, some are even held over secure lines. Therefore, I am not authorised to disclose what I discussed with my partners. I will, however, refer to some public statements made by my colleagues from the west; without giving any names, I will comment on them in a general sense.
What do we pay attention to? We are often told our actions are illegitimate, but when I ask, “Do you think everything you do is legitimate?” they say “yes”. Then, I have to recall the actions of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they either acted without any UN sanctions or completely distorted the content of such resolutions, as was the case with Libya. There, as you may know, the resolution only spoke of closing the airspace for government aircraft, while it all ended with bomb attacks and special forces land operations.
Our partners, especially in the United Sates, always clearly formulate their own geopolitical and state interests and follow them with persistence. Then, using the principle “You’re either with us or against us” they draw the whole world in. And those who do not join in get ‘beaten’ until they do.
Our approach is different. We proceed from the conviction that we always act legitimately. I have personally always been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. I would like to stress yet again that if we do make the decision, if I do decide to use the Armed Forces, this will be a legitimate decision in full compliance with both general norms of international law, since we have the appeal of the legitimate President, and with our commitments, which in this case coincide with our interests to protect the people with whom we have close historical, cultural and economic ties. Protecting these people is in our national interests. This is a humanitarian mission. We do not intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. However, we cannot remain indifferent if we see that they are being persecuted, destroyed and humiliated. However, I sincerely hope it never gets to that.
QUESTION: How do you asses the reaction of the west to the events in Ukraine and their threats regarding Russia: are we facing the possibility of sanctions or withdrawal from the G8?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding sanctions. It is primarily those who intend to apply them that need to consider their consequences. I believe that in the modern world, where everything is interconnected and interdependent, it is possible to cause damage to another country, but this will be mutual damage and one should bear this in mind. This is one thing.
The second and the most important thing. I have already told you what motivates us. And what motivates our partners? They supported an unconstitutional armed take-over, declared these people legitimate and are trying to support them. By the way, despite all of this we have been patient and even ready to cooperate; we do not want to disrupt our cooperation. As you may know, a few days ago I instructed the Government to consider how we can maintain contacts even with those powers in Kiev that we do not consider legitimate in order to retain our ties in the economy and industry. We think our actions have been absolutely reasonable, while any threat against Russia is counterproductive and harmful.
As for the G8, I do not know. We will be ready to host the summit with our colleagues. If they do not want to come – so be it.
QUESTION: Can I add about contacts? The way I see it, you consider the Prime Minister of Crimea Mr Aksyonov to be a legitimate representative of government authorities. Are you ready to have any contacts with those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities in Kiev?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have just spoken about it. You must have missed it.
QUESTION: I mean, at the top level for a political solution.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not have a partner at the top level there. There is no president there, and there cannot be one until the general elections.
As for Crimea, the Parliament there was formed in 2010, in December 2010 if I remember correctly. There are 100 MPs representing six political parties. After the previous Prime Minister resigned, the Crimean Parliament, in compliance with the existing legislation and procedures elected a new Prime Minister at a session of the Crimean Supreme Council. He is definitely legitimate. They have complied with all the procedures envisaged by the law; there is not a single violation. However, when a few days ago a group of armed men tried to occupy the building of the Crimean Supreme Soviet, this caused the concern of the local residents. It seemed as though someone wanted to apply the Kiev scenario in Crimea and to launch a series of terrorist attacks and cause chaos. Naturally, this causes grave concern among the local residents. That is why they set up self-defence committees and took control over all the armed forces.
Incidentally, I was studying the brief yesterday to see what they took over – it is like a fortified zone. There are several dozen C-300 units, several dozen air-defence missile systems, 22,000 service members and a lot more. However, as I said, this is all in the hands of the people of Crimea and without a single gunshot.
QUESTION: Mr President, a clarification if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why don’t you take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.
QUESTION: But were they Russian soldiers or not?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those were local self-defence units.
QUESTION: How well trained are they? If we compare them to the self-defence units in Kiev…
VLADIMIR PUTIN: My dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operated in Kiev were. As we all know they were trained at special bases in neighbouring states: in Lithuania, Poland and in Ukraine itself too. They were trained by instructors for extended periods. They were divided into dozens and hundreds, their actions were coordinated, they had good communication systems. It was all like clockwork. Did you see them in action? They looked very professional, like special forces. Why do you think those in Crimea should be any worse?
QUESTION: In that case, can I specify: did we take part in training Crimean self-defence forces?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we did not.
QUESTION: How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility of it joining Russia?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we do not. Generally, I believe that only residents of a given country who have the freedom of will and are in complete safety can and should determine their future. If this right was granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this was made possible in many different parts of the world, then nobody has ruled out the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as I know, is fixed by several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke any such decision and will not breed such sentiments.
I would like to stress that I believe only the people living in a given territory have the right to determine their own future.
QUESTION: Two questions. You said that sending troops into Ukraine is an extreme measure, but you are nevertheless not ruling it out. Still, if Russian troops enter Ukraine, it could start a war. Doesn’t that bother you?
And a second question. You say that Yanukovych did not give the order to shoot people. But somebody shot at the protestors. And clearly, these were snipers, trained snipers.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, some people, including those who were recently among the protestors, have expressed the opinion that these were provocateurs from one of the opposition parties. Have you heard this?
REPLY: No, I have not heard this.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look at these materials – they are freely available. That is why it is very difficult to get to the bottom of the situation. But you and I saw for ourselves when the Berkut fighters stood there with their shields and were shot at – and those were not air weapons that were used against them but assault weapons that pierced their shields. That is something we saw for certain. As for who gave the orders – that I do not know. I only know what Mr Yanukovych told me. And he told me that he did not give any orders, and moreover, he gave instructions – after signing a corresponding agreement – to even withdraw all militia units from the capital.
If you want, I can tell you even more. He called me on the phone and I told him not to do it. I said, “You will have anarchy, you will have chaos in the capital. Think about the people.” But he did it anyway. And as soon as he did it, his office was seized, and that of the government, and the chaos I had warned him about and which continues to this day, erupted.
QUESTION: What about the first question? Are you concerned that a war could break out?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not concerned, because we do not plan and we will not fight with the Ukrainian people.
QUESTION: But there are Ukrainian troops, there is the Ukrainian army.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question, Mr President? Our colleagues, my colleagues, who are currently working in Ukraine, are saying practically every day that the situation for the Berkut fighters is only getting worse (perhaps with the exception of Crimea). In particular, in Kiev, there are injured Berkut officers who are in hospitals now, where nobody is treating them and they are not even getting fed. And their families, including elderly family members, they simply cannot leave the house, because they are not being allowed; there are barricades all around, they are being humiliated. Can you comment on this? And can Russia help these families and colleagues?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, this issue is of great concern to us. After all, these are not Russia’s Interior Ministry officers, and we were not managing the situation there. But out of humanitarian considerations, it would be good if our human rights organisations got involved in this as well; we might ask Vladimir Lukin, either alone or together with his colleagues, representatives from France, Germany and Poland, with whom he participated in developing the well-known document of February 21, 2014, to go on location and see what is happening there with these Berkut officers, who have not broken any laws and acted in accordance with their orders. They are military service members, they stood there facing bullets, they were doused with fire and had Molotov cocktails thrown at them. They have been wounded and injured and are now in a hospital. It is even hard to imagine – even prisoners of war are being fed and treated. But they not only stopped treating them, they even stopped feeding them. And they have surrounded the building where these fighters’ families live and are bullying them. I think that human rights organisations must pay attention to this. And we, for our part, are ready to provide them with medical care here in Russia.
QUESTION: Mr President, getting back to the West’s reaction. Following the US Secretary of State’s harsh statement, the Federation Council suggested that we recall our ambassador to the United States. Do you support this idea?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: The US Secretary of State is certainly an important person, but he is not the ultimate authority that determines the United States’ foreign policy. We hear statements from various politicians and representatives of various political forces. This would be an extreme measure. If necessary, it will be used. But I really don’t want to use it, because I think Russia is not the only one interested in cooperation with its partners on an international level and in such areas as economy, politics and foreign security; our partners are just as interested in this cooperation. It is very easy to destroy these instruments of cooperation and it would be very difficult to rebuild them.
QUESTION: Russia got involved in Yanukovych’s fate. How do you see his future role and his future destiny?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, it is very hard for me to say; I have not analysed it carefully. I think he has no political future, and I have told him so. As for “getting involved in his fate” – we did this on purely humanitarian grounds. Death is the easiest way for getting rid of a legitimate president, and I think that is what would have happened. I think they would have simply killed him. Incidentally, the question arises: what for?
After all, look at how it all began, what triggered these events. The formal reason was that he did not sign the European Union Association Agreement. Today, this seems like nonsense; it is ridiculous to even talk about. But I want to point out that he did not refuse to sign the association agreement. He said: “We have carefully analysed it, and its content does not correspond with our national interests. We cannot sharply increase energy prices for our people, because our people are already in a rather difficult position. We cannot do this, and that, and that. We cannot immediately break our economic ties with Russia, because our cooperation is very extensive.”
I have already presented these figures: out of approximately 14 billion [dollars] in export, approximately 5 billion represents second and third technological processing level products exported to Russia. In other words, just about all engineering products are exported to Russia; the West is not buying any Ukrainian products. And to take all this and break it apart, to introduce European technical standards in the Ukrainian economy, which, thankfully or unfortunately, we are not using at the moment. We will adopt those standards at some point, but currently, we do not have those standards in Russia. This means the next day, our relations and cooperation ties will be broken, enterprises will come to a standstill and unemployment will increase. And what did Yanukovych say? He said, “I cannot do this so suddenly, let’s discuss this further.” He did not refuse to sign it, he asked for a chance to discuss this document some more, and then all this craziness began.
And why? Did he do something outside the scope of his authority? He acted absolutely within the scope of his authority; he did not infringe on anything. It was simply an excuse to support the forces opposing him in a fight for power. Overall, this is nothing special. But did it really need to be taken to this level of anarchy, to an unconstitutional overthrow and armed seizure of power, subsequently plunging the nation into the chaos where it finds itself today? I think this is unacceptable. And it is not the first time our Western partners are doing this in Ukraine. I sometimes get the feeling that somewhere across that huge puddle, in America, people sit in a lab and conduct experiments, as if with rats, without actually understanding the consequences of what they are doing. Why did they need to do this? Who can explain this? There is no explanation at all for it.
The same thing happened during the first Maidan uprising, when Yanukovych was blocked from power. Why did we need that third round of elections? In other words, it was turned into a farce – Ukraine’s political life was turned into a farce. There was no compliance with the Constitution at all. You see, we are now teaching people that if one person can violate any law, anyone else can do the same, and that’s what causes chaos. That is the danger. Instead, we need to teach our society to follow other traditions: traditions of respecting the main law of the nation, the Constitution, and all other laws. Of course, we will not always succeed, but I think acting like this – like a bull in a china shop is counterproductive and very dangerous.
Please.
QUESTION: Mr President, Turchynov is illegitimate, from your point of view.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As President, yes.
QUESTION: But the Rada is partially legitimate.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Are Yatsenyuk and the Cabinet legitimate? And if Russia is concerned about the growing strength of radical elements, they grow stronger every time they find themselves facing a hypothetical enemy, which in their view, they currently consider Russia and Russia’s position of being ready to send in troops. Question: does it make sense and is it possible to hold talks with moderate forces in the Ukrainian government, with Yatsenyuk, and is he legitimate?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Listen, it seems like you didn’t hear what I have said. I already said that three days ago, I gave instructions to the Government to renew contacts at the government level with their colleagues in the corresponding ministries and departments in Ukraine, in order not to disrupt economic ties, to support them in their attempts to reconstruct the economy. Those were my direct instructions to the Russian Government. Moreover, Mr Medvedev is in contact with [Arseniy] Yatsenyuk. And I know that Sergei Naryshkin, as speaker of the Russian parliament, is in contact with [Oleksandr] Turchynov. But, I repeat, all our trade and economic and other ties, our humanitarian ties, can be developed in full only after the situation is normalised and presidential elections are held.
QUESTION: Gazprom has already said that it is reverting to its old gas prices beginning in April.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Gazprom could not have said that; you were not listening carefully or it did not express itself clearly. Gazprom is not reverting to the old prices. It simply does not want to extend the current discounts, which it had agreed to apply or not apply on a quarterly basis. Even before all these events, even before they hit the crisis point. I know about the negotiations between Gazprom and its partners. Gazprom and the Government of the Russian Federation agreed that Gazprom would introduce a discount by reducing gas prices to $268.50 per 1,000 cubic metres. The Government of Russia provides the first tranche of the loan, which is formally not a loan but a bond purchase – a quasi-loan, $3 billion dollars in the first stage. And the Ukrainian side undertakes to fully repay its debt that arose in the second half of last year and to make regular payments for what they are consuming – for the gas. The debt has not been repaid, regular payments are not being made in full.
Moreover, if the Ukrainian partners fail to make the February payment, the debt will grow even bigger. Today it is around $1.5-1.6 billion. And if they do not fully pay for February, it will be nearly $2 billion. Naturally, in these circumstances, Gazprom says, “Listen guys, since you don’t pay us anyway, and we are only seeing an increase in your debt, let’s lock into the regular price, which is still reduced.” This is a purely commercial component of Gazprom’s activities, which plans for revenues and expenditures in its investment plans like any other major company. If they do not receive the money from their Ukrainian partners on time, then they are undercutting their own investment programmes; this is a real problem for them. And incidentally, this does not have to do with the events in Ukraine or any politics. There was an agreement: “We give you money and reduced gas rates, and you give us regular payments.” They gave them money and reduced gas rates, but the payments are not being made. So naturally, Gazprom says, “Guys, that won’t work.”
QUESTION: Mr President, [German Federal Chancellor] Merkel’s Press Service said after your telephone conversation that you had agreed to send an international fact-finding mission to Ukraine and set up a contact group.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I said that we have people who have the training and skills needed to be able to examine this issue and discuss it with our German colleagues. This is all possible. I gave the instruction accordingly to our Foreign Minister, who was to or will meet with the German Foreign Minister, Mr Steinmeier, yesterday or today to discuss this matter.
QUESTION: All eyes are on Crimea at the moment of course, but we see what is happening in other parts of Ukraine too, in the east and south. We see what is happening in Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk and Odessa. People are raising the Russian flag over government buildings and appealing to Russia for aid and support. Will Russia respond to these events?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do you think we have not made any response? I think we’ve just spent the last hour discussing this response. In some cases though, the developments taking place are unexpected in my view. I will not go into the specific details of what I am referring to here, but the reaction that we are seeing from people is understandable, in principle. Did our partners in the West and those who call themselves the government in Kiev now not foresee that events would take this turn? I said to them over and over: Why are you whipping the country into a frenzy like this? What are you doing? But they keep on pushing forward. Of course people in the eastern part of the country realise that they have been left out of the decision-making process.
Essentially, what is needed now is to adopt a new constitution and put it to a referendum so that all of Ukraine’s citizens can take part in the process and influence the choice of basic principles that will form the foundations of their country’s government. But this is not our affair of course. This is something for the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian authorities to decided one way or another. I think that once a legitimate government is in place and a new president and parliament are elected, which is what is planned, this will probably go ahead. If I were them, I would return to the matter of adopting a constitution and, as I said, putting it to a referendum so that everyone can have their say on it, cast their vote, and then everyone will have to respect it. If people feel they are left out of this process, they will never agree with it and will keep on fighting it. Who needs this kind of thing? But as I said, this is all not our affair.
QUESTION: Will Russia recognise the planned presidential election that will take place in Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s see how it goes. If it is accompanied by the same kind of terror that we are seeing now in Kiev, we will not recognise it.
QUESTION: I want to come back to the West’s reaction. As all this tough talk continues, we have the Paralympics opening in a few days’ time in Sochi. Are these Games at risk of ending up on the brink of disruption, at least as far as international media coverage goes?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I don’t know, I think it would be the height of cynicism to put the Paralympics at risk. We all know that this is an international sports event at which people with disabilities can show their capabilities, prove to themselves and the entire world that they are not people with limitations, but on the contrary, people with unlimited possibilities, and demonstrate their achievements in sport. If there are people ready to try to disrupt this event, it would show that these are people for whom there really is nothing sacred.
QUESTION: I want to ask about the hypothetical possibility of using the military. People in the West have said that if Russia makes such a decision, it would violate the Budapest Memorandum, under which the United States and some NATO partners consecrated territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for its promise to give up nuclear weapons. If developments take this turn, could global players intervene in this local conflict and turn it into a global conflict? Have you taken these risks into account?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Before making public statements, and all the more so before taking practical steps, we give issues due thought and attention and try to foresee the consequences and reactions that the various potential players could have.
As for the Memorandum that you mentioned, you said you are from Reuters, is that right?
RESPONSE: Yes.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: How do the public and political circles in your country view these events that have taken place? It is clear after all that this was an armed seizure of power. That is a clear and evident fact. And it is clear too that this goes against the Constitution. That is also a clear fact, is it not?
RESPONSE: I live in Russia.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good on you! You should join the diplomatic service; you’d make a good diplomat. Diplomats’ tongues, as we know, are there to hide their thoughts. So, we say that what we are seeing is an anti-constitutional coup, and we get told, no, it isn’t. You have probably heard plenty of times now that this was not an anti-constitutional coup and not an armed seizure of power, but a revolution. Have you heard this?
RESPONSE: Yes.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, but if this is revolution, what does this mean? In such a case it is hard not to agree with some of our experts who say that a new state is now emerging in this territory. This is just like what happened when the Russian Empire collapsed after the 1917 revolution and a new state emerged. And this would be a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.
QUESTION: I want to clarify a point. You said that if the USA imposes sanctions, this would deal a blow to both economies. Does this imply that Russia might impose counter-sanctions of its own, and if so, would they be a symmetrical response?
You spoke about gas discounts too. But there was also the agreement to buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian bonds. Ukraine received the first tranche at the end of last year. Has payment of the remaining money been suspended? If Russia provides aid, on what specific economic and political terms will this be done? And what political and economic risks are you taking into consideration in this case?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: To answer your question, we are in principle ready to look at taking the steps needed to make the other tranches available with regard to the purchase of bonds. But our Western partners have asked us not to do this. They have asked us to work together through the IMF to encourage the Ukrainian authorities to carry out the reforms needed to bring about recovery in the Ukrainian economy. We will continue working in this direction. But given that Naftogaz of Ukraine is not paying Gazprom now, the Government is considering various options.
QUESTION: Mr President, is the dynamic of events in Ukraine changing for the better or for the worse?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Overall, I think it is gradually starting to level out. We absolutely must send the signal to people in Ukraine’s southeast that they can feel safe, and know that they will be able to take part in the general political process of stabilising the country.
QUESTION: You have made several mentions now of future legitimate elections in Ukraine. Who do you see as compromise candidate? Of course you will say that this for the Ukrainian people to decide, but I ask you all the same.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: To be honest, I really don’t know.
RESPONSE: It seems that the people also don’t know, because no matter who you talk to, everyone seems to be at a loss.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I really can’t say. You know, it’s hard to make predictions after events of this kind. I have already said that I do not agree with this method of taking power and removing the incumbent authorities and president, and I strongly oppose this kind of method in Ukraine and in the post-Soviet area in general. I oppose this because this kind of method does not inculcate legal culture, respect for the law. If one person can get away with doing this, it means that everyone is allowed to try, and this only means chaos. You have to understand that this kind of chaos is the worst possible thing for countries with a shaky economy and unstable political system. In this kind of situation you never know what kind of people events will bring to the fore. Just recall, for example, the role that [Ernst] Roehm’s storm troopers played during Hitler’s rise to power. Later, these storm troopers were liquidated, but they played their part in bringing Hitler to power. Events can take all kinds of unexpected turns.
Let me say again that in situations when people call for fundamental political reform and new faces at the top, and with full justification too – and in this I agree with the Maidan – there is a risk too that you’ll suddenly get some upstart nationalist or semi-fascist lot sprout up, like the genie suddenly let out of the bottle – and we see them today, people wearing armbands with something resembling swastikas, still roaming around Kiev at this moment – or some anti-Semite or other. This danger is there too.
QUESTION: Just today, incidentally, the Ukrainian envoy to the UN said that the crimes committed by Bandera’s followers were falsified by the Soviet Union. With May 9 coming closer, we can see now who is in power there today. Should we even have any contacts with them at all?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to have contact with everyone except for obvious criminals, but as I said, in this kind of situation, there is always the risk that events of this kind will bring people with extreme views to the fore, and this of course has serious consequences for the country.
QUESTION: You said that we should make contact with everyone. Yulia Tymoshenko was planning it seems, to come to Moscow.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As you know, we always worked quite productively with all of the different Ukrainian governments, no matter what their political colour. We worked with Leonid Kuchma, and with [Viktor] Yushchenko. When I was Prime Minister, I worked with Tymoshenko. I visited her in Ukraine and she came here to Russia. We had to deal with all kinds of different situations in our work to manage our countries’ economies. We had our differences, but we also reached agreements. Overall it was constructive work. If she wants to come to Russia, let her come. It’s another matter that she is no longer prime minister now. In what capacity will she come? But I personally have no intention of stopping her from coming to Russia.
QUESTION: Just a brief question: who do you think is behind this coup, as you called it, in Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I said before, I think this was a well-prepared action. Of course there were combat detachments. They are still there, and we all saw how efficiently they worked. Their Western instructors tried hard of course. But this is not the real problem. If the Ukrainian government had been strong, confident, and had built a stable system, no nationalists would have been able to carry out those programs and achieve the results that we see now.
The real problem is that none of the previous Ukrainian governments gave proper attention to people’s needs. Here in Russia we have many problems, and many of them are similar to those in Ukraine, but they are not as serious as in Ukraine. Average per capita [monthly] income in Russia, for example, is 29,700 rubles, but in Ukraine, if we convert it into rubles, it is 11,900 rubles, I think – almost three times lower than in Russia. The average pension in Russia is 10,700 rubles, but in Ukraine it is 5,500 rubles – twice lower than in Russia. Great Patriotic War veterans in Russia receive almost as much as the average worker each month. In other words, there is a substantial difference in living standards. This was what the various governments should have been focusing on right from the start. Of course they needed to fight crime, nepotism, clans and so on, especially in the economy. People see what is going on, and this creates lack of confidence in the authorities.
This has continued as several generations of modern Ukrainian politicians have come and gone, and the ultimate result is that people are disappointed and want to see a new system and new people in power. This was the main source of fuel for the events that took place. But let me say again: a change of power, judging by the whole situation, was probably necessary in Ukraine, but it should have taken place only through legitimate means, in respect for and not in violation of the current Constitution.
QUESTION: Mr President, if Crimea holds a referendum and the people there vote to secede from Ukraine, that is, if the majority of the region’s residents vote for secession, would you support it?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You can never use the conditional mood in politics. I will stick to that rule.
QUESTION: Is Yanukovych even still alive? There have been rumours that he died.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have seen him once since he arrived in Russia. That was just two days ago. He was alive and well and wishes you the same. He’ll still have a chance of catching a cold at the funeral of those who are spreading these rumours of his demise.
QUESTION: Mr President, what mistakes do you think Yanukovych made over these last months as the situation intensified in Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would rather not answer this question, not because I do not have an opinion to express, but because I do not think it would be proper on my part. You have to understand, after all…
QUESTION: Do you sympathise with him?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I have completely different feelings. Anyone in this office bears an enormous responsibility on their shoulders as head of state, and they have rights and also obligations. But the biggest obligation of all is to carry out the will of the people who have entrusted you with the country, acting within the law. And so we need to analyse, did he do everything that the law and the voters’ mandate empowered him to do? You can analyse this yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
QUESTION: But what feelings do you have for him? You said “not sympathy, but other feelings”. What feelings exactly?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s talk later.
QUESTION: You said just two questions back that we must above all send a clear signal to people in the south and southeast of Ukraine. The southeast, that’s understandable, but…
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to make our position clear to everyone, really.
We need to be heard by all of Ukraine’s people. We have no enemies in Ukraine. Let me say again that Ukraine is a friendly country. Do you know how many people came from Ukraine to Russia last year? 3.3 million came, and of that number almost 3 million people came to Russia for work. These people are working here – around 3 million people. Do you know how much money they send back home to Ukraine to support their families? Count up the average wage of 3 million people. This comes to billions of dollars and makes a big contribution to Ukraine’s GDP. This is no joking matter. We welcome all of them, and among the people coming here to work are also many from western Ukraine. They are all equal in our eyes, all brothers to us.
QUESTION: This is just what I wanted to ask about. We are hearing above all about the southeast of Ukraine at the moment, which is understandable, but there are ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people living in western Ukraine too, and their situation is probably even worse. They probably cannot raise their heads at all and are a downtrodden minority there. What can Russia do to help them?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Our position is that if the people who call themselves the government now hope to be considered a civilised government, they must ensure the safety of all of their citizens, no matter in which part of the country, and we of course will follow this situation closely.
Thank you.
