And they can probably wrap Papa around their little fingers?
Nobody can wrap Papa around their little finger.
What’s that book in German? Do you read German?
Yes, our daughters’ teacher gave us this. She’s German. It’s a very interesting present, very touching. I haven’t read it yet.
Vladimir Putin:
You know what the book is called? My wife translated it as “Talented Women in the Shadow of Their Great Husbands.” But that’s not completely accurate. The literal translation is “Gifted Women in the Shadow of Their Famous Husbands.” I think that sounds much less complimentary to the husbands. The women are gifted, and the men are just famous.
Women who are in the shadow of their politician husbands probably have a complicated life. Women want attention. They like to be coddled. . .
I don’t need to be coddled. I’m more like the women in those old Russian tales—“She stops a horse in mid-gallop, and runs into a burning hut.” These are women who don’t need coddling.
But everybody’s interested in the wives of famous politicians. Have you never gotten mad at the press?
“Mad?”—that isn’t quite the right expression. You get mad at people who are close to you, who matter to you. Of course, there have been some unpleasant episodes. It’s unpleasant, for example, when a journalist bothers your mama and your sister for interviews—without any warning, taking advantage of their naïveté. It’s unpleasant when they dig into your background. It’s unpleasant when they lie.
What is your husband’s attitude toward the press? Does he watch TV?
The news and sometimes a movie.
Does he react at all?
Either he laughs or he gets upset, or he worries. I would say he reacts quite emotionally. On Saturday or Sunday, if we’re home, he watches the analytical programs.
Vladimir Putin:
I read all the newspapers. The actual newspapers, not digests. It doesn’t matter what order I read them in. I just start with whatever’s on top. I read Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Sovetskaya Rossiya, Kommersant. I watch the news if there’s time. I’ve watched Kukly,22 but only a couple of times; it doesn’t annoy me, but my friends take offense. Friends no doubt have the right to do that.
Do you have friends?
I have three girlfriends.
And your husband?
It always seemed to me that half of St. Petersburg was friends with Volodya. We always had a full house. Especially on weekends, but even during the week. Somebody was always coming over—usually at Volodya’s invitation. He loves socializing with people. I think that if he didn’t, he wouldn’t have been able to handle the stress. His friends from Peter come to visit us here and stay overnight.
Vladimir Putin:
The lack of contact with friends has really weighed on me, because I have some very good friends. In fact, our friends are our lives, they are us, they are a part of ourselves. I felt this keenly when I went to work abroad. The first few years, I missed my friends terribly. Without them, it was all empty and lonely. Although I had a heavy workload at my job, and a family and a home, I realized that our identity is in our friends. After our third year in Germany, we began to adapt and develop new ties. And suddenly I realized that I wasn’t looking forward to going home on holiday. Really! It startled me.
I have a lot of friends, but only a few people are really close to me. They have never gone away. They have never betrayed me, and I haven’t betrayed them, either. In my view, that is what counts most. I don’t even know why you would betray your friends. For your career? Career alone doesn’t mean much to me. Of course, a career offers you the opportunity to make something of yourself, to do something interesting. But how can you make something of yourself if you are betraying yourself? It’s all very simple. If you look at a career as a means to achieve power, control people, or make money, and if you are prepared to lose everything doing that—well, that’s another matter. But if you have priorities in life—benchmarks and values—then you realize that there’s no point in sacrificing yourself and those who are a part of your life. There just isn’t any point. You lose more than you gain. That’s the way it is.
You probably have to go to receptions, be visible, and observe etiquette. Is your husband’s social life a burden?
Not if there’s somebody to chat with. And it’s fun to dress up. Women like to dress nicely. On the other hand, politics itself has never interested me. It’s boring.
Would you rather wear a skirt or pants?
Now I prefer skirts, but before it was pants. For everyday life I love knits-a skirt and sweater. But for official meetings now I have to wear suits.
In the old days, the wives of the leaders used to buy clothes in a closed section of GUM.23 Now where do you go shopping?
In the same stores as everybody else. I recently went to Escada and bought the pants and the sweater I’m wearing right now. I spent a week driving around town looking for some boots for myself. I never found them. I couldn’t find the right size.
Do you buy your husband’s clothes?
There was a time when I shopped for him. And I still do, now and then. Clothes have never meant much to him. He’s always had two—or, at the most, three—suits. And then jeans and shirts. At home he usually wears jeans and a sweater. He dresses very casually. But now, because he’s always in the public eye, he has begun to dress a little more carefully.
Many people noticed that the sleeves of his suits used to be too long. Now they’re okay.
That was my fault. Sometimes I was just too lazy to shorten his sleeves. Now he goes to a tailor.
If you buy him a tie, does he wear it without complaining?
Only if it goes with his shirt and suit. And no, he doesn’t do anything without complaining.
You used to have long hair, and now you wear it short. Where do you get your hair done?
At Irina Baranova’s. She used to do Nina Iosifovna Yeltsina’s hair too. I think Irina is wonderful. She has her own salon.
And who’s your husband’s barber?
There are various barbers, either at the FSO or the FSB.24 He’s never paid much attention to his haircut. I like it when his hair is cut very short.
Do you go on vacation together?
We used to. Twice we went to Kurskiy Zaliv [Courland Lagoon] in Latvia. We’ve been abroad. But now . . . you know, I don’t make plans anymore. I used to make them, and when they fell apart I would get very upset and offended. But now I understand it’s easier not to make plans for shared vacations or holidays or time off, so as not to be disappointed.
You sound so sad when you say that.
No, not at all. I knew it would be like this. After all, if I was only worried about myself, then at some point I would have said to my husband, “Volodya, I beg you, don’t do that. Let’s stay on the sidelines. Let’s do something else.” But I didn’t say that.
Part 9
THE POLITICIAN
Putin tackles the toughest issues in Russia today—the brutal war in Chechnya, the conflict in Kosovo, squabbles with NATO, financial scandals, corruption, and the weakness of the Russian judicial system. He discusses people—Yeltsin, Clinton, the people he trusts, the people he doesn’t—and recreates the moment Yeltsin offered him the reins of power. Was he ready to govern one of the most complex, formidable, and volatile countries in the world? Would he ever be?
Your wife told us that you once gave an impromptu press conference to the French and spent two hours answering tricky political questions. Would you risk doing the same thing with us?
What are we going to talk about?
Everything.
What you’re trying to achieve in Chechnya is more or less clear: a final ousting of the rebels. Do you know what to do in Chechnya after that?
First, we have to finish the military operation. What does that mean? We have to break up the major bandit formations—that is, units of ten or more fighters. Simultaneously we need to strengthen
the role of law enforcement agencies and restore government agencies. We have to tackle social problems, schools, and hospitals. We must more actively create jobs. Then hold elections.
We need to hold a by-election for a parliamentary representative from Chechnya. The republic must have its own deputy in the Russian Duma. Depending on how the situation turns out, the introduction of direct presidential rule may be necessary.
Direct presidential rule? For how long?
For a year or two. During that time, we have to restore all the governmental agencies and transition to other new political procedures: that is, elections to the local governing bodies, and to the post of leader of the republic. And as a necessary precondition, to form a base of reliable people.
Will you appoint them from Moscow? Will they be Russians or Chechens?
Various options are possible, including a mixed leadership. There are many possibilities. That’s something we will have to decide. We have to choose people not by their ethnic characteristics but by their abilities.
But we’ve already had all that, although in a different form—elections, and the government agencies, and the social assistance. And then the rebels took Grozny back in a heartbeat. There’s no guarantee this won’t happen again.
You know what the guarantee is? I repeat: The bandits will be destroyed. Whoever takes up arms will be destroyed. And we’re prepared to do business with all the rest. Let them elect a head of the republic. We are prepared to sign an agreement with Chechnya. How many power limitation agreements are there? Humans have developed an enormous number of ways to help different people in one state live in harmony. Yes, some sort of compromise has to be sought, and we will seek it. But no one will force any sort of decision on us.
But aren’t we forcing it on them? Do you really think that no one will seek revenge? Not one person?
Russia was provoked into taking action. After all, the bandits are robbing Chechnya, robbing their own people. For three years, they have been stealing people’s pay, pensions, and aid. And the majority of Chechens believe that their rulers are to blame.
But you’re intending to establish diktat.
Nothing of the kind. We are using force against the bandits, not the people. The bandits are the ones who are trying to dictate to Chechens how they should live and even how they should pray to Allah. We will establish order. There will be peace and quiet in the republic. And then we’ll move on to elections, and we’ll make an agreement with the new leadership about the power relationship between Chechnya and the federal center, understanding that we still have to live together.
Do you have any better suggestions? Should we leave again, drop everything, and then wait for them to attack us? Isn’t that a crime? Wouldn’t it be a crime to abandon ordinary Chechens and to undermine Russia?
Or stay in Chechnya and wait to be attacked? What should we do?
I have said what we must do. We must go through the mountain caves and scatter and destroy all those who are armed. Perhaps after the presidential elections, we should introduce direct presidential rule there for a couple of years. We must rebuild the economy and the social services, show the people that normal life is possible. We must pull the young generation out of the environment of violence in which it is living. We must put a program of education in place . . . We must work. We must not abandon Chechnya as we did before. In fact, we did a criminal thing back then, when we abandoned the Chechen people and undermined Russia. Now we must work hard, and then transfer to full fledged political procedures, allowing them and us to decide how we can coexist. It is unavoidable fact: We must live together.
We have no plans to deport Chechens, as Stalin once solved the problem. And Russia has no other choice. Nobody can impose a solution on us by force but we are prepared to take maximum consideration of Chechen interests. We will negotiate and search for a compromise for our coexistence. And when they come to realize that this is an acceptable solution, they won’t want to take up arms anymore.
But until they come to realize this, peaceful residents will turn into bandits and attack liberated settlements, and it’s not clear whether they will ever understand this. We will destroy those who resort to arms. And we will have to create a local elite, which understands that it is in Chechnya’s interests to remain part of Russia. As things stand today, any discussion of any status outside of the framework of Russia is out of the question.
The rebels have already sentenced you to death several times.
One should never fear such threats. It’s like with a dog, you know. A dog senses when somebody is afraid of it, and bites. The same applies here. If you become jittery, they will think that they are stronger. Only one thing works in such circumstances—to go on the offensive. You must hit first, and hit so hard that your opponent will not rise to his feet.
The army will do its business and then go back into its barracks.
Chechnya isn’t the whole country. What do you think the country needs above all? What’s the main priority?
We must clearly and accurately determine our goals—not just speak about them in passing. These goals must become comprehensible and accessible to every person. Like the Code of the Builder of Communism.
And what would you write in the first line of this Code?
Moral values.
Will we once again search for Russia’s special path?
You don’t have to search for anything, it’s already been found. It’s the path of democratic development. Of course, Russia is a very diverse country, but we are part of Western European culture. No matter where our people live, in the Far East or in the south, we are Europeans.
All that remains is for Europe to think that, too.
We will fight to keep our geographical and spiritual position. And if they push us away, then we’ll be forced to find allies and reinforce ourselves. What else can we do?
Bring Babitsky back!*
I think you have to direct that request to the bandits.
2Andrei Babitsky is a Russian journalist who works for the U.S.-funded Radio Liberty and has written highly graphic accounts of the horrors of the war in Chechnya from behind rebel lines. Frustrated by his “unpatriotic” journalism and his coverage of Russian atrocities, the Russian government arrested him in February 2000 and then handed him over to the Chechen rebels, allegedly in exchange for several Russian POWs. Babitsky himself then reported that in fact be had been handed over to pro-Moscow Chechens working for the Russian army. This conversation took place before Babitsky’s release in March 2000 under pledge not to leave Moscow pending investigation.
But people doubt that he is really being held by the rebels.
Really? Well, they shouldn’t. And Cochetel?25 Where is he? And where is General Shpigun?26 And they are holding 258 people. Where are they?
Cochetel didn’t even manage to photograph anything. He came across the Georgian border and he was seized immediately. Now he is sitting in a basement and writing letters: “I can’t endure it any longer. Do anything to set me free.” And Maskhadov27 has been saying up until now that he has no idea where the Frenchman is, but he recently called Lord Russell-Johnston 28 and offered to swap him.
So it turns out that Maskhadov does after all, control the situation. He just won’t admit it. Which means that he can’t be trusted. So when he says he knows nothing about Babitsky’s whereabouts and that he doesn’t know the field commanders who were interceding on his behalf, we obviously can’t believe him.
Is Babitsky alive?
Yes, he is alive. I think the rebels even sent a video today. You can see very clearly in the video that he is alive.
When will he show up in Moscow?
He’ll show up. And as soon as he shows up, he will be summoned for interrogation.
That’s odd. First you release him against a written pledge not to leave Moscow, then you exchange him, and then you summon him for interrogation.
I’ll tell you this: Our country is going through a rather complex period o
f time. You would agree that Russia’s defeat in the first Chechen war was due to a large extent due to the state of society’s morale. Russians didn’t understand what ideals our soldiers were fighting for. Those soldiers gave their lives and in return they were anathematized. They were dying for the interests of their country and they were publicly humiliated.
This time around, fortunately, it’s different. Babitsky and his ilk were essentially trying to reverse the situation. He was working directly for the enemy. He was not a neutral source of information. He was working for the bandits.
First Person Page 14
