First Person

by Vladimir Putin

  Do you mean a system of oversight?

  Oversight and influence. All members of the Russian Federation should be placed under equal economic conditions vís à vis the federal center. We have signed a huge number of agreements on the separation of powers, but some federation members have unjustified privileges that others don’t.

  Tatarstan, for example?

  Tatarstan, for example.

  Shaimiev31 may not understand you.

  You’re wrong. He does understand. I recently discussed the problem with him in general terms. Shaimiev generally agreed with me.

  Everyone understands what is eroding the overall economic and political sphere. And that is one of our priorities.

  The next step is science and education. Without modern managers, without a contemporary understanding of what needs to be done, and without carriers of this understanding, it will be impossible to achieve results.

  But those “carriers” have already left the country.

  Not all of them. And we’ve preserved the most important thing—fundamental science and education. If we lose that, of course, it’s the end.

  Where are you going to get the money for all of this?

  You know, we don’t need that much money. The problem is not money. The problem is understanding.

  Well what, for example, would you pay young specialists, taking into account their understanding?

  Let’s say they are offered about $5,000 a month in the West. What if we were to pay them, theoretically speaking, $2,000 a month?

  Oy!

  Yes. And I bet the majority would not leave the country under those terms. To live in your own country, surrounded by your own language and peopleclose to you—your friends, your relatives, your acquaintances—and receive a little more money than others for that—it’s very advantageous.

  Still, it doesn’t make sense. You intend to pay higher salaries to judges, the state bureaucracy, and the army, and you will also need more money for education and science. Where are you going to get it? What if America decides tomorrow to sell its strategic oil reserves? The prices will fall, and then . . .

  We have money, but it has been slipping through our fingers. Until there is a strong state, we will remain dependent on someone’s strategic reserves.

  You’re a specialist in law. Is the law immutable?

  The law has to be observed, but if it becomes outdated, it must be altered. One of the postulates of legal theory is that the law always lags behind life.

  What about our Constitution? Is it lagging behind life?

  The Constitution should enshrine the most general principles. Therefore it lives longer than ordinary law. This is natural, since the Constitution guarantees society certain rules for the long term. But amendments can be made to it.

  Should amendments be made to the section in the Constitution about the powers of the president? Should they be limited? In fact, another type of amendment is being contemplated now—increasing the term of office of the president to seven years.

  I don’t know, maybe four years is enough time to get things done. But four years is a short term. The technical experts we’re working with are mapping out a year-by-year program of action. During the first, the agenda is to form goals and teams; during the second and part of the third, to gradually achieve concrete results; during the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth, to present our results and to begin the next election campaign. If that cycle is broken and everything is scattered, we won’t be able to get anything done, and we won’t be able to prepare for the next elections.

  What about the powers of the president?

  I can’t rule it out—amendments are possible. We must look carefully at how things are formulated and whether they correspond with the interests of the state and the society as a whole. If there are exceptional rights in the section on the powers of the president, then we should think about reviewing them. I believe this should be the subject of a broad discussion. But from the very beginning, Russia was created as a supercentralized state. That’s practically laid down in its genetic code, its traditions, and the mentality of its people.

  If you want to take a historical approach to these issues, then monarchy is also embedded in Russian tradition. Does that mean we should restore it?

  I think that is not very likely. But in general . . . in certain periods of time . . . in a certain place . . . under certain conditions . . . monarchy has played and continues to this day to play a positive role. In Spain, for instance. I think the monarchy played a decisive role in releasing the country from despotism and totalitarianism. The monarchy was clearly the stabilizing factor. The monarch doesn’t have to worry about whether or not he will be elected, or about petty political interests, or about how to influence the electorate. He can think about the destiny of the people and not become distracted with trivialities.

  And the prime minister will think about everything else.

  Yes, the government.

  But in Russia, that’s not possible.

  You know, there’s a lot that seems impossible and incredible and then—bang! Look what happened to the Soviet Union. Who could have imagined that it would simply collapse ? No one saw that coming—even in their worst night-mares.

  Were you present at the burial of the remains of the czar’s family in St. Petersburg?

  No.

  What do you think? Was burying them the right thing to do?

  I think so.

  Should the state have relations with big business?

  Definitely, because a lot depends on big business. But relations between the state and business should be defined by the law and by general rules. Businesses want this sort of regulation too, so that the state can’t play favorites and so that they’re all competing under equal conditions.

  So you don’t rule out dealing with big businessmen?

  Of course not. I think the state has to listen to both workers and trade unions as well as to the representatives of big business and associations of entrepreneurs. Much depends on the policies of firms and major companies. How can I pretend that this doesn’t matter to me? That would be a mistake. But the state should not command business.

  On the question of favorites: in an interview, Boris Berezovsky 32 said that he meets with you once a month. Is that true?

  It’s probably less often.

  On whose initiative?

  On his. He has such a lively mind. Most of his ideas are connected to the Caucasus—to Chechnya and Karachay-Cherkessia. He was, after all, deputy secretary of the Security Council, and worked on these issues. Incidentally, in my view, his proposals on Chechnya are not realistic or effective. Frankly speaking, that is why nothing that he has proposed is being implemented. From time to time, I not only meet with Berezovsky but also with other businessmen—for example Petr Aven, Potanin, and Alekperov.

  Your wife said that you don’t like to discuss your work colleagues. But we’re interested in people. In Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, for example. . . .

  Do you want me to give you an evaluation of his role in history?

  Well, you did have a relationship with him, including a personal one.

  I did not have a particularly close relationship with Boris Nikolayevich, just a good working relationship. He treats me very well and I am grateful to him for that. I hardly ever meet him in regular life.

  And you don’t play tennis?

  And I don’t play tennis. Before his retirement, I visited Yeltsin at home only on work-related matters. Moreover, I can say that only when he began to discuss the question of his resignation with me did I sense a certain warmth in him.

  Do you call him?

  Yes. He and I talk more now than we did before his retirement. Before, I wouldn’t have dreamed of calling him. . . . That is, I did pick up the phone and call him a few times, but only for work matters. Now our relationship is different. Now I can just call him and chat.

  But do you visit him?

  Yes, I visit him. Recen
tly I went to his house on business. Boris Nikolayevich said to me, “Please stay for dinner. We’re going to have sushi.” Apparently he once tried sushi in a restaurant and he liked it. So his wife and daughter decided to put together a Japanese meal at home. Of course I stayed. Afterward we sat for a long time drinking beer and talking.

  Does Yeltsin call you himself?

  Yes, he has called several times. He was intersted to find out how things were going in the Caucasus. And then he once asked how our internal troops were doing. He called about the CIS summit, and we met at his initiative to discuss how to raise certain issues during the meeting with the CIS leaders. And we discussed the leadership of the Commonwealth. His experience in this regard is very helpful.

  Everyone is wondering whether you are going to lock horns with Luzhkov33 like you did before?

  Lock horns? But I never had any fight with him.

  Alright, then. Will you try to break him, or will you work with him as with any other member of the Federation Council? 34

  Of course I’ll work with him. I’m prepared to rely on him as someone with great influence in the largest region of the country—the capital—but his own actions must be directed at strengthening the state.

  What were they directed at before?

  Until now, to a large extent, they have been aimed at satisfying his political ambitions. When a regional leader is so ambitious, I think it is destructive for the country.

  Actually, the fault lies not so much with the individual as with the central authority. As soon as the regional leaders sense that the government is strong and effective, they will return to the role prescribed for them by the Constitution, and begin to take care of business.

  Like the Ring Road?

  Yes, the Ring Road.

  They say a lot of money was stolen on that project.

  Whenever I hear someone accused of theft or something like that, I want to ask: Do we still presume people to be innocent? If a crime is not proven, no one can be accused of it.

  Of course, there is also a peculiarly Russian feature that is known to all. Remember that joke from the Soviet era? Brezhnev comes to visit Carter. Carter says, “Do you see that beautiful bridge there?” “Yes,” says Brezhnev. Carter tells him: “It has five lanes running one way and five lines running in the opposite direction. But the plans called for 10 lanes one way and 10 lanes the other way.” “Well, where are the missing lanes?” asks Brezhnev. “They’re all here!” says Carter, and points to the furniture in the White House. Brezhnev thinks, “Well, alright!” Then Carter comes to visit him in Russia. Brezhnev says, “See the Moscow River?” “I see it,” says Carter. “Do you see the bridge across it?” “No, I don’t.” “Because it’s all right here!” says Brezhnev and he points to the furniture in the Kremlin.

  Of course you can assume that somebody siphoned off funds from the construction of the Ring Road; but at least that road is out there, isn’t it? And you can be proud of it. And if somebody thinks that somebody stole something, let him go and prove it.

  How do you think Luzhkov is going to treat you?

  I think he will behave constructively. I don’t think he will really have a choice.

  What are you implying?

  Nothing. I’m not implying any forcible actions. You know, I think that many people believe that the president had ceased to be the center of power. Before, they behaved quite loyally. If need be, I will simply act in such a way as to guarantee that no one has such illusions anymore.

  The most famous Petersburger is Anatoly Chubais. Do you have a close relationship with him? Weren’t you acquainted with him in Peter?

  When I came to work for Sobchak, Chubais was the deputy chair of the Leningrad City Council executive committee. I never had any direct interaction with Chubais. I never dealt with him closely.

  How did you react to his voucher plan?

  I didn’t.

  What did you do with your own voucher?

  I lost it, at first, and then I found it and bought something with it, something stupid. About a year before the privatization, I spoke with Vasily Leontiev, the Nobel Prize winner, and he told me, “Give the property away to whomever you wish. In two or three years it will end up in the right hands anyway. Give it away free if you have to.” And Chubais did give it away. I think that was his exact approach—although, of course, you should ask him about it yourself.

  Two or three years? Do you think that’s inevitable?

  I don’t know whether it’s inevitable. What’s important is that the property be in the hands of an effective owner.

  But it wound up in the hands of a different owner.

  That’s just it.

  Weren’t you offended when Chubais came to work in the presidential administration, and the first thing he did was eliminate the position that had been promised to you?

  No, I wasn’t offended. I know his technocratic approach to the solution of problems. He had decided that the existing staff structure did not correspond to the challenges that faced the administration.

  There was nothing personal about it?

  There is no question of intrigue here. He is not the sort of person who is guided by sentiments. Of course I can’t say that I was overjoyed at the time, but I didn’t feel angry at him. Quite frankly, I wasn’t particularly hurt.

  So when did you establish more or less regular contact with Chubais?

  Never.

  But he comes and visits you at your dacha on occasion?

  Yes, he sometimes comes to visit.

  Were you surprised that Chubais supported the operation in Chechnya?

  Yes.

  Why?

  I thought that he lived in a world of illusions. But it turned out that he’s more of a pragmatist, that he’s capable of grasping the realities of life and is not guided by ephemeral ideas.

  And when he said that he supported your candidacy in the presidential elections?

  That didn’t surprise me either, because he knows perfectly well that I am not a dictator and don’t intend to return the country to an administrative economy ruled by directives.

  Chubais, by the way, is a very good administrator. I’ve watched him run the Commission on Operations, and I’ve seen him in action at government meetings. He is able to grasp the main point, and as Vladimir Ilyich Lenin used to say, pull out the whole chain. But of course, he is so hard-nosed, like a Bolshevik . . . yes, that’s the right word to describe him. Unfortunately, he has a bad credit record. I mean his public credit—the public’s trust in him—is low.

  What political leaders do you find most interesting?

  Napoleon Bonaparte. [Laughs.]

  No, seriously.

  De Gaulle, most likely. And I also like Erhard. He was a very pragmatic person. He was the one who built the new Germany after the war. In fact, his entire conception for the reconstruction of the country began with the creation of new moral values for society. For Germany, this was particularly important, after the collapse of Nazi ideology.

  Why have you postponed all your trips abroad until after the elections?

  It was a logistical problem: The president and the prime minister do not have the right to travel abroad at the same time, and I am simultaneously the acting president and the prime minister.

  Any other reason? Were you afraid that you would be pecked apart over Chechnya?

  I’d like to peck them all apart myself. But they didn’t really want to meet with us because of Chechnya. Or if they were prepared to meet, it was in a format and at a level of discussion that did not suit us. They would meet with us on our terms, they said, if we agreed to change our position on the Caucasus. That suited us even less, as it would have cost more than my trips abroad.

  But when you were still a “traveling” prime minister, you managed to meet with Clinton in New Zealand.

  Yes, I liked him.

  What did you like about him?

  He’s a very charming person. I liked talking to him.

  You
evidently share a mutual admiration for each other. He recently supported you on the Internet.

  In that first meeting, he also paid special attention to me. When we were in New Zealand—I don’t recall whether it was at lunch or dinner—he made a point of coming up to me. We had been seated at different tables. We talked about something for a while, and then he said, “Well, shall we go?” Everyone lined up in a corridor—the leaders of other states, guests—and he and I walked together along that corridor. We exited the hall to the sound of applause. I appreciated this sign of special regard. Maybe that’s why he made such a good impression on me. No, I’m just kidding around. In conversation, he just seems like a sincere person—open and friendly—and that’s very important.