Miroporyadok (2015) - full transcript

Our ambition was to make a film
about the new world order and its values.

And about what's happening to us.

About the world we
inherited from our fathers

and the world we will
leave to our children.

This called for looking, thinking,
listening and analyzing

Only if you do this
your conclusions will not be false.

Mr. Putin, will there be a war?

Do you mean a world war?

THE WORLD ORDER

There are common values in the world.

OLIVER STONE
Film director (USA)



These are in every
religion, color, form and field.

The world is infinitely mysterious,
infinitely deep.

The struggle goes on!

Those who refer to the current
social system as perfect must be cynics.

Sahra Wagenknecht
Member of the Bundestag

Today's world isn't fair. Making the world
fair is the only political ambition.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Director of the IMF (2007-2011)

To a degree, this will depend
on the concrete decisions

of specific individuals.

Thomas Graham, assistant to
the President of the USA (2004-2007)

The situation is extremely dangerous.

I'm urged to ask those
who created this situation:

Do you at least realize now
what you've done?

New York. The UN General Assembly.



You are met by a less than friendly
audience, and after the US President.

Vladimir Solovyov

Did you know already what Obama
had said in his speech?

Frankly, no,
because I had just arrived.

And you tell them
in their face,

"Do you at least realize now
what you've done?"

I didn't say this to him.

Not him, but them.

No. You know, I've talked with many
leaders both in Europe and in the US,

and for many years,

When they launched these operations
in Afghanistan or Iraq

and later in Libya,

I always took a firm stance
that this should be done very carefully.

You can't spread your schemes
and your views of good and evil —

in this case of good and democracy -

mechanically to other
countries and nations...

which have a different culture,
religions and traditions.

But frankly, no one listens any more.

Why?

Probably because they think of
themselves as great and infallible.

But they don't assume
any responsibility for their actions.

The situation in Syria.
It's a humanitarian catastrophe.

Of the roughly 23 million people
living in the country,

nearly half are turned refugees
or got killed.

Julian Assange
Journalist (Australia)

So half the country
has been annihilated.

Julian Assange,
on the WikiLeaks website.

published thousands of pages
of diplomatic correspondence

that shed light on war crimes in Iraq
and on the preparations for destabilizing Syria.

Trapped at the Ecuadorian Embassy
in London for the past three years,

Assange is hiding from the charges
that are questioned around the world.

A few years back, his name could
have become a legend of journalism.

Now he is political hostage
of the modern world order.

We demonstrate proofs in our network

that the USA have tried to
overthrow Assad at least since 2006.

To do this, they not only increase
actual discontent inside the country

in regard to the democracy
and human rights

but also provoke Assad's
government to react

by stirring up discontent
inside the country.

These are actual quotes from
confidential US government reports.

And so is "promoting tensions
between the Sunni and the Shia".

The entire Muslim world was colonized
as far back as 200 years before WWII.

Pervez Musharraf
President of Pakistan (2001-2008)

Maybe all apart from Turkey.
The whole Muslim world.

When we got independence, we were
a poor, illiterate, backward nation.

Religion was the only support
for the illiterate and backward masses.

Pervez Musharraf used to be
an ally of the United States.

First of all, I've arrived to congratulate
the President Bush with his victory in the elections.

Friendship between
the USA and Pakistan is vital

to ensure the security and
stability in the Middle East.

General Musharraf seized power
in a military coup

and ruled Pakistan with an iron hand.

His life is a carbon copy of the lives
of many other Eastern leaders

who pledged loyalty to Washington.

As soon as their policies
become too independent,

Washington hangs them out to dry.

After losing power in his country,

Musharraf fled
from legal prosecution to London

and has returned to Karachi
only recently.

Islamists have made
many attempts at his life.

Nevertheless, he has developed a
peaceful strategy for the Islamic world.

The strategy concerns
the Muslim world.

We reject extremism and terrorism,

and go for the way
of social development.

And we ask the world to
help us, the Muslim world,

one of the most backward
and uneducated worlds,

to help us with social
and economic development.

But we demand that
the West, on the other hand,

should resolve political issues
concerning the Muslim world.

In December 2011,

we published a document
that covered a meeting of the US,

French and British Air Force,

and the US private
intelligence division, Stratfor.

It is a private contractor of
the American intelligence.

They discussed the matters in
Syria, who and how was acting there.

They said secret agents
were acting there already

in order to promote
the organization of murders.

But they also needed public
rebellions and bloodsheds

to have a significant reason to intervene
and attack the Syrian air defense forces.

Russia has exercised its right
to veto over Syria four times.

And three times jointly with China
over the political aspects

of the Syrian crisis...

We said, friends, look,

the Security Council must not
be involved in changing regimes.

There are arms suppliers,

companies that are close to
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar,

such as CIA, Air Force, etc.

These tend to strengthen,

to justify their budgets
via intervention in Syria.

In Syria, before the hostilities,
HADZH BAYL, Refugee

we lived okay
and had everything we needed.

Those who say otherwise
are simply lying.

Our wages were enough.

Life was cheap.
I mean normal ordinary life.

When the terrorists came,
it became as bad as it gets.

The situation in Syria definitely stems

Vyacheslav Nikonov
Political scientist

from serious violations
of international law

established by the United Nations
Charter 70 years ago in San Francisco,

based on the Yalta
Conference principles.

It was a meeting of allies,
but the kind of allies that were more inclined

to bare their teeth behind the scenes.

It was no coincidence
that Stalin actually slept at the

Yusupov Palace in Yalta
at the time which was situated

exactly between the places
where Churchill and Roosevelt were living.

He did this in order to be able
to spot any separate moves

those two could have made,
such as pay a visit to each other

and perhaps contemplate something
against Russia.

Against the then Soviet Union.

It was the trust-but-verify adage
in action, always.

In any case, what emerged after Yalta
was not designed as unipolar.

Fedor Lukyanov
Political scientist

The underlying idea of that world order
was effectively dividing

the world into two camps,
two blocs, two systems,

both engaged in a complicated web
of relations with each other,

but counter-balancing each other
more than anything.

So when did it start?

At what point did the Yalta structure
begin to crumble?

After the demise
of the Soviet Union, I think.

You were witness
to the fall of the Wall... you worked there...

Not exactly. I had returned
to the Soviet Union before that,

I had left before the Wall fell.
But it was not about the Wall

The Yalta Conference documented
the real balance of power at that time.

In 1945, the victorious nations,
they built a system that suited to

the political alignment
of forces at the time.

A lot has changed since then.
Nuclear weapons emerged as

a major factor in global affairs.

It has since spread
to several other countries.

New emerging giants such as India
and China have entered the scene,

while the Soviet Union
left the political stage.

So the bipolar system,
it seems to have just collapsed.

Not shook, but collapsed.

For our partners, that could have been
a great moment to think about,

taking advantage of this situation
and emerging as moral leaders

in new global relations.

But they continued to act
and think in their old ways.

The Cold War clichés
seemed stuck in their heads.

Was there a moral dimension
to the agreements reached in Yalta?

We were naive to believe that they were
based on moral principles.

While they were simply afraid
of the Soviet power.

No, I can't agree with that.

I think that far from being based
on any kind of moral values,

the Yalta Conference
and the ensuing agreements were

primarily dictated
by the actual balance of power

and the experience of
the previous decades.

Among other things,

the bitter experience
of the so-called League of Nations,

created in the aftermath
of WWI with

a view to regulating interstate relations,
played a role.

But it didn't take long
before it was history.

Why? Because it lacked an instrument
that could have

allowed it to prevent conflicts.

A new concept was developed
to establish the United Nations and

the UN Security Council.

First and foremost...

There's Chapter 7
that envisages the use

of force against states
that breach international peace.

The same chapter
stipulates that this requires

a unanimous decision
by the UN Security Council.

And its permanent members have veto right.
What does this mean?

It means that no one
can take such harsh measures unless

there's full consensus
and agreement on the issue.

This is the cornerstone
of international law.

WHAT FOR?

23.12.1999
FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS

We, I'm referring to Yugoslavia,

became the first victim
of a newly established order.

Aleksander Vucic
Prime Minister of Serbia

of which we knew nothing,

even though someone
was working hard to create it.

In 1992,

Emir Kusturica
Filmmaker (Serbia)

George H.W. Bush said that
all the republics of former Yugoslavia

would be able
to establish diplomatic relations

with the United States
only after they seceded from Yugoslavia.

Tomislav Nikolic
President of Serbia

Several months of a focused campaign
was all it took for the people

of this country to
want it to fall apart.

It was a country with its own flag,
Olympic team, sea and mountains...

The disintegration of Yugoslavia
was the greatest injustice for me.

The bombing of the country
went on for 78 days.

All major cities, defense and civil infrastructure,
suffered from air strikes.

The operation to destroy Yugoslavia
was carried out by

14 NATO members,

and included 1,200 aircraft,
three aircraft carriers, six attack submarines,

two cruiser ships,
seven destroyers, thirteen frigates,

four landing carriers,
and 60000 NATO troops.

Today, when a big country
attacks a small one,

it always says that it does so
in the name of justice, morality, higher goals

and in the interest of democracy,
with the sole purpose

of helping other people
to have a better life.

Lord David Owen
Minister of Foreign Affairs (UK, 1977-1999)

We had no right to start the war.

The UN Security Council meeting
on the Balkans

without the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia can lead nowhere,

since one of the key parties
with a real impact on regional developments

is barred from taking part
in the discussion. Thank you.

(Lavrov walking out
of the UN Security Council in 2000)

We exited from this situation devastated,
the whole world left from it devastated.

We, the Serbs, are familiar
with the refugee problem.

We know how hard they have it.

My father... was born in Serbia.

He is from a family of refugees,
a refugee himself.

The refugees are willing and hopeful.

All they want is
to forget the bloody past...

Refugee camp for Serbs

As for hope...

I hope that my dear wife,
my son and I will one fine day drink

morning coffee looking
at the most beautiful color in the world,

the color of the walls
of our own home.

Milan Pevalica
Refugee

The war in Yugoslavia showed
that our civilization

has been exhausted across the board.

It is no longer Christian,
Muslim or even atheist.

It no longer has
any underlying principles or ideals.

Our country is a great
country, having many great things.

I love it, and this is my homeland.

I love it the way I love my mother,
but also I hate my mother.

We had many disputes in the past.

She's already gone, but my
she'll always stay with me.

As will my country.

I was young, I served my
country, I was twice wounded.

I fought, I believed in what we did.

And many years past until I
learned: the brutality of war is awful.

It changed the American
society for worse.

Carelessness became the consequence
of what happened during that war.

Vietnam. We in Afghanistan...

It turns out
it didn't always work out.

Let's not mix us up with Vietnam...

us with Afghanistan and with Vietnam.

After all, we intervened in Afghanistan
at the demand of the Afghan

incumbent government and president.

There's a huge difference.

Whether we had to get entangled
as we did in Afghanistan

is a different question,
one we have yet to answer.

This is also quite an ambiguous matter,
you know.

It's hard to say whether it was
the right thing to do or not.

It's clear that there were
a lot of mistakes.

But the decision itself, whether it was
the right thing to do or not,

requires careful consideration...

A lot of mistakes compared to what?

Compared to the Vietnam campaign
by the US, we made few mistakes.

I think so. But the fact
that the Afghan campaign,

if we can call it that, was a mistake
for the Soviet Union, is obvious.

Despite their experience in Vietnam,

America has not stopped interfering
in all international affairs,

whereas Russia has been afraid
of this for years,

even though it has
a much more positive experience.

It's not that we are afraid.

We behave more discretely,
and when we do something,

we try to protect ourselves from

potentially negative consequences
as much as possible.

And yet...

But they don't think about this,
they are great, sitting across the ocean.

With the dollar as the global currency
and the world's largest economy...

and when they launch an operation,
and it fails they think:

what, we weren't successful?
Time to move on to the next one.

Between the years 1981 and 2001
it looked like the world had resurged

Fedor Lukyanov
Political scientist

and was growing stronger
under US management.

The 9/11 terrorist attacks shook America
to the core. Being a major power,

America needed to absorb
and respond to this shock.

I can hear you! I can hear you!
The entire world can hear you!

And those who have attacked
these buildings will hear you all soon!

The start for me was the tension
which was increasing in Iraq,

Dominique de Villepin
France's Prime Minister (2005-2007)

and the worsening of relationships between
USA and the regime of Sadam al-Hussein.

The military intervention
by USA was quite possible.

In 2002-2003 we worked hand
in hand with Russia and Germany

in order to prevent US
military intervention in Iraq.

Russia, France, Germany and believe me

the overwhelming majority
of the international community believe

that the Iraq problem can
and should be settled diplomatically.

My fellow citizens, at the present
moment, American coalition forces

are starting the military operation
aimed at disarmament of Iraq

for liberation of people and protection
of the world from the deadly danger.

On the night of March 19/20,
2003 AD,

or 1424 Hijri,
in the Islamic calendar,

I was shocked when
we returned to Iraq.

US failed to learn the lesson
of the war in Vietnam, which says:

We mustn't
invade other countries.

At a certain moment we lost
our belief in the international law.

Britons and Americans again invaded
Iraq, and again without UN resolution.

The execution of Saddam Hussein.

No one knows what the executioners
and their victim

were talking about in the last minutes.
The footage has no audio.

Preparations for the execution
were filmed in cynical detail.

Clearly, Saddam Hussein remained calm,
even when

his neck was wrapped
in a black headscarf,

although he, of course, was aware
of what would happen in a minute.

He was aware of it primarily because

he himself was a bloody
and brutal dictator.

However, the judges are not
much different from the accused.

Why was there no investigation
into the murder of Saddam Hussein?

This Arab leader was hanged,

and we are sitting
on the sidelines doing nothing. Why?

Summit of the League of Arab Nations.
26 March 2011

One of you will be next.

Muammar Gaddafi

Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State (USA, 2009-2013)

We came, we saw, he died.

Was the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
a tyranny?

It's hard to say.

Relatively, yes. Very relatively.
Did it have ideas, elements of democracy?

Of course it did.

Of course it did.

Was it better when Gaddafi was in charge
than it is now?

Definitely better. Incomparably better.

Therefore, if you call a spade a spade,
ask yourself questions and then

give honest answers

you'll come to the realization

that it's like a runaway car engine,
that something went wrong

In 1991 and 1993,

they sort out Iraq without the permission
of the UN Security Council

find their own methods,
and get away with it.

It's like I said - impunity.

It's one of the reasons
for extremely sloppy behavior

in the international arena.

Because there's no one to answer to.

The largest, the most powerful country,
both economically and militarily.

Therefore, there is a temptation
to skirt things.

Or to declare the existing structure
of international relations obsolete.

The modern architecture
of international relations is based on

the United Nations Charter.

This is the foundation
of modern public international law.

But it's being complied with
only when there are at least two forces.

When we came back as a force

it became clear
that we can again talk

about the role of the Security Council
and the United Nations.

Well, not always.
I wouldn't put too much focus on this

Of course, disputes often arise
where the interests of the states collide,

or the states are played one against
the other, or for objective reasons.

Such conflicts may result
in violations of the UN Charter.

However, occasionally they coincide.

Regarding the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction,

we have full consensus
with the Europeans, the Americans,

and the Chinese, our Chinese friends.

Nobody wants more countries
with nuclear weapons.

We know that this may be dangerous
to international peace and security.

However, the United States
is going to supply to Germany...

What?

their planes equipped with...

US tactical nuclear weapons have
always been there after World War II,

after America became a nuclear power.

Now, they are just replacing them
with upgraded equipment.

There's nothing new about that.
However, it certainly is dangerous,

because our tactical nuclear weapons
are not strategic

with regard to the United States.

They cannot reach their territory,

whereas US tactical nuclear weapons
in Europe can reach our territory.

In that sense,
they are of strategic nature for us.

And they are of greater threat to us

than our tactical nuclear
weapons are for them.

I don't know Putin,
but I'm sure that his policy

is the bravest
of all Russian policies.

Putin really closed
the military base in Cuba.

He closed the military
base in North Korea.

He settled two, three
or four problems

which caused tensions in relationships

between Russia and USA.

It was him who took the initiative.

The United States is an empire
of military bases.

The country has more than 1,400 bases
scattered around the world.

in more than 120 countries.

Russia has only 12, or less than 1 percent
of that number.

So today there is no balance.

For example, NATO's eastward expansion,

and the fact that German servicemen
are going there

and the United States is conducting
military exercises

almost near the Russian border...

these are very dangerous things
that have become possible

only at the request of Eastern
European countries.

By repeating that they feel threatened

the Baltic countries
have essentially legitimized this process.

That said, not a single sensible person
in the world would believe

that Russia is going to attack
the Baltic countries.

I saw the growth
of the national security

of the American state
on a global scale.

I realized that the state is eager
to control the economy of the world,

in order to control the flow of
ideas, as well as money and goods.

We start wars, we like the idea of war.

There is no more important task
in the world than making peace.

We lack it.
We need to go back

and recall that we are interconnected
by the UN statutes, all of us.

The 1947 decision to partition Palestine
into two states was one of

the most important decisions
with far-reaching consequences

ever made by this organization.

Vitaliy Churkin
UN's Russian representative

Hardly anyone suspected
that this seemingly necessary decision

would become a time bomb.

Nobody can make me surrender.

It's not pleasant for me
to repeat these words.

I am here to fight and to win.

Yasser Arafat. Chairman of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (1969-2004)

We had a hard peace.

Because Palestinians were divided.

Shimon Peres
President of Israel (2007-2014)

They had two groups:

one continued terror activities,

the second refused
and wanted negotiations.

I came here
with an olive branch in one hand

and a weapon of revolution
in the other.

don't let the olive branch
fall from my hand...

Don't let the olive branch
fall from my hand!

Don't let the olive branch
fall from my hand!

From the early days I thought

if we are ready to forgive ourselves,

why can't we forgive others?

The peace is a dialog, it is
an unfinished peace, unfinished.

What is missing?

Why can't anyone find a recipe
for establishing the world order?

As I mentioned before.

it's about the vestiges
of the Cold War and the past -

they are in our way
and prevent us from making strides.

After all,

Europe expanded at the expense
of Eastern European countries,

which have always been very suspicious
of the Soviet Union,

at least over the past several decades
of its existence.

and transferred this feeling
to modern Russia.

Some of the Western European leaders
told me during our debates

on same issues
that we did this and that to them.

I said we never did that,
the Soviet Union did.

They still have these stereotypes.

One state...

Yes, they believe that we are
the Soviet Union, which is not true.

They either cannot
or do not want to understand it.

Because it is more convenient for them
to keep it that way.

In many Eastern European countries,
anti-Russian propaganda

and politics have become a factor
in domestic political life.

It is often used to come to power
and stay in power.

So they inflate these sentiments,
which is harmful and counterproductive.

It's interesting how following
the collapse of the Soviet Union,

all those who could not defend
themselves were forced to break up

into smaller pieces, as if someone
was trying to reduce them to dust.

It's convenient.

This policy — divide and conquer —
dates back to the Roman Empire.

The idea is to break nations
into smaller pieces

so as to make them more controllable.

As it turned out, you can always find —
especially in the countries with

economic and social issues —
people who are willing to support separatism

and permanent division
in respective territories.

Ukraine is Europe! Ukraine is Europe!

I don't believe that accepting weak
countries in the European Union

is the right thing to do,
because becoming part of the eurozone

will not improve their situation
in any way.

Ukraine is unlikely to benefit
from joining the European Union,

although I don't think anyone
is seriously considering this.

Previous experience indicates
that strong polarization usually

follows poorer countries
after they join the eurozone.

There are people who got rich
when their countries joined the EU.

They can be found anywhere:
in Eastern Europe, Bulgaria, or Romania.

However, these
countries paid the price —

their poor have become
significantly more impoverished.

In many countries,
the manufacturing industry was destroyed,

because it wasn't competitive.

In addition, many countries lost significant
portions of their population.

People emigrate en masse from
Lithuania, Estonia and other countries.

I'm not really sure whether there's
a model of the future for those countries.

In Ukraine
there's no social organization system

that would take into account
the interests of the majority.

I believe the interests
of specific oligarchs are at play there.

who see a chance to profit
from exporting agricultural products

and the like to the European Union.

Color revolutions
have taken place in many countries,

and their key features
look the same in all instances.

Of course, much of what we saw
in Ukraine two years ago

is very similar to what we had seen
in the Middle East and North Africa.

Demonstrations,
the toppling of a dictator and

ultimately, complete freedom.

We've been wrong to insist
on our form of democracy.

Everything is much more complicated,
as we can now see.

One may think that these are the processes
that come from below,

but this is all about high-tech provocations
seeking to drive the masses

to violent changes of regime.

That is, if you call a spade a spade,

it is precisely
a violent change of regime.

It's about imposing a certain system
under the guise of democracy.

There's a famous maxim:
Democracies don't fight each other.

If so, then the more democracy,
the less the threat of an attack.

FYODOR LUKHANOV. POLITICAL SCIENTIST
It makes sense.

If a democracy can't take root
some place for whatever reason,

they might need help.
It has to be promoted.

That's how Iraq, and later
the idea of a large campaign

to democratize the Middle East
came about.

For democracy as a concept,

this is probably
the worst thing that could happen.

Making democracy a tool
defeats its purpose.

On August 14, 2013,

100 churches were attacked,
ransacked and burned.

This hurt the Christians of Egypt badly.
A civil war nearly broke out.

FEODOR II
Patriarch of the Coptic Church

Then I took advantage of my authority
and said that even if they

burn all the churches,

We will come to our Muslim brethren
and pray in their mosques.

And if they burn all the mosques,
we will pray together in the streets.

People's faces show pain and sorrow.

They are the relatives of Egyptian Coptic
Christians kidnapped in Libya,

who are believed to be dead.

Heinous settings.

Each frame has been verified
and represents a metaphor.

Wild waves. Clearly,
they've been waiting for

a little storm to break out
and the sky to become overcast.

The Mediterranean Sea coast
as a message to Europe:

"We'll come to you soon. We are close.”

The place where the brutal massacre
took place remains unknown.

But the Coptic Christians
were captured in a Libyan town

populated by Sikhs.

The smoke of incense goes up
in a village church.

The parishioners are
praying for the dead.

It's important to prevent terrorists
from seizing power in entire states,

SERGEY LAVROV
Minister of Foreign Affairs (Russia)

to refrain from playing along
with terrorists.

It's imperative to think about the future
of the countries of the region,

preserving their secular nature.

And saving the Middle East
as the cradle of the world's great religions.

It's important to promote
political reforms in the region.

However, they should be promoted
in a way that's different from

what happened during the Arab Spring
when the government was toppled

and things left
to take care of themselves,

as if democracy can take root itself.

It is imperative to help the countries
of the region

torn by outside intervention,

whose statehood was undermined,
along with their ability to fight terrorism.

Things are varied when it comes
to fighting terrorism.

For example, Saudi Arabia is not
a terrorist organization,

but it's a country with,

first, a military and Islamist system,
and, second, Saudi Arabia,

though not the royal family,
provides financial support to terrorist groups.

Despite this, the country is an ally
of the United States and Europe.

That said, unfortunately,

the fight against terrorism
is not a common cause.

Whose team are we on?

In the Middle East?
We're fighting with Iraqis,

to defeat ISIS. Along with Iran.

But in Yemen we're fighting Iran.

With Iraqis and Saudis.

It is not quite so!

Who are we bombing?

We haven't left the Midle East.

We're still there.

We're stuck, creating
one mistake after another.

Like a big bear, with one
paw in a pot with honey,

stretching out the other
paw towards it,

raising it up and
trying to free himself.

Of course, any country, any reasonable
leaders will be wary of a situation

when this controlled chaos
grows into an absolutely uncontrollable

thermonuclear process.

This is in fact what
happened in the end.

When they started talking
about the Greater Middle East

that was perhaps at the end
of the past century,

experts started using
this terminology.

Leaders began to use this terminology.

For a while, it looked like academism,

because there was not a whiff
of an applied meaning.

Perhaps, only now, retrospectively,
can it be assumed with

greater degree of confidence
that this chain of color revolutions,

which was initially supposed
to be limited to controlled chaos,

took place in the region that was referred to
as the Greater Middle East.

Iraq, Syria, Libya. A great number of people
started living in countries

that had ceased being countries.

Those had been stable states.
By Arab standards, by African standards,

they were very stable, even prosperous states.
They aren't any more.

A whole number of countries
are being lumped into one category,

under one name.

Recently, official representatives
also started using a definition such as

Greater Central Asia.

This is also something to think about.

Perhaps it is a boon for political commentators
to figure out what it means.

Do we have a formula
to stop the export of revolutions?

No. We should have
only one formula - that is,

strengthening the foundations

of modern international law
that I mentioned earlier.

There cannot be
any double or triple interpretation.

No freewheeling interpretation
of what sovereignty is

and whether it should be respected.

New things are being brought up.

Say, with regard to Syria
or some other states.

After all, it is very easy
to declare a particular government

to a particular country illegitimate.

What is the criterion of this legitimacy?
Who defines it? Who decides?

If we act as we go along and think
in such terms, in voluntarist terms,

not in a comprehensible,

clear and transparent language
that is understood

in the same way by everybody,
then chaos will ensue.

Chaos is already there,
and this applies to what's

going on with the new great
resettlement of peoples.

After all, it shatters the entire
legal picture of the world.

- How to get a handle on it?
- Not only the legal picture,

This can also shatter the ethnic
and religious picture of the world.

Europe may lose its identity.
After all...

Generally, it is essential
to help your neighbors

who have found themselves
in a difficult situation.

It is also obvious that assistance
should be provided to refugees.

In this regard...

The humanistic motives
and emotional response

arise in this connection
deserve all-around support.

The most important thing,
however, lies elsewhere.

I also said this
at the UN General Assembly.

The most important thing
is not to rock legitimate, legal governments.

Not to destroy their statehood
even if it seems imperfect.

However, if somebody sees it this way,

how can it be done
without violating international law?

Help the forces in a country,
by legitimate means,

the forces that uphold your values,

help them financially,
politically or informationally,

but do not act like a bull
in a china shop, don't go over the top.

Don't rock these countries!
Don't break their statehood, as I said.

Help them if you think these
people deserve a better lot

than the system of government they have:
help the people in that country

who are ready to fight from within
for the ideals that you share.

Do they hear you when you say it?

They listen. I don't know
whether they hear me.

If the situation is what it is,
then they do not really hear.

A well-known resolution
was adopted on Libya.

I don't remember its [serial] number.

What did it say? A no-fly zone.
And what happened in reality?

They started pounding the territory
to bring about a change of government.

They overthrew the government,
killed poor Qaddafi, killed him brutally.

So what? Did democracy come?

A US ambassador was killed
several months later.

He was killed brutally...
So what did they achieve? Why did they do it?

It's only now that the UN has announced

the formation of a unity government.

How long will it be around?
It's uncertain, to say the least.

So, what is going on is just
the divvying up of property.

Divvying up natural resources.
Yet could it have been done differently?

What for?

That would have required more time,

more effort and more attention
to the people.

But sooner or later,
transformation would have

come about without such
disastrous consequences.

And without these hundreds
of thousands of refugees.

Disregard for stability in Libya
will lead to a global collapse

as a result of instability
in the Mediterranean.

If we lose control of Libya,

millions of Africans will come
flooding into Italy and France illegally.

Europe will turn black in no time.

We are preventing migration,
also holding back Al Qaeda.

If stability in Libya is shattered,

this will be bad news for Europe
and Mediterranean countries.

Everyone will be in jeopardy.

Over 10,000 migrants
have drowned in the sea

between Italy and Libya
in the past week alone.

The UK, Belgium and Germany
have sent ships to the Mediterranean.

However, British Prime Minister
David Cameron

said his offer of help
does not involve taking in refugees.

London has proposed
handing down

five-year prison terms
for aiding illegals.

Prime Minister Cameron said
the UK should be

protected (quote) from
"a swarm of people."

Did the prime minister realize
that he was talking about the same

people who,
four years earlier, in Libya,

he'd congratulated on victory
and thanked for overthrowing

the Qaddafi regime after the NATO bombing?
Cameron did not say.

Your city has inspired
for the whole world,

because you have overthrown
a dictator and chosen freedom.

They shot at us today.

I saw it with my own eyes.
Macedonian officers shot at us.

The refugees have been here
for a few months now...

They don't have enough to eat.

They don't get enough sleep,
and they have no warm clothes.

Winter is coming, and it's getting colder.
It's cold here in the winter.

If we let them stay homeless
- under a bridge or on the street -

they will never make it back
to normal life.

I don't think migrants
will be a problem for the French.

How are we going to address
their employment issues,

if we are already dealing with ours?

KARIM
Volunteer (Paris)

And this is just
the first wave of migrants.

Many of them are still
on their way here.

We want to go further. We
associate our future with Europe.

The inequalities of development were
not as salient in the past.

DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN
President of the IMF (2007-2011)

The growth, the communications
such as the Internet and television,

make it possible for the entire world,

almost the entire world,
to be more aware of what's going on around

the globe and to see and experience
these inequalities.

At some point,
they become unbearable.

The desire to leave
for more prosperous places where they hope,

perhaps in vain,
to find work and send money home.

This desire was there in the past,

but there were fewer opportunities
to act upon it then.

Today, this desire has become stronger,

and it becomes
somewhat more realistic.

Because travel is now more affordable.

Migration to affluent destinations
on the planet is a phenomenon

That's unlikely to subside.

On the contrary,
it is gaining momentum.

"Merkel, resign!" the mob chanted,
protesting against migrants.

Hundreds of people
took to the streets in Leipzig.

They shake their fists
and shout: "Go away!"

And threaten to burn refugees homes.

Local nationalists walk along
the streets of the German city of Riesa.

The far-right has taken up the slogan

"There is no place
for refugees in Germany!"

WOLFGANG SCHÜSSEL
Austrian chancellor (2000-2006)

Today 24% of Austrian population
are those who weren't born in Austria.

If we talk about schools, for
example, in my native city of Vienna,

German language is not
native for up to 50% of pupils.

I think this is the way
society is changing.

Look at what is going on in Europe.

On the one hand, as we said,
there is a flow of migrants.

On the other, there is a rise
in nationalist sentiments.

People are losing their bearings.

Don't write off Europe...
Europe, united Europe - over 300 million people.

A major economy: the euro
is stable, winning... this is very good.

It is winning positions
as a world reserve currency.

This is good because
when there is only one reserve currency -

the dollar - this narrows room
to maneuver for the entire global economy.

But... But... Today's
Europe is what it is.

With all of its internal contradictions

and all the positive trends
in its development.

Europe is facing a system-wide crisis
of the integration project

as it was conceived in the 20th century.

It's not that this model
proved to be bad. Just the contrary.

It was a wonderful, brilliant model
of European integration,

but it has exhausted itself...

European integration
has never been a democratic project.

It has always been an elitist project.

We are witnessing
the obvious separation of European elites —

the European establishment
- from the public.

The pubic is no longer able
to understand what

their government is in fact doing.

The European Union
pretends to be a single country.

If it is a single country, it
must have open borders,

a single currency, single armed
forces, single foreign policy and so on.

It is a sham.

YVAN BLOT
Eurodeputee (1989-1999)

Europe has been
under the American influence

since the end of World War II.

However, back in 1945,

General de Gaulle turned down
the US proposal to have an American

in the position of a French governor
for two or three years.

De Gaulle then said: "No, no way".

In addition,

he believed that the dollar enjoyed
an overly privileged position,

and suggested making gold
a "neutral" currency.

De Gaulle said it would be that way
from then on.

Later, he decided to withdraw
from NATO's military organization...

In 1969, de Gaulle left office.

And I think that the Americans
breathed a sigh of relief:

at long last, this obnoxious man
is out of their way.

There were several presidents
in France after de Gaulle,

but they were all afraid of spoiling
relations with the United States.

Except, perhaps, Jacques Chirac.

Germany is formally
an independent country.

I believe Germany
has enough power and sovereignty

to object if it disagrees
with the United States.

It just chooses not to.
Or does so extremely rarely...

For example,

Germany allows the US drones
to wage war from its territory,

which is clearly at odds
with its constitution.

"Where were you, Ms. Merkel
when Libya was bombed,

Or when the Syrian
opposition was sponsored?

This is a way for the US
to expand its influence,

which is what it is effectively doing.
Have you noticed that, Ms. Merkel?

This is what Zbigniew
Brzezinski referred to

but you, as his vassal,
agree with him on everything."

Certain American think tanks
operate through German media outlets...

Every German politician is aware,
and the higher their rank

the better they are aware
of the fact that

as soon as they say
what's on their minds,

the media wall immediately
fight back with the opposite opinion.

Many find this reason enough
to stay away from such conflicts.

Most of the UN events
take place in New York

with the communications services
provided by AT&T

(American Telephone
and Telegraph Company)

so that the outgoing Internet traffic,
e-mail, fax, or Skype

have to go through AT&T cables.

Incidentally, it is the largest
US telecommunications company

with ties to the US government
and a secret agreement

with the National Security Agency
to intercept each outgoing e-mail

from the United Nations.

Such pressure is not uncommon
in the international political arena.

Especially in the sphere
of economic policy...

Of course, such pressure
is never exerted publicly.

Preference is given to telephone
conversations. But it's a fact.

By way of example,

I'll cite a real epidemic of fines
on the part of the United States

with regard to European companies,
among others.

Far-fetched excuses are being used.

Those who dare violate
unilateral US sanctions are punished severely.

Say, last year alone,

A French bank was slapped with an almost
$93 billion fine — $8.9 billion, I believe.

Toyota had to pay $1.2 billion,

Commerzbank - a German bank -

signed an agreement to pay
$1.7 billion to the US budget.

And so on and so forth.
Is this the way to treat your allies?

No, this is the way to treat
your vassals who have dared to act

as they see fit.
They are punished for misconduct.

The United States has appropriated
the right to interpret law

and to embody international law.

The same goes far national law -

not only US legislation, but also
the national laws of any other country.

US Congress was the greatest difficulty
that I was faced with

as the IMF Managing Director,

because it doesn't think much
of multilateral associations.

Of course, the United States plays
a major role and has a lot of clout.

Which is OK, but it doesn't decide
on things alone.

It may so happen that there will be
decisions that America does not like

Dominique Strauss Kahn, a financier.

He was head of
the International Monetary Fund.

He stood out for his
independent judgment.

Questioning both the need
and the feasibility of dollar domination.

He decided to run for the French
presidency and was way ahead

of other candidates until he ended up
in a pretrial cell, on rape charges,

together with a bunch of prostitutes
and homeless people in New York.

The charges eventually collapsed

but Kahn's political
career was obliterated.

I am not posing as a hero.

But condemning the feelings
that we may have with regard

to the system in which we live,
or its inequalities,

may mean questioning
the foundations of this economy.

The USA right now is
participating in the project

which may be not be so
massive as the creation of UN,

but which has similar ambitions.

It is more important than
the creation of the European Union.

It is the three agreements,
known as "The Three Big T's"

covering 1.6 billion people
and two-thirds of the world's GDP.

The US is building a new trade mega-bloc —
the Trans Pacific Partnership.

It has invited half of the APEC member
states but not China or Russia.

The major US corporations
have sought this for many years.

American corporations are
hiding behind national security.

In other words,
the danger is in China.

They say China is going
to integrate Eurasia...

to create a new Silk Road.

And that's why USA must
integrate everyone possible.

And to create a legal and
trade super European Union.

A union bigger than the European one.

As soon as it is done,
American corporations would be able

to integrate into all these countries easier.

A phone call from the State Department
proves to be

more important than any decision...

In other words,
the world is run by a corporation.

The world is run
by economic development laws.

Yes, of course,

diversified international corporations
that know no boundaries.

They function to enhance
the quality and volume of production.

raise labor productivity
and achieve better results

and secure bigger profits.

They do not need borders.

However,

this is why the first GATT
(the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade)

was created,
and then the World Trade Organization,

which essentially blurred the borders,
so to speak.

However, today,
different realities have evolved:

new players have emerged;
they are no longer afraid;

they've stopped saying
"I'm so cared, so scared, so scared"

as we like to joke,
and they started talking forcefully

about the need to observe their rights.

What's more, their legitimate rights,

within the framework of the WTO.

To which almost everyone was admitted.

But when talks once again
reached an impasse

and have since been unable
to make any progress

for a number of years now,

because developing countries
started claiming their place under the sun,

which they regard as legitimate
within the framework of these WTO rules

and procedures... well, then apparently
the idea came about:

Why should we bicker with them here;

we'll come to terms
among ourselves on new rules

that will apply only to us,
and since we are

the world's leading economies,
sooner or later,

They will have to work
within the bounds of these new rules.

that we will have made,
but as part of other organizations.

The world is moving forward.

SHIMON PERES
President of Israel (2007-2014)

Let's remember the world
70 or 50 years ago.

For example, take China.

This was a poor, disintegrated country.

They were saved not due to
the Russian ruble or American dollar.

They were rescued by two revolutions:

one under the leadership
of Mao Zedong,

which forced people
to work, uniting them,

and the other under the leadership
of Deng Xiaoping

who said:
"Good, you've done it!

Now, let's open to the world
and look what's to happen.”

The same was with India.

Again revolutions. Gandhi said:

"I can't rescue you from poverty but
I can save you from spiritual poverty.

I can only help you spiritually.

The 2nd revolution was
under the leadership of Nehru.

He said: "If you care
about the soul,

it doesn't mean you mustn't
care about breakfast.”

Compare this position with
what was 40 or 50 years ago.

Significant changes!

We must see a change
of the strategy in the world.

The policy was
focused on Europe earlier

and was Eurocentric,

that is, Europe and NATO were
against the Warsaw Pact and so on.

Now, the focus is here, on
the Central Asia, Southern Asia,

countries of Persian Gulf and Iran.

The geocentric focus
is now in this region.

No single system, no single model
of the world order

has ever triumphed.

Unity is in diversity.
This is the key to stable global development.

No attempts to put the world
on one pillar have ever done any good.

Paris
13 November 2015

That night, young people
were sitting at sidewalk cafes

MAREK HALTER
French writer

enjoying a drink
and flirting with girls.

And now they are dead.

Everyone in France felt that they could
have been in their place that night.

Any French person could die.

You didn't have to do anything wrong
to get a death sentence.

That's why it shocked everybody.

Solidarity was strong.

Solidarity and fear.

How can eight terrorists make
67 million people tremble with fear?

You know,
I'd like to tell you one thing.

Fifty years ago
the streets of Leningrad taught me a lesson:

If a fight is inevitable,
you have to hit first.

Mr Putin, these are
turning points indeed.

In fact, there are hordes
on our borders.

The Islamic State that has now recruited
part of the Taliban

It's not the first time.

Not the first time but we have always
overcome these turning points

in history by relying primarily
on the strong spirit of our country.

We were convinced
we are fighting for the right cause.

Does the criterion of justice
still exist in the world?

How important is it?
How important is morality?

The last time Alexander I
tried to unite Europe

around Christian values he failed,
regrettably.

You know, I think that nobody
should ever impose

on anyone any values
that he considers right.

We have our own values
and our own ideas about justice...

I won't try to define them
because it's unrewarding

and the analysts always find something
to reproach me for.

But I think we generally understand
what I'm talking about.

I'm mainly referring to our
traditional values, our history,

culture and traditions...
and everything associated with them.

However, it's wrong to try
and impose them on anyone.

At one time the Soviet Union tried to
impose Communist values on others

and hold them by force...

But I think, I'm sure many people
would agree with me...

even these Communist values
didn't really matter.

It all came down to the Soviet Union's
geopolitical interests.

That is, Russia that was called
the Soviet Union at that time.

This was the whole point.
But it was wrapped in ideology.

But there were values in the beginning.
It seemed that Soviet Russia

proposed a new world order — a fair one.

Exactly... You put it
right: Soviet Russia.

This happened immediately after 1917.

Absolutely.

After World War I.

It was very fashionable among
democratic intellectuals in the world

in general — in the States,
Europe and elsewhere —

Soviet Russia was a trendy state

and its formula of new values
was vary appealing.

And... recalling my previous occupation,

I remember very well some statements.

I remember the people
who analyzed the performance,

say, of Soviet intelligence.

Way back in the INO times.

Yes, way back in the
Foreign Department times.

And this galaxy of outstanding
Soviet intelligence officers

and the famous Cambridge Five,
and Sorge and others.

One analyst said these people
were serving selflessly,

working for their ideological homeland.

Later it all began to
disappear anyway...

began to lose its appeal
and perspective.

It doesn't work now.

Russia is talking about traditional
values under conditions of the crisis.

A crisis of traditional values.

Yes. But I assure you,
there are lots of countries

and people in the world that are fully
on our side and share our viewpoint.

And even if we are criticized,
say, by the leaders of some countries,

this doesn't mean that the citizens
of these countries support their leaders

and criticize us.

Quite the opposite.

Let me assure you
that the majority of leaders...

The majority of citizens of the countries
whose leaders criticize us -

the majority support us at heart.

That's it. I'm fairly sure.

It's a complicated process
that involves rethinking

what it means to be human
and what images of society

are correct and fair.

Many people still live in poverty.

BAN KI-MOON
Secretary-General of the UN

Many die of diseases
which can be cured.

Many live under oppression.

It is a tremendous amount of
inequality in the whole world,

as well in certain countries
between the rich and the poor.

Because of the economic inequality,
our knowledge about prosperity

will get drowned in
the ocean of poverty.

In this world, there is a triangle:
war - capital - profit.

A fair society is reserved
for the monied people.

They are in a position to buy justice,
women, houses, jets,

and surround themselves with the people
who say what they want to hear.

And they feel that this is
what fair society is all about.

Freedom and justice means to me...

obviously that is something
I feel very acutely at a personal level.

Having been detained without
charges for around... more than 5 years,

I have seen other people who
go through the similar procedure.

Chelsea Manning, allegedly my source,
allegedly an intelligence analyst....

that is, really an analyst
of US intelligence...

was sentenced to 35 years of
imprisonment in a military prison.

He was in Iraq, he saw what
was going on there, and was against it.

And he was accused of that.

But let's compare his
penalty with others'.

We unmasked a series
of mass murders in Iraq,

including the case when American
soldiers raped a 14-year girl,

killed her, killed all her family
and burnt down their house.

Some of those soldiers were
found guilty by the American army.

So even US Army has no doubts
that they have committed a crime.

What was the sentence?

The sentence was around 10 years.

And one of them was
released already after 5 years.

Now compare it with 35 years
for alleged disclosure of secrets.

The German philosopher Kant
once said that we recognize something

as a moral value only if it can be
applied to all without exception.

If a value is not universal,
it is not moral.

Many things that used to be
the order of the day have vanished.

The attitudes changed
and the morals followed.

The moral crisis has spread
across the entire world,

not just through the Christian one.
FEODOR II. Patriarch of the Coptic Church

Five components are needed
to bring up a good person:

a family, a home, a school,
a church for the Christians, and friends.

And all of the love that children
should be getting from their parents.

The horror of a disaster.
A question arises...

There are pundits and statesmen
who are well aware of things...

They can agree on things
in order to avoid such disasters.

Do we have to go through a war?

Or not?

It depends on the quality
of our leaders and elites.

How did it happen that from a stage
in your dealings with Obama

where there were
comradely and trustful relations...

now it seems the country
as a whole is holding its breath

waiting for the outcome
of bilateral talks,

not knowing
what lies ahead - war or peace.

This is why the world
has again ended up on the

verge of such colossal instability,

where everything
has come together at one point —

the ambitions of a country
called the United States,

the unprecedented growth
of an apocalyptic sect - i.e.,

the Islamic State,

and the disintegration
of the concept of morality.

Including Christian morality.

All buttresses
on which the modern world used to stand

suddenly collapsed and, on top of that,

relations among leaders have soured.

How can stability be achieved
in this world?

Today, we're seeing what we're seeing.

However, I'd like to make another point.

The fact is that our political
nouveaux riches have lost

their sense of realty, I think.

They failed to grasp
that irreversible processes

have already begun
within their own world.

And even if they stand
at attention and salute you today,

this does not mean
that this will carry on forever.

Because — I don't know —
there're some countries

and nations that will never
tolerate being in a secondary role.

The role of an occupied country
or the role of somebody's vassal.

Sooner or later, this will come to pass
And I think pretty soon, too.

However, no country should be humiliated

while another tries
to prolong its leadership for as long as possible.

Meanwhile, many elements
of the foreign policy path pursued

by our friends across the ocean
in fact involve the use of force

to assert their positions.

This is certainly bad.

But on the other hand,

I don't think that we're
on the verge of some apocalypse,

because people are intelligent.

People are intelligent everywhere -
in Europe,

across the ocean and in Asia.

So the moment they feel
that something has gone wrong...

I believe they should be able
to figure things out for themselves and...

They figure things out
and accuse you...

Regarding those who are critical of me,
to put it mildly...

This applies not only to leaders
of foreign countries... distant countries.

This sometimes happens also...
sometimes we hear from those nearby...

we hear... at any rate, I hear...
unjust criticism of myself, to put it mildly...

Outright rudeness.

Also from certain leaders
of nearby countries

But this is simply a manifestation
of political culture of the lack thereof.

In other words, this does not bother you
on an emotional level.

It does not.

You picked this up
while growing up in Leningrad.

You know... I have my own style,
my own position on such matters.

I believe that I don't have
the right to react emotionally.

Because I must be able to work
with everyone in the interests of my country.

We need to work
in a concerted effort with Russia

to maintain peace in Europe.

Peace in Europe is possible
only with Russia.

I think that today the cooperation of
the world society with Russia

is necessary.

We must work closely to
settle the crisis of identity.

The crisis of fear of Europe
of what is going on in the world.

This is not the first time Russia has been
faced with barbarous terrorist crimes -

most of the time,

without any apparent external
or internal reasons.

As was the case with the bomb attack
at the Volgograd terminal

at the end of 2013. We have not
forgotten anybody or anything.

The killing of our people over Sinai
was among the bloodiest [comes]

in terms of casualties.

And we will not wipe away our tears.

Not from our hearts
and not from our souls.

This will remain with us forever.

But it will not stop us from finding
and punishing the criminals.

We must do this
without any statute of limitations.

We must know them all by name.

We will look for them all
wherever they may be hiding

We'll find them in any part
of the world and punish them.

Perhaps the Islamic State is that
absolute evil, which, in order to defeat,

will require the entire world
to unite and work out conditions.

For a new Yalta [agreement] of sorts.

The terrorist organization called
the Islamic State is of course a major threat,

and not only for us
but also for the Islamic world itself.

When we began this conversation
you asked me how various countries

reacted to this and I told you
that even Sunni countries are afraid. Why?

Because the so-called Islamic State
has already laid claim

to Mecca and Medina.

They already want to create a Caliphate
on an unprecedented scale there.

In other words, they pose a threat
to very many (countries)

But this is not a key point
around which future development revolves.

The key to future development will be
the building of relations

in this so-called geopolitical struggle.

The struggle is imminent.

This is normal, but it should be conducted
according to civilized rules,

which should be — I'd like
to reiterate this — civilized.

Understandable, transparent,

controlled and not subject
to unilateral interpretation.

Lord David Owen
Minister of Foreign Affairs (UK, 1977-1979)

Real statesmen always come back,

make attempts again and again,

search the way for peace.

There is no sense in waiting,

no sense in anger,
in breaking contacts.

This reason is greater
than any human.

And even greater than a country.

Key players, key countries
are more important

for prosperity and peace
in the whole world.

They don't even need to pull together,
or make friends with each other,

but they can have a dialog.

Maybe there are
not many great leaders

because the world doesn't need them.

Because a leader is not
a great phenomenon by himself.

When a leader rises and states
that he is great, he is strong,

people say: Seriously?

Can you stop terror? No.

Can you stop the social
differentiation? No.

Why do you say
that you are great?

If you want to be great,
do not lie to us.

Serve us.

And then you should feel
like a servant, and not a leader.

Then we will give you a chance.

If the majority of the political leaders
focus on making the world a fairer place,

we will be able to advance this matter.

This is my way of being optimistic.
Some may call it naiveté.

Moses did something unique.

He preferred moral duty
over all the wonders of the world -

riches, beauty, power.

It's not simple

because morality is
not a beautiful lady.

And you cannot reach her.

What you can do is to try.

So you have a perfect goal
with a very complicated road to it.

But it has its advantages.

Because you will never be satisfied.

You will always try
to reach the goal.

And if you do not reach it,

the very attempt to do so

is morality.

It forces you to look
at the world differently.

Completing our work on the film,
we realized that

we must meet
with President Putin once again.

The two meetings were only
separated by two months,

but a host of tragic events
took place during this period.

To talk with the President,
we went to his residence.

Thursday, December 17. 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Putin, your recent remarks
reflect a hint of personal disappointment.

You have always hit your target,

but lately you have started
calling a spade a spade,

and this creates the impression
that the masks are off.

Are the notions of honor, dignity
and commitment to agreements still there?

Are there global leaders
with whom it is possible

to come to terms on anything?

With whom is it possible
to build long-term relations

if those who seemed like-minded
only yesterday

are stabbing us in the back today?

What's Europe's problem?

Why can't Europeans
build their policy on reasonable,

constructive, clear-cut
and understandable principles?

As for such notions as honor,
dignity, love and integrity,

it would be good
to see them in politics,

but they primarily form
and should form the foundation

of human relations -
between men and women,

and between people in general.

Meanwhile, relations between countries
are primarily governed by interests.

For these interests to be
- I'll use the word "balanced" again...

it is essential to have some common
rules that will be interpreted

in the same way and
applied transparently.

Now, about those whom
it is possible or impossible to deal with...

I think it is possible
to deal with anyone.

And we have an obligation to deal
with everyone whether we like them of not.

We will work with everyone.

You asked about Europe's problem.

The problem is that Europe does not
pursue an independent foreign policy -

none altogether.

In effect, Europe has renounced it
and transferred part of its sovereignty -

probably the most important part -
to the bloc.

As a matter of fact, this is fairly normal
when members of a military-political bloc

transfer part of their sovereignty
to supranational bodies.

However, in this case Europe
transferred this part of its sovereignty

not to a supranational body,

and not even to NATO,
but to NATO's leader - the United States.

As you may recall,
we have revisited this issue —

Iraq and the US boots on the ground
-- on many occasions.

At that time, Germany headed
by then Chancellor Schröder

and France led by President Chirac
objected to this move.

I'll repeat that it wasn't me
who persuaded them...

They did!

It wasn't me who persuaded them.

They were trying to
persuade me to join them.

Later on, when the invasion
took place and Saddam Hussein

was killed and Iraq was destroyed,

do you remember what they were told?

Mind you, you were wrong.

I was also told: so, we won,
and you stayed on the sidelines.

But if one looks a step ahead,

it is clear that they were
the ones who were right.

It appeared that Chirac, a man
of encyclopedic knowledge who had very close

and trust-based relations
with the Sunnis in the Middle East,

had predicted the outcome back then.

Now we are witnessing this outcome -
the disintegration of statehood

in these countries: thriving terrorism
and Paris under attack.

Chirac thought about these
consequences, and he was right,

just as Schröder was, too.

We believe he is Russia's friend.

But Schröder is not a pro-Russian,
but a pro-German politician.

In fact, he is an Atlanticist.

He always told me bluntly and candidly
in our private conversations

about NATO's importance
for modern international relations.

I far from agree with him
on all points, but such are his views.

He never did anything that could damage
the interests of his country.

On the contrary, he always fought
for these interests.

Take the Nord Stream-1 project,
for instance.

You know, I was simply watching
in disbelief how he was attacked

when he initiated this project.
In fact, Germany initiated it.

Yes, we strongly supported him.
Later on, he fought to get it implemented.

Now everyone says: What a great job
we've done! It was he who built it, not "we".

Moreover, they've suggested
that we should build Nord Stream 2.

Everyone knows that
it is Germany that needs it

because it has decided to shut down
all of its nuclear power plants

and is unlikely to be able
to reopen them.

Russia has a vast amount of this
environmentally safe raw material.

And we are willing to supply it.
So why should we turn down this proposal?

By the way, this will also make
Germany a European energy hub.

But this is beyond the point.

The thing is that we do not expect
our European partners

to give up their
Euro-Atlantic allegiance.

I think our European partners
should not do so, but should take part at least

in the decision-making
process rather than

simply blindly follow
the instructions from overseas.

Yes, everyone understands
what consequences this had

for Schröder and Chirac.

However, it is important
to be guided either by domestic

political or government interests.

It seems to me that
the interests of the European countries

- let them correct me if I'm wrong -

is to pool efforts in the economy,
politics, in fighting terrorism,

environmental protection
and in combating organized crime.

Unite with Russia.

We are willing to do this work,
we are open to it.

We are not going to pout
over these sanctions. Everybody is welcome.

Well, Turkey dared do such a thing.

Turkey is not Europe.
This is my first point.

My second point is that,

as I mentioned in my address
to the Federal Assembly

and I will say it again now,
we consider the Turkish people our friends.

And we don't want to see our relations
with the Turkish people curtailed.

With regard to the current
Turkish leadership,

Nothing is eternal under the moon.

On the one hand, Europe,
the United States and Russia

joined forces to fight
the international terrorist threat.

On the other hand, these same partners
have renewed their sanctions

on our country, and occasionally
even introduce more sanctions,

What surprises me is that
for the sake of fleeting political interests

even the fundamental principles underlying
the work of such seemingly stable

and respected institutions
as the International Monetary Fund...

I'm referring to Ukraine.
How would you...

With regard to Ukraine and the
post-Soviet space in general,

I believe that the position
adopted by our Western partners

- Europe and the United States -

is not based on protecting the interests
of Ukraine, but stems instead from

their attempt to prevent
the re-establishment of the Soviet Union.

No one out there wants to believe that

we are not planning
to recreate the Soviet Union.

However, even the hypothetical
possibility of joining our efforts amid

today's economic integration processes
would have certainly made Russia

and Ukraine more competitive
in the global economy

and allowed Ukraine and Russia
to take the place they deserve

in the modern division of labor system
on the global markets.

Even the hypothetical possibility
of such a scenario ever materializing

is likely keeping
our partners awake at night.

I think their primary goal is to prevent
this unification from ever happening.

It is no secret.

They did everything to prevent
the creation of a common economic space

and the Customs Union between
Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.

They are still reluctant to talk
with the Eurasian Economic Union

as a full-fledged participant
in international affairs.

For some reason, it's OK to create
the EU, but creating the EAEU is a no-no.

I believe that our partners
are beginning to realize

that this is a destructive position.

Why support the coup in Ukraine?

I'm asking this question
for the hundredth time.

I think that many of our partners
see that they have made a mistake,

but just won't admit.

However, they took advantage
of the discontent of the people

who weren't happy with the way
things were in Ukraine, not only

under Yanukovych, but since Ukraine
has gained independence as well.

Corruption, poorly functioning judicial
and law enforcement systems —

they are much worse than ours.

We are faced with a lot of problems,
but things are even worse in Ukraine.

Conceited bureaucrats
annoyed people there beyond imagination.

Of course, taking advantage
of that situation was a cinch.

Things cannot be
improved by a coup d'état.

Is it any better now? The power
remains in the hands of oligarchs.

The country was put
under external administration.

They brought all their key managers
from neighboring countries.

or even overseas.

The standard of living is plummeting.
Ukraine's GDP is down several fold.

We've just mentioned that our
GDP's down, but theirs is down tenfold.

Ukraine is going through
a total de-industrialization,

What does it get in return?

Maybe they'll provide them with
visa-free travel to Europe. Maybe not.

However, it's not about
a work permit or a worker visa.

Even if they were issued worker visas,
what would they be doing there?

Babysitting, landscaping or doing
entry-level construction work?

Is this the destiny and the future
of a beautiful country such as Ukraine

and a wonderful people
such as the Ukrainians? Of course not.

Ukraine has every chance
to become a highly industrialized

country with well-developed
high-tech industries.

Where is the racket-building
industry, space exploration, aviation,

shipbuilding, microelectronics,
research and education?

Where is all of that? Degrading.

No one out there is wiling
to contribute to the upkeep of Ukraine.

Someone may give it a billion
or two, others will promise to issue

some kind of guarantees.

Moreover, they want to shift
the financial burden to Russia.

They don't want to pay back
their loans, even though we came up

with a nice and comfortable debt solution.
"Let's share the risks," we said.

We are willing to structure
our loan to Ukraine, whereby we'll put

a hold on payments
during the first year,

and then go at a pace
of one billion per year.

What's wrong with that?
They are unwilling to even share the risk.

This means that they don't believe
in Ukraine's solvency

and its ability to
stabilize its economy.

That is bad news.
Still, the IMF is changing the rules.

It's not the United States
that provides funding,

but the IMF, all its member countries.

That is, once again, they are shifting
the financial burden for their political

mistakes on the international
financial community.

They don't want to carry
this load alone.

However, I think that the realization
that we must act within the scope

of civilized rules rather
than disregard them,

should eventually come to everyone,
if it's not coming already.

We've heard and spoken
about the Minsk agreements many times.

This also applies to the renewal
of Western restrictions on Russia.

Look, are we the ones who are supposed
to amend our Constitution?

Of course not.

Everybody understands
everything perfectly well,

but still think they need
to turn up the heat an Russia,

so that it gives ground here and there.

It's not our business
to move forward or push for anything.

We believe that we cannot
leave residents of southeastern Ukraine

at the mercy of the nationalists.
Not just the Russians living there,

but all the Russian-speaking people
there who look to Russia.

We are not asking for too much
by adapting such a position.

As we both have noted,
members of the Ukrainian commission

on reforms are even cursing in Russian

and their President is trying
to pull them apart also using Russian.

You know, its a good thing
they are cursing in Russian

rather than Ukrainian - that is,
not in Georgian or Ossetian.

It is simply ridiculous;
it's a travesty when people

from the Caucasus
pose as greater defenders

of the interests of Ukrainians
than the Ukrainians themselves.

As if having come from Georgia
or being, to use modern parlance,

second-generation migrants
from Armenia or Ossetia

they know better what Ukrainians need.

Do these people from the Caucasus

claim to know better
what Ukrainians want?

This is ludicrous.

This would be funny
if it weren't so sad.

Sovereignty is the main
topic of discussion.

Whenever we talk
about a new world order,

our discussions revolve
around sovereignty.

That said,
do fundamental principles still exist,

or is it possible
to change everything today,

to betray everything
for the sake of fleeting interests?

You are talking
about interests all the time,

but you are acting
based on different premises.

Interests aside,
you always honor your word

and do not stray from this logic
even in the most difficult moments.

At the news conference, you spoke
about complicated relations with Turkey,

but despite this,
you did not violate any agreements.

And did not disclose
what they were all about.

Well, thank you for the compliment,

but I'm indeed trying
not to breach my commitments,

not to go against
the obligations this country has.

You know we are doing thus not only

out of some moral
or ethical considerations,

but for pragmatic reasons.

It is more comfortable
to work this way.

Take the Syrian crisis, for one —

we find it comfortable to work
with President Assad,

the US side,

as well as our friends
from Saudi Arabia

and other Arab countries.

I mentioned this to President Obama.

Why is it comfortable?

We are not wagging our tail,

and we are not
changing our position.

Before formulating it,

we listened to everyone
without any rush

and chose an approach that,
as it seems to us, is acceptable to all.

To be more precise, it doesn't
merely seem acceptable to us —

we know that because we first
asked them whether it's OK or not,

whether they agree or not.

In principle, all sides said "yes" on
the major parameters of the settlement.

Once they said "yes",
we formulated our position

on the basis of common
and acceptable ideas.

So now we don't have to jump
like fleas from one side to another,

pardon me for using that simile.

We just don't have to do this.

Our position rests on our dialogues,
and that is making it strong.

In addition to being open,
our position is consistent and honest,

and that's why it is strong.

As for the foundations you mentioned

- whether they exist or not - for the time
being there are no other foundations

than international law
based on the UN Charter.

The world is changing, of course.

The UN Charter and the world order
that's in place

took shape after World War II.

Now the balance of forces
has obviously changed.

And we must consider this,
by all means. This is true.

Take the Federal Republic of Germany,
for one.

All generations of Germans
cannot feel burdened

because of what the Nazis did.

There were Germans
who fought against the Nazis

and were their first victims.

There were also Christians and
Communists and all kinds of other groups.

The anti-Nazi movement was enormous.

And this also gives us food for thought.

I think I have the right to say this.

And not only as President,
the head of the Russian state,

but also as a member of a family
in which many died

and were badly hurt during WWII.

More relatives died
on both my mother's and father's sides

than survived World War II.

If we want more stability
in the current international situation

we should take into account
the role that Germany

can and should play
in the world arena...

It is imperative
to consider all these factors

and enhance stability
in developing international relations.

You had a very emotional reaction
to the act of terror over Sinai

and the death of our servicemen
in a later incident.

It was evident that you took it
to heart as a personal tragedy.

When Paris came under attack, you
were one of the first to call France.

How much does this pain
affect you and Russia's policy?

Emotions are inevitable,
but they should not

affect the quality of decisions because

the interests of millions upon millions
of Russian citizens depend on them.

Each decision must be well thought-out

and produce positive
mid- and long-term results.

Mr. Putin, will there be war?

Are you referring to a global war?

I hope not.

At any rate,
this would be a planetary disaster

in modern international conditions.

I'd like to hope that there is
no lunatic on Earth

who'd dare use nuclear weapons.

But as a deterrent,
Russia will develop nuclear weapons

as one of the leading nuclear powers.

Our policy of nuclear security
relies on the nuclear triad,

but we have never and will never
threaten anyone with our nuclear power.

That said, our military doctrine assigns

a befitting place
and an appropriate role to it.

Thank you, Mr. Putin.