XPan
The Living Force
You may find this interesting...
Thomas Röper (Anti-Spiegel), german journalist who lives in St Petersburg since 30 years, made a translation of an interview between Putin and reporter Saburin:
from Anti-Spiegel, Thomas Röper
15 February 2024 15:34
Putin criticises the Carlson interview and talks about Baerbock and Biden's memory
Russian President Putin has criticised the interview with Tucker Carlson in an interview. He also spoke about Baerbock and Biden's mental state. Once again, the German media only report fragments of what Putin said.
The furore over the interview Putin gave to Tucker Carlson has still not completely died down in the West. However, in my first assessment of the interview, which I wrote immediately afterwards, I immediately criticised some things about the interview and explained what I would have done differently if I had been sitting there instead of Carlson.
I find it interesting that when Putin was asked about the interview by a Russian journalist, he basically made the same criticisms as I did. Putin openly said that he did not enjoy "this interview very much".
Putin also spoke out about Baerbock and her Nazi grandfather, and about the issue of what many call the "guilt cult" of the Germans. These statements by Putin may be new to many, but they are not new, because Putin has often made such comments in the past, as German readers of my book "Seht Ihr, was Ihr angerichtet habt?" (Do you see what you've done?) were able to read back in 2019. And it was interesting to see what Putin had to say about US President Biden's state of mind, which is currently also being discussed by the Western media. He also answered the question of whether Biden or Trump would be the "better" US president for Russia.
Because the Western media have again only reported fragments of the interview and so as not to give you my interpretation of Putin's words, I have translated the 20-minute interview that Putin gave to a Russian journalist.
Start of the translation:
Sarubin:
Vladimir Vladimirovich, your interview with Tucker Carlson has already been viewed a billion times. There are many different positive comments. But it is clear which comments come from leading Western politicians. The British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, for example, called, and I quote, "your attempt to explain the reason for launching the military operation and justify it with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia ridiculous and absurd". What do you think of such assessments?
Putin:
Firstly, it is good that they are looking at it and listening to me. If we are not able to have a direct dialogue with them today for some reason to do with them, we should be grateful to Mr Carlson that we can do so through him as a mediator. So the fact that they see and hear it is good.
But the fact that they are twisting what I said is bad, and they are twisting the map. Why? Because I didn't say anything like that. I didn't say that the start of our military operation in Ukraine had anything to do with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia. Where is that in my interview? There is the recording, they should show me where specifically I said that.
I was talking about something else, I was talking about the fact that we were constantly being deceived about the fact that NATO was not being expanded eastwards. Incidentally, the first person to say that was the then Secretary General of NATO, and that was a representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. He said: Not an inch to the east. Then there were five expansions and total deception. We were and are naturally concerned about the possibility of Ukraine being admitted to NATO, because that threatens our security. I have also spoken about that.
But the immediate trigger was the complete refusal of the current Ukrainian government to implement the Minsk Agreement and the incessant attacks with numerous casualties on the Donbass republics, the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, which we did not recognise for eight years and which finally turned to us with a request for recognition because they recognised the hopelessness of resolving the problems within the framework of the Minsk Agreement. We recognised them, then concluded the well-known Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with them and, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, fulfilled our obligations under that treaty.
As I said before, we did not start the war, we are just trying to end it. In the first phase, we tried to do this by peaceful means - through the Minsk Agreement. As it turned out later, we were led around by the nose here too, because both the former German Chancellor and the former French President admitted this and publicly stated that they had no intention of implementing the agreement, but only wanted to stall for time in order to pump additional weapons into the Ukrainian regime, which they did. The only thing we can regret is that we did not take action sooner, believing that we were dealing with decent people.
Sarubin:
Carlson was criticised immediately before the interview and after the interview he is now being accused of allegedly asking too few tough questions, of being too soft with you, whereas you were very comfortable with him. Do you think that you crushed the American journalist with your authority?
Putin:
I think that your Carlson - when I say "your", I mean that he is a representative of your journalistic profession - is a dangerous person. And that's the reason why: Because, frankly, I thought he was going to behave aggressively and ask these so-called sharp questions.
I was not only prepared for that, I wanted it, because it would have given me the opportunity to answer just as sharply, which I think would have given our whole conversation a certain specificity. But he chose a different tactic, he tried to interrupt me several times, but still, for a Western journalist, he was surprisingly patient and listened to my long dialogues, especially the ones about history. He didn't give me the opportunity to do what I was ready to do. To be honest, I didn't enjoy this interview very much. But he stuck strictly to his plan and he executed it. I can't judge how meaningful it was in the end. It's up to the viewers, listeners or perhaps readers of the material to draw their own conclusions.
Sarubin:
After this interview, there were immediate calls for sanctions against Tucker Carlson and there is talk that he could be arrested there. Is that even possible?
Putin:
Assange is in prison and nobody remembers him, only people close to him are talking about it. That's it. These are the peculiarities of public awareness: the issue disappears and that's it. However, Assange has at least been accused of leaking some state secrets. It's hard to pin anything on Carlson because he didn't touch any secrets at all. Nevertheless, I think that in today's America, in today's USA, anything is theoretically possible.
From Carlson's own point of view it would be sad, I don't envy him somehow, but it was his decision. He knew what he was getting himself into. But from the point of view of making people around the world realise what they are in inverted commas modern "liberal democratic" dictatorship supposedly represented by the US ruling class today, it would probably be good for them to show their true colours.
Sarubin:
Carlson said that after the interview... Just to dispel any doubts that have arisen, here's my question. Carlson said that after the interview you had another conversation, and now everyone is wondering what it was about.
Putin:
As I said and as I understood it, he proceeded according to his own plan, and that's all, he didn't go beyond that plan. For example, there were some other topics that I think would have been important to talk about. But I didn't impose any additional topics that the journalist didn't bring up in the conversation with me.
The question of the demonisation of Russia, for example in connection with the inter-ethnic events, with the pogroms of the Jews in the Russian Empire, that should of course have come up in such an official part. But one of the topics we talked about when the cameras were off was something that the US Secretary of State Mr Blinken spoke about several times, that his relatives, his great-grandfather, fled Russia because of the Jewish pogroms.
And this topic comes up again and again in various countries around the world, in Europe, in the USA. I repeat, it comes up to demonise Russia, to show what kind of barbarians, villains and robbers live here. But if you look at what the current US Secretary of State has said, and not at the political slogans, but at the core of the problems that exist, then a lot becomes clear here too.
We have all this in our archives. For example, Mr Blinken's great-grandfather left the Russian Empire. I think he was born somewhere in the province of Poltava and then lived in Kiev and left it. The question arises: does Mr Blinken believe that this was originally Russian territory, Kiev and the surrounding areas? That is the first.
Secondly, when he says he fled Russia before the Jewish pogroms, he means at least, I want to emphasise this, that there was no Ukraine in 1904, and it was in 1904 that Mr Blinken's great-great-grandfather left Kiev for the USA, so there was no Ukraine there when he says he fled Russia. By all accounts, Mr Blinken is our man. He just stupidly makes such statements in public. That could lead to failure.
Sarubin:
Articles have recently been published in the German media about the fact that the grandfather of the current German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was an ardent Nazi. Given everything that has happened in relations between our countries in recent years, could it be that this "virus" of National Socialism is perhaps being passed on in the country on a genetic level?
Putin:
This is also one of the subspecies of extreme nationalism.
By the way, I just remembered that these pogroms in the Russian Empire took place mainly in the south and south-west, in what is now Ukraine. In Kiev, I said, in 1905. If Mr Blinken's ancestor left in 1904, the first mass pogrom in Kiev was in 1905, so his great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather could only learn about it either from newspapers or from the information that came from Kiev at the time.
But these negative mass events basically appeared at the beginning of the 19th century, I think the first mass pogrom was in 1820, in 1821. Of course, these crimes were in Odessa, then in Melitopol, in Zhitomir and in other cities in what is now Ukraine, in Belarus. There were a few events of this kind in Siberia, but the first was connected with the assassination of the Greek patriarch in Constantinople, when the Greeks living there thought that the Jews were somehow involved in the attempted assassination of the patriarch.
But that is unimportant. What is important, by the way, is that these pogroms were countered by resistance groups consisting of Jewish and Russian youth, and that the government, even the tsarist one, made appropriate assessments and tried to prevent these tragic events, also with the help of the army. But, I repeat, that is a different topic.
As for nationalism and national socialism, fascism, I will perhaps tell you something strange. Firstly, the lady herself... what is her name?
Sarubin:
Annalena Baerbok.
Putin:
Yes, Baerbock, so that I don't confuse her surname, she represents the Green Party. Many representatives of this part of the political spectrum in Europe speculate on people's fears and fuel these fears of people about the events that may occur in the world in connection with climate change. And then, by speculating on these fears that they themselves have fuelled, they pursue a political line that is far removed from the one that brought them to power. This is exactly what is happening in Germany now. For example, coal-fired power generation has increased, and it was bigger in the energy mix than in Russia, it was bigger, and now it has become even bigger. Where is this "green" agenda? That's the first thing.
Secondly, people like the German Foreign Minister are of course - she certainly is - hostile to our country, to Russia. But in my opinion, she is also hostile to her own country, because it is difficult to imagine a politician of this calibre disregarding the economic interests of his country, his people, to such an extent. I don't want to go into details now, but that is exactly what happens in practice, and we see it.
The next part of my statement may contradict what I have just said. I don't believe that today's generation of Germans should bear full political responsibility for everything that Nazi Germany did. People of today's generation should not be held responsible for what Hitler and his henchmen did, not only in Germany but also in other parts of the world, in Europe and so on. I think that would be unfair. And in general it is unfair to put this label on the entire German people, it is unfair and an abuse of what people have experienced, what the peoples of the Soviet Union have experienced. I believe it is unfair and unnecessary. We should start from today's realities and look at who is doing what and what policies are being pursued.
Incidentally, I think that would make sense in this context. In my opinion, there are many countries today, including those in which this should not really be a political leitmotif, but unfortunately it is - what do I mean? A kind of exclusivity of some peoples over others, a kind of chosenness and so on. You see, that's where Nazism started! So if it is so widespread, we should also think about building up this anti-fascist, anti-Nazi propaganda and work on a global level. I repeat, on a global level.
And it should not be done on a state level. It will only be effective if it is done at the level of public awareness and public initiative. And it doesn't matter in which country in the world it happens.
Sarubin:
There has been a near panic across the EU about the possible return of Donald Trump to the US presidency. And Trump's latest statements, just the other day, have frightened the European heads of state and government, they are not hiding it. Trump said that the US should only protect European countries if the European countries pay for it. Why has such a relationship developed between Europe, the European heads of government, the politicians and Donald Trump?
Putin:
Trump has always been described as a non-systemic politician. He has his own views on how the US should organise relations with its allies. And sparks have flown before. Take the US withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement in the environmental field, sparks flew there too. But the US president at the time decided that the US would withdraw from the Kyoto agreements, despite the attractiveness of the environmental agenda, because he believed they were damaging the American economy. That's it. He made a strong-willed decision and that was that. And no matter how much the European leaders berated him, he did it. Yes, and then he corrected it.
And how is Trump's position different in this respect? Basically nothing. He wanted to force the Europeans to increase their defence spending or, as he said, "make them pay us to protect them, to put the nuclear umbrella over their heads" and so on. I don't know, let them sort it out themselves, that's their problem. I think there's a certain logic to it from his point of view. From the Europeans' point of view, there is no logic to it, and they want the US to continue to fulfil some of the functions that have developed since the creation of NATO for free. That's their business.
I don't think NATO has any more use at all, it has no purpose. There is only one reason: it is an instrument of American foreign policy. And if the US thinks that it doesn't need this instrument, then that's their decision.
Sarubin:
The current US President Biden is giving the whole world more and more reason to discuss his state of health every day. He is the president of one of the biggest nuclear powers. At the same time, we all see very specific images every day, to put it mildly. What do you think about when you see and hear all this?
Putin:
I think about the fact that the domestic political campaign, the election campaign, is gaining momentum in the USA. It's getting more and more intense. And from my point of view, it is incorrect to interfere in this process.
Listen, when I met with Biden in Switzerland, that was a few years ago, three years ago, but even then it was said that he was incapable of acting. I saw nothing of the sort. Well, yes, he looked at his papers. To be honest, I looked at mine. There's nothing wrong with that. And the fact that he bumped his head somewhere on the helicopter when he got out - well, who hasn't bumped their head? May the first one throw a stone at him.
Anyway, in my opinion... I'm not a doctor and I don't think I'm qualified to comment. We shouldn't look at that. We should look at the political point of view. I believe that the attitude of the current administration is extremely harmful and wrong. And I said the same thing to President Biden at the time.
Sarubin:
Then a question that was asked four years ago and is now becoming topical again, as it turns out. Who is better for us: Biden or Trump?
Putin:
Biden. He's more experienced, he's predictable, he's a politician of the old mould. But we will work with any leader of the USA in whom the American people have confidence.
Sarubin:
I would like to come back to your interview with Tucker Carlson. We remembered the statements made by the current heads of government of Germany and Great Britain. But there was also someone who spoke out about whom you said in your interview with Carlson: "Where is this Johnson now?" According to Arahamia's admission, it was he who persuaded Kiev not to negotiate with Moscow, but to fight. If the Kiev government had not listened to this, shall we say, advice at the time, how would events have developed?
Putin:
Mr Arahamia said that himself. Look at it synchronised. We didn't pull it out of his nose. He said what he thinks. Why he said that, I don't know. He's such an open person. He said: "If we had fulfilled these agreements, if we had fully implemented the Istanbul agreements, the war would have been over a year and a half ago."
He did say that. In the interview with Mr Carlson, I think I should also have been synchronised with Mr Arahamia. Why did the West take this position? I say "the West" and above all the Anglo-Saxon world, because former Prime Minister Johnson could not act on his own initiative in this matter, on his own initiative and without consultation with Washington. Not only were there probably such consultations, but I believe that he undertook this official trip at the expense of the American government, for which it paid him a travelling allowance. So his position there was that Russia must be fought to the last Ukrainian - that was in brackets, of course - but to the victorious end and to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. They obviously expected this outcome. But as I said to Mr Carlson, I can also repeat it to you: If they see that they are not going to achieve the result, they should actually make corrections. But that is a question of political art, because politics, as you know, is the art of compromise.
End of translation
Thomas Röper (Anti-Spiegel), german journalist who lives in St Petersburg since 30 years, made a translation of an interview between Putin and reporter Saburin:
15 February 2024 15:34
Putin criticises the Carlson interview and talks about Baerbock and Biden's memory
Russian President Putin has criticised the interview with Tucker Carlson in an interview. He also spoke about Baerbock and Biden's mental state. Once again, the German media only report fragments of what Putin said.
The furore over the interview Putin gave to Tucker Carlson has still not completely died down in the West. However, in my first assessment of the interview, which I wrote immediately afterwards, I immediately criticised some things about the interview and explained what I would have done differently if I had been sitting there instead of Carlson.
I find it interesting that when Putin was asked about the interview by a Russian journalist, he basically made the same criticisms as I did. Putin openly said that he did not enjoy "this interview very much".
Putin also spoke out about Baerbock and her Nazi grandfather, and about the issue of what many call the "guilt cult" of the Germans. These statements by Putin may be new to many, but they are not new, because Putin has often made such comments in the past, as German readers of my book "Seht Ihr, was Ihr angerichtet habt?" (Do you see what you've done?) were able to read back in 2019. And it was interesting to see what Putin had to say about US President Biden's state of mind, which is currently also being discussed by the Western media. He also answered the question of whether Biden or Trump would be the "better" US president for Russia.
Because the Western media have again only reported fragments of the interview and so as not to give you my interpretation of Putin's words, I have translated the 20-minute interview that Putin gave to a Russian journalist.
Start of the translation:
Sarubin:
Vladimir Vladimirovich, your interview with Tucker Carlson has already been viewed a billion times. There are many different positive comments. But it is clear which comments come from leading Western politicians. The British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, for example, called, and I quote, "your attempt to explain the reason for launching the military operation and justify it with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia ridiculous and absurd". What do you think of such assessments?
Putin:
Firstly, it is good that they are looking at it and listening to me. If we are not able to have a direct dialogue with them today for some reason to do with them, we should be grateful to Mr Carlson that we can do so through him as a mediator. So the fact that they see and hear it is good.
But the fact that they are twisting what I said is bad, and they are twisting the map. Why? Because I didn't say anything like that. I didn't say that the start of our military operation in Ukraine had anything to do with the threat of a NATO attack on Russia. Where is that in my interview? There is the recording, they should show me where specifically I said that.
I was talking about something else, I was talking about the fact that we were constantly being deceived about the fact that NATO was not being expanded eastwards. Incidentally, the first person to say that was the then Secretary General of NATO, and that was a representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. He said: Not an inch to the east. Then there were five expansions and total deception. We were and are naturally concerned about the possibility of Ukraine being admitted to NATO, because that threatens our security. I have also spoken about that.
But the immediate trigger was the complete refusal of the current Ukrainian government to implement the Minsk Agreement and the incessant attacks with numerous casualties on the Donbass republics, the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic, which we did not recognise for eight years and which finally turned to us with a request for recognition because they recognised the hopelessness of resolving the problems within the framework of the Minsk Agreement. We recognised them, then concluded the well-known Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with them and, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, fulfilled our obligations under that treaty.
As I said before, we did not start the war, we are just trying to end it. In the first phase, we tried to do this by peaceful means - through the Minsk Agreement. As it turned out later, we were led around by the nose here too, because both the former German Chancellor and the former French President admitted this and publicly stated that they had no intention of implementing the agreement, but only wanted to stall for time in order to pump additional weapons into the Ukrainian regime, which they did. The only thing we can regret is that we did not take action sooner, believing that we were dealing with decent people.
Sarubin:
Carlson was criticised immediately before the interview and after the interview he is now being accused of allegedly asking too few tough questions, of being too soft with you, whereas you were very comfortable with him. Do you think that you crushed the American journalist with your authority?
Putin:
I think that your Carlson - when I say "your", I mean that he is a representative of your journalistic profession - is a dangerous person. And that's the reason why: Because, frankly, I thought he was going to behave aggressively and ask these so-called sharp questions.
I was not only prepared for that, I wanted it, because it would have given me the opportunity to answer just as sharply, which I think would have given our whole conversation a certain specificity. But he chose a different tactic, he tried to interrupt me several times, but still, for a Western journalist, he was surprisingly patient and listened to my long dialogues, especially the ones about history. He didn't give me the opportunity to do what I was ready to do. To be honest, I didn't enjoy this interview very much. But he stuck strictly to his plan and he executed it. I can't judge how meaningful it was in the end. It's up to the viewers, listeners or perhaps readers of the material to draw their own conclusions.
Sarubin:
After this interview, there were immediate calls for sanctions against Tucker Carlson and there is talk that he could be arrested there. Is that even possible?
Putin:
Assange is in prison and nobody remembers him, only people close to him are talking about it. That's it. These are the peculiarities of public awareness: the issue disappears and that's it. However, Assange has at least been accused of leaking some state secrets. It's hard to pin anything on Carlson because he didn't touch any secrets at all. Nevertheless, I think that in today's America, in today's USA, anything is theoretically possible.
From Carlson's own point of view it would be sad, I don't envy him somehow, but it was his decision. He knew what he was getting himself into. But from the point of view of making people around the world realise what they are in inverted commas modern "liberal democratic" dictatorship supposedly represented by the US ruling class today, it would probably be good for them to show their true colours.
Sarubin:
Carlson said that after the interview... Just to dispel any doubts that have arisen, here's my question. Carlson said that after the interview you had another conversation, and now everyone is wondering what it was about.
Putin:
As I said and as I understood it, he proceeded according to his own plan, and that's all, he didn't go beyond that plan. For example, there were some other topics that I think would have been important to talk about. But I didn't impose any additional topics that the journalist didn't bring up in the conversation with me.
The question of the demonisation of Russia, for example in connection with the inter-ethnic events, with the pogroms of the Jews in the Russian Empire, that should of course have come up in such an official part. But one of the topics we talked about when the cameras were off was something that the US Secretary of State Mr Blinken spoke about several times, that his relatives, his great-grandfather, fled Russia because of the Jewish pogroms.
And this topic comes up again and again in various countries around the world, in Europe, in the USA. I repeat, it comes up to demonise Russia, to show what kind of barbarians, villains and robbers live here. But if you look at what the current US Secretary of State has said, and not at the political slogans, but at the core of the problems that exist, then a lot becomes clear here too.
We have all this in our archives. For example, Mr Blinken's great-grandfather left the Russian Empire. I think he was born somewhere in the province of Poltava and then lived in Kiev and left it. The question arises: does Mr Blinken believe that this was originally Russian territory, Kiev and the surrounding areas? That is the first.
Secondly, when he says he fled Russia before the Jewish pogroms, he means at least, I want to emphasise this, that there was no Ukraine in 1904, and it was in 1904 that Mr Blinken's great-great-grandfather left Kiev for the USA, so there was no Ukraine there when he says he fled Russia. By all accounts, Mr Blinken is our man. He just stupidly makes such statements in public. That could lead to failure.
Sarubin:
Articles have recently been published in the German media about the fact that the grandfather of the current German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was an ardent Nazi. Given everything that has happened in relations between our countries in recent years, could it be that this "virus" of National Socialism is perhaps being passed on in the country on a genetic level?
Putin:
This is also one of the subspecies of extreme nationalism.
By the way, I just remembered that these pogroms in the Russian Empire took place mainly in the south and south-west, in what is now Ukraine. In Kiev, I said, in 1905. If Mr Blinken's ancestor left in 1904, the first mass pogrom in Kiev was in 1905, so his great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather could only learn about it either from newspapers or from the information that came from Kiev at the time.
But these negative mass events basically appeared at the beginning of the 19th century, I think the first mass pogrom was in 1820, in 1821. Of course, these crimes were in Odessa, then in Melitopol, in Zhitomir and in other cities in what is now Ukraine, in Belarus. There were a few events of this kind in Siberia, but the first was connected with the assassination of the Greek patriarch in Constantinople, when the Greeks living there thought that the Jews were somehow involved in the attempted assassination of the patriarch.
But that is unimportant. What is important, by the way, is that these pogroms were countered by resistance groups consisting of Jewish and Russian youth, and that the government, even the tsarist one, made appropriate assessments and tried to prevent these tragic events, also with the help of the army. But, I repeat, that is a different topic.
As for nationalism and national socialism, fascism, I will perhaps tell you something strange. Firstly, the lady herself... what is her name?
Sarubin:
Annalena Baerbok.
Putin:
Yes, Baerbock, so that I don't confuse her surname, she represents the Green Party. Many representatives of this part of the political spectrum in Europe speculate on people's fears and fuel these fears of people about the events that may occur in the world in connection with climate change. And then, by speculating on these fears that they themselves have fuelled, they pursue a political line that is far removed from the one that brought them to power. This is exactly what is happening in Germany now. For example, coal-fired power generation has increased, and it was bigger in the energy mix than in Russia, it was bigger, and now it has become even bigger. Where is this "green" agenda? That's the first thing.
Secondly, people like the German Foreign Minister are of course - she certainly is - hostile to our country, to Russia. But in my opinion, she is also hostile to her own country, because it is difficult to imagine a politician of this calibre disregarding the economic interests of his country, his people, to such an extent. I don't want to go into details now, but that is exactly what happens in practice, and we see it.
The next part of my statement may contradict what I have just said. I don't believe that today's generation of Germans should bear full political responsibility for everything that Nazi Germany did. People of today's generation should not be held responsible for what Hitler and his henchmen did, not only in Germany but also in other parts of the world, in Europe and so on. I think that would be unfair. And in general it is unfair to put this label on the entire German people, it is unfair and an abuse of what people have experienced, what the peoples of the Soviet Union have experienced. I believe it is unfair and unnecessary. We should start from today's realities and look at who is doing what and what policies are being pursued.
Incidentally, I think that would make sense in this context. In my opinion, there are many countries today, including those in which this should not really be a political leitmotif, but unfortunately it is - what do I mean? A kind of exclusivity of some peoples over others, a kind of chosenness and so on. You see, that's where Nazism started! So if it is so widespread, we should also think about building up this anti-fascist, anti-Nazi propaganda and work on a global level. I repeat, on a global level.
And it should not be done on a state level. It will only be effective if it is done at the level of public awareness and public initiative. And it doesn't matter in which country in the world it happens.
Sarubin:
There has been a near panic across the EU about the possible return of Donald Trump to the US presidency. And Trump's latest statements, just the other day, have frightened the European heads of state and government, they are not hiding it. Trump said that the US should only protect European countries if the European countries pay for it. Why has such a relationship developed between Europe, the European heads of government, the politicians and Donald Trump?
Putin:
Trump has always been described as a non-systemic politician. He has his own views on how the US should organise relations with its allies. And sparks have flown before. Take the US withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement in the environmental field, sparks flew there too. But the US president at the time decided that the US would withdraw from the Kyoto agreements, despite the attractiveness of the environmental agenda, because he believed they were damaging the American economy. That's it. He made a strong-willed decision and that was that. And no matter how much the European leaders berated him, he did it. Yes, and then he corrected it.
And how is Trump's position different in this respect? Basically nothing. He wanted to force the Europeans to increase their defence spending or, as he said, "make them pay us to protect them, to put the nuclear umbrella over their heads" and so on. I don't know, let them sort it out themselves, that's their problem. I think there's a certain logic to it from his point of view. From the Europeans' point of view, there is no logic to it, and they want the US to continue to fulfil some of the functions that have developed since the creation of NATO for free. That's their business.
I don't think NATO has any more use at all, it has no purpose. There is only one reason: it is an instrument of American foreign policy. And if the US thinks that it doesn't need this instrument, then that's their decision.
Sarubin:
The current US President Biden is giving the whole world more and more reason to discuss his state of health every day. He is the president of one of the biggest nuclear powers. At the same time, we all see very specific images every day, to put it mildly. What do you think about when you see and hear all this?
Putin:
I think about the fact that the domestic political campaign, the election campaign, is gaining momentum in the USA. It's getting more and more intense. And from my point of view, it is incorrect to interfere in this process.
Listen, when I met with Biden in Switzerland, that was a few years ago, three years ago, but even then it was said that he was incapable of acting. I saw nothing of the sort. Well, yes, he looked at his papers. To be honest, I looked at mine. There's nothing wrong with that. And the fact that he bumped his head somewhere on the helicopter when he got out - well, who hasn't bumped their head? May the first one throw a stone at him.
Anyway, in my opinion... I'm not a doctor and I don't think I'm qualified to comment. We shouldn't look at that. We should look at the political point of view. I believe that the attitude of the current administration is extremely harmful and wrong. And I said the same thing to President Biden at the time.
Sarubin:
Then a question that was asked four years ago and is now becoming topical again, as it turns out. Who is better for us: Biden or Trump?
Putin:
Biden. He's more experienced, he's predictable, he's a politician of the old mould. But we will work with any leader of the USA in whom the American people have confidence.
Sarubin:
I would like to come back to your interview with Tucker Carlson. We remembered the statements made by the current heads of government of Germany and Great Britain. But there was also someone who spoke out about whom you said in your interview with Carlson: "Where is this Johnson now?" According to Arahamia's admission, it was he who persuaded Kiev not to negotiate with Moscow, but to fight. If the Kiev government had not listened to this, shall we say, advice at the time, how would events have developed?
Putin:
Mr Arahamia said that himself. Look at it synchronised. We didn't pull it out of his nose. He said what he thinks. Why he said that, I don't know. He's such an open person. He said: "If we had fulfilled these agreements, if we had fully implemented the Istanbul agreements, the war would have been over a year and a half ago."
He did say that. In the interview with Mr Carlson, I think I should also have been synchronised with Mr Arahamia. Why did the West take this position? I say "the West" and above all the Anglo-Saxon world, because former Prime Minister Johnson could not act on his own initiative in this matter, on his own initiative and without consultation with Washington. Not only were there probably such consultations, but I believe that he undertook this official trip at the expense of the American government, for which it paid him a travelling allowance. So his position there was that Russia must be fought to the last Ukrainian - that was in brackets, of course - but to the victorious end and to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. They obviously expected this outcome. But as I said to Mr Carlson, I can also repeat it to you: If they see that they are not going to achieve the result, they should actually make corrections. But that is a question of political art, because politics, as you know, is the art of compromise.
End of translation
