Il D Day del Presidente Vladimir Putin difensore della Russia e della pace mondiale


L’Aquila / Il D Day del Presidente Vladimir Putin difensore della Russia e della pace mondiale. La Russia possiede già quattro nuove armi strategiche che nessuno degli ipotizzabili sistemi antimissile balistico potrà mai fermare. Armi concepite per scongiurare la guerra, piuttosto che per farla. È la fine, per sempre, della superiorità navale assoluta degli Stati Uniti d’America. Il Presidente Putin presenta il nuovo missile Kinzhal durante il suo storico intervento all’Assemblea Federale, il 1° Marzo 2018, una data storica per la Terra. L’esilarante intervista integrale della giornalista Megyn Kelly (Nbc). Il Presidente russo Putin con il suo intervento epocale, pronunciato davanti ai membri del Senato e della Duma, si rivolge apertamente agli Usa, e si dice pronto allo START-4. Nessun analista ha ancora fatto notare come il più recente aumento del bilancio del Pentagono superi da solo l’entità complessiva delle spese annuali per la Difesa della Russia, con il record di 686 miliardi di dollari, di cui 597 per il bilancio Usa ordinario e 89 per finanziare le missioni all’estero con un balzo in avanti di 74 miliardi rispetto all’anno scorso. “Le Forze Armate Russe ora dispongono di nuove potenti armi moderne, 3.7 volte rispetto al passato – assicura Putin – nel pieno rispetto della Costituzione russa che non ho mai modificato o piegato ai miei interessi, oltre 300 nuove unità sono entrate in servizio. Le forze strategiche hanno ricevuto 80 nuovi missili balistici intercontinentali, 102 sottomarini lanciamissili balistici e tre sommergibili nucleari classe Borei. Dodici reggimenti missilistici hanno oggi in dotazione il nuovo missile balistico intercontinentale Yars. Il numero di armi a lungo raggio di alta precisione a disposizione della Triade Nucleare è incrementato di 12 volte, mentre il numero di missili cruise di oltre 30 volte, con il nostro X-101. L’Esercito, le Forze Aerospaziali e la Marina hanno rafforzato significativamente il loro potenziale. Un solido perimetro difensivo radar è oggi attivo per la difesa missilistica lungo i confini della Russia”. Senza contare le armi laser di ogni genere. È il 24mo messaggio di un presidente russo all’Assemblea Federale e il 14mo nella carriera politica di Vladimir Putin. Il messaggio storico di Putin è chiaro, evidente e distinto: “Ora ci ascolterete! Alcuni dei Missili Balistici Intercontinentali Icbm sono già operativi. Nessuno al mondo dispone di una cosa simile. Abbiamo detto diverse volte ai nostri partner che avremmo preso delle misure in risposta al piazzamento dei sistemi antimissili americani. Nonostante tutti i problemi che abbiamo affrontato, la Russia era e rimane una potenza nucleare ma nessuno ci ha ascoltato. Allora ascoltateci adesso! Le sanzioni sono legate al desiderio di fermare lo sviluppo della Russia, di frenare la Russia. Questa politica di contenimento della Russia va avanti da decenni. Chi voleva limitarci con le sanzioni non ci è riuscito. L’Occidente deve riconoscerlo. Le informazioni che abbiamo presentato ora sulle armi, che non hanno eguali al mondo, non sono un bluff – avverte Putin – smettetela di agitare la barca che si chiama Pianeta Terra. Gli Usa interferiscono da sempre nelle elezioni politiche e negli affari interni di altri Paesi. Non la Russia. Noi difendiamo la Democrazia, il Diritto Internazionale e la Carta delle Nazioni Unite. La Russia non interferisce nelle vite personali e negli affari esteri di altre nazioni. Né intendiamo controllare né limitare né fermare l’espressione del libero pensiero nel cyberspazio e nei media. Qualunque utilizzo di armi nucleari contro la Russia o un suo alleato verrà interpretato come un attacco contro la Russia ed avrà una risposta immediata e con tutte le conseguenze del caso. Nessuno deve avere dubbi su questo. Difendiamo i nostri interessi, ma rispettiamo quelli degli altri. Noi siamo interessati alla cooperazione con gli Usa e l’Europa, anche se le nostre posizioni non coincidono. Credo nel nostro successo. Negli ultimi anni abbiamo compiuto tali e tanti cambiamenti, per cui ad altri ci sarebbero voluti dei secoli. Bisogna essere coraggiosi, prendersi delle responsabilità, diventare più forti. Queste armi ora le abbiamo solo noi e prima o poi le avrà anche qualche altro, ma nessuno di loro avrà mai degli uomini come il vice comandante Maggiore Roman Filipov”, caduto in Siria il 3 Febbraio 2018 nella guerra al terrorismo vinta dalla Russia e dai suoi alleati. Si tratta del colossale “Sarmat Rs28”, capace di trasportare 15 bombe H all’Idrogeno, un missile da crociera con un sistema di propulsione nucleare a gittata illimitata, ben oltre gli 11mila chilometri dei vecchi vettori classe Voevoda, in grado di effettuare traiettorie imprevedibili. Può colpire da entrambi i Poli della Terra. È praticamente non intercettabile. La Difesa strategica russa viene incrementata del 270%. Perché non è la Russia ad aver armato i confini americani di Canada e Messico! Putin osserva, nella vigilia delle elezioni presidenziali di Domenica 18 Marzo, che il nuovo missile ipersonico può essere armato con testate convenzionali e nucleari, ed è capace di eludere tutti i sistemi esistenti di difesa missilistica. In Russia è stata avviata la produzione in serie del sistema missilistico ipersonico Avangard. L’annuncio è epocale. La Russia possiede già quattro nuove armi strategiche operative che nessuno degli ipotizzabili sistemi anti-missile potrà fermare: un nuovo missile di crociera, con motore nucleare, e con raggio d’azione praticamente illimitato  e planetario; un drone sommergibile, anch’esso a propulsione nucleare, intercontinentale, superveloce, silenzioso, che naviga ad alta profondità; un missile cruise che viaggia a velocità dieci volte superiore a quella del suono (si chiama Pugnale) con 2000 chilometri di raggio d’azione; un nuovissimo missile strategico (Avanguardia) capace di volare a 20 Mach, cioè venti volte la velocità del suono, eludendo i radar e i sistemi anti missile nemici, nonostante i suoi 1600-2000 gradi Celsius! Davvero una considerevole Avanguardia. Finalmente diventano realtà i propulsori nucleari russi. Pensate, oggi non vi sono più limiti per i caccia stellari alla “Star Wars”, gli “shuttle” transatmosferici multiruolo. Vladimir Putin durante lo storico discorso all’Assemblea Federale parla in realtà al Popolo russo non solo di super missili ma anche delle sue politiche di sviluppo per il Paese. Non è Putin che minaccia. Il leader russo è stato chiarissimo al riguardo. Non ci troviamo di fronte a una nuova guerra fredda. Ciò che accade è qualcosa di più, e di peggio, di una guerra fredda. E tutto ciò è cominciato non ieri ma nel 2002, quando l’allora presidente americano George Bush Junior decise di ritirare unilateralmente l’America dal Trattato ABM (Anti-Ballistic-Missile) del 1972, quello che aveva garantito l’Equilibrio del Terrore, cioè l’equilibrio strategico mondiale, attraverso il reciproco impegno delle due superpotenze di non costruire un sistema in grado di colpire l’avversario senza dover temere il rischio di essere a sua volta distrutto (MAD). Sono le ore 12 antimeridiane a Mosca, le 10 in Italia. In appena due ore, la Storia della Terra cambia decisamente prospettiva. La Russia impone agli Usa, alla Nato e ai Paesi del Golfo la fine delle Guerre Umanitarie scatenate dai warlord warmonger dell’Occidente nell’Anno Domini 1990 all’indomani della caduta del Muro di Berlino, mai concluse, contro i Popoli liberi dell’Europa e del Mondo. Conflitti divampati (tra cui la tragedia iugoslava) con la scusa della lotta al “terrore” dei dittatori, dei regimi e dei terroristi “canaglia” di turno, secondo la logica del doppio e triplo standard, sulla base di colossali “fake news” propagandate dai media, parte attiva del meccanismo infernale della guerra che ha finora provocato oltre 8 milioni di morti e decine di milioni di feriti, soprattutto tra i civili che invocano la Giustizia del Tribunale Penale Internazionale delle Nazioni Unite. Alcuni osservatori italiani definiscono già l’iniziativa di Difesa strategica russa con il termine “Justice” per classificare i nuovi sistemi d’arma e il loro estremo uso difensivo di rappresaglia assicurata a un eventuale attacco contro la Russia e i suoi alleati. La Russia è leader tra Europa e Asia. Putin sottolinea l’importanza delle grandi opere che saranno varate nel prossimo biennio in Russia: il ponte con la Crimea, la modernizzazione della ferrovia Transiberiana e dei corridoi autostradali insieme a Kazakistan e Cina, lo sviluppo dell’Artico e dei porti del mar Nero, del mar Caspio, sull’Oceano Pacifico. Sarà presto aperto al traffico il Ponte di Kerch che spezzerà l’isolamento della penisola di Crimea. Il Presidente russo annuncia la creazione di due collisori gravitazionali, a Novosibirsk Akademgorodok e a Protvino, in Russia. Com’è stato letto dalla maggior parte dei media europei? Come un monito verso l’Occidente guerrafondaio. Putin peraltro assicura che la Russia fornirà ai competenti organismi internazionali tutte le informazioni sui sistemi in sviluppo dovute in base agli accordi vigenti in materia di controllo degli armamenti. Chi è l’Impero del Male? Sono trascorsi sette anni dall’inizio della guerra contro la Siria con oltre mezzo milione di vittime, 4 milioni di rifugiati, 7 milioni di sfollati interni, 360mila terroristi stranieri provenienti da 90 Paesi sostenuti, finanziati e armati dalle potenze “russofobiche”. L’Italia esprima piena solidarietà alla Santa Russia vincitrice della Guerra al Terrore del terrorismo internazionale Isis evidentemente sconfitto in Siria dopo sette lunghi anni di massacri Daesh e associati. L’Italia condanni la illegalità giuridica formale e sostanziale di Usa, UK, Francia e Germania per la violazione del Diritto Internazionale, della Convenzione di Vienna e della Carta delle Nazioni Unite. La russofobia è la peggiore maledizione dell’Europa da mille anni. È la causa di tutti conflitti finora scatenati dall’odio antirusso. È perfettamente assimilabile all’antisemitismo. La guerra di spie con i “gas nervini” è opera di coloro che hanno perso le Guerre Umanitarie. Chi crea il caos? Cui bono? Cui prodest? Quando si viola il Diritto Internazionale imponendo la propria visione del mondo ad altri stati e popoli, quando si infrangono patti, trattati, accordi, norme della Carta fondamentale dei Diritti Umani delle Nazioni Unite, in nome della supremazia, si pongono le basi per l’Olocausto. Consigliamo la visione dei cartoni “Masha e Orso”!

(di Nicola Facciolini)

“Le sanzioni sono legate al desiderio di fermare lo sviluppo della Russia, di frenare la Russia. Questa politica di contenimento della Russia va avanti da decenni” (Vladimir Putin). È il D Day del Presidente Vladimir Putin difensore della Russia e della pace mondiale. Il 1° Marzo 2018. Sono le ore 12 antimeridiane a Mosca, le 10 in Italia. In appena due ore, la Storia della Terra cambia decisamente prospettiva. La Difesa strategica russa viene incrementata del 270% (http://vote.mil.ru/). La Russia impone agli Usa, alla Nato e ai Paesi del Golfo la fine delle Guerre Umanitarie scatenate dai warlord warmonger dell’Occidente nell’Anno Domini 1990 all’indomani della caduta del Muro di Berlino. Mai concluse. Guerre condotte contro i Popoli liberi dell’Europa e del Mondo. Conflitti divampati (tra cui la tragedia iugoslava) con la scusa della lotta al “terrore” dei dittatori, dei regimi e dei terroristi “canaglia” di turno, secondo la logica del doppio e triplo standard, sulla base di colossali “fake news” propagandate dai media, parte attiva del meccanismo infernale della guerra che ha finora provocato oltre 8 milioni di morti e decine di milioni di feriti, rifugiati e dispersi soprattutto tra i civili che invocano la Giustizia del Tribunale Penale Internazionale delle Nazioni Unite. È tempo per i partner occidentali della Russia, come osservano gli analisti in quel di Mosca, di capire e realizzare la nuova realtà multipolare. Il nuovo sistema di difesa russo è in grado di volare in strati densi dell’atmosfera e degli oceani a velocità super e ipersonica. Il che lo rende invulnerabile a qualsiasi mezzo di difesa antiaerea, antisommergibile e antimissile. Il complesso missilistico “Dagger” è stato annunciato personalmente dal presidente russo Vladimir Putin all’Assemblea Federale. È un’arma di cui nessuno al mondo dispone. Si tratta del colossale “Sarmat Rs28”, un missile da crociera con un sistema di propulsione nucleare a gittata illimitata, in grado di effettuare traiettorie imprevedibili. È praticamente non intercettabile. Il Sarmat Rs28, assicura Putin, è invulnerabile a qualsiasi tipo di sistema antimissile ed è la giusta risposta che la Russia fornisce al sistema di difesa missilistico meschinamente schierato in Europa dalla Nato degli Stati Uniti d’America contro gli interessi dei cittadini europei. “Nessuno al mondo dispone di una cosa simile – osserva Putin – abbiamo detto diverse volte ai nostri partner che avremmo preso delle misure in risposta al piazzamento dei sistemi antimissili americani. Nonostante tutti i problemi che abbiamo affrontato, la Russia era e rimane una potenza nucleare ma nessuno ci ha ascoltato. Allora ascoltateci adesso!”. Sarmat Rs28 è il più grande missile balistico intercontinentale di sempre. Pesa 200 tonnellate, ha due stadi con un carico utile di 10 tonnellate e una gittata illimitata, ben oltre gli 11mila chilometri dei vecchi missili classe Voevoda. È in grado di trasportare fino a 15 testate nucleari H all’Idrogeno. Inoltre è dotato di diversi dispositivi elettronici come i “falsi bersagli” per ingannare i sistemi anti missilistici. Può colpire da entrambi i Poli della Terra. In volo il Sarmat Rs28 può variare rotta e velocità, rendendosi impossibile da intercettare. È in grado di superare di 20 volte la velocità del suono e può cambiare continuamente quota orbitale di crociera, nonostante i suoi 1600-2000 gradi Celsius! Davvero una considerevole Avanguardia. Putin presenta poi i nuovi droni subacquei nucleari abissali. Senza contare le armi laser di ogni genere. “Sono stati creati degli apparecchi autonomi che – rivela il Presidente russo – sono capaci di spostarsi negli abissi a distanza intercontinentale. Sono cose da fantascienza. Possiedono un’alta manovrabilità, bassa rumorosità e possono essere armati con proiettili nucleari e non. Nel Dicembre 2017 è stato completato il ciclo pluriennale dei test del sistema di propulsione nucleare per questo drone: la sua velocità supera di diverse volte quella dei sommergibili, dei siluri e di tutti i tipi di nave”. Alcuni osservatori italiani definiscono già la nuova iniziativa di difesa strategica russa con il termine “Justice” per classificare i nuovi sistemi d’arma e il loro estremo uso difensivo di rappresaglia assicurata a un eventuale attacco contro la Russia e i suoi alleati. Vladimir Putin durante l’annuale discorso all’Assemblea Federale parla in verità al Popolo russo e presenta soprattutto le sue politiche di sviluppo per il Paese. Naturalmente il piatto forte del suo storico intervento alle due Camere riunite dell’Assemblea Federale, verte sugli sviluppi tecnologici portati avanti dalla Russia nel campo della Difesa e degli armamenti tattici e strategici: missili nucleari di gettata sconfinata, missili supersonici senza eguali al mondo, imprendibili e imprevedibili come un “meteorite”, e droni sottomarini che si spostano a distanze intercontinentali, erano argomenti finora ignoti ai media europei e americani di regime, imbevuti di notizie false sulla Siria e le guerre umanitarie create per “esportare” la democrazia a suon di bombe sui civili! “Le Forze Armate Russe ora dispongono di nuove potenti armi moderne, 3.7 volte rispetto al passato – assicura Putin – oltre 300 nuove unità sono entrate in servizio. Le forze strategiche hanno ricevuto 80 nuovi missili balistici intercontinentali, 102 sottomarini lanciamissili balistici e tre sommergibili nucleari classe Borei. Dodici reggimenti missilistici hanno oggi in dotazione il nuovo missile balistico intercontinentale Yars. Il numero di armi a lungo raggio di alta precisione a disposizione della Triade Nucleare è incrementato di 12 volte, mentre il numero di missili cruise di oltre 30 volte, con il nostro X-101. L’Esercito, le Forze Aerospaziali e la Marina hanno rafforzato significativamente il loro potenziale. Un solido perimetro difensivo radar è oggi attivo per la difesa missilistica lungo i confini della Russia”. Le nuove armi presentate da Putin sono state interpretate dalla stampa europea come una minaccia nei confronti dell’Occidente. In realtà si tratta di una risposta alle deliberate azioni degli Stati Uniti che, anche prima dell’11 Settembre 2001, hanno dislocato i loro sistemi di difesa antimissilistica nucleare sul territorio di altri Paesi europei confinanti con la Russia. In violazioni di trattati, patti, convenzioni, prassi internazionali e buon senso. Il quadro presentato a pochi giorni dalle elezioni presidenziali russe del 18 Marzo 2018, non ha ovviamente riguardato solamente il settore militare. In materia di politica estera il Presidente Putin in carica ha ribadito l’importanza della cooperazione fra Russia, Stati Uniti ed Europa, nonostante le divergenze esistenti, nonostante le infami sanzioni economiche che però danneggiano molto di più i cittadini europei. Fra i temi sollevati le riforme economiche necessarie per la Russia, i risultati ottenuti nelle politiche interne, come il dimezzamento della povertà dal 2000 ad oggi, l’investimento nella ricerca, nella tecnologia e nell’istruzione. Ebbene, come devono essere letti i messaggi lanciati da Vladimir Putin? Il discorso è molto ampio e tende ad arrivare non soltanto all’orecchio dei parlamentari, ma principalmente del Popolo russo. Durante l’intervento sono stati ovviamente toccati i temi della sicurezza dello Stato, della Difesa e della politica estera. Le nuove armi di cui dispone oggi la Federazione Russa sono programmate per essere difensive. Il discorso dei nuovi armamenti si collega molto ad altri aspetti illustrati da Putin relativi alla tecnologia e alla Difesa. Queste nuove armi sono il frutto dell’ingegneria russa, i cui benefici non tarderanno a manifestarsi nel settore spaziale civile con i nuovi “space shuttle” nucleari transatmosferici in grado di eguagliare le performance del famoso caccia stellare “X Wing” nella saga di Star Wars. Il problema tecnologico sullo scudo termico ablativo, in grado di resistere a 1600-2000 gradi Celsius, a quanto pare oggi anche “magnetico”, pare definitivamente risolto! Questo si ricollega al discorso dell’istruzione, della tecnologia e della formazione della nuova generazione. Com’è stato letto dalla maggior parte dei media europei? Come un monito verso l’Occidente guerrafondaio. Putin parla di un quadro programmatico della Russia presentando il Paese con il suo “soft power”. Il Presidente nel campo dell’istruzione ribadisce la necessità che le università siano attrattive per gli stranieri: questa è senz’altro un’apertura verso il mondo. Parlando della sanità e dell’aiuto alle medie imprese, Putin intende allargare la classe media (quasi del tutto scomparsa in Italia come il “voto moderato”) indispensabile per la stabilità di un Paese come la Russia. Putin sottolinea che la Russia non ha intenzione di aggredire nessuno e auspica “una collaborazione equa e paritaria sia con gli Stati Uniti sia con l’Unione Europea”. Allo stesso tempo il Presidente  vuol mostrare che Mosca torna ad essere una superpotenza militare impossibile da contenere come sta facendo oggi la Nato suoi confini russi. Perché non è la Russia ad aver armato i confini americani di Canada e Messico! È evidente, dopo circa 18 anni di presenza di Putin in campo, come gli obiettivi preposti fin dalla prima presidenza siano stati ampiamente raggiunti. Nel 2000, ai tempi della tragedia del sottomarino Kursk, la povertà in Russia sfiorava i 42 milioni di abitanti. Dopo 18 anni è stata più che dimezzata. Per quanto riguarda i rapporti con gli Stati Uniti d’America e con l’Unione Europa, il ritorno sulla scena internazionale della Russia è dovuto anche alla preparazione tecnologica nel campo della Difesa e della sicurezza dello Stato. Putin ribadisce un concetto chiave a lui molto caro: per sostenere una Politica internazionale c’è bisogno anche di una forza militare coerente. Queste sono delle ovvietà per chiunque sia a capo di una potenza mondiale come la Russia che forte da un punto di vista militare diventa una garanzia per la stabilità del sistema mondiale. Gli alleati strategici rimangono la Cina e l’India: questo sta a significare che non siamo più in un sistema unipolare ma in un sistema sempre più multipolare, ossia policentrico, indipendentemente dalla volontà di potenza americana. In attesa delle elezioni Usa di Novembre 2018, le “Midterm”, di metà mandato, importanti nel caso venga riconfermato un largo consenso al Presidente Trump, evidentemente le relazioni potrebbero migliorare. In caso contrario, se il Congresso Usa si schierasse in un’opposizione ancora più marcata nei confronti di Trump, è evidente che l’Amministrazione statunitense, in ossequio alla russofobia massonica, tornerà ad una sorta di posizionamento antagonista versus la Federazione Russa e gli interessi dei cittadini europei. Abbiamo davanti due grandi date: quella del 18 Marzo 2018, in cui crediamo sia scontata la riconferma di Putin per il suo quarto mandato; poi ci sarà quella di Novembre molto importante per vedere quanto gli americani sostengono o meno Trump, a meno che il mondo finisca prima! L’Italia è un Paese nell’ambito della Nato, nel bene e nel male, quindi è evidente che i suoi rapporti con la Russia da un punto di vista geostrategico saranno sempre problematici finché resterà “confinata” nella obsoleta Alleanza Atlantica a comando Usa. Chiunque vada al governo dovrà tenere conto di questo, al di là dei proclami elettorali. Per quanto riguarda questioni di tipo economico e politico, chiunque vada al governo dovrà tenere conto anche della grande opposizione che c’è in Italia verso l’Unione Europea e le politiche sanzionatorie europee nei confronti della Russia. Se chiunque vada al governo troverà una soluzione di “accomodamento”, la posizione dell’Italia (protettorato Usa) nei confronti di Mosca e delle sanzioni antirusse sarà molto più mitigata di quanto lo sia stato in passato. “L’annuncio del presidente russo all’Assemblea Federale Russa è stato un evento di primaria grandezza – scrive Giulietto Chiesa – quei pochi che capiscono, in Occidente, hanno reagito preoccupati. Qualche altro, da annoverare tra gli sciocchi che non capiscono niente, e tra quelli che fanno solo propaganda, ha cercato di arrampicarsi sugli specchi immaginando, o fingendo, che Putin stia facendo la sua campagna elettorale. Non sanno, poveretti, che Putin vincerà a mani basse le prossime elezioni presidenziali e, quindi, non ha bisogno di farsi propaganda, essendo la sua popolarità molto alta. Molti altri, specie in America, hanno capito tutto, ma cercano di truccare le carte – osserva Chiesa – presentando il discorso di Vladimir Putin come l’ennesima dimostrazione del carattere minaccioso della Russia. L’immagine di una Russia aggressiva fa molto comodo quando si tratta di coprire la propria debolezza. In realtà è vero il contrario. Non è Putin che minaccia. Il leader russo è stato chiarissimo al riguardo. Non ci troviamo di fronte a una nuova guerra fredda. Ciò che accade è qualcosa di più, e di peggio, di una guerra fredda. E tutto ciò è cominciato non ieri ma nel 2002, quando l’allora presidente americano George Bush Junior decise di ritirare unilateralmente l’America dal Trattato ABM (Anti-Ballistic-Missile) del 1972, quello che aveva garantito l’Equilibrio del Terrore, cioè l’equilibrio strategico mondiale, attraverso il reciproco impegno delle due superpotenze di non costruire un sistema in grado di colpire l’avversario senza dover temere il rischio di essere a sua volta distrutto. È da allora, ha detto Putin, che gli Stati Uniti hanno cominciato a prepararsi a infliggere un “primo colpo”. La giusta lettura delle parole del leader russo è questa: preoccupazione estrema dello stato delle cose attuale. I Russi sanno che Washington sta procedendo a grandi passi verso la creazione di un sistema antimissile balistico. E sanno anche che i calcoli del Pentagono  prevedono che un tale sistema potrebbe giungere a compimento entro un quinquennio. A Mosca valutano che, a quella data (o nelle sue immediate vicinanze) il pericolo di un primo colpo nucleare distruttivo sarà imminente. Magari doppiato e triplicato da diverse altre componenti della guerra ibrida che è già in corso. Occorreva dunque fermarli subito. Come? Facendo loro paura. Ovvero facendo loro capire che, quando saranno arrivati al traguardo, quel traguardo non ci sarà più. Anzi, facendo loro capire che quel traguardo non c’è già più, nemmeno adesso. L’annuncio è epocale. La Russia possiede già quattro nuove armi strategiche che nessuno degli ipotizzabili sistemi antimissile potrà fermare. Sono queste: a) un nuovo missile di crociera, con motore atomico, e con raggio d’azione praticamente planetario; b) un drone sommergibile, anch’esso a motore nucleare, intercontinentale, superveloce, silenzioso, che naviga ad alta profondità; c) un missile cruise che viaggia a velocità dieci volte superiore a quella del suono (si chiamerà Pugnale) con 2000 chilometri di raggio d’azione; d) un nuovissimo missile strategico (Avanguardia) capace di volare a 20 Mach, cioè venti volte la velocità del suono. Tutti questi nuovi vettori potranno essere armati in modo convenzionale oppure atomico. Insieme equivalgono a dire: “non provateci”. Tra l’altro, dicono gli esperti, essi significano la fine, per sempre, della superiorità navale assoluta degli Stati Uniti d’America. Le loro possenti squadre navali – rileva Chiesa – le loro portaerei saranno indifese e affondabili in pochi minuti come barchette di carta, dovunque si trovino. A noi che siamo in mezzo, alleati con i dementi d’Oltre Oceano, dice: “svegliatevi, fermateli finchè potete”. Ecco il significato del discorso di Putin di fronte all’Assemblea Federale”. Nell’Anno Domini 2016, Putin pronunciò il suo messaggio nella sala di San Giorgio al Cremlino. Il 1° Marzo 2018 il teatro dell’evento epocale è poco distante, ma al di fuori delle Mura rosse del cuore del potere russo. La location prescelta è il complesso espositivo del Maneggio, scelta in virtù dell’accresciuto numero di ospiti attesi. Il capo dello Stato russo pronuncia il suo discorso di fronte all’Assemblea Federale una volta all’anno. Si tratta di un documento politico che esprime la visione delle strategie di sviluppo della Russia a breve termine. L’intervento contiene tesi politiche, economiche e ideologiche, ed anche proposte concrete per il lavoro delle due camere del Parlamento. È il 24mo messaggio di un presidente russo all’Assemblea Federale e il 14mo nella carriera politica di Vladimir Putin. Il Presidente russo dichiara: “Questo messaggio ha un carattere speciale. Siamo riusciti a garantire lo sviluppo della Russia. Non dobbiamo pensare che la stabilità che abbiamo raggiunto si trasformi in rilassamento. I prossimi anni saranno decisivi per lo sviluppo del Paese. Tutto questo non è legato alle elezioni. Sto parlando dello sviluppo delle tecnologie. Un ritardo in queste sfere è inammissibile. Quali devono essere le priorità del nostro corso politico? Ribadisco che al primo posto ci deve essere il benessere delle persone. Dobbiamo dare alla gente un lavoro dignitoso che porti guadagno e possibilità di realizzare sè stessi. Negli Anni 2000 in Russia c’erano 42 milioni di poveri. Oggi questa cifra è scesa a 20 milioni. Ma sono ancora troppi. Nei prossimi 10 anni dobbiamo diminuire la disoccupazione. E nei prossimi 6 anni diminuire di due volte la soglia di povertà. Di queste cose parliamo spesso e da molto, ma bisogna fare. Le grandi città devono essere il modello per lo sviluppo di tutta la Russia. Abbiamo imparato a migliorare le nostre città: Sochi, Kazan, Vladivostok ne sono un esempio. Dobbiamo continuare in questa direzione per regalare alle persone un ambiente moderno dove vivere, lavorare, esprimere il loro potenziale. Tutto questo garantisce l’espansione della classe media in Russia”. La Russia è leader tra Europa e Asia. Putin sottolinea l’importanza delle grandi opere che saranno varate nel prossimo biennio in Russia: il ponte con la Crimea, la modernizzazione della ferrovia Transiberiana e dei corridoi autostradali insieme a Kazakistan e Cina, lo sviluppo dell’Artico e dei porti del mar Nero, del mar Caspio, sull’Oceano Pacifico. “Da Vladivostok ai confini occidentali della Russia con l’Europa, le merci arriveranno in meno di 8 giorni. Questo è un reale impulso allo sviluppo economico del territorio e garantirà un ritorno più veloce dagli investimenti”, sottolinea il Presidente russo. Per la prima volta nella storia, il discorso di Putin all’Assemblea Federale è accompagnato da dati interrativi che scorrono alle sue spalle. Per “coinvolgere le persone, conservare i nostri valori”, Vladimir Putin ribadisce che il 2018 in Russia è l’anno dei volontari, evidenziando l’importanza del loro operato: “Il coinvolgimento delle persone negli affari del Paese ci rende un popolo unito. Conservare la nostra identità è prioritario, soprattutto in quest’epoca di veloci cambiamenti tecnologici”. Massimo appoggio alla ricerca. “Negli ultimi anni la Russia ha aumentato il suo potenziale nella sfera scientifica – rivela Putin – oggi dobbiamo salire ancora di livello. Ci servono delle piattaforme digitali autonome”. Il Presidente russo annuncia la creazione di due acceleratori gravitazionali in Russia e la semplificazione della procedura di acquisizione della cittadinanza russa. “Dobbiamo rendere le nostre università appetibili agli stranieri e favorire la permanenza dei diplomati più meritevoli. La priorità va a coloro che possono essere utili al nostro Paese: giovani, in salute, istruiti”. Il raccolto record è da “complimenti!”. Il Presidente russo poi si congratula con i lavoratori del settore primario: “Quest’anno il raccolto ha avuto un risultato senza precedenti: 134 milioni di tonnellate. Ancora di più del record dell’Unione Sovietica, raggiunto nel 1970, con 127,4 milioni di tonnellate”. La Difesa missilistica è la risposta della Russia agli Usa. “La Russia creerà una nuova arma in risposta alle azioni degli Usa che hanno dislocato il loro sistema di difesa antimissilistica sul territorio di altri Paesi – avverte Putin – nel 2002 gli Usa sono usciti unilateralmente dall’accordo sulla difesa missilistica. Noi abbiamo provato in tutti modi a mantenere il negoziato, ma tutte le nostre proposte sono state rifiutate. Washington ha dichiarato che il sistema di difesa antimissilistica non era orientato contro Mosca. Noi abbiamo risposto dicendo che saremmo stati obbligati ad aumentare il nostro potenziale difensivo. Le Autorità americane ci hanno detto: fate quello che volete”. Dietro a Putin scorrono le immagini del missile Sarmat “Justice”. Il Presidente ricorda che i missili russi in Occidente vengono soprannominati “Satana”. Si tratta dei Sarmat, sviluppati sulla base dei missili “Voevoda” sovietici. “Nei media occidentali sono stati ribattezzati Satana-2. Come vedete al mondo non c’è nessuno che abbia qualcosa di simile. Certo, prima o poi spunterà, ma nel frattempo i nostri ragazzi avranno già creato qualcos’altro”, rimarca Putin. Un video presenta un nuovo tipo di missile aria-superficie. Il Presidente russo lo annuncia a propulsione nucleare: è il Kinzhal, la nuova arma “Meteorite” che “può essere manovrata negli strati compatti dell’atmosfera: sarà imprendibile, la velocità sarà supersonic, sarà come un meteorite”, rivela Putin che poi ringrazia gli “eroi del nostro tempo” caduti in Siria. “Rivolgo un pensiero alle migliaia di persone che lavorano per il bene della sicurezza della Russia ed alla creazione di queste nuove armi. Ripeto, queste armi ora le abbiamo solo noi e prima o poi le avrà anche qualche altro, ma nessuno di loro avrà mai degli uomini come il vice-comandante Maggiore Roman Filipov”, caduto in Siria il 3 Febbraio 2018. La sala accoglie con gli applausi le parole del Presidente Putin. “Chi voleva limitarci non ci è riuscito. L’Occidente deve riconoscerlo. Le informazioni che abbiamo presentato ora sulle armi, che non hanno eguali al mondo, non sono un bluff – avverte Putin – smettetela di agitare la barca che si chiama Pianeta Terra. Qualunque utilizzo di armi nucleari contro la Russia o un suo alleato verrà interpretato come un attacco contro la Russia ed avrà una risposta immediata e con tutte le conseguenze del caso. Nessuno deve avere dubbi su questo. Difendiamo i nostri interessi, ma rispettiamo quelli degli altri. Noi siamo interessati alla cooperazione con gli Usa e l’Europa, anche se le nostre posizioni non coincidono. Credo nel nostro successo. Negli ultimi anni abbiamo compiuto tali e tanti cambiamenti, per cui ad altri ci sarebbero voluti dei secoli – ricorda Putin – bisogna essere coraggiosi, prendersi delle responsabilità, diventare più forti”. Rivela Putin: “Citizens of Russia, members of the Federation Council and State Duma, Today’s Address is a very special landmark event, just as the times we are living in, when the choices we make and every step we take are set to shape the future of our country for decades to come. It is at such turning points that Russia has proven, time and again, its ability to develop and renew itself, discover new territories, build cities, conquer space and make major discoveries. This unwavering forward-looking drive, coupled with traditions and values, ensured the continuity in the thousand-year-long history of our nation. We have gone through major challenging transformations, and were able to overcome new and extremely complex economic and social challenges, preserved the unity of our country, built a democratic society and set it on the path to freedom and independence. We ensured sustainability and stability in almost all areas of life, which is critical for a huge and multi-ethnic country like ours with its complex federative structure and diversity of cultures, with historical divides that are still alive in people’s memory and major challenges Russia had to face over the course of its history. However, sustainability is the foundation of development but not its guarantee. We have no right to allow a situation when the stability that has been achieved would lead to complacency, all the more so as many problems remain unresolved. Today, Russia ranks among the world’s leading nations with a powerful foreign economic and defence potential. But we have not yet reached the required level in the context of accomplishing our highly important task and guaranteeing people’s quality of life and prosperity. But we must do this, and we will do this. As I said in the past, the state’s role and positions in the modern world are not determined only or predominantly by natural resources or production capacities; the decisive role is played by the people, as well as conditions for every individual’s development, self-assertion and creativity. Therefore, everything hinges on efforts to preserve the people of Russia and to guarantee the prosperity of our citizens We must achieve a decisive breakthrough in this area. I repeat, a solid foundation has been created for this. Therefore, we can now set and accomplish new tasks. We already have substantial experience in implementing ambitious programmes and social projects. The Russian economy has proved its resilience, and the current stable macro-economic situation opens up new opportunities for surging ahead and maintaining long-term growth. Finally, the world is now accumulating a tremendous technological potential making it possible to achieve a real breakthrough in improving the people’s quality of life and modernising the economy, the infrastructure and state governance and administration. How effectively we will able to use the colossal potentialities of the technological revolution, and how we will respond to its challenges depends on us alone. In this sense, the next few years will prove decisive for the country’s future. I reiterate, these years will be decisive. I will tell you why. What I will say now has no connection to the domestic political cycle or even the presidential election. No matter who is elected President, each Russian citizen and all of us together must be able to see what is going on in the world, what is happening around us, and what challenges we are facing. The speed of technological progress is accelerating sharply. It is rising dramatically. Those who manage to ride this technological wave will surge far ahead. Those who fail to do this will be submerged and drown in this wave. Technological lag and dependence translate into reduced security and economic opportunities of the country and, ultimately, the loss of its sovereignty. This is the way things stand now. The lag inevitably weakens and erodes the human potential. Because new jobs, modern companies and an attractive life will develop in other, more successful countries where educated and talented young people will go, thereby draining the society’s vital powers and development energy. As I have said, changes concern the entire civilization, and the sheer scale of these changes calls for an equally powerful response. We are ready to provide it. We are ready for a genuine breakthrough. My confidence is based on the results we have achieved together, even though they may seem modest at first glance, as well as on the unity of Russian society and, most importantly, on the huge potential of Russia and our talented and ingenious people. In order to move forward and to develop dynamically, we must expand freedom in all spheres, strengthen democratic institutions, local governments, civil society institutions and courts, and also open the country to the world and to new ideas and initiatives. It is high time we take a number of tough decisions that are long overdue. We need to get rid of anything that stands in the way of our development and prevents people from fully unleashing their potential. It is our obligation to focus all resources and summon all our strength and willpower in this daring effort that must yield results. Otherwise, there will be no future for us, our children or our country. It is not a question of someone conquering or devastating our land. No, that is not the danger. The main threat and our main enemy is the fact that we are falling behind. If we are unable to reverse this trend, we will fall even further behind. This is like a serious chronic disease that steadily saps the energy from the body and destroys it from within step by step. Quite often, this destructive process goes unnoticed by the body. We need to master creative power and boost development so that no obstacles prevent us from moving forward with confidence and independently. We must take ownership of our destiny. Colleagues, What should be our priority? Let me reiterate that I believe that the main, key development factor is the well-being of the people and the prosperity of Russian families. Let me remind you that in 2000, 42 million people lived below the poverty line, which amounted to nearly 30 percent, 29 percent of the population. In 2012, this indicator fell to 10 percent. Poverty has increased slightly against the backdrop of the economic crisis. Today, 20 million Russian nationals live in poverty. Of course, this is much fewer than the 42 million people in 2000, but it is still way too many. There are even working people who have to live very modest lives. For the first time in our recent history, the minimum wage was equated with the subsistence level. This provision will come into force on May 1, 2018, and will benefit about 4 million people. This is an important step but it still falls short of offering a fundamental solution. We need to upgrade the employment structure that has become inefficient and archaic, provide good jobs that motivate people, improve their well-being and help them uncover their talents. We need to create decent well-paid jobs. This would help deliver on one of the key objectives for the next decade, which is to guarantee sustained long-term real income growth, and to reduce the poverty rate by at least one half over the next six years. It is our moral duty to provide all-round support to members of the older generation, who have made a tremendous contribution to national development. Senior citizens must have worthy conditions for a long, active and healthy life. Most importantly, we must raise pensions and index them regularly, so that they outpace inflation. We will also strive to reduce the gap between the size of pensions and pre-retirement wages. And, of course, we must raise the quality of healthcare and social support for senior citizens and help people who are alone and those facing problems in life. We need to address all these issues using a comprehensive approach. As I see it, the future new Government will have to draft a special programme for the systematic support of senior citizens and for improving their quality of life. We consider every person important and valuable. People need to know that they are needed, and they must live a long and healthy life and enjoy their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. They need to see their children grow up and become successful in a powerful, rapidly developing and successful country that is attaining new development levels. Russia must firmly assert itself among the five largest global economies, and its per-capita GDP must increase by 50 percent by the middle of the next decade. This is a very difficult task. I am confident that we are ready to accomplish it. Of course, life expectancy is a highly important fundamental parameter for gauging the well-being of citizens and the country. In 2000, Russia posted a life expectancy of just over 65 years, with men’s life expectancy falling below 60 years. This is not just low, it is a tragedy, and this parameter is tragically inadequate. In the past few years, Russia has been posting a major increase in average life expectancy levels, which is among the highest in the world. We have managed to accomplish this task. Life expectancy levels have increased by over seven years and now total 73 years. But, of course, this is not enough either. Today, we must set an entirely new goal. By the end of the next decade, Russia must confidently join the club of countries posting a life expectancy of 80-plus years, which includes Japan, France and Germany. At the same time, life expectancy levels for people living a healthy, active and full life, when they are not hampered and pinned down by illness, must grow faster than planned. I am confident that we can achieve this goal, considering the positive trends of the previous years. For this purpose, the whole of Russia will have to make a quantum leap in its development, so that the life of every person is transformed. Colleagues, We need to create a modern living environment and transform cities and villages across the country. In doing so, we must make sure that they preserve their identity and historical heritage. We already have positive experience in renovating the urban environment and infrastructure. Let me elaborate on this point. Cities like Kazan, Vladivostok and Sochi have already benefited from upgrades of this kind. Change is underway in many regional capitals and smaller cities. Overall, we now know how to do it. I propose launching a large-scale spatial development programme in Russia, which would include developing cities and other communities by at least doubling spending in this area over the next six years. It is obvious that the effort to develop cities and other communities goes hand in hand with the need to overcome challenges in other areas, including healthcare, education, environment and transport. Initiatives in all these segments will require additional funding. I will talk about this matter further in my Address. Urban renovation should be supported by the introduction of state-of-the-art construction technology and materials, modern architectural solutions, digital technology for social services, transport and utilities sectors. Among other things, this would make the housing and utilities sector more transparent and efficient, so that people receive quality services at a reasonable cost. This large-scale project brings the promise of better economic and social development prospects, a modern living environment, and a favourable climate for cultural and civil initiatives, for small businesses and start-ups. All this would facilitate the emergence of a large and creative middle class in Russia. Of course, a lot will depend on municipal and local authorities and whether they will be receptive to new ideas. The ability to respond to the diverse needs of various generations, including families with children, retirees and people with disabilities, will also be instrumental. People must have a decisive say in the future of their cities and villages. We have discussed this many times, including at meetings with heads of municipalities. Today, I am not saying it just to check the box. I ask you to bring it to the attention of decision-makers at all levels. It is important that the development of cities becomes the driving force for the whole country. Russia is a country with a vast territory, and its active, dynamic life cannot be concentrated in several metropolitan cities. Big cities must distribute their energy, and serve as a support for the balanced, harmonious spatial development of the whole of Russia. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an appropriate modern infrastructure. I will return to this later. However, it is obvious that developed utilities is what will enable residents of small towns and villages to take advantage of all the opportunities and modern services that are available in big cities, and smaller towns will be closely integrated into Russia’s single social and economic space. At the same time, we will support initiatives that will help our small towns and villages to preserve their cultural identity, to re-discover their unique potential in a new way. Particular attention will be paid to the social and infrastructural development of rural areas. Russian agriculture has already become a globally competitive industry. Therefore, people who work for this success should live a comfortable and modern life. Colleagues, I understand how important it is for everyone, for every family, to have their own house, their own home. I know this is the problem of problems in Russia. It lingers from decade to decade. How many times governments promised and tried, sincerely tried to resolve it. But we can and must do it now. In 2017, three million families in Russia improved their living conditions. Now we need to reach a stable level (I emphasise this: it is the first time in the history of modern Russia) – to a level where at least five million families improve their housing conditions annually. This is a difficult task – to jump from three million to five. We reached 3.1 million last year, but we need to make it five. Yet, it is an attainable goal. I see three key factors for increasing the affordability of housing. The first is the growth of people’s incomes. I have spoken about this in the past, and we must ensure this. Next, a decrease in mortgage interest rates and, of course, an increased supply in the housing market. I would like to remind you of something that few people remember, which is that only 4,000 mortgage loans were issued in 2001. Only 4,000. The interest rate was as high as 30 percent, including on foreign currency loans. By the way, half of the mortgage loans were issued in foreign currency. Few people could afford to take out mortgage loans then. Last year, the number of mortgage loans almost reached one million. In December, the average interest rate on ruble loans for the first time decreased to below 10 percent. We know, of course, that loan terms are individual and may differ from one borrower to another. But we must continue to lower the average interest rate to 7–8 percent. We held long discussions on the figure I should say here. I am sure that the target figure should be 7 percent. In the next six years, mortgage loans must become accessible to the majority of Russian families, working people and young professionals. Here are some more figures. In the 1950s through 1970s, we annually built approximately 60 million square metres of housing a year. The figure rose to 70 million by the late 1990s. Now we annually build around 80 million square metres of housing every year. We built even more housing in some years, but the average figure is 80 million. We must move forward and reach new heights in this sphere, that is, increase the volume of housing built every year from 80 million to 120 million square metres. This is an ambitious but realistic goal, given new technologies, the experience our construction companies have accumulated, as well as new materials. The rise from 80 to 120 million square metres is what we need and can achieve. I will tell you why: if we want 5 million families to receive new housing every year, we must reach the figure of 120 million square metres. Those who invest their money in housing projects must be securely protected. We should gradually proceed from unit construction to project financing, when developers and banks, but not people, shoulder the risks. I also propose revising the personal property tax. It must be fair and affordable. Some people, including those in this hall, tried to convince me that this tax should be based on the market value of property. They told me that using obsolete valuation by the Technical Inventory Bureau is an anachronism. But it turned out in reality that cadastral value, which should be comparable to market value, often exceeded it by far. This was not the agreement. And the people did not expect this from us. We must revise the mechanism for calculating the tax and also the calculation of the cadastral value of property. One way or another, it must not exceed the real market value. All decisions regarding this must be taken without delay in the first six months of this year. Colleagues, We must penetrate the whole country with advanced communications to develop cities, towns, to enhance business activity and to meld together Russia’s entire territory. The Crimean Bridge will open to cars in just a few months and to trains next year. This will stimulate the development of Crimea and the entire Russian Black Sea region. We have overhauled federal roads. Now we must modernise regional and local routes. I am not going to talk about the figures now, but I know them. It is a fact that federal roads have mostly been renovated. The situation is somewhat worse with regional roads, and it is completely unacceptable with local roads. I address this to regional and city heads: you must constantly focus your attention on the roads. You must improve the quality of road construction using advanced technology and solutions, infrastructure mortgage loans and life cycle contracts. Of course, another critical task is to improve safety on the roads and to decrease the mortality rate in road accidents to the minimum. Overall, in the next six years, we must almost double the spending on road construction and repairs in Russia and to allocate more than 11 trillion roubles for this from all sources. This is a lot; keep in mind that we have allocated 6.4 trillion rubles in 2012–2017, but we need 11 trillion. Large Eurasian transport corridors will also be developing. An automobile road that will become part of the Europe – Asia-Pacific corridor is already under construction. Our Chinese and Kazakhstani partners involved in this project together with us have already completed their part. Their sections have already been opened, so we need to speed up our work. The throughput capability of the Baikal-Amur Mainline and the Trans-Siberian Railway will grow 1.5 times, up to 180 million tonnes, in six years. It will take seven days for containers from Vladivostok to reach the western borders of Russia. This is just one of the infrastructure projects that will bring quick economic returns. It includes freight, so all investment will be paid off very quickly and will contribute to these regions’ development. The volume of transit shipments on our railways must grow almost fourfold. This means that Russia will become a global leader in transit shipping between Europe and Asia. In 1990, the ports of the Soviet Union had an aggregate capacity of 600 million tonnes, but after the country broke apart, we lost almost half. In the early 2000s, Russian ports could handle only 300 million tonnes. Over the last 17 years, this figure has tripled. In early 2017, the aggregate port capacity in Russia exceeded 1 billion tonnes for the first time in history. As you can see from the charts, this exceeds the level reached by the Soviet Union by more than two thirds. By the way, these are the figures for early 2017, and the capacity currently stands at 1,025 billion tonnes. We need to further expand this capacity, including by increasing the capacity of railway links to ports in the Azov and Black Sea basin 1.5-fold to 131 million tonnes. The Northern Sea Route will be the key to developing the Russian Arctic and Far East. By 2025, cargo traffic along this route will surge tenfold to 80 million tonnes. Our goal is to make it a truly global and competitive transport route. Let me remind you that the Northern Sea Route was used more actively in Soviet times compared to how we have been using it so far. We will definitely develop this route and reach new horizons. I have no doubt about it. We will continue our proactive policy to attract investment and create social and economic growth centres in Russia’s Far East. We will create all the conditions to ensure a people-friendly living environment, so that people move to this region and its population grows. A number of large-scale industrial projects have been launched in the Arctic. They comply with the highest environmental standards. We are strengthening the research, transport, navigation and military infrastructure, which is expected to guarantee Russia’s interests in this strategic region. Russia builds cutting-edge nuclear icebreakers. We have had the most powerful icebreaker fleet in the world, and this will remain so. We will renovate and expand the network of regional airports across Russia. In six years, half of the regions will be connected between each other by direct flights. The situation where you had to make a connection in Moscow when flying to a neighbouring region will become a thing of the past. We are already working on this. This includes efforts to develop aviation and airports. The Spatial Development Strategy will serve as a foundation for preparing a comprehensive plan to modernise and expand the backbone traffic infrastructure. I believe this to be a priority for the future Government. Russia must not just become the world’s key logistics and transport hub, but also, which is very important, a global centre for the storage, processing, transfer and reliable protection of large volumes of information, so-called big data. Overall, infrastructure development must take into account global technological changes. In other words, the projects we are now considering must include practical solutions for combining infrastructure with drones and digital marine and air navigation, as well as use AI to streamline logistics. Likewise, we must introduce new technologies for the generation, storage and relay of energy. In the next six years, we plan to attract some 1.5 trillion rubles in private investment for modernising our power generation sector. All power systems throughout the country must convert to digital technology. We must use the so-called distributed generation method to supply electricity to remote areas. By 2024, high-speed internet will be available throughout the country. We will complete the construction of fibre optic lines in the majority of populated areas with a population of more than 250 people. Small remote towns in the Extreme North, Siberia and the Russian Far East will access internet via a network of Russian satellites. We will use advanced telecommunications to give our people access to the digital world. As we know, this is more than just modern services, online education and telemedicine, although all this is very important. More than that, people will be able to use digital space to conduct research, organise volunteer and project groups or run companies. In our vast country, this combination of talent, competencies and ideas amounts to a huge ground-breaking resource.  Colleagues, A crucial task facing every one of us is to make advanced high-quality healthcare widely accessible. We must be guided by the highest international standards in this area. In 2019–2024, we need to spend over 4 percent of the GDP each year to develop the healthcare system. At the same time, the goal we must bear in mind is 5 percent. In absolute terms, this means that healthcare spending must double. In addition, we must find new funding opportunities that would not limit economic growth. I would like to thank doctors, paramedics and nurses for their difficult and highly necessary work. A great deal depends on these people, as well as on teachers, counsellors and cultural workers, and they must receive decent salaries. We have done a lot to implement the 2012 May executive orders. I must say that there were several failures, but overall, despite the demanding targets of these orders, without them we would not have had the results we can see today. We must always set ambitious tasks. We must not lose the positions we have already attained. I am referring to the level of wages. Wages in the public sector must continue growing, as well as the quality of work and skills of the people working in healthcare, education and other areas that define people’s wellbeing. In recent years, we have optimised the hospital network in the country. This was done in order to build an effective healthcare system. However, in some case, I have to say this today, too many administrative changes were introduced: hospitals in small towns and villages have been closed. No one proposed an alternative, and people were left with practically no medical aid. The only advice they were given was, “Go to the city to get treatment there.” I must say that this is unacceptable. They forgot about the main thing: the people, their interests and needs, equal opportunities and justice. This must not happen in healthcare or any other area. We must provide, or restore where necessary, easy access to primary healthcare. We can do this, but we should have done this from the very beginning, when we started the reforms. This must be done as quickly as possible. In the period from 2018 to 2020, we must ensure that each small town with a population of 100 to 2,000 people has a paramedic station and an outpatient clinic. For villages with less than 100 people – we also have villages as small as that – we will organise mobile medical units, all-terrain vehicles with all the necessary diagnostic equipment. These projects should be closely monitored. I consider them extremely important. And I also ask the Russian Popular Front to stay in contact with people, to keep an eye on the situation on the ground. At the same time, outpatient clinics and paramedic stations, regional healthcare facilities and leading medical centres should be linked into a single digital network so that the entire national healthcare system is involved in helping each person. Disease prevention is a vitally important task. In the 1990s, this work was largely neglected. We began to restore it. We need to provide all people with a real opportunity to have a complete physical at least once a year. This is also important for encouraging a responsible attitude to one’s own health. Modern diagnostics will reduce mortality among the working age population, and consolidate the positive trends in treating cardiovascular disorders. We can see these positive trends, which is very good. But we also need to fight other threats such as cancer. Colleagues, I think that practically every one of us has relatives or friends or friends of friends afflicted with this disease – cancer. I propose to implement a special national cancer programme, to involve scientists and the national pharmaceutical industry, to modernise oncological centres, to build a modern system from early diagnosis to timely effective treatment that will protect people. We have positive experience in this area. We must reach the cutting-edge, the highest level of all the key indicators that show the effectiveness of cancer care – experts should know what they are. Colleagues, Medical assistance alone is not enough to protect public health. We must also ensure high standards of environmental safety across Russia. A long a healthy life is hard to achieve when millions of people drink substandard water, when we see black snow, as it happened in Krasnoyarsk, and when people in large industrial centres such as Cherepovets, Nizhny Tagil, Chelyabinsk or Novokuznetsk do not see the sun for weeks on end. We have tightened environmental requirements for companies, which should reduce industrial pollution. Starting in 2019, 300 industrial enterprises with a negative impact on the environment must convert to the best available environmentally friendly technology, and all enterprises in the high environmental risk group must do this starting in 2021. We had a go at this problem many times, and every time our companies complained about the difficulties involved. There is no going back now. I want everyone to know that we will not delay this programme any longer. We also need to modernise our thermal power plants, boiler houses and utility services, build bypass routes to ease transit traffic congestion in large cities, as well as use low-impact public service vehicles. The authorities and public volunteers have reported some 22,000 landfill sites. We must address this problem as a priority, starting with the removal and reclamation of landfill sites within city limits. We must seriously improve the quality of drinking water. In some small towns, water is only available for several hours a day. We must use defence industry technologies to settle these problems. We will launch conservation projects for the unique natural systems of Lake Baikal and Lake Teletskoye, as well as the entire Volga Basin, which will help improve living conditions for nearly half of Russia’s population. We will establish 24 new nature reserves and natural parks. They should be open for ecotourism, which is important for encouraging a caring and responsible attitude to nature. Colleagues, The year 2018 in Russia has been declared the Year of Volunteers. It is highly symbolic that the year started with the adoption of a law whereby authorities at all levels were tasked with assisting volunteers. Today, proactive and concerned citizens and socially-minded NPOs contribute to addressing crucial issues. It is the involvement of the people in national affairs and their civic engagement, as well as cultural, moral and spiritual values that make us a single people capable of achieving ambitious goals. It is essential that we preserve our identity in the era of major technological shifts. In this regard, culture has a key role to play as a national civilisational code that can unlock the human creative potential. I propose launching a programme to establish cultural, educational and museum complexes in the regions. They will offer concert venues, drama, music and dance schools and other creative institutions, as well as exhibition spaces where the country’s leading museums can display their treasures. Why store so many works of art in museum warehouses? I am talking about centres of culture that would be open to young people and people of all ages. The first project of this kind will be carried out in Vladivostok, and other regions and cities across Russia will be selected at a later time. Colleagues, our children want to see a forward-looking Russia. You can find many sincere reflections along these lines in school essays. Having bold dreams always helps if you are seeking to achieve an ambitious goal. We must help every child discover his or her talent and help them live up to their potential. The future of Russia is in its classrooms. Schools must respond to the current challenges in order for the country to do the same. International experts agree that Russia has one of the best primary school systems in the world. We will keep up our proactive efforts to develop general education at all levels. Let me emphasise that every child should have access to a quality education. Equal educational opportunities are a powerful driver in terms of promoting national development and social justice. We need to shift to completely new education methods, including personalised learning, in order to cultivate in our children a readiness for change and creative curiosity, and teach them to work in teams, which is very important in the modern world, and other life skills applicable to the digital era. We will absolutely support talented teachers who are motivated to pursue continuous professional growth. And, of course, we need to build an open and modern system for school management selection and training. School administrators are the ones in charge of building a strong faculty and productive morale. We will continue to enhance the comprehensive system to support and develop our children’s creative skills and talents. This system must extend to the entire country and incorporate the resources of such projects as Sirius and Quantorium, as well as extracurricular education centres and children’s creative centres all over Russia. We need to build a modern career guidance system where schools partner with universities, research groups and successful companies. I propose starting a new early career guidance programme for schoolchildren, Ticket to the Future, from the next academic year. The programme will allow kids to try out real jobs in major Russian companies. We will allocate 1 billion rubles for this project this year alone. I believe mentorship is another important aspect to improve. Only by bringing together advanced knowledge and moral foundations, by ensuring a true partnership and mutual understanding between generations can we become stronger. Colleagues, today knowledge, technology and expertise make the most important competitive advantages. They are the key to a real breakthrough and improved quality of life. As soon as possible, we need to develop a progressive legal framework and eliminate all barriers for the development and wide use of robotic equipment, artificial intelligence, unmanned vehicles, e-commerce and Big Data processing technology. And this legal framework must be continuously reviewed and be based on a flexible approach to each area and technology. We have all the resources to promptly implement 5G and Internet of Things technologies. We need to build our own digital platforms. It goes without saying that they should be compatible with the global information space. This would pave the way to reorganising manufacturing processes, financial services and logistics, including using blockchain technology, which is very important when it comes to financial transactions, property rights, etc. These initiatives have real-world application. We need to start making or localising key technologies and solutions, including those used in developing the Arctic and the sea shelf, and building new energy, transport and urban infrastructure systems. This is also important in areas related to improving the quality of life, such as cutting-edge rehabilitation tools for people with disabilities. It is our duty to support high-technology companies, offer start-ups a favourable environment and introduce new industrial solutions. I am talking about a user-friendly infrastructure, taxation systems, technical regulations and venture financing. Technological development should be firmly rooted in fundamental research. Over the recent years, we have been able to expand research, and are now leading in a number of areas. The Russian Academy of Sciences and Russia’s leading research institutions made a major contribution to achieving this. Building on the advances made in the preceding years, including in developing the research infrastructure, we need to take our research to a new level. Projects to build cutting-edge mega science research facilities are already underway in Gatchina and Dubna. The Council for Science and Education has adopted a decision recently to build a powerful synchrotron collider at the Novosibirsk Akademgorodok and a new generation collider in Protvino, Moscow Region. With these facilities, Russia will become one of the world’s leading countries in terms of the capability and performance of its research infrastructure. These units will give a serious competitive edge to Russian research teams and high-technology companies, for example for developing new medications, materials and microelectronics. Of course, this infrastructure and ambitious research projects will not fail to attract our compatriots and researchers from abroad. In this regard, we need to create a legal framework that would enable international research teams to operate in Russia. Large research and education centres should begin working to full capacity. They will integrate the possibilities of universities, academic institutions, and high-tech companies. Such centres are already being set up in Kazan and Samara, Tomsk and Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg and Tyumen, Vladivostok and Kaliningrad, and other cities. It is important to focus them on the implementation of major interdisciplinary projects, including in such a promising field as genome research. A cardinal breakthrough in this area will pave the way to developing new methods for diagnosing, preventing and treating many diseases, and will expand the selection possibilities in agriculture. We need to reinforce the superiority of the national mathematics school. It gives Russia a strong competitive edge in the age of digital economy. International mathematics centres will also provide platforms for such work. These are already operating in Kazan and Novosibirsk. Following the adopted decisions, we will open more in St Petersburg, Moscow and Sochi. Young Russians are already proving their leadership in science and in other areas. Last year, Russian schoolchildren won 38 medals at international academic competitions. Our teams triumphantly won the Olympiad in natural sciences and robotics, the World Skills competition, and our students showed the best results in programming for the twelfth time. Based on the best practices and experience, we need to quickly modernise the vocational education system, achieve qualitative changes in the training of students, especially in the advanced areas of technological development, to establish the ‘applied bachelor’ level in those vocational professions that actually require an engineering degree, and also to organise centres for advanced professional retraining and professional growth. I also propose creating the most convenient and attractive conditions for talented young people from other countries to enrol at our universities. They already come to study here. But we also need to create conditions for the best foreign graduates of our universities to work in Russia. This fully applies to foreign scientists and qualified specialists. I think we need to seriously improve the procedure for granting Russian citizenship. The focus should be on the foreign nationals Russia needs: on young, healthy and well-educated people. For them, we need to create a simplified system for obtaining Russian citizenship. Colleagues, To ensure breakthrough development and upgrade education, healthcare and the quality of the urban environment and infrastructure, it will be necessary to allocate considerable additional funds in the next six years for these purposes. Question: at what expense? Where do we get these funds? First of all, it is essential to clearly prioritise these tasks and enhance the efficiency of government spending. It is necessary to involve private companies more actively in funding major projects. The future Government will have to establish new taxation rules as soon as possible. They should be stable and fixed for the next few years. Let me emphasise that we need such fiscal solutions that would ensure budget revenues at all levels and guarantee the implementation of all social commitments. Importantly, they should encourage rather than impede economic growth. It is the build-up of economic potential of the country and each of its regions that is the main source of additional resources. To achieve this, our economic growth rates should exceed those of the world’s. This is a difficult task but not instance case of wishful thinking. This is a fundamental condition for a breakthrough in resolving social, infrastructure, defence and other tasks. The new Government should set itself the goal of reaching such growth rates as its key guideline. In the last few years, we have enhanced the sustainability of our economy. The dependence of the economy on hydrocarbon prices has been substantially reduced. We have increased our gold and currency reserves. Inflation has dropped to a record low level – just over two percent. Of course, we all understand that the growth of prices for many basic necessities is much higher. This should be strictly monitored by different agencies, including the Anti-Monopoly Service. But on the whole, this low inflation level creates additional opportunities for development. Let me remind you that quite recently, in 2015, inflation was almost 13 percent, 12.9 percent to be exact. In effect, Russia has formed a new macroeconomic reality with low inflation and general economic sustainability. For the people this is a condition for real income growth and cheaper mortgage loans. For entrepreneurs it means predictability in business and cheaper loans. Business should also adapt to these new macroeconomic conditions. Finally, it makes it possible to attract long-term loans and private investment into large-scale infrastructure projects. Now we have an opportunity, without speeding up inflation, and maintaining a careful and responsible approach, to gradually cut interest rates and make loans more affordable. I count on the support of the Bank of Russia in that, while making its decisions, implementing monetary policy measures and developing financial markets, it will work in contact with the Government in the interests of the common goal of creating a proper environment for increasing the economic growth rates. In order to further change the national economy structure and improve its competitiveness, it is imperative to use the sources of growth at a fundamentally different level. Where are they? First of all, it is important to increase labour productivity on a new technological, managerial and personnel basis. We are still lagging noticeably behind in terms of this indicator. It is necessary to ensure that labour productivity in medium-sized and large enterprises of basic industries, such as manufacturing, construction, transport, agriculture and trade, grows at a rate of at least 5 percent per year, which will allow us to reach the level of the leading world economies by the end of the next decade. I want to emphasise that increasing productivity is also about higher wages and, hence, increased consumer demand. In turn, this constitutes an additional driver for economic growth. All our actions should push companies to produce technically complex products and to implement more efficient technologies. It is necessary to make an inventory of subsidies and other instruments for direct support of industries, and to target them on making competitive goods. Increased investment is the second source of growth. We have already set the task of bringing it up to 25 percent of the GDP, and then to 27 percent. Unfortunately, this goal has not been achieved yet. To ensure sustainable growth, we need to do so at all costs. I hope that the new Government in conjunction with the Bank of Russia will present a concrete plan of action in this area. Investment should be primarily used for upgrading and technologically re-equipping the industries and retrofitting the manufacturing industry. We need to ensure the highest dynamics here, to reach a level where, on average, every second enterprise within a year carries out technological changes. That is when the renewal effort in the economy and industry will be noticeable. Promoting small businesses is the third large-scale reserve of economic growth. By the middle of the next decade, their contribution to the country’s GDP should approach 40 percent, and the number of employed there should grow from 19 million to 25 million people. One of the main problems facing entrepreneurs is access to financial resources. There is a government programme in place for small production businesses that offers loans with only 6.5 percent interest. I think this programme must continue. Overall, this support mechanism must become widely available. Finally, another source of growth is the development of non-resource exports. It is necessary to remove all administrative barriers and create the most favourable conditions for the companies entering foreign markets. Within the next six years, we must double the amount of non-resource and non-energy exports to reach $250 billion – specifically, increase machine engineering exports to $50 billion. Exports of services, including education, healthcare, tourism and transport, must reach $100 billion per year. In the early 2000s, we were deeply dependent on food imports. The situation has turned around completely. Now we are on the verge of more changes. In just four years from now, we plan to be supplying more food to global markets than we will be importing from abroad. We need to increase exports of meat and high-added value products, as well as to make the country more self-sufficient in beef, milk and vegetable supplies. I want to stress that development of the agricultural industry is strongly related to commodity production. However, this development must not be at the expense of small farms and their workers. We must support family businesses and farmers. We will develop cooperative agriculture and create conditions for residents of rural areas to increase their income. Every now and then we hear about problems with people’s interests being affected, I am aware of them. Such cases must be taken very seriously. Nevertheless, I want to say thank you to the agricultural industry workers for the record-breaking harvest of 134 million tonnes. Note that it is more than the record harvest in the Soviet Union. In 1978, the USSR produced 127.4 million tonnes. Now it is common for Russia to exceed 100 million tonnes. Clearly, such a large harvest has a downside as well. The prices have gone down; there are some storage and transport issues. We have established discount rates on transporting crops by railway until July 1, 2018, to support our producers. It is necessary to consider extending this measure to the next harvesting seasons as well as to arrange additional deliveries to the Urals, Siberia and the regions far away from ports. We must help those who want and can process crops locally. Added value needs to be increased. Then we can go into the livestock industry with this product. We will certainly discuss these and other problems reported by agricultural workers at the agricultural producers’ forum in March, and will elaborate on additional measures to support the industry. Colleagues, In order for the economy to operate at its full capacity, we need to radically improve the business climate and guarantee entrepreneurial freedom and competition. Let me highlight a fundamental point in this regard. The state must gradually reduce its share in the economy. In this connection, it has to be noted that the state has taken over a number of financial assets in an effort to revive the banking sector. These initiatives are headed in the right direction and have my support. That said, these assets should be put on the market and sold without delay. We need to get rid of everything that enables corrupt officials and law enforcement officers to pressure businesses. The Criminal Code should not serve as a tool for settling corporate disputes. These should be referred to administrative and arbitration courts. I ask the Working Group on Monitoring and Analysing Law Enforcement Practice in Entrepreneurial Activity, together with the Supreme Court, law enforcement agencies, the Prosecutor’s Office and representatives of the business community to draft specific proposals on this subject. This matter should not be approached in a light-minded manner. All the proposals must undergo careful examination and approval, and this should be done as soon as possible. At the same time, criminal law should be strictly enforced in the case of offences infringing upon the interests of citizens or society or violating economic freedoms. I am referring to offences against property and assets held by citizens, illegal takeovers, competition law violations, tax evasion and embezzlement of public funds. I would now like to move on to another important subject. While the number of various inspections seems to be declining, during meetings with businesses I often hear that radical change has yet to materialise. The presence of inspectors at enterprises should become the exception, and be limited to high-risk facilities. Otherwise, remote monitoring methods can be used. The entire control and oversight system should move to a risk-oriented approach within two years. Let me remind you that the relevant legislative framework is already in place. It is important to support start-up entrepreneurs, to help people take the first step, so that they can open their own businesses with just one click, make the compulsory payments, receive services and loans online. Sole proprietors and self-employed individuals who use digital services, generally need to be freed from reporting, and allowed to pay taxes via a simple transaction in automatic mode. As for businesses that use cash register equipment, their tax reporting needs to be simplified. You know, this is just a routine issue, at first glance, but this tedious routine is what prevents us from moving forward vigorously. We need to do everything to clean out this space. I will add that the intensive introduction of digital technologies and platforms will allow us to make consistent progress towards greater transparency and away from shadow economy. Now I would like to address all representatives of Russian business, those who run their own small business, a family enterprise or a farm, an innovative company or a large industrial enterprise. I know, I know we still have a lot to do. And I assure you, we will do everything to give our entrepreneurs new opportunities to expand production, to open businesses and to create modern jobs. But at the same time I expect that Russian business will increase its contribution to the country’s breakthrough development, and respect for entrepreneurial work in society will grow. It is very important. Colleagues, we need to build modern services for business, but this is not all; the system for interaction between the state and society, between the state and the people should be clear and understandable, convenient and comfortable. We have already set up a network of multifunctional centres. A person anywhere in the country can now use public services as a one-stop-shop. Allow me to remind you that it was a special programme which we have developed and implemented. We need to move forward, to ensure the provision of virtually all public services in real time via remote services within six years. All document circulation between state agencies should be digitised, which is important both for the state agencies and for citizens, so as not to browse the Internet for hours looking for information. It will be possible to get everything in one place. I will add that digitalisation of the entire public administration system and its greater transparency is also a powerful factor in fighting corruption. Government officials of all levels should be interested in improving their efficiency and be strictly focused on obtaining concrete results. By the way, we are always talking about corruption and officials. I have to say, and I do not have the right to not say this: the vast majority of our public servants are honest, decent and goal-oriented people. However, what I said will help everyone, including government officials and users of government services. This line of thinking should be used to rebuild the public service system, where appropriate, and to introduce project work methods. Of course, it is necessary to ensure the advancement of modern professional personnel in the government and municipal service, business, the economy, science and industry, in all spheres. As you may be aware, the first Leaders of Russia competition took place, and a number of other projects are being implemented to support young workers, entrepreneurs, innovators, volunteers, schoolchildren and students. They brought together hundreds of thousands of young people from all regions, and became an important step in their lives and professional careers. I want to emphasise: for all those who want to work, show themselves, and are ready to honestly serve the Fatherland and the people, and to succeed, Russia will always be a country of opportunity. This is the guarantee of our successful development and confident movement forward. All the projects and the priorities that I mentioned today, such as spatial development, investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare, the environment, innovative technologies and research, measures to support the economy, to promote talent, the youth, all of this is designed to work for one strategic task – Russia’s breakthrough development. At the same time, we cannot forget about reliably ensuring its security. Colleagues, The operation in Syria has proved the increased capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces. In recent years, a great deal has been done to improve the Army and the Navy. The Armed Forces now have 3.7 times more modern weapons. Over 300 new units of equipment were put into service. The strategic missile troops received 80 new intercontinental ballistic missiles, 102 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and three Borei nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. Twelve missile regiments have received the new Yars intercontinental ballistic missile. The number of long-range high-precision weapons carriers has increased by 12 times, while the number of guided cruise missiles increased by over 30 times. The Army, the Aerospace Forces and the Navy have grown significant stronger as well. Both Russia and the entire world know the names of our newest planes, submarines, anti-aircraft weapons, as well as land-based, airborne and sea-based guided missile systems. All of them are cutting-edge, high-tech weapons. A solid radar field to warn of a missile attack was created along Russia’s perimeter (it is very important). Huge holes appeared after the USSR disintegrated. All of them were repaired. A leap forward was made in the development of unmanned aircraft; the National Defence Control Centre was established; and the operational command of the far maritime zone was formed. The number of professional service members has increased by 2.4 times, and the availability of equipment in the Armed Forces grew from 70 percent to 95–100 percent. The years-long queue for permanent housing was eliminated, and the waiting period was cut by 83 percent. Now, on to the most important defence issue. I will speak about the newest systems of Russian strategic weapons that we are creating in response to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defence systems both in the US and beyond their national borders. I would like to make a short journey into the recent past. Back in 2000, the US announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia was categorically against this. We saw the Soviet-US ABM Treaty signed in 1972 as the cornerstone of the international security system. Under this treaty, the parties had the right to deploy ballistic missile defence systems only in one of its regions. Russia deployed these systems around Moscow, and the US around its Grand Forks land-based ICBM base. Together with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the ABM Treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind, because the limited number of ballistic missile defence systems made the potential aggressor vulnerable to a response strike. We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the treaty. All in vain. The US pulled out of the treaty in 2002. Even after that we tried to develop constructive dialogue with the Americans. We proposed working together in this area to ease concerns and maintain the atmosphere of trust. At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. In reply, the US said that it is not creating a global BMD system against Russia, which is free to do as it pleases, and that the US will presume that our actions are not spearheaded against the US. The reasons behind this position are obvious. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia, which was known as the Soviet Union or Soviet Russia abroad, lost 23.8 percent of its national territory, 48.5 percent of its population, 41 of the GDP, 39.4 percent of its industrial potential (nearly half of our potential, I would underscore), as well as 44.6 percent of its military capability due to the division of the Soviet Armed Forces among the former Soviet republics. The military equipment of the Russian army was becoming obsolete, and the Armed Forces were in a sorry state. A civil war was raging in the Caucasus, and US inspectors oversaw the operation of our leading uranium enrichment plants. For a certain time, the question was not whether we would be able to develop a strategic weapon system – some wondered if our country would even be able to safely store and maintain the nuclear weapons that we inherited after the collapse of the USSR. Russia had outstanding debts, its economy could not function without loans from the IMF and the World Bank; the social sphere was impossible to sustain. Apparently, our partners got the impression that it was impossible in the foreseeable historical perspective for our country to revive its economy, industry, defence industry and Armed Forces to levels supporting the necessary strategic potential. And if that is the case, there is no point in reckoning with Russia’s opinion, it is necessary to further pursue ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate the terms in every sphere in the future. Basically, this position, this logic, judging from the realities of that period, is understandable, and we ourselves are to blame. All these years, the entire 15 years since the withdrawal of the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, we have consistently tried to reengage the American side in serious discussions, in reaching agreements in the sphere of strategic stability. We managed to accomplish some of these goals. In 2010, Russia and the US signed the New START treaty, containing measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. However, in light of the plans to build a global anti-ballistic missile system, which are still being carried out today, all agreements signed within the framework of New START are now gradually being devaluated, because while the number of carriers and weapons is being reduced, one of the parties, namely, the US, is permitting constant, uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles, improving their quality, and creating new missile launching areas. If we do not do something, eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia’s nuclear potential. Meaning that all of our missiles could simply be intercepted. Despite our numerous protests and pleas, the American machine has been set into motion, the conveyer belt is moving forward. There are new missile defence systems installed in Alaska and California; as a result of NATO’s expansion to the east, two new missile defence areas were created in Western Europe: one has already been created in Romania, while the deployment of the system in Poland is now almost complete. Their range will keep increasing; new launching areas are to be created in Japan and South Korea. The US global missile defence system also includes five cruisers and 30 destroyers, which, as far as we know, have been deployed to regions in close proximity to Russia’s borders. I am not exaggerating in the least; and this work proceeds apace. So, what have we done, apart from protesting and warning? How will Russia respond to this challenge? This is how. During all these years since the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, we have been working intensively on advanced equipment and arms, which allowed us to make a breakthrough in developing new models of strategic weapons. Let me recall that the United States is creating a global missile defence system primarily for countering strategic arms that follow ballistic trajectories. These weapons form the backbone of our nuclear deterrence forces, just as of other members of the nuclear club. As such, Russia has developed, and works continuously to perfect, highly effective but modestly priced systems to overcome missile defence. They are installed on all of our intercontinental ballistic missile complexes. In addition, we have embarked on the development of the next generation of missiles. For example, the Defence Ministry and enterprises of the missile and aerospace industry are in the active phase of testing a new missile system with a heavy intercontinental missile. We called it Sarmat. Sarmat will replace the Voevoda system made in the USSR. Its immense power was universally recognized. Our foreign colleagues even gave it a fairly threatening name. That said, the capabilities of the Sarmat missile are much higher. Weighing over 200 tonnes, it has a short boost phase, which makes it more difficult to intercept for missile defence systems. The range of the new heavy missile, the number and power of its combat blocs is bigger than Voevoda’s. Sarmat will be equipped with a broad range of powerful nuclear warheads, including hypersonic, and the most modern means of evading missile defence. The high degree of protection of missile launchers and significant energy capabilities the system offers will make it possible to use it in any conditions. Could you please show the video. Voevoda’s range is 11,000 km while Sarmat has practically no range restrictions. As the video clips show, it can attack targets both via the North and South poles. Sarmat is a formidable missile and, owing to its characteristics, is untroubled by even the most advanced missile defence systems. But we did not stop at that. We started to develop new types of strategic arms that do not use ballistic trajectories at all when moving toward a target and, therefore, missile defence systems are useless against them, absolutely pointless. Allow me to elaborate on these weapons. Russia’s advanced arms are based on the cutting-edge, unique achievements of our scientists, designers and engineers. One of them is a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile – a similar type but with a range dozens of times longer, dozens, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defence and counter-air defence systems. I will repeat this several times today. In late 2017, Russia successfully launched its latest nuclear-powered missile at the Central training ground. During its flight, the nuclear-powered engine reached its design capacity and provided the necessary propulsion. Now that the missile launch and ground tests were successful, we can begin developing a completely new type of weapon, a strategic nuclear weapons system with a nuclear-powered missile. Roll the video, please. You can see how the missile bypasses interceptors. As the range is unlimited, the missile can manoeuvre for as long as necessary. As you no doubt understand, no other country has developed anything like this. There will be something similar one day but by that time our guys will have come up with something even better. Now, we all know that the design and development of unmanned weapon systems is another common trend in the world. As concerns Russia, we have developed unmanned submersible vehicles that can move at great depths (I would say extreme depths) intercontinentally, at a speed multiple times higher than the speed of submarines, cutting-edge torpedoes and all kinds of surface vessels, including some of the fastest. It is really fantastic. They are quiet, highly manoeuvrable and have hardly any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit. There is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them. Unmanned underwater vehicles can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, which enables them to engage various targets, including aircraft groups, coastal fortifications and infrastructure. In December 2017, an innovative nuclear power unit for this unmanned underwater vehicle completed a test cycle that lasted many years. The nuclear power unit is unique for its small size while offering an amazing power-weight ratio. It is a hundred times smaller than the units that power modern submarines, but is still more powerful and can switch into combat mode, that is to say, reach maximum capacity, 200 times faster. The tests that were conducted enabled us to begin developing a new type of strategic weapon that would carry massive nuclear ordnance. Please play the video. By the way, we have yet to choose names for these two new strategic weapons, the global-range cruise missile and the unmanned underwater vehicle. We are waiting for suggestions from the Defence Ministry. Countries with high research potential and advanced technology are known to be actively developing so-called hypersonic weapons. The speed of sound is usually measured in Mach numbers in honour of Austrian scientist Ernst Mach who is known for his research in this field. One Mach is equal to 1,062 kilometres per hour at an altitude of 11 kilometres. The speed of sound is Mach 1, speeds between Mach 1 and Mach 5 is called supersonic, and hypersonic is above Mach 5. Of course, this kind of weapon provides substantial advantages in an armed conflict. Military experts believe that it would be extremely powerful, and that its speed makes it invulnerable to current missile and air defence systems, since interceptor missiles are, simply put, not fast enough. In this regard, it is quite understandable why the leading armies of the world seek to possess such an ideal weapon. Friends, Russia already has such a weapon. The most important stage in the development of modern weapons systems was the creation of a high-precision hypersonic aircraft missile system; as you already know for sure, it is the only one of its kind in the world. Its tests have been successfully completed, and, moreover, on December 1 of last year, these systems began their trial service at the airfields of the Southern Military District. The unique flight characteristics of the high-speed carrier aircraft allow the missile to be delivered to the point of discharge within minutes. The missile flying at a hypersonic speed, 10 times faster than the speed of sound, can also manoeuvre at all phases of its flight trajectory, which also allows it to overcome all existing and, I think, prospective anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence systems, delivering nuclear and conventional warheads in a range of over 2,000 kilometres. We called this system Kinzhal (Dagger). Video, please. But this is not all I have to say. A real technological breakthrough is the development of a strategic missile system with fundamentally new combat equipment – a gliding wing unit, which has also been successfully tested. I will say once again what we have repeatedly told our American and European partners who are NATO members: we will make the necessary efforts to neutralise the threats posed by the deployment of the US global missile defence system. We mentioned this during talks, and even said it publicly. Back in 2004, after the exercises of the strategic nuclear forces when the system was tested for the first time, I said the following at a meeting with the press (It is embarrassing to quote myself, but it is the right thing to say here): So, I said: “As other countries increase the number and quality of their arms and military potential, Russia will also need to ensure it has new generation weapons and technology. In this respect, I am pleased to inform you that successfully completed experiments during these exercises enable us to confirm that in the near future, the Russian Armed Forces, the Strategic Missile Forces, will receive new hypersonic-speed, high-precision new weapons systems that can hit targets at inter-continental distance and can adjust their altitude and course as they travel. This is a very significant statement because no country in the world as of now has such arms in their military arsenal.” End of quote. Of course, every word has a meaning because we are talking about the possibility of bypassing interception boundaries. Why did we do all this? Why did we talk about it? As you can see, we made no secret of our plans and spoke openly about them, primarily to encourage our partners to hold talks. Let me repeat, this was in 2004. It is actually surprising that despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defence industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now. Unlike existing types of combat equipment, this system is capable of intercontinental flight at supersonic speeds in excess of Mach 20. As I said in 2004, in moving to its target, the missile’s gliding cruise bloc engages in intensive manoeuvring – both lateral (by several thousand km) and vertical. This is what makes it absolutely invulnerable to any air or missile defence system. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite, like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided. Play the video, please. For obvious reasons we cannot show the outer appearance of this system here. This is still very important. I hope everyone understands this. But let me assure you that we have all this and it is working well. Moreover, Russian industrial enterprises have embarked on the development of another new type of strategic weapon. We called it the Avangard. We are well aware that a number of other countries are developing advanced weapons with new physical properties. We have every reason to believe that we are one step ahead there as well – at any rate, in the most essential areas. We have achieved significant progress in laser weapons. It is not just a concept or a plan any more. It is not even in the early production stages. Since last year, our troops have been armed with laser weapons. I do not want to reveal more details. It is not the time yet. But experts will understand that with such weaponry, Russia’s defence capacity has multiplied. Here is another short video. Those interested in military equipment are welcome to suggest a name for this new weaponry, this cutting-edge system. Of course, we will be refining this state-of-the-art technology. Obviously, there is far more in development than I have mentioned today. But this is enough for now. I want to specifically emphasise that the newly developed strategic arms – in fact, new types of strategic weapons – are not the result of something left over from the Soviet Union. Of course, we relied on some ideas from our ingenious predecessors. But everything I have described today is the result of the last several years, the product of dozens of research organisations, design bureaus and institutes. Thousands, literally thousands of our experts, outstanding scientists, designers, engineers, passionate and talented workers have been working for years, quietly, humbly, selflessly, with total dedication. There are many young professionals among them. They are our true heroes, along with our military personnel who demonstrated the best qualities of the Russian army in combat. I want to address each of them right now and say that there will absolutely be awards, prizes and honorary titles but, because I have met many of you in person many times, I know you are not after awards. The most important thing is to reliably ensure the security of our country and our people. As President and on behalf of the Russian people, I want to say thank you very much for your hard work and its results. Our country needs them so much. As I have already said, all future military products are based on remarkable advances that can, should and will be used in high-technology civilian sectors. I would like to stress that only a country with the highest level of fundamental research and education, developed research, technology, industrial infrastructure and human resources can successfully develop unique and complex weapons of this kind. You can see that Russia has all these resources. We will expand this potential and focus on delivering on the ambitious goals our country has set itself in terms of economic, social and infrastructure development. Effective defence will serve as a guarantee of Russia’s long-term development. Let me reiterate that each of the armament systems I referred to is uniquely important. Even more importantly, taken together all these advances enable the Defence Ministry and General Staff to develop a comprehensive defence system, in which every piece of new military equipment will be assigned a proper role. On top of strategic weapons that are currently on combat alert and benefit from regular updates, Russia will have a defence capability that would guarantee its security in the long term. Of course, there are many things that we have to do in terms of military construction, but one thing is already clear: Russia possesses a modern, high-technology army that is quite compact given the size of the territory, centred on the officer corps, who are dedicated to their country and are ready to sacrifice anything for its people. Sooner or later, other armies will also have the technology, the weapons, even the most advanced ones. But this does not worry us, since we already have it and will have even better armaments in the future. What matters is that they will never have people or officers like the Russian pilot Major Roman Filipov. I hope that everything that was said today would make any potential aggressor think twice, since unfriendly steps against Russia such as deploying missile defences and bringing NATO infrastructure closer to the Russian border become ineffective in military terms and entail unjustified costs, making them useless for those promoting these initiatives. It was our duty to inform our partners of what I said here today under the international commitments Russia had subscribed to. When the time comes, foreign and defence ministry experts will have many opportunities to discuss all these matters with them, if of course our partners so desire. For my part, I should note that we have conducted the work to reinforce Russia’s defence capability within the current arms control agreements; we are not violating anything. I should specifically say that Russia’s growing military strength is not a threat to anyone; we have never had any plans to use this potential for offensive, let alone aggressive goals. We are not threatening anyone, not going to attack anyone or take away anything from anyone with the threat of weapons. We do not need anything. Just the opposite. I deem it necessary to emphasise (and it is very important) that Russia’s growing military power is a solid guarantee of global peace as this power preserves and will preserve strategic parity and the balance of forces in the world, which, as is known, have been and remain a key factor of international security after WWII and up to the present day. And to those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation’s development, including in the military area, I will say this: everything you have tried to prevent through such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia. Now we have to be aware of this reality and be sure that everything I have said today is not a bluff ‒ and it is not a bluff, believe me ‒ and to give it a thought and dismiss those who live in the past and are unable to look into the future, to stop rocking the boat we are all in and which is called the Earth. In this connection, I would like to note the following. We are greatly concerned by certain provisions of the revised nuclear posture review, which expand the opportunities for reducing and reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. Behind closed doors, one may say anything to calm down anyone, but we read what is written. And what is written is that this strategy can be put into action in response to conventional arms attacks and even to a cyber-threat. I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific. As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences. There should be no doubt about this whatsoever. There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilisation. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this. Our policies will never be based on claims to exceptionalism. We protect our interests and respect the interests of other countries. We observe international law and believe in the inviolable central role of the UN. These are the principles and approaches that allow us to build strong, friendly and equal relations with the absolute majority of countries. Our comprehensive strategic partnership with the People’s Republic of China is one example. Russia and India also enjoy a special privileged strategic relationship. Our relations with many other countries in the world are entering a new dynamic stage. Russia is widely involved in international organisations. With our partners, we are advancing such associations and groups as the CSTO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS. We are promoting a positive agenda at the UN, G20 and APEC. We are interested in normal and constructive cooperation with the United States and the European Union. We hope that common sense will prevail and our partners will opt for honest and equal work together. Even if our views clash on some issues, we still remain partners because we must work together to respond to the most complex challenges, ensure global security, and build the future world, which is becoming increasingly interconnected, with more and more dynamic integration processes. Russia and its partners in the Eurasian Economic Union seek to make it a globally competitive integration group. The EAEU’s agenda includes building a common market for electricity, oil, petroleum products and gas, harmonising financial markets, and linking our customs authorities. We will also continue to work on a greater Eurasian partnership. Colleagues, this is a turning period for the entire world and those who are willing and able to change, those who are taking action and moving forward will take the lead. Russia and its people have expressed this will at every defining moment in our history. In just 30 years, we have undergone changes that took centuries in other countries. We will continue to confidently chart our own course, just as we always have. We will stick together, as we always have. Our unity is the most durable foundation for future progress. In the coming years, it is our goal to further strengthen this unity so that we are one team that understands that change is necessary and is ready to devote its energy, knowledge, experience and talent to achieving common goals. Challenges and big goals give special meaning to our lives. We must be bold in our plans and actions, take responsibility and initiative, and grow stronger, which means being of use to our families, children, the whole country; changing the world and our country for the better; and creating the Russia that we all dream about. Only then will the next decade and the entire 21st century undoubtedly be an age of outstanding triumphs for Russia and our shared success. I believe it will be so. Thank you”. Dopo circa due ore con le note dell’inno russo si conclude il discorso epocale del Presidente russo Vladimir Putin davanti all’Assemblea Federale. Il Presidente ringrazia i presenti (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957). “Sta entrando nel vivo anche la campagna elettorale che porterà il prossimo 18 marzo i Russi a scegliere il loro Presidente. I pronostici – scrive Germano Dottori – sono tutti a favore di Vladimir Putin che dovrebbe ottenere una nuova convincente affermazione. Non mancano i competitori, tra i quali spiccano vecchie conoscenze della politica russa, come Vladimir Zhirinovsky o il liberale Grigory Yavlinsky, ma anche nuove personalità, come il comunista Pavel Grudinin. Sono già iniziati i dibattiti radio-televisivi tra gli sfidanti, ma il Presidente in carica ha preferito rinunciarvi, anche per meglio enfatizzare il carattere istituzionale della sua candidatura, che questa volta risulta slegata da qualsiasi rapporto formale con il suo partito d’origine, Russia Unita. Per presentare il programma del suo possibile futuro mandato, Putin ha preferito il tradizionale discorso sullo Stato della Federazione, che è stato pronunciato il 1° marzo scorso davanti ai membri del Senato e della Duma. Nella circostanza, il Presidente ha ricordato come la produzione agricola russa abbia finalmente superato quella massima raggiunta dall’Unione Sovietica, ha lodato l’efficienza dimostrata dalle Forze Armate in Siria, ha promesso il dimezzamento della povertà e l’elevazione alla soglia degli 80 anni della speranza di vita. Sarà presto aperto al traffico anche il Ponte di Kerch che spezzerà l’isolamento della penisola di Crimea. Ma è altro ad aver acceso la fantasia di analisti e giornalisti. Durante il suo intervento, Putin ha annunciato la risposta russa alle difese antimissilistiche occidentali ed al piano di ammodernamento dell’arsenale nucleare americano: consisterà, come già il Presidente aveva anticipato ad Oliver Stone, nell’allestimento di missili più performanti ed alla frontiera della tecnologia, che saranno in grado di perforare qualsiasi scudo sia attualmente in progettazione. Sono stati in particolare menzionati il Sarmat, un vettore intercontinentale cui si lavora dal 2009, ed un missile da crociera che sarebbe addirittura propulso dall’energia nucleare. Appariranno anche droni subacquei, rilasciati in immersione da grandi sottomarini ed in grado di incunearsi in profondità nelle acque territoriali degli eventuali avversari. La Russia possiederebbe già, inoltre, armi ipersoniche e basate sulla tecnologia laser, che dovrebbero permetterle di ottenere “maggiore ascolto sulla scena internazionale”. Putin ha peraltro assicurato che la Russia fornirà ai competenti organismi internazionali tutte le informazioni sui sistemi in sviluppo dovute in base agli accordi vigenti in materia di controllo degli armamenti. La produzione ed acquisizione dei nuovi sistemi d’arma non dovrebbe comportare incrementi nelle spese militari, ha commentato il ministro delle Finanze, Anton Siluanov. Il pubblico russo reagirà certamente con entusiasmo a questa riaffermazione della volontà di potenza nazionale, come del resto succede piuttosto spesso anche negli Stati Uniti. C’è invece da chiedersi – osserva Dottori – come questi nuovi programmi verranno interpretati in Occidente. Possiamo esser sicuri che buona parte dei commentatori vedrà nelle dichiarazioni di Putin l’ennesima riprova della presunta innata ed irriducibile aggressività della Russia. Per quanto utile politicamente a qualcuno, una lettura del genere sarebbe però decisamente fuorviante. D’altra parte, nessun analista di peso ha ancora fatto notare come il più recente aumento del bilancio del Pentagono superi da solo l’entità complessiva delle spese annuali per la Difesa della Russia. Anche se i supermissili fanno paura, specie se armati di testate multiple, è bene ricordare che si tratta di armi concepite per scongiurare la guerra, piuttosto che per farla. In questo senso, Putin non sta cercando di inseguire una improbabile superiorità militare, ma piuttosto aggiornando il deterrente essenziale ai Russi per dissuadere eventuali attacchi esterni ai quali si sentono più esposti a causa della predisposizione di difese antimissilistiche in Europa. La pace, pensano i Russi, è stata protetta per 70 anni dall’equilibrio del terrore. Il suo venir meno, a causa dell’apparizione di difese invulnerabili, esporrebbe la Russia al pericolo di essere attaccata. Forse non hanno tutti i torti. Storicamente, l’arma atomica è stata usata due sole volte in chiave offensiva. È accaduto nel 1945, ad opera degli Stati Uniti contro il Giappone. Gli americani vi ricorsero perché Tokio non poteva rispondere. La lezione venne rapidamente appresa ed è tuttora ben viva nella memoria strategica dei Russi, che temono gli squilibri. A dispetto di ogni apparenza, quindi, anche questa volta la Russia non punta ad intimidire nessuno, ma solo a proteggere la propria sovranità”. Il Daily Star, commentato il video di prova del lancio del missile ipersonico aereo di precisione Kinzhal, definisce il filmato “scioccante”. Il nuovo missile ipersonico russo, “in grado di penetrare qualsiasi sistema di difesa missilistica, atterrisce”. Poco prima, il ministero della Difesa russo riferiva il successo del lancio del nuovo missile ipersonico da un caccia MiG-31 decollato da una base nel Distretto Militare Meridionale. Il dicastero della Difesa russo osserva che dopo il lancio i tecnici hanno ottenuto la conferma delle caratteristiche di prestazione e dei parametri di volo di Kinzhal, ossia di Pungolo, il fendiorchi di tolkieniana memoria ne Il Signore degli Anelli e ne Lo Hobbit. La dichiarazione del ministero della Difesa sottolinea che il missile non ha analoghi nel mondo (https://it.sputniknews.com/videoclub/201803115759809-missile-supersonico-Kinzhal-Russia-video/). È in grado di superare tutti i sistemi esistenti di difesa missilistica raggiungendo bersagli fino ad una distanza di 2mila chilometri e può essere dotato di testate nucleari e convenzionali. Secondo il corrispondente della Cnn, Matthew Chance, l’obiettivo di Putin non è solo quello di fomentare il patriottismo dei Russi prima delle elezioni, ma anche di ricordare agli Usa che è meglio non scherzare con la Russia. Matthew Chance, corrispondente internazionale della Cnn, osserva: “Innanzitutto, è iniziato come per entrambe le camere del Parlamento russo. Il discorso ha riguardato l’economia. Ma improvvisamente il tono è cambiato e il Presidente russo Vladimir Putin ha iniziato a parlare di questi nuovi missili invulnerabili, come lui stesso ha affermato, che sono stati testati negli ultimi mesi, e che ora, di fatto, sono entrati in servizio. O, almeno, possono già essere usati. Si tratta in particolare di missili ipersonici che volano ad una velocità molte volte superiore a quella del suono e sono in grado di aggirare la difesa missilistica degli Stati Uniti. Sono così maneggevoli che la difesa missilistica statunitense non può farcela. Ha anche parlato di droni sottomarini in grado di trasportare testate nucleari e di altre tecnologie militari molto diverse e insolite che, a quanto pare, dovrebbero provocare un aumento del sentimento patriottico nel cuore degli spettatori, non solo in Parlamento, ma in tutto il Paese. Penso che fosse anche un segnale per gli Stati Uniti. Putin lo ha chiarito: queste tecnologie sono state sviluppate negli ultimi due anni. Secondo lui, questa è stata una reazione al dispiegamento del sistema di difesa missilistica statunitense nell’Europa orientale. Putin ha detto: “Nessuno ci ha ascoltato, ascoltateci ora”. Questo è un avvertimento non troppo velato agli Stati Uniti: non scherzare con la Russia e il suo nuovo, diciamo, temibile arsenale nucleare”. Il Presidente russo Vladimir Putin conferma che i nuovi missili balistici intercontinentali ICBM, presentati durante il suo discorso annuale al Parlamento, sono stati testati con successo e alcuni sono già in servizio operativo. “Tutti questi test hanno avuto successo, è solo che ognuno di questi sistemi di armi si trova in una diversa fase di preparazione. Alcuni di essi devono ancora essere messi a punto e bisogna ancora lavorarci, altri sono già disponibili per le truppe e pronti per la battaglia”, rivela Putin in un’intervista all’emittente Nbc, in due parti visibile su Youtube, rispondendo alla domanda dell’intervistatrice Megyn Kelly se i missili balistici intercontinentali a propulsione nucleare sono stati realmente testati o erano solo una grafica computerizzata, come hanno sostenuto alcuni esperti (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/57027). Putin chiaramente afferma che uno di questi ICBM è già in servizio, pronto al combattimento. La risposta del Presidente russo è stata diramata con la traduzione in inglese: “Part 1. The Kremlin, Moscow, March 1, 2018. Megyn Kelly: “So, thank you very much for doing this, Mr President. I thought that we’d start with some of the news you made today at your State of the Nation Address, then we will move into some facts about you in preparation for our long piece that we are putting together, and then tomorrow when we will have a longer time together, we will talk about more substantive issues together, if that is ok with you”. Vladimir Putin: “Fine”. Megyn Kelly: “You announced today that Russia has developed new nuclear-capable weapons systems, including an intercontinental ballistic missile that you say renders defence systems useless. Several analysts in the West have said this is a declaration of a new Cold War. Are we in a new arms race right now?”. Vladimir Putin: “In my opinion, the people you have mentioned are not analysts. What they do is propaganda. Why? Because everything I spoke about today was done not on our initiative, it is a response to the US ballistic missile defence programme and Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. If we speak of the arms race, it began at that very moment, when the United States pulled out of the ABM Treaty. We wanted to prevent this. We called on our American partners to work together on these programmes. Firstly, we asked them not to withdraw from the treaty, not to destroy it. But the US pulled out. It was not us who did this but the US. Yet we again suggested we work together even after this. I told my colleague then, “Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US joined forces in the crucial area of strategic security. The world would change for a long period to come, and the level of global security would rise to an all-time high.” The reply was, “This is very interesting.” But they ultimately rejected all our proposals. Then I said, “You understand that we will have to improve our offensive arms systems to maintain a balance and to have the ability to overcome your BMD systems.” They replied that they were not developing the BMD systems to counter us, that we were free to do as we pleased, and that they would not view our actions as spearheaded against the US”. Megyn Kelly: “That happened right after 9/11, three months after 9/11”. Vladimir Putin: “No, it was after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, and the conversations I mentioned were in 2003–2004”. Megyn Kelly: “At the time that happened, I believe you were quoted as saying that you thought it was a mistake on the part of the United States, but not a threat. Do you perceive the United States as a threat today?”. Vladimir Putin: “We have always said that developing the missile defence system creates a threat to us. We have always said that. Our American partners would not publicly admit it, claiming that the system was spearheaded mainly against Iran. But eventually, in conversations and during talks they admitted that, of course, the system will destroy our nuclear deterrence potential. Imagine the situation. What was the point of signing the treaty back in 1972? The United States and the Soviet Union had only two regions that they defended from missile attacks: one in the United States and one in the Soviet Union. That created a threat for a potential aggressor who would be struck in response. In 2002, the United States said, “We do not need this anymore. We will create anything we want, globally, all over the world”. Megyn Kelly: “Again, it was in the wake of 9/11, just to make it clear. 9/11 happened on September 11, 2001, and the United States was reassessing its security posture in the world for good reason, wouldn’t you admit?”. Vladimir Putin: “No, not for good reason. This is complete nonsense. Because the missile defence system protects from the kind of ballistic missiles that no terrorists have in their arsenal. This is an explanation for the housewives watching your programme. But if these housewives can hear what I am saying, if you show it to them and they hear me, they will understand that 9/11 and the missile defence system are completely unrelated. To defend themselves from terrorist attacks, the major powers must join their efforts against the terrorists rather than create threats for each other”. Megyn Kelly: “About the weapon that you announced today, the ICBM, have you actually tested it and it works? Because some analysts are suggesting that you have tested it, and it failed. And that is why you only showed animations of it today, and have not yet produced any actual videos”. Vladimir Putin: “I spoke about several systems today. Which one are you referring to, the heavy-duty intercontinental ballistic missile?”. Megyn Kelly: “Yes, the one that you claimed renders defence systems useless”. Vladimir Putin: “All the systems I mentioned today easily overcome missile defence. Each one of them. This is the point of all these developments”. Megyn Kelly: “But you have tested it?”. Vladimir Putin: “Yes, of course”. Megyn Kelly: “And it worked?”. Vladimir Putin: “It did, very well. Some of these systems require additional work. Some of them are already deployed. Some are in serial production. Getting back to the beginning of our conversation, there is a missile defence system deployed in Alaska. The distance between Russia’s Chukotka and Alaska is only 60 kilometres. Two systems are being deployed in Eastern Europe. One is already in place in Romania. Construction of another one is almost finished in Poland. There is also the navy. US ships are based very close to Russian shores both in the south and the north. Imagine if we placed our missile systems along the US-Mexico or the US-Canada border in their territories on both sides and brought our ships in from both sides. What would you say? Would you take action? Meanwhile we would respond that you are escalating the arms race? Ridiculous, isn’t it? This is exactly what is happening”. Megyn Kelly: “Just to come back. Are you saying that we are in a new arms race?”. Vladimir Putin: “I want to say that the United States, when it withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, forced us to begin developing new weapon systems. We told our partners about it, and they said, “Do whatever you like.” Fine, that is what we did – so enjoy”. Megyn Kelly: “You disclosed that Russia was developing an intercontinental ballistic missile that was powered by nukes that could render defence systems useless?”. Vladimir Putin: “Of course not. I did not know at the time how we could respond, to be honest. So it seems that our partners believed we would have nothing to respond with. Our economy was is dire straits, as well as the defence sector and the army. Therefore, I do not think anybody could have thought that in such a short period of time we would be able to make such a gigantic leap in the development of strategic weapons. I think the CIA must have told the US President that we would not do anything in response. While the Pentagon said something like, “And we will develop a powerful cutting-edge global anti-missile system.” So they did. But I will answer your question directly. I can tell you what we told our American partners, what I said personally at the time”. Megyn Kelly: “Just to clarify, do you mean George W. Bush?”. Vladimir Putin: “Who was President in 2002, 2003 and 2004?”. Megyn Kelly: “But did this happen continuously or just during that timeframe?”. Vladimir Putin: “Actually, we kept going on about it for 15 years. I said, almost literally, that we would not develop a system of anti-missile defence the way you are doing. Firstly, because it is too expensive, and we do not have the resources. And secondly, we do not know yet how it would work: you do not know, and we certainly do not either. But, to preserve the strategic balance so that you would not be able to zero out our nuclear deterrence forces, we will develop strike systems that will be able to break your anti-missile systems. We said this plainly and openly, without any aggression, I just told stated we would do. Nothing personal. And the response was, “We are not doing this against you, but you do whatever you want and we will presume that it is not directed against us, not against the United States”. Megyn Kelly: “Let us talk about present day and going forward, because what you said today was that you would use these weapons if Russia or her allies come under attack. And the question is whether you meant any attack or only a nuclear attack on Russia or its allies?”. Vladimir Putin: “I heard you. I would also like to say that in 2004 – I mentioned this today – I said at a news conference that we will be developing weapons and even mentioned a concrete missile system, Avangard as we call it. It is called Avangard now, but then I simply spoke of how it would work. I openly said how it would work. We hoped that this would be heard and the US would discuss it with us and discuss cooperation. But no, it was as if they had not heard us. Strategic offensive arms reduction and an antimissile defence system are different things”. Megyn Kelly: “So, you didn’t feel like you needed to disclose”. Vladimir Putin: “We will be reducing the number of delivery vehicles and warheads under the New START Treaty. This means that the numbers will be reduced on both sides, but at the same time, one party, the United States, will be developing antimissile systems. This will ultimately lead to a situation where all our nuclear missiles, Russia’s entire missile potential will be reduced to zero. This is why we have always linked this. This is how it was in the Soviet-American times; these are natural things, everyone understands this”. Megyn Kelly: “But is it your contention that the 4,000 nukes that Russia now has cannot penetrate the existing military defence system?”. Vladimir Putin: “They can. Today they can. But you are developing your antimissile systems. Antimissiles’ range is increasing, and so is their accuracy. These weapons are being upgraded. This is why we need to respond to this appropriately, so that we are able to penetrate the system not only today but also tomorrow, when you acquire new weapons”. Megyn Kelly: “That is why it would be a big deal if you really did have a nuclear-powered ICBM, which people are questioning, whether you have a usable one right now. When you said earlier that you have some that had tested positively and were excellent, you said others had not. So, for the record, right now, do you have a workable ICBM that is powered by nukes that you have tested successfully?”. Vladimir Putin: “Look, I did not say that the testing of some of these systems had been unsuccessful. All the tests were successful. It is just that each of these weapon systems is at a different stage of readiness. One is already on alert duty in line units. Another is in the same status. The work is proceeding on schedule with regard to some systems. We have no doubt that they will be in service, just as we had no doubt in 2004 that we would make a missile with the so-called cruise glide re-entry vehicle. You have been referring all the time to intercontinental ballistic missiles, new missiles”. Megyn Kelly: “You keep mentioning ICBMs”. Vladimir Putin: “No. I am saying that we are developing just one brand of new heavy missile, which will replace a missile that we call Voyevoda, and you have dubbed it Satan. We will replace it with a new and more powerful missile. Here it is: a ballistic missile. All the other missiles are not ballistic. Therein lies the entire meaning of this, because any antimissile defence system operates against ballistic missiles. But we have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories and the antimissile defence systems are powerless against them. This means that the US taxpayers’ money has been wasted”. Megyn Kelly: “But again, you say that you are going to use these weapons, these nuclear-powered weapons if Russia or its allies come under attack. Any attack or only a nuclear one?”. Vladimir Putin: “There are two reasons why we would respond with our nuclear deterrence forces: a nuclear attack on the Russian Federation or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardises the state’s existence”. Megyn Kelly: “That is consistent with the existing Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons”. Vladimir Putin: “Exactly, there are two possible reasons for a nuclear retaliation”. Megyn Kelly: “Are you interested in new talks to extend the new strategic arms control treaty?”. Vladimir Putin: “The START-3 Treaty will expire soon. We are ready to continue this dialogue. What do we consider important? We agree to a reduction or to retaining current terms, to a reduction in delivery vehicles and warheads. However, today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be highly critical”. Megyn Kelly: “So will these weapons be part of those discussions?”. Vladimir Putin: “In the context that the number of delivery vehicles and the number of warheads they can or will carry should, of course, be included in the grand total. And we will show you from a distance what this will look like. Our military experts know how to conduct these inspections. In this sense, there are fine-tuned mechanisms and a sufficiently high level of trust. Generally, military experts are working together professionally. Politicians talk a lot, but military experts know what they are doing”. Megyn Kelly: “You are a politician”. Vladimir Putin: “I am also an officer, and I am the Commander-in-Chief. I also served as a military intelligence officer for 17 years”. Megyn Kelly: “Are you proud of that fact? Do you like the fact that you were in the KGB? Do you like people to know that?”. Vladimir Putin: “I do not see it from an emotional perspective. This gave me a lot of experience in the most diverse fields. I found it useful when I moved on to the civilian sector. Of course, this positive experience helped me in this sense”. Megyn Kelly: “How so? How did it help?”. Vladimir Putin: “You know, after I left the intelligence service, I worked as Assistant Rector at St Petersburg University. I worked with people, established contacts, motivated people to act and brought them together. This is very important in the academic environment. Later, I was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. I assumed even greater and broader responsibility. I dealt with St Petersburg’s international ties, and that is a metropolis with a population of five million people. While working in this capacity in St Petersburg, I first met Henry Kissinger. Of course, all this helped me in my work at that time, and my additional experience later helped me in my work in Moscow”. Megyn Kelly: “Do you think it gives you an advantage over your adversaries and your allies?”. Vladimir Putin: “It is hard for me to say. I have no other experience. The only thing I know is that my partners, including heads of state and government, are exceptional and outstanding people. They have gone through stringent selection and elimination procedures. There are no chance people at this level. And each of them has his or her own advantages”. Megyn Kelly: “What about that? You have been in power for a long time here in Russia, poised to go into another term as president. You have had four American presidents come and go during that time. I am wondering if you had a favourite, if there was one you liked more than the others?”. Vladimir Putin: “I am sorry, but this is not a very tactful question. Each of my partners is good in their own right. In all, we had good relations with practically all of them. With Bill Clinton, though he was leaving office, we were able to work together for several months. Then with presidents Bush, Obama, and with the current President too, but to a lesser extent, of course. All of them have something to respect them for. At the same time, we can argue and disagree with each other, and it happens often, we have diverging views on many issues, even on key ones, but we nevertheless managed to maintain normal, human relations. If it were not for that, it would have been not only harder, but much worse for everyone”. Megyn Kelly: “How important do you think it is to project strength as a President?”. Vladimir Putin: “It is important not to project strength, but to show it. It is also important how we understand power. It does not mean banging the table with a fist or yelling. I think power has several dimensions. Firstly, one should be confident that he is doing the right thing. Secondly, he must be ready to go all the way to achieve the goals”. Megyn Kelly: “I wonder this because one of the images that we see of you in the United States is without the shirt on a horse. What is that about?”. Vladimir Putin: “Well, I have breaks. There are your Russian colleagues, there is the internet. But we do not do this on purpose. They take the photos they like. I have lots of photos of me in the office, working with documents, but nobody is interested in them”. Megyn Kelly: “(Laughs.) You are saying they like the shirtless photos?”. Vladimir Putin: “You know, I have seen “photos” of me riding a bear. I have not ridden a bear yet, but there are such photos already”. Megyn Kelly: “Now what about you personally? Your elections are coming up in two weeks. You are 65 years old now. Most people would be slowing down a little in their lives. Do you see that for yourself at all in the future”. Vladimir Putin: “First, there are many politicians around the world who are older than I am and who are still working active”. Megyn Kelly: “Including in my country”. Vladimir Putin: “Not only in the United States, in other countries, too. There are many such people, in Europe and everywhere in the world. But if a person assumes the highest offices, he must work as if he is doing it for the first and last day of his life. There is the Constitution. I have never violated it and have never changed it. Of course, if voters give me the opportunity to serve another term, I will do it to the best of my ability”. Megyn Kelly: “Last question for tonight, it is late. Forgive me; this may be a long one. What do you see as your greatest accomplishment as president and what do you see as your biggest mistake? And what did you learn from it?”. Vladimir Putin: “You know, these would be very close. Our biggest achievement is that our economy has changed radically. It has almost doubled in scale. The number of people living below the poverty line has decreased by half. At the same time, the number of people living below the poverty line remains large, and we must work on that. We must remove the gap between people with very high and very low incomes. In this context, we have many achievements and many unresolved issues. Back in the early 2000s, our population shrank by nearly a million people a year. Can you imagine the scale of the disaster? Almost 900,000 people. We have reversed this trend. We have even achieved a natural population increase. We have very low infant mortality, and we have reduced maternal mortality to almost zero. We have prepared and are implementing a large-scale programme of supporting mothers and children. Our life expectancy is growing at a high rate. Much has changed in our economy. But we have not achieved our main economic goal: we have not yet changed the economic structure as we need to. We have not yet reached the required growth of labour efficiency. But we know how to do it, and I am confident that we will do it. The thing is that we had no opportunity to do this before, because until recently we did not have the macroeconomic conditions for taking specific measures in these areas. At the beginning of our path, inflation was about 30 percent, but now it is 2.2 percent. Our gold and currency reserves are growing, and we have achieved macroeconomic stability. This offers us an opportunity to take the next step towards enhancing labour efficiency, attracting investment, including private funds, and changing the structure of our economy. I am talking in large blocks. There are also more specific areas, such as modern technology and artificial intelligence, digitalisation, biology, medicine, genome research, and so on”. Megyn Kelly: “Much more on the economy and how Russia is doing – tomorrow, and on your re-election. Thank you so much for your time. You have had a long day. I look forward to meeting up with you in Kaliningrad”. Vladimir Putin: “Thank you”. Part 2, Kaliningrad, March 2, 2018. Megyn Kelly: “Mr President, good to see you again”. Vladimir Putin: “Good afternoon”. Megyn Kelly: “So, we are here in Kaliningrad. Why is that? This is a port that, I am told, could not be more threatening to NATO, to Europe. It is a Russian military base. It is a Russian military port. It is home to some of your nukes. Are you trying to send a message?”. President of Russia Vladimir Putin: “Why Kaliningrad? Because I regularly visit Russian regions. This is one of these regions. This time, I came here to attend a conference of the regional media, which they decided to hold here. It was not my decision but theirs, your colleagues from the Russian regional media. I have an agreement with them that I attend such meetings once a year and meet with them, and that is why I am here today. It does not have anything to do with any external signals; it is our domestic affair”. Megyn Kelly: “Understood. So, the last time we met in June, I asked you about the conclusion of our American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in our presidential election. You told me that there was nothing specific in these reports, that if there is anything specific, you said, then there will be something to discuss. You told me, as they used to say in the KGB: addresses, houses, names. Since then, 13 Russians and three Russian-owned companies have been indicted by a special prosecutor named Robert Mueller in the United States for interfering in our election. The IRA agency, Yevgeny Prigozhin and others running a cyber warfare operation out of an office at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, Russia. Addresses, houses, names. So, can we have that discussion now?”. Vladimir Putin: “Of course. We not only can but I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you. But if you think that the question has been asked, I am ready to answer it”. Megyn Kelly: “Why would you allow an attack like this on the United States?”. Vladimir Putin: “What makes you think that the Russian authorities and I gave our permission to anyone to do anything? You just named some people; I have heard about some of them, some of them I do not know, but they are just individuals, they do not represent the Russian government. Even if we suppose, though I am not 100 percent certain, that they did something during the US presidential election campaign (I simply do not know anything about it), it has nothing to do with the position of the Russian government. Nothing has changed since we spoke last time in St Petersburg. There are some names, so what? It could just as well be some Americans who while living here, interfered in your own political processes. It has not changed anything”. Megyn Kelly: “But it was not Americans. It was Russians. And it was hundreds of people, a monthly budget of 2.5 billion dollars, all designed to attack the United States in a cyber warfare campaign. You are up for re-election right now. Should the Russians be concerned that you had no idea this was going on in your own home country, in your own hometown?”. Vladimir Putin: “You know, the world is very large and diverse. We have rather complicated relations between the United States and the Russian Federation. And some of our people have their own opinion on these relations and react accordingly. At the level of the Russian Government and at the level of the Russian President, there has never been any interference in the internal political processes in the United States. You have named some individuals and said that they are Russian. So what? Maybe, although they are Russian, they work for some American company. Maybe one of them worked for one of the candidates. I have no idea about this, these are not my problems. Do you know that, for example, after the presidential election in the US, some Ukrainian officials sent messages congratulating Hillary Clinton, even though Trump had won? Listen, what do we have to do with this? Now, in my opinion, Mr Manafort, that is his name, he was initially accused of having something to do with Russia’s interference in the presidential election in the United States. It turned out that just the opposite was true: in fact, he had connections to Ukraine. And he had some issues with Ukraine. What do we have to do with this? You know, we have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But if you are interested in talking about this, I would like to widen the scope of our discussion”. Megyn Kelly: “I want to go through it. I do want to go through it. If we can do it step by step that would be more clear for the viewers who are following us. Let me ask you this: you say the Russian Federation did not order it. Do you condone these activities?”. Vladimir Putin: “We do not condone or order. But I say that there are internal political processes in the United States itself and there are people who wanted to achieve some result. They could have used some tools in other countries: such technologies exist. They could have sent relevant information from France, from Germany, from Asia, from Russia. What do we have to do with this?”. Megyn Kelly: “But it was not the Russians”. Vladimir Putin: “Well, all right, Russians, but they were not state officials. Well, Russians, and so what? The are 146 million Russian people, so what?”. Megyn Kelly: “What have you done to satisfy yourself with that fact?”. Vladimir Putin: “What fact?”. Megyn Kelly: “What have you done to satisfy yourself that it was not Russians? You suggest maybe it was Americans, maybe it was the French. What have you done to satisfy yourself that the 13 Russian nationals who have just been indicted, those three Russian companies, including, as you pointed out, some of your close friends, were not behind this? This has caused an international incident”. Vladimir Putin: “I know that they do not represent the Russian state or the Russian government. And I have no idea what they did and what they were guided by. Even if they did something, then our American colleagues should not just say something in interviews with the media but give us specific data, with proof. We are ready to consider it and talk about it. But you know what I would like to say…”. Megyn Kelly: “That would be great. Will you extradite them to the United States?”. Vladimir Putin: “Never. Just like the United States, Russia does not extradite its citizens anywhere. Have you ever extradited any of your citizens? This is my first point. Second, I do not believe anything illegal was committed. And, third, we have repeatedly suggested that the United States and Russia establish relations in this area and sign a corresponding interstate treaty on extraditing criminals. The United States has evaded this proposal and does not want to sign it with Russia. What are you hoping for? That we will extradite people to you whereas you will not? This is not a proper way to go about international affairs. There is more to it. Please listen to me and take to your viewers and listeners what I am about to say. We are holding discussions with our American friends and partners, people who represent the government by the way, and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them (we did so fairly recently at a very high level): ”But you are constantly interfering in our political life.“ Would you believe it, they are not even denying it. Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ”Yes, we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you are not, and so you cannot do it.“ Do you think this is a civilised and modern approach to international affairs? Yesterday, you and I talked about nuclear weapons, and that once the United States and the Soviet Union realised that they were moving towards possible mutual destruction, they agreed on rules of conduct in the security sphere given the availability of weapons of mass destruction. Let us now agree on how to behave in cyberspace, which never used to have such a big role and scope”. Megyn Kelly: “Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?”. Vladimir Putin: “We made a proposal to the United States, our partners back during President Obama’s watch: let us agree on how we build our relations, develop common rules acceptable for all, and adhere to them in cyberspace. The first reaction of the Obama Administration was negative, but then, at the very end of his presidential term, they told us: ”Yes, it is interesting, let us talk about it.“ But again, everything disappeared and vanished in some swamp. Well, let us agree on this, we are all for it”. Megyn Kelly: “Okay, so let me ask you: you have stated explicitly you believe that America interfered in Russian elections, right?”. Vladimir Putin: “The US does this all the time”. Megyn Kelly: “But Russia did not interfere in America’s election?”. Vladimir Putin: “No, and there are no plans in Russia to do so. It is impossible. It is impossible for us”. Megyn Kelly: “Why not? Why wouldn’t you?”. Vladimir Putin: “First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not poke our noses into other people’s business. This is a principle we have. This is the first point I wanted to make. My second point is that we do not have a comparable number of tools”. Megyn Kelly: “Come on. Come on”. Vladimir Putin: “No, we simply cannot do that”. Megyn Kelly: “You told me just yesterday, because we were amping our missile defence systems, we have to respond in kind with increased nuclear technology. Now you want me to believe that we attacked your Russian elections and you say, we are going to take that road”. Vladimir Putin: “This is not a matter of missiles. This is a completely different area. In addition, we lack the necessary instruments”. Megyn Kelly: “Cyber warfare”. Vladimir Putin: “This is a completely different area of activity. It has nothing to do with cyber warfare. Russia does not have the kind of tools the US has. We do not have global media outlets comparable to CNN. You think we do? We have Russia Today, and nothing else. This is the only Russian media outlet, and even then, it was designated…”. Megyn Kelly: “Is that cyber tools?”. Vladimir Putin: “You keep interrupting me, this is impolite”. Megyn Kelly: “Forgive me, sir”. Vladimir Putin: “We have one media outlet, Russia Today, and even it was designated as a foreign agent so that it is unable to do its work properly. It is the only media outlet of this kind, while the US has a whole range of outlets, and immense possibilities online. The internet is yours. The United States control all the internet governance tools, all located on US territory. Do you think that a comparison can be made in any way? This is simply impossible. Let us come together and agree on the rules of conduct in cyber space. But it is the US who refuses to do so”. Megyn Kelly: “David and Goliath. The Mueller indictment is very specific about what the Russians were doing. There is a specific email, a damning email that is cited therein by a female Russian who appears to have been caught red-handed. She says as follows, “We had a slight crisis here at work. The FBI busted our activity. Not a joke. So I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues. I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believe that it was written by their people.” And now you want to sit here and say you do not have the tools to do it? That we have the market cyber interference? This is just not true”. Vladimir Putin: “I do not even understand what you are talking about. You see, this is just nonsense. The US Congress analysed the information from Russian sources that appeared online. The information coming from media outlets like Russia Today was also analysed and turned out to be one hundredth of a percent of the overall information flow in the United States, just one hundredth of a percent. Do you think that this fraction had any impact on the election? This is just nonsense, don’t you see? This is the same old business when the people who lost refuse to admit it. You see, I have commented on this on a number of occasions. It has yet to be seen what the US policy toward Russia will be like under the current administration. Many things remain unclear, since we have not yet been able to start working or to establish normal contacts. However, it is absolutely clear that the current US President adopted a specific stance in terms of domestic policy, and decided to reach out to the people who were ready to support his campaign promises. This is what led to his victory, not any kind of outside interference. To claim otherwise makes no sense. Will anyone believe that Russia, a country located thousands of kilometres away, could use two or three Russians, as you have said, and whom I do not know, to meddle in the elections and influence their outcome? Don’t you think that it sounds ridiculous?”. Megyn Kelly: “Now you are talking about causation. But I am still on whether you did it. And it is not true that you do not know the individuals who were accused of conducting this. One of your good friends is actually accused of helping conduct this. His name is Yevgeny Prigozhin. Do you know him?”. Vladimir Putin: “I know this man, but he is not a friend of mine. This is just twisting the facts. There is such a businessman; he works in the restaurant business or something. But he is not a state official; we have nothing to do with him”. Megyn Kelly: “After you heard about him being indicted, did you pick up the phone and call him?”. Vladimir Putin: “Certainly not. I have plenty of other things to worry about”. Megyn Kelly: “He is your friend. He has been indicted”. Vladimir Putin: “Did you hear what I just said? He is not my friend. I know him, but he is not a friend of mine. Was I not clear? There are many people like that. There are 146 million people in Russia. That is less than in the US, but it is still a lot”. Megyn Kelly: “He is a prominent businessman”. Vladimir Putin: “A prominent businessman? So what? There are many prominent people in Russia. He is not a state official, he does not work for the government; he is an individual, a businessman”. Megyn Kelly: “Some people say his real job is to do your dirty work”. Vladimir Putin: “Who are those people? And what dirty work? I do not do any dirty work. Everything I do is in plain view. This is your prerogative; some people in your country enjoy doing dirty work. You think we do the same. That is not true”. Megyn Kelly: “It is a) the fact that you know him, you admit that. He is a prominent Russian businessman. And he is specifically accused of running this operation; b) this is the same man who has been accused of sending Russian mercenaries into Syria and they attacked a compound held by American back militia. This guy gets around”. Vladimir Putin: “You know, this man could have a wide range of interests, including, for example, an interest in the Syrian fuel and energy complex. But we do not support him in any way. We do not get in his way but we do not support him either. It is his own personal initiative”. Megyn Kelly: “You did not know about it?”. Vladimir Putin: “Well, I know that there are several companies, several Russian companies there, maybe his among others, but this has nothing to do with our policy in Syria. If he does anything there, he does not coordinate it with us; he probably coordinates it with the Syrian authorities or the Syrian businesses he works with. We do not interfere in this. Does your government interfere in every step your businesses take, especially small businesses? It is essentially a medium-sized business. So, does your president interfere in the affairs of every medium-sized US business? That is just nonsense, isn’t it?”. Megyn Kelly: “If the 13 Russian nationals plus three Russian companies did in fact interfere in our elections, is that okay with you?”. Vladimir Putin: “I do not care. I do not care at all because they do not represent the government”. Megyn Kelly: “You do not care?”. Vladimir Putin: “Not at all. They do not represent state interests. If you are worried about anything, state it officially, send us documents proving it and explain what exactly those people are accused of. We will see if they have violated Russian laws…”. Megyn Kelly: “I did that”. Vladimir Putin: “No, this is not true. If they violated Russian law, we will prosecute them. If they did not, there is nothing to prosecute them for in Russia. But after all, you must understand that people in Russia do not live under US law but under Russian law. This is how it is. If you want to reach an agreement with us, let us negotiate, choose the subject, make an agreement and sign it. But you refuse to do this. I am telling you for the third time: we have proposed working together on cyberspace issues. But the US refuses to work like this and instead throws 13 Russians to the media. Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked: maybe they have dual citizenship or a Green Card; maybe, the US paid them for this. How can you know that? I do not know either”. Megyn Kelly: “I will give you one piece of evidence. Andrei Krutskikh is an advisor to the Kremlin when it comes to cyber issues. In his speech to an information security forum in February 2016, he reportedly said, quote, “I am warning you. We are on the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.” What do you think he meant? Because it certainly sounds like a threat right before an election hack”. Vladimir Putin: “Sometimes I think you are joking”. Megyn Kelly: “No, I am deadly serious”. Vladimir Putin: “A man says something about how he sees our contacts and our work with our foreign partners, the US in this case, in a certain area. I have no idea what he said. Ask him what he meant. Do you think I control everything?”. Megyn Kelly: “He is an advisor to the Kremlin on cyber”. Vladimir Putin: “So what? There are 2,000 people working in the administration; do you think I control everyone? Peskov is sitting in front of me, he is my press secretary and he sometimes says things that I see on television and think, what is he talking about? Who told him to say this? I have no idea what he said. Ask him. Do you really think I can comment on everything administration or government personnel say? I have my own work to do”. Megyn Kelly: “I think when it comes to our two countries you know exactly what is going on. And this is Russia’s problem now. It is. The heads of the US intelligence agencies just testified to Congress that Russia, Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, greater than ISIS. You cannot get the sanctions lifted. The relationship between our two countries is nearly non-existent right now. Did not this interference, whether you knew or you did not know about it, backfire against Russia?”. Vladimir Putin: “Listen, you are exaggerating. I do not know about someone saying something and I am not going to comment on it, and neither do I follow what is going on at your Congress. I am more interested in what is going on at the State Duma, if they have approved a bill on a healthcare or utilities issue; if they delay certain discussions or not. Is a special interest lobbying against a nature conservation, or forestry, or environmental law? This is what I am interested in. You should follow what they are discussing in Congress; I have enough on my plate without that”. Megyn Kelly: “You know that the sanctions have not been lifted. You know that the relationship between our two countries is at not an all-time low but is getting there. And this is in part the reason. And so, Russian interference in the American elections is important”. Vladimir Putin: “Listen, sanctions have nothing to do with the myth of some Russian interference in the US election. Sanctions are about something else entirely: the desire to halt Russia’s progress, to contain Russia. This policy of containing Russia has been pursued for decades, on and off. Now it is back. It is a misguided policy, which not only affects Russian-US relations but also US businesses because it frees up space for their competitors on our market. You and I were at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. The largest business delegation was from the US. People want to work with us, but they are not allowed to; they are contained in order to contain Russia. They have been contained and contained so that our defence industry cannot develop, among other things. We discussed this yesterday. Did they manage to achieve anything? No, they did not: they have never managed to contain Russia and never will. It is simply, you know, an attempt with tools that…”. Megyn Kelly: “Can we contain Russia in cyber warfare?”. Vladimir Putin: “I think it is impossible to contain Russia anywhere. You need to understand this. Listen, you cannot even contain North Korea. What are you talking about? Why would you do that? Why do we have to contain, attack or cast suspicion on each other? We are offering cooperation”. Megyn Kelly: “That is my question to you. That is my question to you. Why, why would you interfere in our election time and time again? And why would not you, for that matter? Let me put it to you that way. You have spent a day, every time I have seen you, in St Petersburg, in Moscow and now here in Kaliningrad, telling me that America has interfered in Russia’s electoral process and that Russia has a robust cyber warfare arsenal. And yet you want us to believe that you did not deploy it. Do you understand how implausible that seems, sir?”. Vladimir Putin: “That does not seem implausible to me at all, because we do not have such a goal, to interfere. We do not see what we have to gain by interfering. There is no such goal. Let us suppose this was our goal. Why, just for the sake of it? What is the goal?”. Megyn Kelly: “Creating chaos. That is the goal”. Vladimir Putin: “Listen to me. Not long ago President Trump said something absolutely correct. He said that if Russia’s goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded. But it is not the result of Russian interference, but your political system, the internal struggle, the disorder and division. Russia has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Get your own affairs in order first. And the way the question is framed, as I mentioned – that you can interfere anywhere because you bring democracy, but we cannot – is what causes conflicts. You have to show your partners respect, and they will respect you”. Megyn Kelly: “You once said, Mr President, that you believed the interference in our election was done by some patriotic Russians. An answer like that, you understand, will lead people to ask, are you the patriotic Russian?”. Vladimir Putin: “I am the President of the Russian Federation. It is my constitutional duty to address a host of issues concerning the protection of Russia’s interests. When I spoke of patriotic people, I meant that you can imagine that, in the face of a deteriorating Russian-US relationship, people – and people use cyberspace – will express their points of view, their opinions, including on this global network. Of course, they are free to do so. How can we really prohibit it? But we cannot control it and, most importantly, we are not directing it. Please note that this is not the position of the Russian state”. Megyn Kelly: “You cannot? The Russian intelligence services cannot find out who is doing this, bring it to your attention? You are unable to stop it?”. Vladimir Putin: “Perhaps if we looked into it carefully we would find those people, if they exist. But we have no such goal. We propose holding official talks and you refuse. So what do you want? For us to open investigations just because Congress said so? Let us sit down, sign an agreement on working in cyberspace and comply with it. How do you want to do it? There is no other way of conducting international affairs”. Megyn Kelly: “So you have no goal to stop it. So what does that mean for our elections in 2018 and 2020? We can expect more of the same?”. Vladimir Putin: “I did not say that stopping it is not a goal. I said we had…”. Megyn Kelly: “You just said that”. Vladimir Putin: “No, I did not. I said we do not interfere in our people’ private lives and cannot stop them from expressing their opinion, including on the internet. But I also said that Russia’s official position is that we do not interfere in the political processes of other countries as a state. That is the most important part. I want it to be recorded in our conversation today, for people in the US to understand this”. Megyn Kelly: “And forgive me, but I am trying to get to one level below that, whether you have the goal of stopping your own citizens from behaving in this manner, which has undermined relationships between our two countries?”. Vladimir Putin: “I want to say that we will stand in the way of everything that violates Russian law or our international agreements. For the third or fourth time, I will say that we are ready to sign a corresponding agreement with the United States. You still refuse. Let us sit down at the negotiating table, identify what we consider important, sign the document and comply with it with proper verification”. Megyn Kelly: “You are the President, sir. Respectfully, I still did not hear an answer about whether you want to crack down on the Russians who committed those crimes. It sounds like the answer is no. If I am wrong, please correct me. I understand you want a negotiation with the United States directly. But internally, you could put a stop to this if you had the desire”. Vladimir Putin: “I want you to listen to me. We will counter anything that violates current Russian law. If the actions of our citizens – no matter what they are and whom they target – violate current Russian laws, we will respond. If they do not violate Russian law, we cannot respond”. Megyn Kelly: “With this?”. Vladimir Putin: “With anything. If no Russian law has been broken, no one can be held accountable”. Megyn Kelly: “Will this violate Russian law?”. Vladimir Putin: “I must look at what they have done. Give us the materials. Nobody has given us anything”. Megyn Kelly: “You know this. Hacking into the Democratic National Committee, hacking into John Podesta’s email, creating interference in our election by creating bots that spread false information on Twitter, on Facebook. Spreading this information when it comes to Black Lives Matter, when it comes to the shooting we just had in Parkland, Florida, when it comes to our presidential election. Spreading fake news in order to alter the course of the presidential race. That is what I am talking about”. Vladimir Putin: “With all due respect for you personally and for the body of the people’s representatives, the US Congress – and we treat all these people with respect – I want you to really understand this. Do you have people with training in law? Of course, you do. One hundred percent. Highly educated people. We cannot even launch an investigation without cause. Our conversation today or an inquiry in the US Congress is not sufficient cause. Give us at least an official inquiry with a statement of facts, send us an official paper. After all, a conversation on air cannot be grounds for an investigation”. Megyn Kelly: “The intelligence agencies in the United States, now a special prosecutor with a criminal indictment – that is not enough for you to look into it?”. Vladimir Putin: “Absolutely not. If you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this”. Megyn Kelly: “I do”. Vladimir Putin: “Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent to the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation. That said, we do not even have a treaty on how to proceed. But send us something in writing at least”. Megyn Kelly: “Vladimir Putin could not order an investigation into whether this was done in a way that undermines its relations with a major partner, the United States of America?”. Vladimir Putin: “Give us something in writing, an official inquiry. We will look at it”. Megyn Kelly: “You said that the last time and now I am back with an indictment”. Vladimir Putin: “There is nothing in writing. Send an inquiry to the Prosecutor-General’s Office. It is necessary to go through official channels rather than with the help of the media and harsh words in the US Congress, levelling accusations against us that are totally unsubstantiated. Give us something in writing”. Megyn Kelly: “Let me ask you this: you were President back in 2001 when the FBI arrested one of its own, Robert Hanssen, for spying for the Russian Federation. In retaliation, President George W. Bush kicked 50 illegit Russian spies out of the United States, and the Kremlin did the same, throwing 50 Americans out of the US Embassy in Moscow immediately. This is a tradition that goes back for decades. December 2016: after our intelligence agencies agreed that Russians interfered in our election President Obama expelled dozens of Russians and seized two Russian-owned properties. And yet, you did nothing, you did nothing in response. Why not?”. Vladimir Putin: “We believed and I still believe that there were no grounds for this whatsoever. This is the first point. Secondly, this was done in clear violation of international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The totally groundless seizure of our property constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. We were strongly hoping for a response from the new Administration. But since none is forthcoming – and I have already said this and the Foreign Minister repeated this – we will turn to the appropriate courts of the United States to protect our interests”. Megyn Kelly: “Let me ask you about President Trump. Any time he says anything about you it is supremely deferential. Never a harsh word for you. Although if you look at the ways he speaks about members of his own party, even members of his own staff, never mind of the other political leaders, he frequently personally insults them. Why do you think he is so nice to you?”. Vladimir Putin: “This is not about being nice to me personally, in my view. I think he is an experienced person, a businessman with very extensive experience and he understands that if you need to partner with someone, you must treat your future or current partner with respect, otherwise nothing will come of it. I think this is a purely pragmatic approach. This is my first point. Second, even though this is his first term as President, he is a quick study, and he understands perfectly well that trading accusations or insults at our level is a road to nowhere. It would just mean depriving our countries of their last chance for dialogue, simply the last chance. This would be extremely unfortunate. You may have noticed that I, for my part, show respect to him and all my other colleagues, not only in the United States, but also Europe and Asia”. Megyn Kelly: “You may, but the truth is our President has referred to the leader of North Korea as “little rocket man.” So he is not quite as diplomatic depending on who he is talking about. I am sure you saw that, yes?”. Vladimir Putin: “Yes, I did. You are aware of our position on that account. We urge everyone to show restraint”. Megyn Kelly: “So what do you think of President Trump?”. Vladimir Putin: “The question is not entirely appropriate, because President Trump’s work should be assessed by his constituents, the American people. There is one thing I would like to say: like it or not – we may dislike certain things as well – he does his best to keep the election promises that he made to the American people. So, he is consistent in this sense. I think that, in fact, this is the only proper way to show respect for the people who voted for him”. Megyn Kelly: “He has praised your leadership. Is he an effective leader?”. Vladimir Putin: “Well, again, this is up to the American people to decide. He has strong leadership qualities, of course, because he takes responsibility when he makes decisions. To reiterate, whether some people like his decisions or not, he still goes ahead and does it. This, of course, is a sign of leadership qualities”. Megyn Kelly: “Do you ever read his tweets?”. Vladimir Putin: “No, I do not”. Megyn Kelly: “Do you ever tweet?”. Vladimir Putin: “No”. Megyn Kelly: “Why not?”. Vladimir Putin: “I have other means of expressing my point of view or making decisions. Well, Donald is a more modern person”. Megyn Kelly: “Would you say he is more colourful than you are?”. Vladimir Putin: “Maybe”. Megyn Kelly: “Let me ask you one question going back to the election interference issue. There are two theories on you at least. One is that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State you felt that she interfered with the elections here in 2011 and 2012, inciting protests here, including against you and it made you angry. Two is when the Panama Papers were leaked showing a massive money trail that led to you and some of your associates that that was the last drop for you. Do either of those things make you angry?”. Vladimir Putin: “This is complete nonsense. Speaking about Hillary, I know her personally, and we generally always maintained a good dialogue every time we met. I cannot understand why at some stage…Her advisers probably suggested that she focus part of her election campaign on criticising developments in Russia. Well, it was their choice. I never took it personally. It was just their policy. As for all those files, this is complete nonsense. They mention some of my friends. So what? As you know, this has had no effect whatsoever. This is nothing but nonsense and media chatter. I have forgotten all about it. I do not remember what it was all about. Actually, nothing of this kind can make me angry. I am guided by pragmatic considerations, not emotions”. Megyn Kelly: “Since you mention it, a friend of yours was mentioned in those Panama Papers. Let me ask you about him. Sergei Roldugin. Legend has it that this guy introduced you to your ex-wife, that he is the godfather to one of your daughters. He is a cellist by trade, right?”. Vladimir Putin: “Yes, I know him very well. He is a friend and a wonderful musician. He has devoted his life to art and music. By the way, many artists here are also involved in business one way or another. Apart from me, Sergey also has other ties in the country, including business people who have involved him in this work. He has made his money legally. He has not made hundreds of billions [of dollars]. Everything he earned he has spent on the purchase of musical instruments abroad, which he has brought to Russia. He uses some of these instruments personally, for example the cello. He plays the cello”. Megyn Kelly: “A $12 million Stradivarius”. Vladimir Putin: “Yes, something like that. But it is a unique instrument”. Megyn Kelly: “That is a lot of money”. Vladimir Putin: “Yes, it is. He must be eccentric, but then, all artists are eccentric. To spend all this money on musical instruments. I think he bought two cellos and two violins. He plays one himself and has given the others to other musicians, who are playing them. He has brought all these instruments to Russia”. Megyn Kelly: “According to the Panama Papers, this mass of series of leaked documents about offshore bank accounts, he has got assets, this cellist, of at least a $100 million, including a one-eighth stake in Russia’s biggest TV ad agency, a $6 million yacht, a stake in a truck manufacturer, a 3-percent interest in a Russian bank. He must be one heck of a musician”. Vladimir Putin: “Well, I know nothing about his business, but I do know that he has only enough money to buy these musical instruments. All the rest is on paper. He does not have anything else apart from what he has bought. Maybe he does have something else, but you should ask him about it. I do not control his life”. Megyn Kelly: “But the question is how a cellist makes that much money? People ask it because many people believe that is really your money”. Vladimir Putin: “Listen, just look at many Russian art figures, and probably there are people like this in your country as well. After all, there are art personalities in the US, including Hollywood celebrities who either run restaurants or own some stock. Aren’t there many people like this in the US entertainment industry and art world? I am sure that there are many people of this kind, and more than in Russia. In Russia, there are also quite a few art figures who do business apart from their creative work. In fact, there are many such people, and he is just one of them. So what? The question is not whether he runs a business or not or whether he made a profit or not. The question is whether there were any violations. As far as I know, he did not commit any violations”. Megyn Kelly: “That is right. There is no issue with making money. I am an American, we are capitalists. The question is whether that is really your money”. Vladimir Putin: “This is not my money, that is for sure. I do not even know how much Mr Roldugin has, as I have already said. As far as I know, he has not committed any violations in his business and creative undertakings, he did not violate any Russian law or norm”. Megyn Kelly: “Speaking of money, back in the 1980s and 1990s, in the wake of multiple bankruptcies, the Trump Organisation found it hard to secure loans in the United States and looked elsewhere. Mr Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., said that ten years ago and I quote, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Were you aware of the degree of Russian money flowing into properties?”. Vladimir Putin: “This is all nonsense. There were no investments in Trump properties in Russia, as far as I know. I do not even know if there were any serious plans for making these investments”. Megyn Kelly: “Come on”. Vladimir Putin: “Look, you keep thinking that the whole world revolves around you. That is not the way it is”. Megyn Kelly: “It is not about me. It is about what Donald Trump Jr. says”. Vladimir Putin: “Do you think we know everything what Donald Trump’s son has said? You see, this is not the way things are. Donald came here to Russia when he was not even nominated. I did not even know that he had been to Russia. I learned about it only afterwards, when I was told that as it turned out he had been to Russia. By the same token, I ignore what his son said on this occasion. Did Donald Trump’s son infringe on any rules or laws? If so, charge him. If he did not, why do you keep picking on every word?”. Megyn Kelly: “Years ago, before Donald Trump ran for president, he said he knew you and he spoke with you a lot. Is that true?”. Vladimir Putin: “No, I had never met him. You mean before he became President and before he decided to run for President, right?”. Megyn Kelly: “Before he ran”. Vladimir Putin: “No, we had not met. We never talked to each other, neither by phone or otherwise”. Megyn Kelly: “You are poised to be re-elected for your fourth term as president here in Russia, right?”. Vladimir Putin: “We will see what the Russian voters decide”. Megyn Kelly: “How does somebody like Vladimir Putin, who is as popular as you are here in Russia, feel any threat from Navalny? I realise he has got in legal trouble, but could you pardon this guy and let him mount a meaningful challenge to you?”. Vladimir Putin: “As for the question about whom I could work together with and whom I would not want to work together with, I can tell you in all honesty that I would like to and am ready to work with people who want Russia to become a stronger, more effective, competitive and self-reliant country. But to achieve that, the people we are talking about should have a clear plan of action designed to promote national development in today’s environment. There are people like that, including…”. Megyn Kelly: “But Navalny is such as man and has a fair amount of popularity here in Russia”. Vladimir Putin: “Any person can be pardoned if he deserves it”. Megyn Kelly: “Why don’t you?”. Vladimir Putin: “If he deserves it. There are no exceptions for anyone. No exceptions. But we are not talking about pardon now; we are talking about certain political forces. They do not have a development programme for the country. What do they have that is positive and what I like? That they expose problems, and this is actually good, this is the right thing to do, and it needs to be done. But this is not enough for the country’s progressive development, simply not enough. Because focusing on problems is not enough; moreover, it is even dangerous, because it can lead to destruction, while we need creation”. Megyn Kelly: “Our political analysts tell me you are exactly right about your chances in the upcoming election, that you have no meaningful opponents so you will likely win. What is next after that? The Chinese President just abolished term limits. Is that something you would ever do?”. Vladimir Putin: “I do not think that I should talk about my political plans with you now at this meeting, in this conversation, in this interview for American television. But I think I told you yesterday, I never changed the Constitution or adjusted it to my needs, and I do not have any such plans today. As for China, before criticising decisions in a country like China, you need to think and recall that there are 1.5 billion people living there and, after thinking about it, you need to come to the conclusion that we all are interested in China being a stable and prosperous state. How it should be done best, it is probably up to the Chinese people and the Chinese leadership”. Megyn Kelly: “Can you leave power? Because some of the experts that we have spoken to have said it would be near impossible for you because someone in your position would likely either be thrown in jail by your adversaries or worse. They say it is actually sad that you will have to stay in power in order to stay well”. Vladimir Putin: “What your so-called experts say is their wishful thinking. I have heard a lot of nonsense like this. Why do you think that I will necessarily be succeeded by people ready to destroy everything I have done in recent years? Maybe, on the contrary, a government will come to power determined to strengthen Russia, to create a future for it, to build a platform for development for the new generations. Why have you suddenly decided that some destroyers would arrive and wipe out whatever they can? Maybe there are people who would like this, including in the United States. But I do not think they are right, because the United States, I think, should be more interested in the other option – in Russia being a stable, prosperous and developing country, I mean if you really can look at least 25–50 years ahead”. Megyn Kelly: “Have you groomed a successor? Is there anyone in mind?”. Vladimir Putin: “I have been thinking about this since 2000. Thinking is not a crime, but in the end, the choice will still be up to the Russian people. Whether I like or hate someone, other candidates will run for president and eventually the citizens of the Russian Federation will make the final decision”. Megyn Kelly: “Let me ask you a bit about Syria. Do you believe the chemical weapon attacks in Syria are fake news?”. Vladimir Putin: “Of course. Firstly, the Syrian Government destroyed its chemical weapons long ago. Secondly, we know about the militants’ plans to simulate chemical attacks by the Syrian army. And thirdly, all the attempts that have been made repeatedly in the recent past, and all the accusations were used to consolidate the efforts against Assad. We are aware of these goings-on, and they are not interesting. One wants to say, Boring”. Megyn Kelly: “The bodies of dead children thanks to sarin gas attacks? That is boring?”. Vladimir Putin: “Are you sure that these deaths are the result of chemical attacks by the Syrian Government? I, on the contrary, blame this on the criminals and radicals, on the terrorists who are staging these crimes in order to lay the blame on President Assad”. Megyn Kelly: “That is not what the United Nations has concluded. They autopsied the bodies of the dead children. Your Foreign Minister suggested it was all made up. Do you believe that?”. Vladimir Putin: “Of course. I am absolutely sure that it was. Because there was no serious investigation”. Megyn Kelly: “There were no dead bodies?”. Vladimir Putin: “Maybe there were dead bodies, which is to be expected in a war. Look how they liberated Mosul: it was razed to the ground. Look how they liberated Raqqa: the dead have not yet been removed from the ruins or buried. Do you want to talk about this?”. Megyn Kelly: “That is what we call whataboutism. That is you pointing to somebody else’s bad behaviour to justify your wrong or that of your ally. We are talking about Assad and dead children thanks to sarin gas. Sarin gas. And you are telling an international audience it never happened?”. Vladimir Putin: “Look here, to be sure that this was indeed how it happened, a thorough investigation must be conducted and evidence must be gathered at the site. Nothing of this has been done. Let us do this”. Megyn Kelly: “Let us do it. They wanted to investigate the helicopters and the UN wanted to go and check the helicopters that were on site. And Russia said no. Russia said no. Why?”. Vladimir Putin: “There was nothing of the kind. Russia did not say “No”. Russia is for a full-scale investigation. If you do not know this, I am telling you this now. It is not true that we are against an objective investigation. That is a lie. It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the US Secretary of State. He later apologised, but the damage had been done, the country had been ruined. This is yet another piece of fake news, which has no substance behind it. An investigation should be conducted to gather the substance. We are in favour of such an investigation”. Megyn Kelly: “Since the beginning of the year, there have been at least four chlorine-based chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Our Secretary of State Tillerson (“ex”, NdA) just said that Russia bears the responsibility for this given your earlier promises to reign in chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Your response?”. Vladimir Putin: “I will tell you that a) we have nothing to do with this, and that we demand a full-scale investigation. As for crimes, go back to Raqqa and at least bury the dead bodies, which are still lying amid the ruins after the air strikes at residential neighbourhoods there. And investigate these attacks. This will give you something to do”. Megyn Kelly: “One of the questions that our audiences have is how do we walk this back? How do we get to the place where these two great nations are less adversaries and something closer to allies, which we clearly are not right now. Do you agree we are not?”. Vladimir Putin: “Unfortunately, we are not. But we were not the ones who made the US our adversary. It was the US, the US Congress, who called Russia its adversary. Why did you do that? Did Russia impose sanctions on the United States? No, it was the US that imposed sanctions on us”. Megyn Kelly: “You know why”. Vladimir Putin: “No, I do not. Can I ask you a different question? Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that? The US directly acknowledged spending billions of dollars to this end. This was openly acknowledged by US officials. Why do they support government coups and armed fighting in other countries? Why has the US deployed missile systems along our borders? Listen, Russia and the US should sit down and talk it over in order to get things straight. I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from doing it by some forces. But we are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace or counterterrorism efforts. We are ready to do it any moment. But the US should also be ready. The time will come when the political elite in the US will be pushed by public opinion to move in this direction. We will be ready the instant our partners are ready”. Megyn Kelly: “Before I leave you, what do you hope your legacy will be?”. Vladimir Putin: “I strongly believe that my legacy would be to create a powerful development momentum for Russia, and make the country a resilient and balanced democracy that is able to benefit from the latest advances of the technology revolution. We will keep up our efforts to improve our political system and the judiciary. And I am certain that all this, taken together, would strengthen the unity of the Russian Federation and the unity of our people, and enable us to move forward with confidence for years to come”. Megyn Kelly: “Mr President, thank you very much for having us here”. Vladimir Putin: “Thank you”. Chi è l’Impero del Male? “La nuova guerra fredda tra Usa e Russia assume sempre più spesso i toni un po’ sopra le righe che – scrive su “Il Mattino” Gianandrea Gaiani –  nei mesi scorsi hanno caratterizzato il confronto tra Kim Jong-un e Donald Trump circa dimensioni, prestazioni e potenza di armi avveniristiche missili e testate nucleari. Un confronto a cui si è aggiunta ieri con forza anche la voce di Vladimir Putin che nel discorso annuale al parlamento (Duma) ha evidenziato soprattutto temi militari celebrando l’eroismo dei militari in Siria e magnificando i nuovi mezzi e ordigni nucleari dell’arsenale di Mosca. “Abbiamo detto diverse volte che avremmo reagito al piazzamento dei sistemi antimissili americani. Allora non ci avete ascoltato. Ascoltateci adesso” ha detto Putin presentando un nuovo missile da crociera ipersonico aviolanciato eludere le difese antimissile e i nuovi missili balistici Sarmat a lungo raggio che rimpiazzeranno i vecchi SS-18 risalenti all’era sovietica. Tra le nuove armi annunciate dal presidente russo, che nelle imminenti elezioni verrà con ogni probabilità riconfermato nell’incarico, anche cannoni laser e droni subacquei silenziosi e molto veloci armabili con missili a testate nucleare e convenzionale per colpire portaerei e bersagli costieri: armi che sembrerebbero confermare i rilevanti passi avanti della Russia nei sistemi di guida remota e nell’intelligenza artificial. Putin ha sottolineato che tutti questi mezzi bellici sono stati progettati in risposta alla decisione di Washington del 2002 di ritirarsi unilateralmente dal Trattato anti-missili balistici (Abm) del 1972, anticamera della realizzazione di uno “scudo antimissile” in Europa Orientale varato definitivamente da Obama. L’obbiettivo ufficiale dello “scudo” è fermare eventuali attacchi missilistici da Iran e Cirea del Nord diretti contro l’Europa ma è chiaro che i radar a lungo raggio del sistema d’arma permettono di esplorare in profondità lo spazio aereo russo. Putin ha detto di rivolgersi a “tutti coloro che hanno alimentato la corsa agli armamenti negli ultimi 15 anni, provato a sottrarre unilateralmente terreno alla Russia, introdotto sanzioni con l’obiettivo di frenare lo sviluppo del nostro paese”: Il risultato è che “tutto quello che volevate impedire con le vostre politiche è in realtà già accaduto, non siete riusciti a contenere la Russia”. Molti a Washington mettono in dubbio la reale operatività delle armi annunciate da Putin le cui dichiarazioni “muscolari” vengono attribuite alla necessità di cementare col patriottismo il consenso alla vigilia del voto ma questa interpretazione appare per molti versi riduttiva. Il presidente russo si è impegnato a dare più spazio all’impresa privata, a incrementare il PIL del 50 per cento portando la Russia tra le prime cinque potenze economiche mondiali, ridurre la povertà, aumentare le spese sanitarie e portare la speranza di vita dei russi a 80 anni: annunci dal sapore tipicamente elettorale anche se è bene ricordare che Putin non ha rivali nella corsa alle presidenziali. Per questo il discorso di ieri sembra piuttosto costituire una risposta a Washington che pochi giorni or sono ha approvato un bilancio del Pentagono record di 686 miliardi di dollari, di cui 597 per il bilancio ordinario e 89 per finanziare le missioni all’estero con un balzo in avanti di 74 miliardi rispetto all’anno scorso. Nulla di inaspettato, anzi, il potenziamento dello strumento militare (più navi, aerei, mezzi terrestri e truppe) è stato fin dalla campagna elettorale uno dei cardini del programma trumpiano “Make America Great Again”. Alla palese ostilità nei confronti della Russia che Trump continua ad ostentare (forse per non foraggiare ulteriormente il “Russiagate”), seguendo la strada già tracciata da Barack Obama, si uniscono programmi militari che rischiano di alterare gli equilibri della deterrenza nucleare. L’aggiornamento degli arsenali atomici statunitensi e la realizzazione di mini testate a penetrazione come le bombe B-61-12 da dislocare anche in Europa (e in Italia, NdA) e concepite per distruggere con una mini bomba atomica obiettivi strategici posti anche molti metri sotto terra, alzano l’asticella della deterrenza trasformando gli ordigni termonucleari da “extrema ratio” ad arma tattica il cui impiego su scala e potenziale limitati diventa accettabile e plausibile. Alla nuova dottrina nucleare di Trump il presidente russo risponde rinnovando il principio della deterrenza con nuove armi atomiche capaci di mantenere gli Usa e il resto del mondo vulnerabili. “Qualunque uso di armi nucleari contro la Russia, o i suoi alleati, di potenza piccola, media o qualunque altra, sarà percepito come un attacco nucleare. La risposta sarà immediata e con tutte le conseguenze evidenti” ha detto ieri Putin pur precisando che “la Russia non intende attaccare nessuno”. La vivacità militare di Mosca, che ha appena schierato in Siria quattro nuovissimi caccia Sukhoi 57, è stata ribadita da Putin che ha sottolineato anche il programma di potenziamento delle difese della regione artica contesa con Usa e Canada. L’impressione è quindi che, come ai tempi della “grande” guerra fredda, anche quella più limitata dei giorni nostri risulti funzionale alle politiche nazionaliste e patriottiche di entrambi i leader che siedono a Mosca e Washington”. Nel mese di Novembre 2017, il “think tank” statunitense Atlantic Council (AC) ha pubblicato uno studio di 20 pagine intitolato “Balkans Forward. A new US strategy for the region”, dal presupposto che “mentre gli Stati Uniti e l’Europa sono concentrati sui propri problemi interni, la Russia e altri Paesi stanno ridisegnando il paesaggio geopolitico della regione”. Gli autori evidenziano quelle che, a loro modo di vedere unipolare, sono le principali azioni con cui Mosca tenta di far precipitare la regione verso uno stato di caos, indebolendo così sia Bruxelles sia Washington, nonché le possibili soluzioni per contrastare questa “influenza maligna”. Per comprendere il testo è innanzitutto fondamentale notare come secondo l’AC lo scopo finale della politica statunitense verso i Balcani dovrebbe essere quello di giungere all’integrazione euroatlantica dell’area, in ogni modo, facendo quindi entrare quanto prima nella Nato e nella Ue gli Stati non ancora membri. Questa tesi viene ritenuta in linea con lo sforzo intrapreso in seguito agli accordi di Ohrid del 2001, quando emerse l’idea che la partecipazione all’Alleanza Atlantica avrebbe garantito i confini allora esistenti, mentre la possibilità di accedere ai mercati europei avrebbe spinto i governi locali a intraprendere con decisione la via delle riforme interne e ad abbandonare le tradizionali divisioni. L’insuccesso della politica appena menzionata, viene però fatta dipendere non tanto dagli errori commessi dai cosiddetti “policy makers” o dagli atteggiamenti spesso paternalistici con cui Bruxelles e Washington si relazionano con gli attori “ex jugoslavi” già bombardati in passato, ma alla combinazione di diversi fattori quali l’influenza russa (Mosca viene apertamente accusata del presunto tentativo di golpe in Montenegro), la Brexit e il referendum olandese sull’Ucraina, nonché le dichiarazioni di Trump sulla politica estera statunitense. Il risultato di ciò, sempre secondo gli autori, è che “i Balcani occidentali sono diventati un posto molto più pericoloso”, mentre la credibilità dell’Unione Europea, soprattutto dopo la moratoria sull’allargamento imposta da Juncker, è rimasta intatta solo grazie al ruolo della Germania che ha creato una sua politica indipendente verso l’area sudorientale del vecchio continente. Partendo quindi da questi presupposti, vengono sviluppate una serie di altre considerazioni nel documento. “Le divisioni abbondano”: in questo primo capitolo, grande attenzione viene data all’ascesa al potere di Aleksandar Vucic e alla sua promessa iniziale di avvicinarsi alla UE e trovare una soluzione accettabile per la Serbia sulla “questione kosovara”. In particolare il presidente serbo viene criticato per aver cercato il supporto della Russia, vista come un possibile appoggio nel caso in cui il progetto europeo dovesse continuare ad affondare. Mosca, dal canto suo, viene attaccata a causa dei suoi stretti rapporti con Milorad Dodik, presidente della Rep. Srpska, ossia il leader che assieme ai suoi più stretti collaboratori avrebbe “speso un decennio a cercare di distruggere le fragili strutture della Bosnia”. Sorprendentemente, però, nell’ambito della crisi del Paese viene anche riconosciuta una certa responsabilità alla comunità croata di Bosnia e, in misura minore, a quella musulmana. La responsabilità del Cremlino, comunque, secondo l’AC si estende ulteriormente al Kosovo, in cui viene accusato di aver realizzato “fake news” per “aizzare i serbi contro gli albanesi”, al Montenegro e, soprattutto, alla Macedonia. Proprio quest’ultima è l’oggetto di un lungo approfondimento, nel quale, viene elogiato il nuovo Primo Ministro Zoran Zaev, capace di spodestare il Vrmo-Dpmne, ossia il partito dell’ex premier Gruevski, considerato troppo vicino alla Russia. Ciò che stupisce di più, però, è l’ammissione che anche in Kosovo il nazionalismo spinto rappresenti una preoccupazione, nonostante Pristina venga spesso rappresentata come un alleato di ferro degli USA e la dimostrazione più chiara del “successo” della politica estera americana nell’area. “Cosa vuole la Russia?”, è il passaggio probabilmente più controverso dell’intero studio, in quanto, più che di un’analisi, assume i toni di un vero e proprio attacco nei confronti di Mosca, la Terza Roma. Questa, infatti, viene accusata di condurre una “politica distruttiva” incentrata sull’ottenimento di tre obiettivi separati: a) Distrazione: ossia la creazione di confusione nell’area balcanica allo scopo di spostare il focus euro-atlantico dalle zone di maggiore interesse (come l’Ucraina) ai Balcani; b) Minaccia: destabilizzare scientemente l’ex Jugoslavia, in quanto un’eventuale escalation (viene fatto esplicito riferimento ad una nuova guerra civile) rappresenterebbe appunto una minaccia diretta all’Europa; c) Precedente: mettere cioè in discussione i confini post Dayton per modificare anche quelli della Crimea, del Donbass e delle Repubbliche Baltiche. Come già avvenuto nel caso delle simulazioni della Rand e di altri “think tank” su un’ipotetica “invasione russa del Baltico”, emerge qui l’idea che Mosca rappresenti ormai un chiaro nemico non solo dell’Occidente, ma anche delle stesse popolazioni destinate ad essere vittime della “sua politica estera”. Proprio l’aspetto relativo alla volontà di queste nazioni assume una notevole importanza in quanto, contrastando parzialmente con quanto scritto nelle pagine precedenti, l’AC evidenza come “la popolazione della regione sa che non c’è futuro assieme alla Russia” che “rimane un attore relativamente debole nella regione”. Questi aspetti, quindi, vengono usati in quella che sembra essere a tutti gli effetti la riproposizione della missione universalistica americana per la liberazione dei popoli oppressi da regimi o influenze non democratiche. “Sotto i riflettori: corruzione, non odi antichi”: abbandonando per un attimo il ruolo “malefico” di Mosca, in questa sezione l’accento viene messo dall’AC sulle ragioni che hanno portato le diverse etnie a combattersi nel corso dei secoli. Secondo gli autori, la causa scatenante di questo fenomeno è da ricercare nella presenza di stati disfunzionali, corrotti e frutto di una scarsa esperienza nell’autogoverno. Conseguenza di ciò sarebbe l’affermazione costante, negli ultimi anni, di uomini forti, attorno ai quali si concentra l’intero potere istituzionale. A sostegno di tale tesi vengono portati i casi di Milo Đukanović (Montenegro), Hashim Thaçi (Kosovo) e Milorad Dodik (Rep. Sprska), ma anche di Aleksandar Vučić (Serbia), Dragan Ćović (Croati di Bosnia) e Bakir Izetbegović (comunità bosgnacca). Il ragionamento, per quanto sensato, incontra però un grosso limite nel momento in cui ci si accorge che alcuni di questi “big men” sono stati e sono tutt’ora dei partner fondamentali per Washington, Londra, Parigi, Berlino e Bruxelles, nonché che la loro stessa ascesa al potere è stata fortemente caldeggiata dagli Stati occidentali del “pensiero atlantico” alla Di Maio del M5S. Lo stesso procedimento è infatti attualmente in atto con Zoran Zaev, che sta lentamente sostituendo Gruevski nel ruolo di “uomo forte” della Macedonia. Infine, non va neppure dimenticato che buona parte della politica europea dell’ultimo secolo è stata, nel bene e nel male, dettata e plasmata da singoli leader carismatici “illuminati” da altri. “Una sveglia per gli Stati Uniti”: partendo dall’assioma secondo cui i Balcani rappresentano il “ventre molle dell’Europa”, l’Atlantic Council ritiene che la chiave della sicurezza e di conseguenza dell’instabilità dell’area, sia rappresentata dalla Bosnia Erzegovina, la cui unità è messa a repentaglio da quello che viene definito “settarismo”, cioè il nazionalismo europeo. A questa considerazione vengono affiancati anche un approfondimento sulla cosiddetta “rotta balcanica” dell’immigrazione e una breve descrizione del fenomeno dell’estremismo islamico. Per evidenziare gli ambiti su cui la Russia, sempre Lei, ha investito maggiormente “per seminare discordia nella regione”. Proprio in risposta a questo “sforzo nemico”, l’AC ritiene sia fondamentale che gli Usa riprendano il proprio ruolo di “stabilizzatori”, il che sarebbe possibile attraverso tre azioni potenzialmente in grado di mutare l’intero scenario locale. “Stabilire una presenza militare permanente nell’Europa sud-orientale”, partendo chiaramente dalla base di Bondsteel, già in grado di ospitare un contingente di 7000 uomini. Il tutto potrebbe essere facilitato dalla fine della missione KFOR, a cui dovrebbe seguire un crescente impegno militare statunitense nell’area, alla faccia degli Stati Uniti di Europa insieme alla Santa Russia! Com’è facile immaginare, infatti, il Kosovo sarebbe ben felice di poter ospitare altri soldati statunitensi, mentre la popolazione serba non avrebbe altra scelta che affidarsi alle truppe straniere per veder garantita la propria sopravvivenza e permanenza. Un contingente “sostanzioso”, inoltre, garantirebbe gli attuali confini degli alleati e permetterebbe di accreditare gli Usa come potenza realmente interessata alla difesa dello status quo. Secondo gli autori dell’AC, inoltre, a ciò dovrebbe essere affiancata la proposta di fornire supporto agli “amici” nelle operazioni di controspionaggio, spingendoli magari proprio a richiedere un tale intervento. “Perseguire uno storico riavvicinamento con la Serbia”, ossia convincere Vučić ad annacquare i legami con Mosca e i media locali a dare “un’adeguata copertura mediatica” a quelli che sarebbero i risultati “positivi” di un avvicinamento agli Usa. Quest’ultimo aspetto, in particolare, è interessante, in quanto evidenzia una parziale verità. Infatti, sebbene il presidente sia in grado di influenzare pesantemente quotidiani e televisioni, non va dimenticato che una buona fetta dei media locali sono di proprietà straniera, soprattutto germanica, americana e turca. “Riguadagnare la reputazione statunitense di onesto intermediario”, ossia sfruttare le debolezze europee per guadagnare terreno! Nella prima parte di questo paragrafo, infatti, viene ribadita l’attitudine sbagliata che ha portato l’Europa a credere che qualsiasi problema potesse essere risolto con la semplice promessa di entrare a far parte dell’Unione economica, usando cioè una leva prettamente burocratica. Nella più classica versione dell’eccezionalismo statunitense, quindi, risulterebbe compito di Washington correggere la “myopia” di Bruxelles, soprattutto attraverso una diversa gestione del rapporto con gli uomini forti locali. “Dalla sicurezza alla prosperità”: l’ultimo capitolo dell’AC, forse quello più politico e meno tecnico, può essere riassunto con una semplice frase: “dovrebbe essere reso chiaro ai Russi che stanno solo perdendo tempo e denaro cercando di spargere caos nella regione”. Non si tratta di un lavoro qualitativamente interessante, quanto piuttosto di un manifesto programmatico che risponde ad una serie di esigenze certamente non sufficientemente divulgate all’opinione pubblica dei cittadini europei e italiani. La più importante è quella di dare una “giustificazione” al perseguimento di una “politica antirussa nei Balcani”. Nonostante lo sforzo di inserire dei sondaggi relativi al supporto di cui godono gli Usa nell’area, però, questa sembra essere motivata più da una chiara ostilità nei confronti del Cremlino unita ad una sorta di “fardello dell’uomo bianco” che da una reale paura delle popolazioni locali per quanto sia in grado di fare Mosca. Inoltre, risulta anche peculiare il fatto che ad una presunta minaccia asimmetrica, l’Atlantic Council proponga di rispondere nel modo più convenzionale che gli Usa conoscono, ossia mettendo sulla bilancia il peso delle proprie forze armate, dei propri media di regime e della propria economia. Oltre a ciò, emerge con chiarezza la sottovalutazione del pericolo rappresentato dall’estremismo islamico rafforzatosi lungo l’asse Bosnia-Sangiaccato-Kosovo-Albania, il che però non stupisce, in quanto il “think tank” gode di forte supporto proprio in alcuni dei Paesi che hanno maggiormente investito per “reislamizzare” i Balcani. Questo “omissis” è particolarmente grave, in quanto si inserisce in quella diffusa tendenza a sottostimare il ruolo imperialista di alcuni stati musulmani per ragioni economiche e politiche. Il terzo punto che colpisce alcuni analisti è la totale assenza di fonti in lingua locale e la presenza di pochi riferimenti a studiosi o esperti provenienti dall’area. Se ciò è da un lato giustificato dall’oggettiva difficoltà del mondo accademico locale di realizzare opere di qualità, dall’altro finisce per limitare notevolmente le fonti e orientarle inevitabilmente in senso filo occidentale, dato che solitamente i grandi “network” in lingua inglese non danno troppo spazio alle voci più critiche delle politiche euro-atlantiche. Infine, sebbene vi siano numerosi riferimenti al ruolo “complementare” di Usa e Ue, il documento dell’AC sembra tracciare piuttosto le linee guida per sostituire Bruxelles in loco, un’ambizione non esagerata visto che, come sottolineato in precedenza, a causa della intrinseca pianificata “debolezza” italiana e del disinteresse francese, la politica europea nei Balcani si limita alle azioni germaniche e agli spunti individuali dei “delegati” di Washington nei governi europei. Quanto sopra, sebbene non rifletta in pieno la linea dell’attuale Amministrazione americana, deve rappresentare un campanello d’allarme per tutti quei Paesi, Italia in primis, che hanno forti interessi nell’area balcanica e che rischierebbero seriamente di trovarsi “fuori dai giochi” qualora anche solo alcune delle linee guida proposte dovessero essere messe in pratica. In aggiunta a ciò, grande attenzione e cautela dovrebbe essere applicata anche alla tendenza di alcuni ambienti “interventisti” presenti fra i democratici e i conservatori americani a interpretare qualunque sfida geopolitica con il prisma dell’obsoleto scontro fra Est e Ovest, sia perché ci farebbe nuovamente finire sulla linea di fuoco sia perché ci impedirebbe di prestare le dovute attenzioni ai “competitor” più attivi, come Turchia, Monarchie del Golfo, Iran, Israele e Cina. Sono trascorsi sette anni dall’inizio della guerra contro la Siria con oltre mezzo milione di vittime, 4 milioni di rifugiati, 7 milioni di sfollati interni, 360mila terroristi stranieri provenienti da 90 Paesi sostenuti, finanziati e armati dalle potenze “russofobiche”. Come uscire dalla morsa del ragno Usa-Nato? L’Italia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnoO0CEV-xA) esprima piena solidarietà alla Santa Russia vincitrice della Guerra al Terrore del terrorismo internazionale Isis evidentemente sconfitto in Siria dopo sette lunghi anni di massacri Daesh e associati. L’Italia condanni la illegalità giuridica formale e sostanziale di Usa, UK, Francia e Germania per la violazione del Diritto Internazionale, della Convenzione di Vienna e della Carta delle Nazioni Unite. La russofobia è la peggiore maledizione dell’Europa da mille anni. È la causa di tutti conflitti finora scatenati dall’odio antirusso. È perfettamente assimilabile all’antisemitismo. La guerra di spie con i “gas nervini” è opera di coloro che hanno perso le Guerre Umanitarie. Chi crea il caos? Cui bono? Cui prodest? Quando si viola il Diritto Internazionale imponendo la propria visione del mondo ad altri stati e popoli, quando si infrangono patti, trattati, accordi, norme della Carta fondamentale dei Diritti Umani delle Nazioni Unite, in nome della supremazia, si pongono le basi per l’Olocausto. Consigliamo la visione dei cartoni “Masha e Orso”!

 

© Nicola Facciolini

 

 

 

Commenti Facebook

About Redazione - Il Faro 24

Redazione - Il Faro 24

Potrebbe interessarti:

CARSOLI – QUANDO UN SEMPLICE GELATO DIVENTA ARTE, I SEGRETI DEL MAESTRO DANNY

Il gelato come tutti sanno è il re dell’estate, con i suoi molteplici formati, gusti, …