Vladimir Putin's Interview to Bloomberg. Part Two
The second
part of Vladimir Putin's interview to the international media
company Bloomberg is being published. The interview was recorded
on September 1, 2016, in Vladivostok.
September 2, 2016
09:30
See also
September 2, 2016
John Micklethwait: Can I ask you about
the Chinese again. Back in 2013 you said you set $100 billion
of trade with China as a target for 2015. But it was about
$67 billion-$70 billion a year. What went wrong? I know
the problems to the ruble and problems
to the oil. Do you still think that target of $200 billion
in 2020 is achievable?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, I find it absolutely
attainable. You have just listed the causes of this fall
in bilateral trade yourself. At the first stage, we set
the target at about 100 billion US dollars, and we
almost got there – it reached 90 billion. So we are almost there. But
we also know the reasons for the fall. These include
a decline in the prices of our traditional export goods
and the exchange rate difference. These are objective reasons.
And you know that very well.
Vladimir Putin: The sanctions
have nothing to do with our relations with China, because our relations
with the People's Republic of China are at an unprecedented
high both in terms of their level and substance. They are what
we call ”a comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation“.
Sanctions have nothing to do with this. The decline in our
mutual trade has objective causes, which are the energy prices
and the exchange rate difference. But the physical volumes have
not decreased, quite the opposite actually. They are growing.
As to our
trade and economic relations with China, they are growing more
and more diverse each day, something we have worked
on for a long time with our partners from China. I would
like to draw your attention to the fact that we have gone from
pure trade in traditional goods (energy resources, such
as hydrocarbons, oil and now natural gas, petrochemicals
on the one hand and textiles and footwear
on the other) to a whole new level of economic
cooperation. For example, we are working together on space
programmes. Moreover, we are developing and soon will begin
the production of a heavy helicopter. We are now tracing
the plan for the creation of a wide-body long-range aircraft.
Russia
and China also cooperate in mechanical engineering, high-speed
railway transportation, lumber processing, nuclear energy production
and so on. We have built the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant. Two units
are already operational and are showing good results. There are two more
to go. So, the goal we have set for ourselves, which is
to diversify our cooperation with China, is making progress.
John Micklethwait: Can I ask you about the oil
price — your favourite subject. Almost two years ago you said that if
crude oil fell below $80 a barrel there would be a collapse
in oil production. The price is still below $50 and production
hasn't stopped. Has your thinking changed on that at all?
Vladimir Putin: If I said that oil production
would collapse I was wrong. By the way, I do not remember
when I said this, maybe in the heat of the moment, but
I do not think I even said it, but I may just not remember it.
I was saying that at a certain level of oil prices new
deposits will not be explored. That is what is actually happening. However,
surprisingly, our oil and gas workers (mainly oilmen) continue
to invest.
Over the past
year, oilmen have invested 1.5 trillion rubles, and if we take into
account government investments into the development of pipeline transport
and electric energy, general investments into the energy sector were
3.5 trillion rubles last year. It is a considerable amount.
Oil production,
energy production are growing, though the latter has gone down
by about 1 percent here, I believe… By the way, we occupy
the first place in the world in gas export, accounting
for 20 percent of the world market. We are also first
in the sphere of liquid hydrocarbons export.
Though we still
come first in the sphere of gas export, national production has
diminished due to the increasing volumes of hydrogenation
for the electric power industry and therefore there is
a lower need for gas at thermal power plants. This is
the result of the restructuring of the situation
at the national energy market. In general, Gazprom is doing well
and is increasing export in its traditional partner countries.
John Micklethwait: You're going to talk to Saudi
Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20. Would you still
be in favor of the production freeze if the Saudis want
that?
Vladimir Putin: As far as I know, Mr.
Salman is deputy Crown Prince, but this is not so important. He is a very
active statesman, we have really warm relations. This is a person who
knows what he wants and can achieve his goals. At the same time
I consider him to be a reliable partner with whom one can
negotiate and be sure that agreements with him will be implemented.
However, it was not
us who refused to freeze oil production; our Saudi partners changed their
point of view at the last moment and decided to slow
down the adoption of this decision. I would like
to reiterate our position, it remains the same. Firstly,
in my conversation with Prince Salman on this issue I will
reiterate our position: we think that this is the right decision
for the world energy sector.
Secondly, it is
well known what we were arguing about: if we freeze oil production, everybody
should do so, including Iran. But we understand that the Iranian position
is very bad because of the well-known sanctions against that country,
and it would be unfair to leave it on this sanction level.
I believe that in fact it would be economically reasonable
and logical to reach a compromise, I am sure that everybody
understands this. This issue is not economic but political. I hope that
all market participants interested in maintaining stable
and reasonable world energy prices will finally make the right
decision.
John Micklethwait: So you would be in favor
of a production freeze but giving Iran a little bit
of leeway to do what they need to do?
During
an interview to Bloomberg.
Vladimir Putin: Yes.
John Micklethwait: Can I ask you about privatization
and oil again? The privatization of Bashneft – you've
delayed it. And now as we reported Igor Sechin of Rosneft just
come forward and said he would like to buy the half of it
for $5 billion. You have always said that you don't want for big
state companies to be buying the newly privatized ones. You wouldn't
allow that, would you?
Vladimir Putin: You know, you have just mentioned state
companies. Strictly speaking, Rosneft is not a company. Let us not forget
that BP has a stake in Rosneft and BP is a British company.
You are a subject of the UK, are you not? It means that you also
to a certain degree…
John Micklethwait: You may have more control over Rosneft
than Theresa May has over BP.
Vladimir Putin: We may have more control, but
my point is that, strictly speaking, it is not a state company.
I think that this is an obvious fact, as a foreign investor
has a 19.7 percent stake in it. However, given the fact
that the State has a controlling stake in the company, it
might not be the best course of action when one company under State
control buys another one fully owned by the State. This is one point.
Another point is
that ultimately, as far as the budget is concerned,
of major importance is who offers more money during the bidding that
must be organized as a part of the privatization process.
In this sense, we cannot discriminate against any market participants, not
one of them, but this is not relevant at the moment,
as the Government has decided to postpone the privatization
of Bashneft.
John Micklethwait: That's gone. But
on the question on privatization, you said back in 2012
that you wanted to expand privatization, you've had a difficult time
on this. Why has that not worked? Is there a case, why does Russian
government need to own 50 percent of these companies? May be you
could sell more?
Vladimir Putin: There is no need
for the Russian state to hold such large stakes and we do
intend to put our plans into practice. It is not about whether we want it
or not, it is about this being practical or not
and the best timing. In general, it is practical from
at least one point of view – from the point of view
of structural changes in the economy. It is true that
the role of the state in the Russian economy may be
too big today, but from the fiscal standpoint, it is not always practical
to do this in a falling market. That is why we are careful, but
our trend in the privatization process and gradual withdrawal
of the state from certain assets remains unchanged.
By the way,
you have mentioned Rosneft. We are actively preparing a partial
privatization of Rosneft itself. It is the best proof that our major
plans have remained unchanged. Another example would be one
of the largest Russian diamond mining companies in the world.
We are privatizing part of our stake in that as well.
John Micklethwait: ALROSA?
Vladimir Putin: ALROSA. We are working in other
areas as well, so there are no radical changes to our position. It is
not the case when we have to, as we say, make a lot of fuss
about it. In other words, we do not have to be obsessed with
privatizing immediately and at any cost. No, we will not do it
at any cost. We will do it in a way that ensures maximum benefit
for the Russian state and the Russian economy.
John Micklethwait: So you would do Rosneft this year, you
would sell those shares in Rosneft this year you hope?
Vladimir Putin: We are getting ready
for the deal this year. I do not know whether
the Government will be able to get ready to conduct this
transaction together with the management of Rosneft itself, whether
the appropriate strategic investors will be found. And I believe
it is about such investors that we should talk. But we are getting ready,
and it is in the current year that we are planning to do this.
John Micklethwait: And do you, do you again just
to push you on that 50 percent, would you be happy
in a world where the Russian state had less than 50 percent
of these big companies?
Vladimir Putin: We do not consider this disastrous
at all. You know, I remember that when foreign shareholders, foreign
investors, got 50 percent in one of our companies, I will
not name it now, their contribution to the federal budget
and tax payments increased several times over at once
and the company's efficiency did not decrease. Therefore,
in terms of the interests of the state,
the ultimate interests of the state, in terms of its
fiscal interests, we have a positive experience, most likely, not
a negative one.
John Micklethwait: Very quickly: the other accusation
you've faced or heard a lot is people connected with Russia
or backed by Russia were the people who hacked into
the Democratic Party database. Is that, you would also say that is
completely untrue?
Vladimir Putin: I know nothing. There are
a lot of hackers today, you know, and they perform their work
in such a filigreed and delicate manner and they can show
their “tracks” anywhere and anytime. It may not even be a track; they
can cover their activity so that it looks like hackers operating from other
territories, from other countries. It is hard to check this activity,
maybe not even possible. Anyway, we do not do that at the national
level.
Besides, does it
really matter who hacked Mrs. Clinton’s election campaign team database?
Does it? What really matters is the content shown
to the community. This is what the discussion should be held
about. There is no need to distract the attention
of the community from the essence of the subject
substituting it with secondary questions dealing with the search
of those who did it.
I would like
to repeat: I know absolutely nothing about it, and Russia has
never done anything like this at the State level. Frankly speaking,
I could never even imagine that such information would be of interest
to the American public or that the campaign headquarters
of one of the candidates – in this case,
Mrs. Clinton – apparently worked for her, rather than
for all the Democratic Party candidates in an equal manner.
I could never assume that anybody would find it interesting. Thus,
in view of what I have said, we could not officially hack it.
You know, it would require certain intuition and knowledge
of the U.S. domestic policy peculiarities. I am not sure
that even our experts from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have such
intuition.
John Micklethwait: Do you not think this is sort
of the time when everyone should sort of come clean about it?
Russia tries to hack America, America tries to hack Russia, China
tries to hack America, China tries to hack Russia? Everyone tries
to hack each other.
One
of the purposes of the G-20 is to come up with
a new set of rules so this can become a more ordered version
of foreign policy when everybody is doing this. Allegedly.
Vladimir Putin: I believe that the G20 should
not interfere, because there are other platforms for that. The G20
was established as a forum to discuss, first and foremost,
world economic issues. If we load it with… Of course, politics affects
economic processes, this is obvious, but if we bring some squabbles,
or not squabbles, rather, some matters that are really important but
relate purely to world politics, we will overload the G20 agenda
and instead of addressing such issues as finance, structural
economic reforms, tax evasion and so forth, we will engage in endless
debates concerning the Syrian crisis or some other global challenges,
of which there are many, or the Middle East problem. We should
find other platforms, other forums for that, and there are plenty
of them, including, for example, the UN
and the Security Council.
Part Three to be
published.
No comments:
Post a Comment