tv Washington This Week CSPAN December 22, 2014 4:00am-6:01am EST
the reality is internally they hated each other. there were no diplomatic relations. they were too much like. we had to create those really good small teams but let them together. you had to change the culture. and that became the biggest part of what i did. >> tell us about the leadership style. what have we learned about their leadership style? an o we're facing up up ideological organization and in many cases individuals and as stan just highlights a very sort of i would describe it a bit differently but we're facing a team of teams if you will.
they are extremely adaptive. their ability to leverage technology should not be taken for granted. they are very smart. the leadership enlightened in some cases i would say in how they function and how they connect to each other. how they get their message out, how they internally speak to themselves. how they learn. they are a learning orization nd an organization that pays
very close attention to their failures as well as their successes. and -- >> they share lessons learned. >> the funny thing is that very little of what they do is truly secret. they publish everything. there's four online magazines that they have now, thousands nd thousands of followers in various twitter and social media. so it's an interesting organization that is very adaptive particularly at the top. and if there's one thing that i would just offer over the years we've always sort of gone after the leaders and they knew that right up front and so their ability to nurture subleaders or small groups of leadership teams to be able to take on the cause is actually very good. very good infrastructure. >> isis has ap oil minister. >> that's right. so they are organized in a way that wouldn't be unlike some other line and block type of organization. it's just of course how they
operate. >> you received those papers, you and your broader team received those hard disks and those papers that were taken in abad in the house that osama bin laden was living in. what did we learn from that? >> they communicated frequently. they definitely viewed what we were doing and they shared what we were doing on a fairly frequent basis. they saw again as i just said they talked about their failures and how they could correct those failures in order to basically continue on with this movement that they have. they saw -- they looked at iraq very hard as an example. >> was there a hint of isis' potency? >> oh, yeah. they looked at what happened with the failure of al qaeda in iraq particularly after zarqawi
was killed and some of the things that he had done. and they basically communicated with each other to say here's the things that we need to be doing. and again, they see themselves s a long-term capability and a long-term threat. and we should look at it like that. we should thot think that they are a flash in the pan at all. >> general crystal, what leadership lessons should we take from the american experience in iraq and afghanistan? >> i think there are several and they're probably self-evident to most people. the first thing is we didn't do due diligence before we went in. we didn't understand the problem. didn't take the time to do it. and we didn't nurture the experts. mike talks about this. if we gathered all the speakers in the u.s. military we could probably fit them on this stage. and yet after world war ii began we trained more than
5,000 military members to speak japanese, a difficult language. we just haven't made that level of effort. the other thing i would really point to is we go at this with different parts of our government and yet everybody wants to keep one foot on the base. ery agency wants to help but they want to protect their equities. and you can't do a complex endeavor like this unless you can build a truly integrated team in which everybody is focused. and we had great efforts to try to do that, made a lot of progress, but it was always difficult. much more difficult than it should have been. and i think part of that is interpersonal. part of that is organizational equities. part of that is cultures. but it stops or limits our effectiveness to a tremendous degree. and you can see that in the press today. the challenges of building truly cohesive teams across outside of youfer small cultural sphere. >> so if you had general dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the
president of the united states president obama now a new president in two years -- if you had the president and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in a room and it was just the three of you what would you advise them from a leadership stand point in what to do now in afghanistan? >> i mean, the first thing is it's interpersonal relationships on our team. we're not viewed from the outside as a particularly cohesive team. i say this with tongue in cheek. >> military in general. >> well not just military. i tell them to go white water rafting. get three cases of beer go white water rafting. it sounds like a joke. but when you get in the national security council room you think about there's a suit or a dress and you're in there and everybody for the first time boy i made it. i'm in this room. this is amazing. and you look around and you're not really a team. you're to lite to each other and talk but think about it.
we're fighting a war. you spend months preparing a football or baseball team for the season above but yet we take the most senior leaders put them in a room and expect them to be a cohesive team to make tough decisions without ever doing that. so i literally would do thing that is started to build relationships so that you have something to fall back on when you disagree on the issues. when mike says something and you're sitting across the table and say i think that is totally screwed up. but i know mike and i know his value set and so there's something to fall back on. i see the same thing in board rooms for corpgs. if they come in periodically they don't really know each other they're not cohesive you're not apt to get a very effective outcome. and i think that's huge. the strategy part is not that hard. figuring out what to do i think you can do on a saturday morning. >> let me just add to that because i think this is like critical for damn near anything. part of what we have to do is
we have to take a big step back and look at the relationships and the way we've had those relationships over the last 30, 40, 50 years and say, are those relationships still solid? are those still sound? do we have to form new relationships? do we have to change the way we relate to each other? and this is not just in afghanistan. this is throughout the middle east. this is throughout the asian theater. >> with our allies or -- >> us with our allies our friends our partners around the world. internally as stan highlighted is exactly right. the thing i would highlight there is that people need to be better prepared. you know, you need to understand what it is that we are facing and you can't go with -- and i'm being a little bit perjorative but you can't just go with what you see in the headlines. you have to have a much deeper understanding not only of your lane, if you will, if you are
commerce or agriculture or military or defense or state or whatever. but you also have to have an understanding of each other's issue that is they're dealing with. and i think that if we are lacking something right now -- and we're just trying to -- what's the ideology, which direction is al qaeda going? because it's more than al qaeda. it's china, it's all of the various competitors that are out there. we have to have a much deeper understanding of sort of who is who out there and really, really take a hard look at our relationships and say, one, do we want to maintain that relationship? or two, do we want to change that relationship -- politically, economically, military to military, whatever. and i think we can't just sit back and again i'm being generalizing a little bit. but we can't just sit back and accept that these guys have always been our friends, they've always been there for us and they're always going to be there for us. that's not true today. >> so you being an expert on those relationships within
afghanistan, having run intel for general mcchrystal in afghanistan and now just having completed a term as the head of intelligence for the defense department, what happens now in afghanistan? we're down to about 10,000 troops. the mission of those 10,000 troops seems to be morphing slightly, seems to be a little more active. but 10,000 troops, a weak president. what happens now in afghanistan? does it go the way of iraq? >> i think that the threat that we face and the threats plural that we face, they're all paying very close attention to what is going on in the middle east. so that's a given. and that's something that we're aware of. i think that what we really have to beagain to help the people of afghanistan do is to understand how they will begin to operate and how -- what
responsibilities they are going to have to take on. it's beyond just the president. it has to do mosh with now dealing with this change and what we don't want to do or this transition what we don't want to do is we don't want to decrease the confidence of those people in the international community that just spent a lot of treasure on them. and actually, when we look at the evolution of what has occurred in that region, in the central asia research of the world we have to pay very close attention to not just how we feel today but what that region could potentially be 10 years from now. >> so what's that we want to happen and want to have happen. on the trajectory that we're on now, is there -- is that likely to be the case that there's somehow a continued cohesiveness to what's going on in afghanistan or does it unravel? >> i think it stays -- i think
for the next couple of years we're probably going to be a bit status quo. i think that's where we're going to be. their fghanistan and president is going to have to step up. and he's trying. he's doing some things to introduce some ant corruption efforts and things like that. but again, it's not something that's going to happen overnight. it's like everything else. it will take time. and frankly, there's a commitment that we have to have i think from the international community. so we allow them to continue to contribute in some way some fashion so it doesn't become literally a pariah kind of a state such as like a smamia became. and frankly other places on the planet will becoming. >> we're going to go to questions in just a second but one for question about the two of you about your own personal leadership style.
so general managic crystal, you had a -- you had a difficult rolling stone article. >> i'll say. >> to contend with. in it some of your subordinates to be found to be criticizing the administration. general, in your case, we expected it to be a 3-year term at dia. it turned into a two-year term and some of the vibe coming out in the coverage is about disagreements on how much change was being asked for and whether the organization was wling to be pushed that far. what is your experience and yours say about the leadership style of individuals who are rolling the dice, changing the paradigm, wanting to in the good term be change agents in the minds of the critics be rabble rousers but people coming in saying what's happening right now isn't working, in your case let's push decision making down, in
your case change the relationship between intelligence agencies? what does it say about your own personal leadership style? >> first of all, you always -- i'm one that's constantly a learning individual. and if there's anything that i learned in working for great leaders over my career is maintain your integrity and never compromise your principles. be prepared to compromise on issues but not on your principles. i grew e same time as up over particularly the last decade but if not the last 15, maybe half of my career, you know, for me it was to see things that were happening around the environments that we are in, and a lot of my senior ce has been as a intelligence officer in global organizations, that had global missions. so i saw these changes and i
watched the community that i was growing up in, the u.s. intelligence community, that wasn't changing basically in a way that i felt needed to adapt to this future that we are facing. and i can get into all kinds of details about that. and that's on one hand. on the other hand, it's also the things that you see are happening around you, isis, middle east, and china and everything going on with this whole snowden affair as an example. those are things where you take a stand on something and you have to argue your stance and again you stick with your -- with what you believe. and frankly, at a certain point in time when as a soldier you say roger i understand where i'm at and here's my timeline. and i step away. >> general mcchrystal. >> mike and i worked together for almost a decade and he used to come into my office at night
and tell me how to command. and he was invariably right. and we were on the joint staff together and they told me i was going to take command in afghanistan. that night, about 8:00 before we went home mike came into my office and he said here's my advice to you. don't change the way you lead. and i remember that because when you suddenly go to very senior levels, four star, ceo, whatever it is, there are new pressures and suddenly you think you have got to be a different person because you have to be in the political sphere, you have to be in the media sphere more. so there's sort of this siren's call should i be something i haven't had to be and what do i do? his advice is something that i kept close to my heart the entire time. we went to afghanistan in the summer of 2009. it was a very unpopular war back in the states, unpopular in europe. it was failing inside of afghanistan. so there was great pressure, what do you say? do you say what you really think? do you say what we really think
we must do? or do you say what people want to hear? >> and we made a decision not to do that. we made the decision with fixing intelligence and the strategic assessment to call it in a way that i was absolutely comfortable now is intellectually honest but that's a lot harder than it seems. there are subtle pressures on you to adjust what you say and to pull your punches a little bit. but i was happy when we didn't do that. and obviously people ask me what i regret. i regret the rolling stone article. i don't really rebrett anything else. i think that if we had not gone at it with that same idea that we're going to do it right so we can look ourselves in the mirror later that i would regret that much more. >> questions. yes right here on the end. we have just a couple of minutes here. ask you to keep it short.
>> first of all, generals, thank you both for your service to the country in what i think is probably the honest most honest mission of anyone in this room protecting this great country. so thank you. [applause] the question is both of you spoke about leadership and kind of one of the main topics was adjusting to a new world, to the new environment, turning your leadership style upside down or with the delta force realizing you were managing team of teams. but is there a consistency to what a soldier would expect when you arrived at your first post, second post, where that became your consistent message? for me it's accountability is one of the words. but is there a consistency that traveled with you that they would expect when you stepped and talked to them for the very first time? >> so what's the key message a leader should deliver. >> for me it's values.
you must -- everybody in an organization needs to understand what the values of that organization are. and probably the principle value for me is teamwork. and so if i show up to an organization people know what -- anybody that's sort of tracked what flint has done in other places, it's going to be to look at the organization and make sure that we're ready not just for today but for the future. but to get there i think the principle value for me has always been teamwork. and you'll operate as part of a team. >> i think genuineness. and you don't really know that until you're partway through your career, until you've led a few times. the best i've ever heard was a guy who worked for me other soldiers would come and ask him, what's the deal on him? he responded one time and he said general mcchrystal is the real deal. and that i think the genuineness was the most important thing. because the soldiers will forgive everything.
they will forgive you being incompetent. they will forgive your mistakes. but they won't forgive you if you pretend to be something you're not. >> we have one more question. we have one minute. so let's get a microphone right here. a quick question. >> thoughts on snowden and what steps need to be taken to reestablish the moral authority of the u.s. both to its people as well as internationally. >> severe damage to the national security of this country. and there just needs to be -- it's back to the things we've been talking about, which has to do with relationships. and i think that we need to reflect on what kind of relationship we need to have with -- that the united states needs to have with russia. >> sometimes relationships are more important than policies. short-term policy things you want sometimes have to be sacrificed to maintain relationships and maintain our credibility in those. and i think that's very important. i think the snowden case
undermined many, as other actions have. and we need to focus an awful lot on that because we're going to need that sinu. > thank you so much for your support. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> next, russian president vladmir putin's annual year end conference. after that q&a with katie pavlich. and live at 7:00 a.m. your calls and comments on "washington journal."
rrmtgs amazing to see the insights coming out of technologies that we didn't have. imaging for example. the whole genomics revolution giving us insight into how cells work. the efforts to understand sort of the details of clinical types and the advent of electronic health records. all of these things sort of coming together in a way that i would have not imagined that happened in my lifetime and yet we are not nurturing that engine of discovery the way that we could be. and a statistic that i think is particularly troubling and
oftentimes really discouraging to young scientists thinking about getting into this field is the following. what's your chance if you have a great idea about cancer research and it's preclinical it's not something you're working in a company you're working in an academic institution. where are you going to get fund snd to the nih. what's the chance your grant is going to get funded? it's about one in six. traditionally over the last 50 years it's been one in three. in the cancer institute i think it's one in ten actually.
distinguished colleagues i'm glad to see you all here in good mood. the desire to ask questions as we did last year i will begin by telling you about some results of our work for the year. and then i will try to answer your questions. ell, first -- and the main thing to is economic parameters, the growth of the .d.p. for the last 10 months
0.6or%. 0.7 or maybe yesterday we had a meeting with my colleagues and we made the figure more precise. and the trade balance surplus s grown by 13.3 billion euro dollars to be 148.4 billion dollars. after the force of last year we've had some increase in our industrial production. for the last 10 months the growth was 1.7%. the level of unemployment is quite low. it was even less than 5% before. now it is about 5, 5.1%.
theing a ro industrial complex continues to develop. i believe year end its growth will be 3.3%. and as you know, this year we had a record harvest 104 million tons of grains. and despite all the turbulence on the financial markets the federal budget this year will e having a profit in it. that means that incomes will be 1.2 than spendings by trillion rubles. that's about 1.9% of the g.d.p. the minister of finance is still calculating the precise figures. but it is for sure that the udget would have profit.
the main outcome of the year in the social news sphere is, of course, a positive demographic dynamic. natural growth of population for the last 10 months are 37.1 thousand people. the death rate is decreasing now and the birth rate is increasing which is a very good trend. we must do everything in order to keep it. as we promised, we are continuing to impact the capital. in 2014, it was 429,408 rubles. we have achieved and even overcome the target barometers, employees we were speaking about social teachers, teachers at school, medium and junior medical staff.
doctors, etc.. in 2014, we have indexed them twice. since the first of february, by 6.5 percent and since april by .7%. we have paid a lot of attention this year to increasing the combat capacity of our armed orces. i would not name all the things here. maybe the social barometer in 2014. 11,700 military servicemen of the minister of defense have received permanent housing. 17,300 servicemen have received their corporate housing. that is 100% of our annual plans.
these have been some figures. now words about the currency situation. i believe all of us understand the main question of today, which is of interest -- the state of economies, national urrency. and i will try to describe the ituation to you. and to say, in for my opinion, on how to develop it. after that, i believe the press conference will be inished. of course, this situation has been provoked by external factors. but we believe that a lot has not been done by us.
which we planned for the economy for the last two decades. it was quite difficult to do everything. especially taking into account the economic situation when the money was invested by business to the areas with the maximum and quick profits. t was quite difficult. for an economic factors are influencing it. first of all, the oil price which is followed by the gas price as well. i believe the central bank and the government are taking adequate measures in the current situation. of course, there are questions to the central bank about the timeframe of these easures.
it whether they are timely. i hope that the yesterdays and todays decrease in the foreign currency and raising growth of the cost of ruble will aintain. is that possible? yes. oil prices will continue to fall and influence the national currency. that is possible. what are we going to do about this? we are going to use the measures which we used quite successfully in 2008. and in this situation, we will have to focus our attention on assistance to people who do need it. i would like to highlight that we need to keep or maintain all our planned parameters on
social issues and problems. first of all, i'm speaking about the pensions. the salaries of the budget employees. it will develop in an unfavorable manner and we will have to make some adjustments o our plans. and of course, we will have to reduce some things. of course, and i would like to highlight that, as experts say, jumping to plus and further rowth. and a favorable solution to this situation is unavoidable. for two reasons. first, the growth of the global economy will maintain. the rate of growth is slowing down but the economy will grow. and our economy will overcome the current situation. how much time is needed for that?
i believe two years in the worst scenario. i repeat that after that, the growth is imminent. the economic situation will change. the growth of the global economy will need additional resources. but, for the time, which i have no doubt, we will be able to do a lot for the economy. because the life itself will be making us do that. we won't be able to sanction and survive otherwise. his is imminent. we will fulfill our social obligations based on the existing reserves that we have, thank god. and they grew this year. a reminder that the central bank reserves are $419 billion
and the central bank is not going to waste them. which is correct. and the government, the national welfare fund, it has grown this year by about 2.4 trillion rubles or 2.5 trillion rubles. the total amount of the reserve is 8.4 trillion rubles. i believe with this, we will solve the main social issues, diversify our economy, and it is unavoidable the situation ill become normal. with this, i would like to finish the introduction. we may finish the press conference as well, but if you have questions, i will answer them. this year, i would like to
begin with those that have been working for the whole year with the president. i would like to begin with the kremlin pool. i will give the floor to the kremlin pool who has been working with the president for many years. they have been going with him to all the corners of our planet. that, i believe, i would like to ask you, mr. president, there is a deep foreign currency crisis now. how do you think, for the two years you have mentioned, will we go through a financial and economic crisis? there has been a lot of criticism for black monday and tuesday. for the ruble, i mean. do you agree with the criticism?
i said in the situation, it would last for about two years. i believe it is not a necessary scenario because the situation might improve. it might begin improving in the first quarter in the middle of the next year. no one can tell that for sure. a lot of factors and ncertainty exists there. i do not think i could call the situation a crisis. or you may call it whatever you want. i believe that i said, quite clearly, the central bank of the government are acting correctly and adequately to the situation existing. i believe that some things -- well, the criticism is from the
experts as well. i believe some actions could have been made quicker. i believe that the quickness must be the pragmatic approach. it which the central bank and the government is doing. what are they doing? they have risen the key interest rate. i believe this rate would not be raised for all the periods of those difficult circumstances linked with the foreign economic situation. i believe the economy will adjust. why am i optimistic? because the economy will adjust o life and work in the conditions of the lower fuel prices. low oil prices. this will happen. the question is how quickly this judgment will take place.
it may be lower than $60 a barrel, $40 a barrel. the figure doesn't matter here. the economy will structure itself. how quickly it will do so, it is difficult to say. life gives us these facts. it raised the interest rate. what does it have to do and what is it doing? in order to stabilize the national currency, we might squeeze out the ruble liquidity a little bit. we might give access to the participants of the currency, the foreign currency liquidity. the rate on the currency is 0.5. the bank must feel themselves how exactly to act. we mustn't give away our forex reserves and not waste them in
the market. we must keep low resources to people. one of the two is the so-called repo which happens that day. one month, a week, one day -- his is returnable money that gives it to the participants of economic activity to use. it is done correctly but maybe must be done a bit more quickly. i see and hear the criticism towards the central bank and the president of the central bank. the criticism might be grounded or not but the government must not forget about its responsibility either. it has good currency enefits. the chairman of the government that the leaders of our largest
companies -- met the leaders of our largest companies. there are results from these meetings. some of them, many of them need to pay their loans. nd need to think about the situation in their companies. a company just as a citizen always thinks about how to save something for the worst times. it is the correct economic behavior or not. economic logic shows it is not. we see that there are still positive results for that. we need to take some other measures. the government. what am i talking about? i am talking about fighting inflation. there are some things that we mentioned, by the way, publicly. i mentioned, for example, the fuel prices -- i mean the gasoline prices.
the food prices. this has to be tackled with by the government. you must work with that manually. it you must monitor it every day, every week. meet the producers, the market participants, the trade networks, the retailers, the oil companies which have monopolized our market. our federal anti-monopoly service should work as a. and all those actions should be joined as a collective and should not intrude with the incompetence of the central bank and the government. it should be varied and it should be timely. on the whole, we mustn't forget that their policy is adequate. r. putin, a lot of us have
been waiting for your press onference. people were thinking, what was the mood of mr. putin? thank you for your optimism. we hope everything will be as he said. now to my question. we have been speaking about going away from the oil needle, rebuilding and restructuring our economy. t shows that we are still on that loyal needle. we do not know how long it will remain here.
we can use the current crisis for good in order to restructure our economy. i understand it wouldn't be done quickly, but still. and in address to your federal assembly, you have mentioned a number of benefits for the usiness end for economy. you understand that the main danger in russia is bureaucracy and the stalling of the implementation of correct decision. are you sure now that your houghts and decisions that you expressed in your speech will
be implemented this time? and this optimism will be confirmed with real steps? thank you. >> we can be sure when we have insurance. but in this case, we can ensure ourselves by implement in the right amount of economic policy. this, i suppose, is good insurance. it could make us more confident. that is what i can tell you. if you ask them about the red tape and bureaucracy, realize that in our country, it's nothing compared to the european union. you know what the main problem is? at the very beginning, i said the press conference could be over. it's not a joke. the main problem is not
stalling the decisions. it pushes the participants, the chemistry. and regulating the on-commodity sector. it is still a difficult process because we do not have enough forces to implement those reforms. for many years, we have been trying to improve the business climate. and to facilitate the situation. it can be much more profit. about 80% of requests of the government are not related to investment. applying for a chance to roduce energy resources.
you know that when economic conditions get different, they invest into other areas. this is a bit optimistic. yes, we will have to face some difficulties and we will definitely have to address some social issues. and to force the social obligations. signed by the president in 2012. but still, i suppose we can benefit from the situation. do hope that today's economic situation will help us. could you make your questions shorter so that you can listen to mr. putin more?
mr. putin, at the beginning of 2012, in the run of the pre-election that transformed into the president's decrease, you characterize the situation that russia is focusing. what do you think is happening in the country at the moment? or do you think they will concentrate or just relax, finally? othing has changed in this regard. the current conditions are actually pushing to further
continue the reforms. it's the same issue. what we have to do is to work. what we need for the future of our economy is to create favorable conditions. we also have currency and property rights. e have to stop using law enforcement agencies to punish veryone. we have to stop using those tools. we also have to work on the industrial sector and provide for the regions of the federation. we have been doing that for
quite a time already. tax holidays for four years. in relation to those enterprises, that we are not criticized for any severe violations for multiple years. but we have to do is go on concentrating and to work to take practical action. celebrating the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall that you and i witnessed in the country in germany. due to your insistence -- we are witnessing building a new
there are two ways for major expression. isn't that a wall? it is a virtual wall. and what about a system near our borders? no one talks. this is the problem. hey decided -- what we have to do is exercise more pressure. they did not stop building the all. we going to work together. and i hope the top position like the ukraine crisis,
understanding the best ways to stop building those walls. economic liberty and economic freedom. i would like to give the floor to our colleague from the ukraine. >> i would like to ask to short questions, please. the first question is about the operation you organized in the east of our country. this operation was intended against the russian speaking population. russian militants are fighting their. how many of them did you send there? and what about -- how many
people died? what did you say to the families of those that ied? he is hiding in the territory of the russian federation. in his time, he put in prison the conscription of party. and the number one at the moment, at least 30 more ukrainian war prisoners. >> let me start with your second question and i will definitely answer your first
one as well. speaking of when and in what erms, our opposition is -- the journalists who died. et me emphasize that the journalists who died here did not take part in a military action. they were unarmed. it is the responsibility of every state structure, including the military structure, to provide for their health and security and to give them a chance to fulfill their professional duty in order to disseminate the information. it is what is accepted
everywhere in the world. however, those people were murdered. according to our agency, saif angoe called them as targets. if we find out that she is not guilty, that she took part in the murder, she will serve the sentence of the court. at the same time, in advance, no one can claim that a person is guilty of committing any crime. including that the presumption of innocence is enforced in our country. so we will see what the investigation will iscover.
as for the other troops and other military men you have mentioned, we don't believe they are war prisoners. they are serving their time in prison. they are suspected of terrorist activities. this is to answer to the second part of your question and let's go back to the first question. peaking about who is esponsible for what. in our country, the presidential republic -- the resident is held accountable
for everything. as for their destiny, the commander is responsible for that. our country is one of the same person. by their own will, they want to fulfill their duty and take part in the military actions including in the east of the ukraine. they are not paid for those military extras. and taking place in the east of ukraine, it is definitely cooperation but organized by the ukrainian authorities. and not by anybody else. they sent the military units, but in the challenge system to the south of the ukraine. fter the coup d'état, no atter what you say about it, it was definitely what happened in kyiv. - in kiev. instead of starting a political
ialogue, the new authorities tarted using the enforcement gencies first. when it didn't work out, they sent the army. when it didn't work out either, they started to apply other methods. for example, the economic -- the cut of economic ties. i suppose it is unacceptable. we need to approach as mediators and intermediaries. and the united political space. let us continue.
channel one, please. >> mr. pruden, what is going on in our economy. maybe they will have to pay for rimea. no, it is not the price we have to pay for crimea. this is how we have to pay for our troops to preserve our nation and maintain our state. when i was answering the question of your colleague, i mentioned that after the berlin wall fell and the soviet union dissolved, i mentioned in my address to the federal assembly that we were totally open. but what we saw was that they directly supported errorists. i'm not going to go into detail at the moment, but in such a
way, they are very aware of their actions. and no matter what we do, they r what we do, they are always against our actions. the preparation process for the olympic games, remember how it was about the olympics, we wanted to make the apology not only for athletes and sports fans for our country, but what the olympic games itself, i do not know who wanted to do it or why, but that is what we are witnessing all the time. you know, speaking in front of the -- i quoted an example. the bear who got
to the forest. you know, the thing is, if we go on with such analogies, thing evenand this comes to my mind, is that is to justr best relax and sit quietly and just eat honey instead of hunting animals. maybe then they will leave the bear in peace, but no, they will not. what they want to do is to change the bear, and when they manage to change the bear, they will just take out his fangs and claws. this is how it is working at the moment, and we could even hear that from officials saying that it is not just -- but how can they say it is unjust? to snatch texas from mexico but it is unfair that we are working
on our own land no, we have to share. and then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all. protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. if we believe that one of the current problems including in the economy as a result of the sanctions is crucial, and it is so because out of all the
problems the sanctions take up about 25% to 30%. but we must decide whether we want to keep going and fight, change our economy for the go through all this or we want our skin to hang on the wall. this is the choice we need to make and it has nothing to do with crimea. >> the russia channel is responsible for our broadcasting. >> good afternoon. the crimea issue is more or less clear. the only question perhaps is how much we will have to eventually invest in its development after the difficult ukrainian past. the most urgent question for me is about eastern ukraine, which is now calling itself novorossiya.
that is what they call themselves. how do you see the future of that part of ukraine? do you believe in the success of the minsk agreements? do you think they will help reconciliation? and how are we going to further help donbass? will it be humanitarian aid, as it is now, or something else? >> i think i answered a part of your question in my response to your ukrainian colleague. we believe that the crisis will be resolved sooner or later. the sooner the better, of course. this is the first point. second, it should be addressed and settled by political means, and not through pressure, no matter what type of pressure, whether an economic blockade or the use of armed force. and we will help the people, as we are doing now. as you may know, a tenth humanitarian convoy has been sent. after all, we should proceed from the fundamental principles
of international law and from people's right to decide their fate on their own. it's not just a casual phrase, when i said that peace should be restored and problems should be resolved by political means. it's hard to say at this point what it would look like, but i think we should strive for this. the problem is, however, that both sides need to strive for this. people living in ukraine's southeast should be respected. economic ties should be restored. it is a fact that much of ukraine's power industry burns donbass coal. we were asked to influence ukraine's southeast, donbass, to make the miners agree to supply coal.
but they are not buying it. because they've closed all the banks and are unable to make payments. our colleagues told me yesterday we are ready to pay and have transferred a prepayment. they allegedly wired the money to the miners' bank cards, but the cards are not working, and this is how it is with each issue. there is no other way but a peaceful settlement. as far as the minsk agreements are concerned, it's a very important part of this, and we
want them to be complied with the minsk meeting came from me and from petro poroshenko. i have no doubt that he is striving for this. but he is not the only one over there. we have been hearing statements from other officials, who advocate basically a war to the end. that all of this is likely to lead to a continental crisis. we hear many statements. president poroshenko is oriented towards settlement. but concrete actions and steps are needed. our representatives in minsk signed a memorandum in september and there were protocols to it that defined the disengagement line. representatives of donetsk didn't sign those protocols. that's the problem. they said at the very start, we can't.
when we tried to insist, i'll be frank with you about this, since the public needs to know these things, they told us that they can't leave these villages. their families live there, and they can't risk their children, wives and sisters being killed or raped. however, the ukrainian officials did not withdraw their troops from the areas that they were supposed to leave, such as the donetsk airport, either. they're staying there. are you aware of the latest developments? the militia allowed them to rotate their troops at the airport. they took them to a bathhouse and sent them food. but this is a positive development. everyone is insisting on exchanging prisoners of war.
i believe that they should all be exchanged unconditionally. but life is more complicated than that. these lists became include people who have been detained not in connection with the hostilities in southeastern ukraine, but somewhere in kherson or odessa. these lists must be checked. yesterday, they agreed to exchange 30 people. representatives of the self-defense forces went to the exchange location, and a representative of the kiev authorities said we are not going to proceed with the exchange. but these are details. anyway, it would be a positive move, including in terms of implementing the minsk
agreements, which is an videoconference today or tomorrow. the next step should be made at a meeting in minsk. there's another important thing. it's essential for the kiev authorities to keep their end of the bargain. there was an agreement on adopting an amnesty law. it is nowhere to be seen. they keep telling us that a law on special status was passed, but it couldn't be implemented,
because the law could come into force and actually become effective only after the other law had been adopted about the disengagement line. it has not been adopted so far. if ukraine wants to restore peace, tranquility and its territorial integrity, the people who live in certain regions of the country must be respected and a straight, open, and honest political dialogue must be maintained with them. i hope that in the end everyone will go down that path. >> thank you. this year, it became clear that energy diplomacy has become a key factor in geopolitics.
how justified is russia's turning to the east and the gas contracts it has signed with china and turkey? have all the pitfalls of these projects been considered? many still doubt that the chinese contract will be profitable, while the potential turkish stream will leave russia dependent on turkey. do you have anything to say here? >> no, i don't. it would be impossible to argue. if you read american analysts, they also write about the united states' turn towards the east. is this true? the asia-pacific region shows faster growth than the rest of the world.
new opportunities open up. as for energy, the demand for resources is racing in leaps and bounds in china, india, as well as in japan and south korea. everything is developing faster there than in other places. so should we turn down our chance? no, we are working on were planned long ago, even before the most recent problems occurred in the global or russian economy. we are simply implementing our long-time plans. about the chinese contract it is not a loss-making project. both sides on both sides, i must stress. china offered some benefits as well. i will not go into details right now. the chinese government simply decided to provide some support to the project participants.
we, in turn, agreed to do the same. so the project definitely became profitable. we have agreed on a pricing formula, which is not much different from the one applied to our european contracts, except for the specific regional market coefficients. in addition, it will help russia, which will receive and accumulate gigantic resources at the project's initial stage, to begin connecting our far eastern regions to the gas distribution grids, not just to export gas through the pipeline. this will allow us to make the next a very important step. we will be able to link together the western and eastern gas pipeline systems and promptly
channel resources back and forth when needed, depending on the international market. without it, we would never be able to connect eastern siberia and the far east to the gas distribution system. not to mention that it is a huge construction site that will revive russia's far east and the entire region. about turkey. the turkish economy is also growing and requires additional energy resources as much as the we built the so-called blue stream pipeline many years ago, and now our turkish partners are
considering increasing the supplies to the turkish market. should we refuse? we have reached all the key agreements with them, which cover the pricing formula, supply schedule and other aspects. we more or less understand their requirements, and we will certainly sell them what we have and what they need. we will do this. will a so-called european hub be built on the border of turkey and greece? this is not for us to decide. the decision largely depends on our european partners. if they want stable, guaranteed, and absolutely transparent energy supply from russia, which they badly need, without any transit risks? then we'll start working, and the pipeline would reach macedonia via greece, go on to serbia and to baumgarter in austria. if they don't want this, we won't do it. the thing is that there is no cheaper and more reliable
supplier than russia, and there won't be any in the near future. >> mr. president, i'd like to go back to the situation on the currency market, which changes from one day to another and is a great concern for millions of russians. many experts, including you, mr. president, have said the current situation could be blamed also on currency profiteers. can you give us those names? are they russians or foreigners? why can't they be stopped? are they too strong? or are we too weak? a second question on the same subject, if i may. do the central bank and the government plan to peg or devalue the ruble?
>> this is what our ukrainian partners did, quite unsuccessfully. they would just buy it back the next day, as it happened in kiev and as it happens in other countries. the next step in this case should be to set a limit on the purchase of foreign currency on the domestic market. we won't go this far, and so the central bank and the government are not planning, quite correctly as far as i see it, to limit our exporters in this field. this doesn't mean, though, that the government should not act through its representatives on company boards. our largest energy companies. they are partly state-owned, which means that we can influence their policies, but without issuing any directives or restrictions.
as for the so-called profiteers, it is not a crime to play on the currency market. foreigners or various funds, which are present on the russian market and have been operating quite actively there. or they can be russian companies. as i said at the beginning of this meeting, this is an accepted practice in a market economy. they always appear when there is a chance to make some money. in the market by creating favorable conditions, by pushing, for example, as was done in the beginning of this process, like, in this particular case, the central
bank of russia was pushed to enter the market and start selling gold and foreign currency reserves in the hope of intervening and supporting the national currency. the central bank stopped, and it was the right thing to do. perhaps it would have been better if it had been done earlier and in a tougher way. then perhaps it wouldn't have been necessary to increase the rate to 17%. that is a different matter. i told you who they are. two days ago i had a friendly telephone conversation with some of them and i asked, "why are you holding back?" "our loan payments are due soon," was the reply. "can you enter the market?" he took a minute and replied, "well, i guess we have $3 billion." they have $3 billion in
reserves. and this is just one company. so if each company has $3 billion, in total it is not $30 but $300 billion. we can't force them. stability of their companies. to this end, the government must work very closely with them and ensure, along with the central bank, foreign currency and ruble liquidity whenever it is necessary. >> good afternoon, mr. president. the number of beds in hospitals in several regions, and mainly in moscow, is decreasing. the number of staff is decreasing. what do you think about that? and will a similar experiment be carried out in other regions? people are concerned that as a
result of the reform they will not be provided with the right to medical aid that is guaranteed by the constitution. >> you know, you are talking about a major issue in our life at present, one of the fundamental issues i would say. education and healthcare must always be within clear sight of the state and the regional governments. naturally, we must see, understand and react precisely to what is happening in a particular professional community. any changes that occur must be introduced in cooperation with representatives of the medical community in this particular case.
if the moscow government skipped this stage for some reason, it is a mistake that must be corrected. first place when working on issues like healthcare and education, we should be guided by people who use the healthcare and education services. millions of people are waiting for the healthcare industry to improve. our citizens, consumers of healthcare services are those, whom we must think about first of all. what are people saying? they are not pleased with the healthcare.
we must analyze what's going on and what should be done to improve the situation. i won't assess what the moscow authorities have done now. they acted within their competence. we're saying that our healthcare is expensive but not very efficient. in many cases beds are used not for treating patients, but for improving their health, we must make our medical aid high-tech. for four or five days a person receives intensive therapy in a hospital and then completes his treatment at an outpatient clinic. moreover, the city of moscow believes that the bed capacity is excessive by about 30%.
to keep it the way it is, we will have to pay for land, electricity, heating and the like. these are inefficient costs. it's better to spend the funds on improving the quality of medical care, equipping hospitals and outpatient clinics with modern technology, and on training medical personnel. i'm now referring, as i see it, to the reform of healthcare as a whole rather than actions of the moscow authorities. but i think what they have done recently is correct on the whole. they launched a dialogue with the medical community. they made a decision on additional compensation for
doctors. 500,000 rubles to medical specialists. 300,000 to the nursing staff and 200,000 to auxiliary medical personnel. moreover, they are drafting a program for retraining specialists. from two or three months to two years. the city needs to decide who will work and in what position but this cannot be done without consulting the medical community. moscow will act carefully, very
carefully, without hurting anyone. the main point is that they should not forget the most important principle of not only a doctor but of all transformations in healthcare do no harm. >> good afternoon, mr. putin. speaking to the federal assembly, you used the expression "national traitors." you didn't specify whom you meant, but thanks to you the term has again become part of the political vocabulary. your supporters have labeled those who oppose the authorities the fifth column. to whom were you referring when talking about national traitors and the fifth column, and where, is the line that separates the opposition from the fifth column? >> i do not feel any responsibility whatsoever in this respect.
everything i do is aimed at consolidating russian society, not dividing it. if you think it did happen, i believe you. maybe you have an even more acute feel for it than i do. in my public statements i have to be more cautious. we can't mask the truth indefinitely and sometimes it is our duty to call the things by their names. your question isn't easy, since we're walking a very fine line here. it would probably be very challenging to come up with an definition of where the opposition ends and the fifth column begins. this very year, we celebrated the anniversary of mikhail lermontov, the genius of russian
poetry. we all remember his lines. we remember what he wrote about the borodino battle. "by moscow then we die as have our brethren died before." but he also wrote -- "farewell, farewell, unwashed russia, and you, blue uniforms of gendarmes, and you, obedient to them folks." was he an opposition activist? of course he was. as you may be aware, and probably a lot of you know, when he wrote "the death of a poet" on the death of pushkin, one of his relatives saw the text and asked lermontov to soften it a bit. lermontov was so infuriated, that he actually made it even more bitter and edgy. he was definitely opposing the authorities, but i think he was also a patriot.
this is very fine line. he was an officer, and a very brave and courageous one, who wasn't afraid to get into the line of fire in the country's interests. by the way, in the last movie by nikita mikhalkov, such officers, who actually brought these efforts to their logical end, the revolution, were later killed by revolutionaries. after all, the line that separates opposition activists from the fifth column is hard to see from the outside. opposition activists may be very harsh in their criticism, but at the end of the day they are defending the interests of the motherland. the fifth column is those who serve the interests of other countries, and who are only tools for others' political goals. >> our minister of defense -- at
is it us who move our military forces to the borders? is it us who move our military structures? does anyone listen to us? is anyone engaged in the dialogue with us? no. what we hear is just mind your own business. every country has the right to share security. why are we not allowed to do that? we are supposed to have that right, too. i spoke about the treaty. it was one of the cornerstones of the security system. who withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty? the united states did so, and they deployed their strategic systems in europe. they are trying to say that it
is not an aggressive policy? whether we want to maintain relationship based on rights -- yes. we want to build relations based on equal rights. we have been maintaining negotiations on wto for many years. for 19 years. we believe that the agreements reached were supposed to be solid. i'm not speaking about who is guilty and who is not. i believe we are right. our western partners are wrong. but we joined the wto, and they are in violation of the u.n. charter.
there have been sanctions introduced against russia in an absolutely illegitimate and illegal way. the only thing we want is to promote relations based on equal rights. we would like to work together. we want to work together. transnational organized crime. including the ebola virus. we will work together if our partners want to cooperate with us. >> hello, mr. president. i am from kazakhstan. i have a question related to the legislation process. since january 1, the union of
belarus and our media are going to join. given that developments in our economy, are there reasons to be concerned? could you comment on your prediction and vision of the common market? >> kazakhstan and russia both produce oil. it is not related through integration. i am just saying that kazakhstan is facing the unfavorable economic situation at the moment. speaking about all the economic
difficulties, the global economy is growing. and there is growing demands for energy resources. speaking about your proposal, it is as follows. it is to work together. we can take a single economic space for free movement of human resources. of course it is easier to do that together. it has increased 50 fold, and it is very impressive. of course we are going to further benefit from integration.
>> given that we have produced 104 billion barrels, the policy is very great. my question is related to the development of our agricultural sector. it is impossible without addressing the human resources issue. there is a farmer in our area, and one of his workers recently resigned. then the farmer was trying to find a worker to replace him, but no one wanted to work on a
farm. no one is going to do the work on the land, on the soil, people are not willing to work on the soil. some believe that it could affect our food security. >> of course i share your concerns. it is very hard to work in the current conditions, but at the same time we cannot share the optimism of those who believe that quitting the domestic market for internal producers will increase opportunities. of course we have to think about addressing the issues. of course we have to think about vocational training and educational opportunities. with very good vocational
education in agricultural areas, it will be beneficial for this area of the russian economy. as well, just yesterday we discussed the decision to support the agriculture. i hope that our agriculture workers will appreciate it and benefit from it. what is very important to do now is to make sure that they sell their grain, we have to make sure that they reach, that they are not all received by intermediaries. we have to provide educational training. speaking about the prices of industrial goods -- it is not a good thing for consumers but it
is a good chance for producers and i hope they will benefit from it. >> i was already thinking you didn't want to answer. mr. president, what are the prospects of the russian -georgian relationship? does russia believe that we are going to raise those relationships to a new level? do they require more active actions? will the georgian relations with the european union discussed -- and what would be the role of russia in settling the conflict?
for russia's part, the territory of georgia was occupied, in the conflict remains unsettled. georgia, of the georgian people, it is a bleeding wound. but 1919, everyone remembers that year. the grave situation after the dissolution, georgia declared its independence and said they are going to stay with russia. it was the same punitive operation. that is not forgotten. everyone accuses us of all the things, but that was not our work and we are going to help settle the matters. after our warnings were ignored, hostilities started and we
acknowledged independence of those republics. frankly speaking, it is very difficult. as for the meeting, in georgia, we have very little contact. there are internal power struggles. as for liberalizing the shipments of georgian goods to russia, we did that. the response to the promise of georgia not to stop russia from entering the wto despite our political differences, that was a very welcome gesture from the
we had the dialogues, and you were there and i am very grateful for that. of course there are sanctions, and not very friendly relations of different countries towards russia, but we see that there have been slavic peoples that joined us. we always considered them friendly. in that regard, i would like to hear your opinion on the prospects of the slavic peoples, czech republic, bulgaria, people who could form a friendly alliance so that they could help us in international affairs just like it is done with english-speaking countries. another question i have -- he
has never violated the constitution and he will never let the constitution be violated in the territory of the republic. i was silent when you blatantly -- you were not stopped from asking the question. i have the following question. when innocent people, people that work on the roads, teachers, journalists, when their lives are put in danger when comrades die, went roads are inspected, his children were -- when a road inspector who wa s on his post, his children were left as orphans and he had a pregnant wife, and he knows exactly when certain families were in contact with the militants. not militants, terrorists.
there are no more militants in chechnya. they were asked to get back those people, but they called those people in the woods -- they were asked about their comfort and that is according to law is helping terrorists. those people should be held responsible. do we believe, in regard of terrorists, if we should use the means that we have so as not to endanger the lives of hundreds and thousands. if we had not taken measures we would have a half a million victims. >> i understand the grief of people, of the families of people who died.
i am sure that he will never leave those people alone. as for helping terrorists, of course all of the accomplices should be brought to justice but of course within the law. what really was the case, that will be clear during the investigation. the fact that we have combated terrorism in all dimensions including helping the terrorists within the law.
the slavic countries, they are in a difficult economic situation. they are under pressure. you see that pressure is of course due to the economic situation and with sanctions and we are being under pressure but those minor countries are of course more susceptible. and the serenity is going through hard times. but i know within the people, the will is not political but cultural and spiritual unity it will prevail. it cannot be eradicated. >> mr. president, a year ago, you, in this hall, announced that iran is our neighbor. it is one of our priority partners. i am quoting you.
trust, and weyour are going to develop relationships with this country. and this is our choice, you said. a year has passed. turnover has decreased. and no contract that could lead to an agreement emerged. iran is not in the eurasian community, iran does not participate in large energy projects, the large oil contract year,h you signed this has not been implemented. and i am building on the fact that the turnover this year is
less than half a percent of the turnover with other countries that russia has, so there is a paradox. no one in russia is responsible for this state of relations. none of the officials are held responsible for lower turnover with iran. maybe you should think about maybe ordering somebody to be a representative of the government responsible for the turnover with iran and the development of economic relationships with it. and the last question -- a lot depends on the actions of the ambassador. maybe you should analyze the activities of the ambassadors in some other perspectives. if an ambassador does not contribute to economic traded by 5%, then you might criticize them. if it is next year, you might change an ambassador. i believe that the direction of -- the interaction of iran and
russia would give a lot. last year you said you would visit iran. that has not happened. you promised to sign an agreement and that has not , happened either and i do not understand it. have there been any changes to be strategy? or has your order just not been implemented? thank you. >> first, as far as ambassadors are concerned, of course constant improvement of relationships is their duties but that is not directly within -- but the increased turnover is not directly within his duties. if we act according to your recommendations, we will not have ambassadors to be ambassadors.
as to whether diplomatic missions work in a country, that is determined by the minister of foreign affairs. end, yourd, -- in the humble servant, of course after your question, we will analyze the efficiency of our embassy in iran. on the whole, we are satisfied with their work. as far as the turnover, it has slowed down. we discussed that with the president of iran. we are taking steps to improve it and improve the structure of it and that the volumes of it. it is not just dependendant on us, it depends on the global economy. this is the objective process, if i may say so, because iran is an oil and gas producing and
extracting country and their economy is largely linked to the world's oil sector. now we are witnessing the falling down of prices, oil prices. there are many discussions on that project, why is that happening, is there a conspiracy to punish iran and the economy of russia and venezuela, etc. it might be or might be not. maybe it is just the struggle of the traditional producers of raw materials with the shale oil, for example. maybe you just hold the price and squeeze the shale oil out of the market and then increase the price. go to the interests of the u.s. oil producers coincide, of
course, because the u.s. administration is very calm about the investment done by private companies. if it remained low, then companies would stop investing in extraction and against the backdrop of the growing economy, the prices would lift up so much it would be bad for developed countries. most people understand that at our chinese friends understand that, too. they are not interested in oil prices going too low. but i ran depends on that directly, and you cannot do anything with that. we are looking for opportunities to diversify our operation with
iran and will continue to do so. we are doing that sincerely. we have had success and some failures. we are cultivating and machinery construction, etc., besides the oil and gas sector, but the contract you mentioned, we wanted to implement it. you are incorrect when you say no one is responsible, the
minister for energy has had multiple visits to iran and invited partners here. it was a difficult process to look for a compromise and mutually accepted solution and a solution has been found. the calculation is very difficult there. there is a whole range of problems but on the whole we have solved it. it needs will from both sides. the contracts need to be beneficial for everyone because not the government will be selling the iran oil. the companies will do that. we have to make the contracts beneficial for them. we are interested in it even though it is difficult and will continue to do that in order to find the ways to expand our turnover. of course we will work together with our irani partners to solve the nuclear program of iran issue. i believe we are close to finding the solution to this problem because the leaders of iran are demonstrating great flexibility, i believe. i do not understand why the final or the last resolution on the nuclear program of iran has been signed. i hope it will happen in the near future. if it is so, we will see a change in economics. my visit to tehran is quite possible, and we are now agreeing on that by diplomatic channels to find the time that
will be acceptable for me and our partners. the visit is not quite important because when i visit tehran, i will meet the president but i just met him. we will continue to meet each other and continue our contact. if we need a separate visit, we have no limitations about that. there is no external pressure on that. we promised them we would build a nuclear plant, and we have done that. we have signed a new contract on the continuation of our joint work, and we have done it. so the question is technical and we will work on that. >> to mark a decade on sections on "q&a," we are featuring each of the series, starting today at 7 a.m. on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
on "q&a," our guest is conservative commentator katie pavlovich. she talks about current issues and her most recent book, assault and flattery, the truth about the last and their war on women. >> katie pavlich, a couple of weeks ago, the president of turkey said the following -- you cannot put women and men on an equal footing. it is against nature. they were created differently, their nature is different, their constitution is different. >> i think the president of turkey has some interesting thoughts when it comes to women and he certainly does not think they are equal in turkish society. i think in the united
host: what is your sense of the balance between men and women? guest: i think he has a point in the sense that men and women are a sense ifferently in of their biology, the way they think. the way they do things. careers they go into, the things they are drawn to. they can do of what i believe and i think that america as a whole believes that women can do the same jobs as en and we are not created unequally in the opportunities we can pursue and work we can do. how is it somebody 26 has already written two books? guest: i turned 22 the first ummer i was here and i just really got my feet wet and dug in hard and said yes to a lot of and i have been blessed with a the love opportunities and politics is my passion. a lot since i have been here and covered presidential campaigns, covered scandals,