Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Dmitry Medvedev, President of Russia:
Good day! I was told today there are more than 800 journalists here.
Its a pleasure for me to see all of you.
I cannot say I lack communication with the mass media.
Meeting with reporters is a part of my life.
While being the head of state I have visited almost all the regions of our country.
There are only two exceptions, but I promise to visit them as soon as possible.
I have met many representatives of regional media, and I see familiar faces here.
However, unfortunately there has been no such big conference.
And now we can share with each other views on the development of our country and the world.
I want to ask you as the head of state and as a professional lawyer.
What is your view on relations with the US and NATO?
What are the problems?
And the second question is about Russian internal life.
Today there is a heavy discussion about the issue:
should Russia obey decisions adopted by the European Court on Human Rights?
There are some decisions which concern not only money, but also the spirit of their implementation.
What do you think about this? Thank you.
Thank you.
Relations between NATO and Russia are a wide topic for discussion.
I deal with this issue everyday, when I read reports of ministers
or the special services
and when I prepare for a meeting with foreign leaders,
whose countries are included in the Alliance.
At the moment we have not such bad relations with NATO.
I believe that this is good for both sides.
We had a tense period, when we actually broke off all relations.
The initiators were the NATO states.
I mean August 2008.
Many days have passed and today I think we have a positive development in our relations.
Im satisfied with the Russia-NATO Lisbon Summit.
We agreed on strategic partnership in important spheres of the agenda,
including Afghanistan, anti-terrorist actions and fighting drug trafficking.
There are also new problems, which should be agreed on.
I mean missile defense.
This is a separate theme, I wont speak long about it.
We wish the European missile defense system obeyed simple rules.
It is understandable that missile defense enables the blocking of the strategic abilities
of a set of countries.
When they say "It is not against you",
I listen to it, but understand that other states, against which the system is established,
have no such facilities as Russia has.
They talk about Iran and so on.
But these countries have no such armament.
This means their missile defense is aimed at us.
If this is so, try to cooperate with us or speak about it openly.
I hope that my colleague and friend President Obama and NATO will answer my questions
and we will manage to develop a common missile defense strategy.
If we dont do this we will have to respond to their steps, unfortunately.
I mean a new development of nuclear armaments.
This is the worst scenario, more suitable for the Cold War period.
I told my colleague that in 2020, when all four stages of the adopted approach are to be passed,
the decisions will be made not by you and not by me, but somebody will do it.
Russia's head will consider these tendencies,
and today we should think about this problem from the perspective of the future.
This problem can ruin everything we have done in recent years,
including the very important START-3 agreement.
It says that if a missile defense system is developed, the agreement can be broken.
I want to draw the special attention of my NATO partners to this issue.
We are ready for cooperation and waiting for guarantees of our national security.
Now lets move to the second question on the ECHR.
Russia is a member of the European Court.
We signed all the documents and have to follow them.
For us, membership in European institutes is of high importance.
However, we face some difficulties, as we are still a formative democracy.
In some cases the Court has adopted decisions against Russia.
In fact, the obligations on these decisions are met by Russia,
including material compensation to claimants.
Nevertheless, in some cases it seems that the decision was subjective or even politically-motivated.
That is why such decisions are discussed in Russian society.
It doesnt mean we want to quit our membership of the ECHR.
I believe that any court should be objective and fair.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to you, Mr Medvedev,
for your attention to our republic, your support and trust in the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov.
This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the birth of the first Chechen president, Ahmad Kadyrov,
who was killed by terrorists.
Could you please speak about your memories connected with Mr Kadyrov?
And the second question.
Two years ago the parliament of Chechnya appealed to you with a request
to award Grozny with the title Hero-City of Military Honour.
History knows about the contribution of Grozny to the Great Patriotic War.
Along with Baku it was one of the main oil providers.
Many thousands of Grozny residents fought against the Nazis.
We ask you to appreciate Groznys contribution and award the city with the title Hero-City. Thank you.
Thank you.
I remember quite well our last meeting with Ahmad Kadyrov.
It was a session of the State Council.
By the way, it was the day when I met Ramzan for the first time.
A week later that terrorist attack was committed.
Of course, it was shock.
At that moment I took up the post of the administrations head.
Vladimir Putin called me and told me the news.
I remember him as a man who loved his people and wished all the best for them.
He was a sincere, caring person.
Due to his courage and even reckless position on some issues
the republic came back to a normal way of life.
That is why I will never forget our regular meetings.
He made many difficult and important decisions and saved many lives.
As for Grozny and the honor title, I should say I havent seen any request.
Im ready to consider this question.
What is your appraisal of the development of the North Caucasus republics at the moment?
A second question: when does the federal centre plan to stop supplying these republics
with everything concerning the economy?
And a third question: what will be the future federal policy towards the North Caucasus? Thank you.
You presented it as three questions, I suppose it is one solid question.
It is true that development of the North Caucasus republics is our priority.
The reason for this is that the current situation there is much more difficult than in other regions.
First of all, I mean the high unemployment rate,
especially among young people.
In some republics it is 30-40%.
This leads to negative tendencies such as extremism, bandit undergrounds, intolerance and so on.
That is why we support the North Caucasus materially and I think this is right.
Some people say the money should be reallocated.
This is a blindfold position.
Russia is strong because it has territorial integrity.
If we are not united, we will destroy everything.
That is why the North Caucasus republics will be supported in the future,
in order to make them prospering modern regions.
Grants are temporary measures.
We will continue to give them until a stable state or private industry is developed.
The best decision on the North Caucasus republics is the development of tourism.
We will support them until a positive economic situation is formed.
I think this is right for other regions too.