Russian Presidency, September 28th 2015
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50385

70th session of the UN General Assembly

Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary meeting of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr. President,

Mr. Secretary General,

Distinguished heads of state and government,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay a solid foundation for the postwar world order. Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles defining interaction between states, as well as the decision to establish the UN, were made in our country, at the Yalta Conference of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition.

The Yalta system was truly born in travail. It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars that swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let’s be fair: it helped humankind pass through turbulent, and at times dramatic, events of the last seven decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in terms of legitimacy, representation and universality. True, the UN has been criticized lately for being inefficient or for the fact that decision-making on fundamental issues stalls due to insurmountable differences, especially among Security Council members.

However, I’d like to point out that there have always been differences in the UN throughout the 70 years of its history, and that the veto right has been regularly used by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. It is only natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was first established, nobody expected that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. The decisions debated within the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don’t. Any action taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary international law.

We all know that after the end of the Cold War the world was left with one center of dominance, and those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions they need, often stands in their way.

That’s why they say that the UN has run its course and is now obsolete and outdated. Of course, the world changes, and the UN should also undergo natural transformation. Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force. The world will be dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside.

What is the meaning of state sovereignty, the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It basically means freedom, every person and every state being free to choose their future.

By the way, this brings us to the issue of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t play with words and manipulate them. In international law, international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent and interpreted the same way by one and all.

We are all different, and we should respect that. Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one.

We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress.

It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.

I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.

Power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members of the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition backed by the West. They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join the so-called Islamic State.

In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond. Their plans go further.

The situation is extremely dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade and the arms trade.

It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them.

I’d like to tell those who engage in this: Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question: who’s playing who here? The recent incident where the most “moderate” opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid example of that.

We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists, let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception.

Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can’t allow them to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody wants that, right?

Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups. We think it’s a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground.

We should finally admit that President Assad’s government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia's part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.

I would also like to address Muslim spiritual leaders: Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people targeted for recruitment by extremists from making hasty decisions, and those who have already been deceived and, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists, must be assisted in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.

In the days to come, Russia, as the current President of the UN Security Council, will convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of the threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose exploring opportunities for adopting a resolution that would serve to coordinate the efforts of all parties that oppose Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Once again, such coordination should be based upon the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization, as well as social and economic recovery in the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more refugee camps. Today, the flow of people forced to leave their native land has literally engulfed, first, the neighbouring countries, and then Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now, and before long, there might be millions. It is, essentially, a new, tragic Migration Period, and a harsh lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist, or are being re-established, to provide comprehensive military, economic and material assistance to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to people who, despite all their ordeals, did not abandon their homes. Of course, any assistance to sovereign nations can, and should, be offered rather than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. In other words, our Organisation should support any measures that have been, or will be, taken in this regard in accordance with international law, and reject any actions that are in breach of the UN Charter. Above all, I believe it is of utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone. Indeed, it is a challenging, complicated and time-consuming task, but there is simply no alternative.

Sadly, some of our counterparts are still dominated by their Cold War-era bloc mentality and the ambition to conquer new geopolitical areas. First, they continued their policy of expanding NATO – one should wonder why, considering that the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist and the Soviet Union had disintegrated.

Nevertheless, NATO has kept on expanding, together with its military infrastructure. Next, the post-Soviet states were forced to face a false choice between joining the West and carrying on with the East. Sooner or later, this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a major geopolitical crisis. And that is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where the people's widespread frustration with the government was used for instigating a coup d’état from abroad. This has triggered a civil war. We are convinced that the only way out of this dead end lies through comprehensive and diligent implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015. Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be secured through the use of threats or military force, but it must be secured. The people of Donbas should have their rights and interests genuinely considered, and their choice respected; they should be engaged in devising the key elements of the country's political system, in line with the provisions of the Minsk agreements. Such steps would guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, and a vital link in creating a common space of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe and in Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have deliberately mentioned a common space for economic cooperation. Until quite recently, it seemed that we would learn to do without dividing lines in the area of the economy with its objective market laws, and act based on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the WTO principles, which embrace free trade and investment and fair competition. However, unilaterally imposed sanctions circumventing the UN Charter have all but become commonplace today. They not only serve political objectives, but are also used for eliminating market competition.

I would like to note one more sign of rising economic selfishness. A number of nations have chosen to create exclusive economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated behind closed doors, secretly from those very nations' own public and business communities, as well as from the rest of the world. Other states, whose interests may be affected, have not been informed of anything, either. It seems that someone would like to impose upon us some new game rules, deliberately tailored to accommodate the interests of a privileged few, with the WTO having no say in it. This is fraught with utterly unbalancing global trade and splitting up the global economic space.

These issues affect the interests of all nations and influence the future of the entire global economy. That is why we propose discussing those issues within the framework of the United Nations, the WTO and the G20. Contrary to the policy of exclusion, Russia advocates harmonizing regional economic projects. I am referring to the so-called ”integration of integrations“ based on the universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to cite our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union with China's initiative for creating a Silk Road economic belt. We continue to see great promise in harmonizing the integration vehicles between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030.

However, I suggest that we take a broader look at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way. What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology upset by human activities.

It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research. We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. On January 10th, 1946, the UN General Assembly convened for its first meeting in London. Chairman of the Preparatory Commission Dr. Zuleta Angel, a Colombian diplomat, opened the session by offering what I see as a very concise definition of the principles that the United Nations should be based upon, which are good will, disdain for scheming and trickery, and a spirit of cooperation. Today, his words sound like guidance for all of us.

Russia is confident of the United Nations' enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, and provide an enabling environment for the development of all nations and peoples.

Thank you.

Answers to journalists’ questions
Russian Presidency, September 29th 2015
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50394

Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists following his participation in the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening! Or good night, if we’re talking in Moscow time. Please, go ahead.

Question: Mr President, could you please share your first impressions of your visit? How do you like New York? What are your thoughts on the speeches by the world leaders?

Vladimir Putin: As you can understand, I didn’t get to see New York at all; I went straight from the airport to the UN headquarters. During the drive, I was talking with our UN representative, so unfortunately, I did not see New York. It’s too bad, of course – it’s a large, great city.

As for the leaders’ speeches, from what I was able to hear, I thought they were very constructive; the problems were raised in a timely, sincere and deep way. I think that although events like this are celebratory, they are nevertheless very useful for current global politics.

Question: Mr President, I suppose my question about your meeting with Barack Obama is not very original; the meeting lasted longer than planned. How would you describe the current state of relations between Russian and the United States? How do you assess the possibility of dialogue with the United States on Syria and Ukraine? And, accordingly, ahead of the October 2 meeting in Paris, do you feel it’s possible for the United States to play a major role in settling the Ukrainian crisis?

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, the relations between Russia and the United States are at a fairly low level; this is clear without any comments from me. But it was not our initiative to cause such a slump in relations between Russia and the United States. That is the position of our American partners. Is it good or is it bad? I think it is bad – both for bilateral relations and for global affairs. But that is the choice made by the United States. We are always prepared to develop contacts and restore full-scale relations.

As for today’s meeting, it was very useful and, what is particularly pleasant, it was very sincere. I think that our American partners explained their position quite clearly on many issues, including settling the situation in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the Middle East overall. Indeed, surprising as it may seem, we have many coinciding points and opinions about all these issues. We also have differences, which we have agreed to work on together. I hope that this work will be constructive.

As for the possibility of the United States’ more active participation in settling the Ukrainian conflict, the US is already participating quite actively, although it is not at the forefront like the work by Russia, France and Germany in the so-called Normandy format.

Nevertheless, the United States stands behind the Kiev authorities to a certain extent and they are in constant contact with the Europeans. However, Russia and the United States have established good regular working contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the State Department. And today’s consultations showed that our American colleagues are fully involved and they do, of course, have an impact on this process.

Question: Mr President, the United States, France and Australia are actively making airstrikes at ISIS, unsanctioned by the UN Security Council. Has anybody asked us to join in these airstrikes? Especially considering the reports that Russian aircraft are already in Syria.

Vladimir Putin: We did speak about this today: combat aircraft from Australia, France and the United States are dealing missile and bomb attacks not only at ISIS formations on the territory of Iraq, which is technically understandable from the point of view of international law because there was a request from the Iraqi Government.

Regarding Syrian territory, this is illegal; this is also something we spoke about today. There is neither a Security Council resolution on the issue, nor a corresponding request from the official authorities in Damascus. We have discussed this. As for our involvement, we are considering it. We do not rule out anything, but if we do act, this will be in strict compliance with the norms of international law.

Question: Mr President, you had many bilateral meetings today. It seemed to us many of them were not scheduled, or at least not announced. Could your talks today mean that the isolation that the United States had a hand in has failed?

And my second question: Petro Poroshenko demonstratively led his delegation out of the hall during your address. Could you have insulted him in any way? How would you comment on this?

Vladimir Putin: Firstly, I never get personal. Never, because practice and experience show that personal contacts can always come in handy when settling relations between states or in resolving issues that affect millions of people. Therefore, one should leave any personal ambitions to himself, for safekeeping. This is one thing.

The other is that I did not notice that the Ukrainian President was absent during my address.

Third, it was not really that important for me to see everyone without exception there. Moreover, those who do not find it interesting do not have to be there.

You began with the failure. You know, from the start we have been saying that the policy of sanctions and isolation in general is ineffective in the modern world and does not usually reach its goals. This is practically impossible regarding a country like Russia. It is enough to simply look at its geographical map.

Question: Good evening, Mr President. It has been reported recently that Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria have set up an information centre in Baghdad to exchange information about their actions in the region. Could you tell us in greater detail about the purpose of the centre?

Could any other country join it? Did any of the leaders express such a desire during your meetings here at the General Assembly? Generally, could you expand on Russia’s plans to cooperate or coordinate its activities with the United States, for instance, in Syria?

Vladimir Putin: We have already said that the information centre set up in Baghdad, in Iraq, is open to representatives of all countries that are interested in combatting terrorism. The purpose is to coordinate the efforts of the regional states in their fight against ISIS and other terrorist organisations.

What does this imply? It does not imply a command centre and combat action headed by it, of course, but at least coordination of efforts. Look what is happening: your colleague asked about airstrikes dealt at ISIS on Syrian territory by representatives of various states. These include Australia and the United States, and France has now joined them. What is the outcome? A few days ago, our military have calculated that US aviation made 43 strikes at Syrian territory within 24 hours. What is the result? Nobody knows if there is any.

If we set ourselves the target of resolving specific issues and achieving specific goals, this work should be coordinated in order to be successful. The centre was set up to coordinate efforts. I would like to repeat that it has been set up for all who are interested in combatting terrorism to join in.

We have just been talking about interaction between the United States and Russia on this anti-terrorist track, as diplomats say. We have an understanding that there is a need to at least enhance our bilateral efforts. We will now jointly consider the creation of appropriate mechanisms.

Question: Mr President, you said bilateral efforts – does this mean between Russia and Syria?

Vladimir Putin: Between Russia and the United States.

Question: How do you see Russia’s actions in this situation in its joint efforts with Syria to combat the Islamic State and terrorist organisations: would these also be airstrikes or is there a need for land-based operations?

Iranian President Rouhani said, as you do, that airstrikes are ineffective and called for an operation on land. Is Russia ready to send troops there? Did you speak with Barack Obama about these aspects and some specifics of military cooperation in this region to combat this threat?

Vladimir Putin: President Obama and I discussed various aspects of a settlement in Syria in general and combatting terrorist organisations on that country’s territory in particular.

As for Russia’s participation in these efforts, we are considering what we could do additionally to support those who are on the ground, as it were, resisting and fighting terrorists, including ISIS. These are not many: on Syrian territory, this is primarily the Syrian army and Kurdish resistance units, as I said in my address.

We are considering what kind of additional support we could give to the Syrian army in fighting terrorism. I would like to stress that we believe that these anti-terrorist efforts should be made alongside political processes within Syria. No land operations or participation of Russian army units has ever been considered or ever could be.

Question: Since we are talking about Syria, I would like to ask you to clarify a few things. In their speeches here both Barack Obama and Francois Hollande said that for them the figure of Bashar al-Assad is absolutely unacceptable. You, in turn, said that this army is actually resisting terrorism and we should work with al-Assad not because he is good or bad, but because his army, his pro-Assad resistance is working. Have you eventually agreed on anything? What will happen to al-Assad next? Will Russia support him in any way? Are there any connections here?

And another question: you completely rule out land operations, but there is a feeling that we might take part in an air operation. Do you not fear what they call friendly fire, when all sorts of craft are flying around there, the French and so forth? Will there be some appropriate coordinating centre here?

Vladimir Putin: I have already said that coordination is necessary in any case, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that pursuant to the UN Charter and international law one can fly over a country’s territory, moreover, conduct airstrikes, only either under Article 7 of the United Nations Charter and given a UN Security Council Resolution, or by invitation from the country’s government. Therefore, any other actions, even taken to combat terrorist organisations, cannot actually be considered legal. This is one thing.

The other is, I repeat, that there needs to be some informational coordination in any case.

Regarding al-Assad. I have great respect for my colleagues – both the American President, and the French President – however, as far as I know they are not citizens of the Syrian Republic and therefore should not take part in determining the future of another state’s leadership. This is the Syrians’ business.

However, this is a deep conflict, and a bloody one, unfortunately, which is why I said that alongside support to the official authorities in their struggle against terrorism we would insist on political reform and a political process to be conducted at the same time. As far as I know, President al-Assad agrees with this. He said so directly in his recent interview with the Russian media.

Question: I also have a question on coordination. We have already mentioned countries here whose structures are coordinating efforts to combat ISIS. Quite a few of them have been set up in the past few weeks. Thus, you had talks with your Israeli colleague, President Netanyahu, and agreed that our military, in this case, would coordinate efforts at General Staff level. Will this structure with the Israelis be separate or will it be coordinated with the other mechanisms that are being set up now?

Vladimir Putin: First, this is not a structure, simply cooperation between military agencies, General Staffs, to be more specific. Israel is a regional nation in the sense that it is located in that region. We should, naturally, respect the interests of the Israeli state, and Israel cares what is going on in that country.

At the same time, there are things that cause certain concern, that have to do with the airstrikes at Syrian territory. This should all be considered by experts, and this will be done without setting up any bilateral structures.

Question: Mr President, in your address at the General Assembly today you spoke of a coalition to combat terrorists and compared it to the anti-Hitler coalition, which is naturally very important for our country. At the same time, you did not mention any country in this possible coalition. Would it be correct to say that when you spoke with President Obama now you discussed bilateral relations in combatting terrorism?

Vladimir Putin: So far, yes.

Question: However, speaking of regional nations, would you consider the possibility of Iran, Saudi Arabia or Egypt being part of this coalition? What set of countries do you think could join the coalition and would mainly be interested in it?

Vladimir Putin: Primarily these would be the regional countries, of course, and you have listed almost all of them: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan – all who are interested in combatting the terrorist threat.

As for the comparison with the Nazis, I believe this was no surprise to anyone. Look at what they are doing, at their atrocities: they are beheading people, burning them alive, destroying monuments of world culture and so forth. Doesn’t a comparison with the Nazis come natural here? This is exactly what the Nazis did in their time. Therefore, there is nothing surprising here. I would very much like for us to understand this and bring as many countries as possible together to fight this threat.

Question: The last time you had proper talks with Barack Obama was in 2013. Two years have passed, and many things have happened in those years. If you compare the atmosphere at the talks then and now – how has it changed? Maybe it was more difficult to talk, or, on the contrary, considering you did not speak for two years, it was easier, more constructive? And my second question…

Vladimir Putin: Let me answer the first one. I do not remember the atmosphere in 2013. We are very busy. I don’t think Barack remembers it either, you see.

However, our conversation today, as I said, was very constructive, businesslike and surprisingly very frank. We found many things we shared, but there are also differences. Generally, everyone knows them and there is no need to go over them. In my view, there is a possibility to work together on common issues.

Question: My final question, if I may. Only two days before your trip here a White House spokesperson said the Russian President, the Russian side was actively working to arrange a meeting with the US President.

Your aide Yuri Ushakov said this was not so. I would like to hear from you how the meeting with Barack Obama was arranged. Who was the initiator, how did it all happen?

Vladimir Putin: Our American partners suggested we have the meeting, as my aide said. I believe they suggested two possible time slots, and we chose one. That is all.

Remark: This was in September, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, just the other day.

Remark: So you did not request this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: She just won’t let go. (Laughter)

You said the US President and I did not speak for two years or something. This is not so. We did speak: we had telephone conversations and met at international venues, met briefly, but discussed all the key issues of both bilateral relations and international affairs.

Therefore, the fact we did not have such publicised meetings does not mean we did not communicate. We never broke off contacts. There should be no concern over this and no speculations.

Question: Mr President, are you generally satisfied with the results of your visit?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it was very intensive and very useful, I must say. Such events are beneficial because you make many contacts, often of an informal nature, but they are very productive because there is no need to stick to protocol: you directly address issues of either mutual or global interest. In this sense, the visit was very useful.

Question: Not on politics: the UN has issued a photograph from the official luncheon hosted by the UN Secretary-General to mark the 70th anniversary. It is a photo of you and President Obama greeting each other with raised glasses. But Ban Ki-moon’s chair is empty. What happened to Ban Ki-moon? Did he go away to leave you tete-a-tete? And what were you toasting? What did you raise your glasses to?

Vladimir Putin: You press people never stop too amaze me – I love your spontaneity (Laughter). The glasses were raised to a toast made by the UN Secretary-General, and he was at the stand. The President of the United States, being a polite person, simply raised his glass and we toasted the Secretary-General’s health and the development of the UN.

Now you are trying to make something out of it that has nothing to do with reality. There was nothing behind it; this was a protocol event, that is all. The conversation we had, however, was, as I have said, very constructive, substantive and, in my opinion, very frank.

Thank you. All the best.