February 2024
Т. CARLSON (as translated): Mr. President, thank you very much.
On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country and your nation when the conflict in Ukraine began. You said that you had acted because you had come to the conclusion that, with NATO’s help, the United States could launch a surprise attack, an attack on your country. For Americans, this is akin to paranoia.
Why do you think America could have launched a surprise attack against Russia? How did you come to this conclusion?
V. Putin: It’s not that America was going to launch a surprise attack against Russia, I didn’t say that.
Is this a talk show or a serious conversation?
Т. Carlson: That’s an excellent quote. Thank you very much.
We’re having a serious conversation.
V. Putin: Your basic training is historical, as I understand it, isn’t it?
Т. Carlson: Yes.
V. Putin: Then I’ll take the liberty – just 30 seconds or a minute – of doing a bit of history. Do you mind?
Т. Carlson: Please, of course.
V. Putin: Look, where did our relations with Ukraine begin, where did Ukraine come from?
The Russian state began to form as a centralized state, we consider the year of the creation of the Russian state to be 862, when the Novgorodians (there’s a town called Novgorod in the northwest of the country) invited Prince Riourik of Scandinavia, of the Varègues, to rule. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000th anniversary of its existence as a state, and in Novgorod there is a monument dedicated to the country’s 1000th anniversary.
In 882, Ryurik’s successor, Prince Oleg, who was actually acting as regent for Ryurik’s infant son, and Ryurik died at that time, arrived in Kiev. Oleg removed from power two brothers who, it seems, had once been part of Ryurik’s retinue, and so Russia began to develop, with two centers: Kiev and Novgorod.
The next important date in Russian history is 988. It was the baptism of Russia when Prince Vladimir, great-grandson of Ryurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy – Eastern Christianity. It was from this date that the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why did it do so? A unified territory, standardized economic communications, a single language and, after Russia’s baptism, a single creed and the authority of the prince. The centralized Russian state began to take shape.
But for various reasons, after the introduction of the rules of succession to the throne – also in the Middle Ages – by Yaroslav the Wise, a little later, after his death, succession to the throne was complicated, not transferred directly from father to eldest son, but from the deceased prince to his brother, then to his sons in different lineages. All this led to the fragmentation of Russia, which had begun to take shape as a single state. There’s nothing special about that; the same thing happened in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became easy prey for the empire created by Genghis Khan. His successors, the Khan Batyi, came to Russia, plundered almost all the cities and reduced them to ruins. The southern part, where Kiev and other cities were located, simply lost its independence, while the northern cities retained some of their sovereignty. They paid tribute to the Horde, but retained part of their sovereignty. Then, with Moscow at its center, the united Russian state began to take shape.
The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev, gradually began to be attracted by another “magnet” – this center that was forming in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called “Lithuanian-Russian”, because Russians were an important part of this state. They spoke Old Russian and were Orthodox. Then came unification – the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another union was signed, already in the spiritual sphere, and some of the Orthodox priests submitted to the authority of the Pope. Thus, these lands became an integral part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.
But for decades, the Poles indulged in the polonization of this part of the population: they introduced their language, began to introduce the idea that they were not quite Russians, that since they lived near [U] the border [krai], they were Ukrainians. Originally, the word “Ukrainian” meant that a person lived on the outskirts of the state, “near the border”, or was engaged in border service, in fact. It did not refer to any particular ethnic group.
So the Poles did everything they could to polonize this part of Russian land, and in fact treated it rather harshly, even cruelly. As a result, these regions began to fight for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw, demanding that their rights be respected, so that people would be sent here, including to Kiev…..
Т. Carlson: When did this happen, in what years?
V. Putin: It was in the 13th century.
I’ll tell you what happened next, and I’ll give you the dates so there’s no confusion.
In 1654, a little earlier, the people who controlled power in this part of the Russian lands approached Warsaw, asking to be sent people of Russian origin and of the Orthodox faith. And when Warsaw didn’t respond and practically rejected these requests, they began to turn to Moscow to get Moscow to send them.
So that you don’t think I’ve made something up, I’ll give you these documents…..
Т. Carlson: I don’t think you’ve made anything up, no.
V. Putin: And yet, these are archival documents, copies. These are the letters of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled power in that part of the Russian lands we now call Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw to demand their rights and, after being refused, he began writing to Moscow to ask them to place them under the rule of the Tsar of Moscow. Here [in the file] are copies of these documents. I leave them with you as a souvenir. There’s a Russian translation, and later you can translate them into English.
Russia did not accept these documents immediately, fearing war with Poland. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor (the body representing the authority of the former Russian state) took a decision: this part of the former Russian lands became part of the Kingdom of Moscow.
Unsurprisingly, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, before an armistice was signed. And it was only after the conclusion of this act in 1654 – after 32 years, I believe – that peace with Poland was achieved, an “eternal peace”, as they used to say in those days. These lands, the entire left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, passed to Russia, and the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained with Poland.
Then, in the time of Catherine II, Russia returned all its historic lands, including the south and west. All this lasted until the revolution. On the eve of the First World War, taking advantage of these ideas of Ukrainization, the Austrian General Staff began to very actively promote the idea of Ukraine and Ukrainization. It’s easy to see why: because, as the world war approached, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and create favorable conditions in the border zone. And this idea, born in Poland, that the inhabitants of this territory were not quite Russian, but constituted a particular ethnic group, the Ukrainians, began to be promoted by the Austrian General Staff.
Ukrainian independence theorists appeared as early as the 19th century, speaking of the need for Ukrainian independence. However, all these “pillars” of Ukrainian independence insisted on the need to maintain very good relations with Russia. Nevertheless, after the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks attempted to restore state sovereignty, a civil war ensued, including [the war] with Poland. A peace with Poland was signed in 1921, whereby the western part, on the right bank of the Dnieper, reverted to Poland.
In 1939, after Poland had cooperated with Hitler, because Poland did cooperate with Hitler, Hitler proposed (we have all the documents in our archives) to make peace with Poland, a treaty of friendship and alliance, but demanded that Poland return to Germany what is known as the Danzig corridor, which linked the main part of Germany to Königsberg and East Prussia. After the First World War, this part of the territory was ceded to Poland, and the city of Gdansk replaced Danzig. Hitler asked them to cede it peacefully, which the Poles refused. Nevertheless, they cooperated with Hitler and took part together in the partition of Czechoslovakia.
Т. Carlson: Can I ask you a question? You say that part of Ukraine has actually been Russian land for hundreds of years. Why didn’t you take them 24 years ago, when you became president? You had weapons. Why did you wait so long?
V. Putin: I’ll tell you, I’m just finishing this historical account. It may be boring, but it explains a lot.
Т. Carlson: It’s not boring, no.
V. Putin: Good. So I’m very happy that you enjoyed it so much. Thank you very much.
Before the Second World War, when Poland was cooperating with Germany, refusing to meet Hitler’s demands, but nevertheless participating with Hitler in the division of Czechoslovakia, because it wouldn’t give up the Danzig corridor, the Poles forced, they played their games and forced Hitler to start the Second World War from there. Why did Poland go to war on September 1, 1939? It wasn’t cooperative. Hitler had no choice but to start implementing his plans with Poland.
Incidentally, the Soviet Union – I’ve read the archive documents – behaved very honestly, and the Soviet Union asked Poland for permission to send its troops to help Czechoslovakia. But the Polish Foreign Minister at the time declared that even if Soviet planes flew towards Czechoslovakia through Polish territory, they would be shot down over Polish territory. Well, that’s not important. What’s important is that the war started and Poland itself became a victim of the policy it had pursued towards Czechoslovakia, because according to the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols, part of these territories went to Russia, including western Ukraine. Russia, under the name “Soviet Union”, thus regained its historic territories.
After the victory of the Great Patriotic War, as we call the Second World War, all these territories were finally allocated to Russia, to the Soviet Union. And Poland, by way of compensation, we have to assume, received the western territories, originally German: the eastern part of Germany, part of the land, these are the western districts of today’s Poland. And, of course, it regained access to the Baltic Sea, it regained Danzig, which regained its Polish name. That’s how this situation came about.
When the Soviet Union was formed in 1922, the Bolsheviks began to form the USSR and created Soviet Ukraine, which hadn’t existed at all until then.
Т. Carlson: That’s right.
V. Putin: At the same time, Stalin insisted that these newly-forming republics be included as autonomous entities, but for some unknown reason, the founder of the Soviet state, Lenin, insisted that they had the right to leave the Soviet Union. And, again for reasons unknown, he endowed Soviet Ukraine with land, with people living on these territories, even though they had never been called Ukraine before, for whatever reason, when it was formed, all this was “injected” into the Ukrainian SSR, including the whole Black Sea coast, which was received in the time of Catherine II and which, in fact, never had any historical relationship with Ukraine.
Even if we remember 1654, when these territories were attached to the Russian Empire, there were three or four regions of today’s Ukraine, but no Black Sea region. There was simply nothing to object to.
Т. Carlson: In 1654?
V. Putin: Yes, exactly.
Т. Carlson: You have encyclopedic knowledge. But why didn’t you talk about it for the first 22 years of your presidency?
V. Putin: Soviet Ukraine received a large number of territories that never had anything to do with it, first of all the Black Sea coast. These territories used to be called Novorossiya when Russia obtained them following the Russo-Turkish wars. But that’s not important. What is important is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, created Ukraine exactly like that. The Ukrainian SSR therefore developed over many decades within the USSR, and the Bolsheviks, also for unknown reasons, embarked on Ukrainization. Not only because there were native Ukrainians at the head of the Soviet Union, but also because such a policy existed in general – it was called “indigenization”. It concerned the Ukraine and other republics of the Union. National languages and cultures were introduced, which in principle was not a bad thing. But that’s how Soviet Ukraine was created.
After the Second World War, Ukraine received part of the pre-war Polish territories – now Western Ukraine -, part of the Hungarian territories and part of the Romanian territories. Romania and Hungary also saw part of their territories integrated into Soviet Ukraine, and these are still there today. Consequently, we have every reason to say that Ukraine is, in a certain sense, an artificial state created by Stalin’s will.
Т. Carlson: And do you think Hungary has the right to take back its land? Can other nations take back their lands and perhaps return Ukraine to the borders of 1654?
V. Putin: I don’t know how to get back to the borders of 1654. The era of Stalin’s reign is called the Stalinist regime, and everyone talks about the fact that there were many violations of human rights, violations of the rights of other states. In this sense, of course, it’s quite possible, if not to say that they have the right to do so – to take back these lands that are theirs, so, at least, it’s understandable….
Т. Carlson: Did you tell Orban that he could have some of the Ukrainian land back?
V. Putin: I never did. Never, not once. He and I haven’t even had a conversation about it. But I know for a fact that the Hungarians living there want their historic homeland back.
Incidentally, I’m going to tell you a very interesting story, I’ll digress for a moment, it’s a personal story. In the early 80s, I left Leningrad, St. Petersburg, by car, to cross the Soviet Union via Kiev, stopping off in Kiev and then heading for western Ukraine. I entered a town called Beregovo, and all the names of the towns and villages are in Russian and Hungarian, a language I don’t understand. In Russian and Hungarian. Not Ukrainian, but Russian and Hungarian.
I was passing through a village, and men in black three-piece suits and black top hats were sitting near the houses. I asked if they were entertainers. I was told: no, they’re not entertainers, they’re Hungarians. I said, “What are they doing here?”. “This is their land, they live here”. All the names in Hungarian! In Soviet times, in the 80s. They keep the Hungarian language, the names, all the national costumes. They are Hungarian and feel Hungarian. And of course, when there’s a violation…..
Т. Carlson: Yes, I think there’s a lot of that. It’s likely that many countries are unhappy with the border changes of the 20th century and before. But the fact is, you didn’t say anything like that before, until February 2022. And you talked about the fact that you felt physically threatened by NATO, in particular by the nuclear threat, which prompted you to act. Did I understand you correctly?
V. Putin: I understand that my long dialogues are probably not part of the interview genre. That’s why I asked you at the beginning: are we going to have a serious conversation or a show? You answered “a serious conversation”. So, please, don’t be offended.
We’ve come as far as the creation of Soviet Ukraine. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything Ukraine had received as a gift from Russia, generously offered, it took with it.
This brings me to a very important point in this conversation. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was initiated by the Russian leadership. I don’t know what guided the Russian leaders at the time, but I suspect they had several reasons for thinking that everything would work out.
Firstly, I think the Russian leaders were relying on the foundations of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine. Indeed, a common language – 90% of the population speak Russian -, family ties – one in three people have family or friendship ties -, a common culture, a common history and, last but not least, a common religion, the fact of having been in the same state for centuries, a highly interconnected economy – all these elements are fundamental. All these elements underpin the inevitability of our good relations.
The second thing is very important, and I want you, as an American citizen, and your viewers to hear it too: previous Russian leaders assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, that there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia willingly and proactively went along with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and assumed that this would be understood by the so-called – already in quotation marks – “civilized West” as a proposal for cooperation and alliance. This is what Russia expected from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.
There were intelligent people, including in Germany. Egon Bahr, an important politician in the Social Democratic Party, personally insisted in his conversations with Soviet leaders before the collapse of the Soviet Union on the need to create a new security system in Europe. It was necessary to help Germany unite, but also to create a new system including the USA, Canada, Russia and other Central European countries. And NATO was not to be allowed to expand. That’s what he said: if NATO expands, everything will be like it was during the Cold War, but closer to Russia’s borders. That’s all he said. An intelligent man. Nobody listened to him. In fact, he got angry once (we also have this conversation in our archives): if, he said, you don’t listen to me, I’ll never come to Moscow again. He was angry with the Soviet leadership. He was right, everything happened as he said it would.
Т. Carlson: Yes, of course, his words came true, you’ve mentioned this many times, I think it’s absolutely true. And many people in the United States also thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be normal after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, the opposite has happened.
But you’ve never explained why you think all this happened, why it happened at all. Yes, the West may be afraid of a strong Russia, but it’s not afraid of a strong China.
V. Putin: The West is more afraid of a strong China than a strong Russia, because Russia has 150 million inhabitants and China 1.5 billion, and China’s economy is growing at a breakneck pace – five and a half percent a year, sometimes even more. But that’s enough for China. Bismarck once said: potential is everything. China’s potential is colossal; it is now the world’s leading economy in terms of purchasing power parity and economic volume. It overtook the United States some time ago, and the pace is accelerating.
We’re not going to talk about who’s afraid of whom, we’re not going to talk in those categories. Instead, let’s talk about the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected to be integrated into the fraternal family of “civilized nations”, nothing of the sort happened. You deceived us – when I say “you”, I don’t mean you personally, of course, but the United States – you promised us that there would be no expansion of NATO eastwards, but it happened five times, five waves of expansion. We put up with everything, we tried to persuade them, we said: don’t do it, we’re one of you now, as we say back home, we’re bourgeois, we have a market economy, we don’t have the power of the Communist Party, let’s reach an agreement.
What’s more, I’ve also said it publicly – let’s take Yeltsin’s time now – there was a moment when “a gray cat passed between us”. Before that, Yeltsin had been to the United States, remember, he had addressed Congress and said those wonderful words: “God bless America”. He said it all, they were signals: let us in.
No, when the events in Yugoslavia started… Before that, Yeltsin was cajoled and praised – as soon as the events in Yugoslavia started and he raised his voice for the Serbs, and we couldn’t help raising our voice in favor of the Serbs, in defense of them… I understand that there were complicated processes there, I understand. But Russia couldn’t help but raise its voice for the Serbs, because the Serbs are also a special nation, close to us, with an Orthodox culture and so on. They are a people who have been suffering for generations. What matters is that Yeltsin spoke out in favor of Serbia. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, it began bombing Belgrade.
The United States let the genie out of the bottle. By the way, when Russia objected and expressed its indignation, what was said? The UN Charter and international law are obsolete. Today, everyone refers to international law, but at the time, people were beginning to say that everything was outdated, that everything had to be changed.
Indeed, some things do need changing, because the balance of power has changed, it’s true, but not in this way. Yes, in fact, they immediately started to denigrate Yeltsin, saying that he was an alcoholic, that he didn’t understand anything, that he didn’t make sense. But he understood, and understood well, I assure you.
Well, I became president in 2000. I said to myself: okay, the Yugoslav question is settled, we must try to re-establish relations, to open the door through which Russia was trying to pass. And by the way, I’ve already spoken about this publicly, I can repeat it, at a meeting here in the Kremlin with Bill Clinton at the end of his term of office – right here in the next room – I said to him, I asked him a question: listen, Bill, what do you think, if Russia raised the question of NATO membership, do you think it would be possible? Suddenly, he said: you know, it’s interesting, I think so. And in the evening, when we met him at dinner, he said: you know, I’ve talked to my team – no, it’s not possible now. You can ask him, I think he’ll hear our interview – he’ll confirm it. I would never say something like that if it wasn’t the case. OK, it’s not possible now.
Т. Carlson: Were you sincere back then? Would you have joined NATO?
V. Putin: Look, I asked the question: is it possible or not? And the answer was no. If I were not sincere in my desire to know the position of the leaders…..
Т. Carlson: And if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?
V. Putin: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have begun, and eventually it could have taken place if we had seen the partners’ sincere desire to do so. But that’s not what happened. Well, if it’s no it’s no, all right, fine.
Т. Carlson: How do you think it happened? What were the reasons? I understand you’re bitter about it, I do. But why do you think the West rejected you so much? Where does this hostility come from? Why haven’t relations improved? What were the reasons, from your point of view?
V. Putin: You said I was bitter about their response. No, it’s not bitterness, it’s just an observation. We’re not a married couple, and bitterness and resentment are not sentiments you find in such cases. We just realized that we weren’t welcome, that’s all. Well, well. But let’s build relationships in a different way, let’s look for common ground. You should ask your superiors why we received such a negative response. I can only guess why: too big a country with its own opinions and so on. And the USA – I’ve seen how problems are solved at NATO….
I’ll give you another example, concerning Ukraine. American leaders “push” – and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they don’t always like it. I’ll tell you what happened to Ukraine in 2008, although that’s up for debate, so I won’t tell you anything new here.
Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, during the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we established relations with the United States with great courtesy and calm.
I have repeatedly raised the question of whether the United States should support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But it has continued to do so. The United States and its satellites have provided political support, information support, financial support and even military support to terrorist formations in the Caucasus.
I once raised this issue with my colleague, the President of the United States. He said to me: that’s not possible, do you have any proof? I replied: yes. I was ready for this conversation and I gave him this evidence. He looked at it and you know what he said? I’m sorry, but it was like this, I’m quoting verbatim, he said: well, I’m going to kick their asses. We waited and waited for an answer, but there was no answer.
I said to the FSB director: write to the CIA, did you get any results from the conversation with the president? I wrote once, twice, and then we received a reply. We have the answer in the archives. The CIA replied: we’ve been working with the opposition in Russia; we think it’s a good thing and we’ll continue to work with the opposition. Funny. Finally. We understood that there would be no conversation.
Т. Carlson: The opposition against you?
V. Putin: In this case it was the separatists of course, the terrorists who fought against us in the Caucasus. That’s what they were talking about. They called it the opposition. That’s the second point.
The third point, which is very important, is the creation of the American missile defense system in the first place. For a long time, we tried to persuade the United States not to do it. In fact, after being invited by Bush Junior’s father, Bush Senior, to visit him abroad, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I suggested that the USA, Russia and Europe should together create a missile defense system, which we believe is now being created unilaterally and threatens our security, although the USA has officially stated that it is being created to counter missile threats from Iran. This is also the raison d’être of the missile defense system. I suggested that we should work in threes – Russia, the USA and Europe. They told me it was very interesting. They asked me: are you serious? I replied: absolutely.
Т. Carlson: When was that, in what year?
V. Putin: I don’t remember. It’s easy to find out on the Internet when I was in the United States at Bush Sr.’s invitation. It’s even easier to find out now, I’ll tell you from whom.
I was told: that’s very interesting. I said: imagine if we worked together on such a strategic global security challenge. The world would change. We would probably have differences, probably economic and even political, but we would radically change the world situation. I’m told [in response]: yes. They ask me: are you serious? I answer: of course. You have to think about it, they say. I replied: please.
Then Secretary of Defense Gates, a former CIA director, and Secretary of State Rice came here, to this office where we’re talking to you right now. Right here, at this table, on the other side of the table, you see this table, they sat on this side. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense Minister – on the other. They said: “yes, we’ve thought about it, we agree”. I said: thank God, that’s fine. – “But with a few exceptions”.
Т. Carlson: So you described twice how American presidents made decisions that their teams then derailed?
V. Putin: Exactly. In the end, of course, we were sent packing. I won’t give you the details, because I think it’s incorrect, because it was a confidential conversation. But the fact that our proposal was rejected is a fact.
That’s when I said: “Listen, but then we’ll be forced to take retaliatory measures. We will create strike systems that will certainly defeat the missile defense system”. The answer was: we’re not doing this against you, and you do what you want, as long as it’s not against us, not against the United States. I said: okay. And we did. We’ve created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we’re continuing to develop them. Today, we’re ahead of all the other countries when it comes to creating hypersonic strike systems: the United States and other countries, and we’re improving them every day.
But it wasn’t us who did it, we proposed a different path and were rejected.
On the subject of NATO expansion to the east, they promised: no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told. And then what happened? They said: “Well, it’s not fixed on paper, so we’ll expand”. Five enlargements, they included the Baltic States, the whole of Eastern Europe, etc.
Now to the main point: they’ve reached Ukraine. In 2008, at the Bucharest summit, they declared that the doors of NATO were open to Ukraine and Georgia.
Now let’s see how decisions are made there. Germany and France seemed to oppose it, as did other European countries. But then, President Bush, who is, isn’t he, such a hard man, such a hard politician, as I was told later: he put pressure on, and we [French and German] had to agree. It’s funny, it’s like being in kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kind of kindergarten is this, what kind of people are they, who are they? You see, they’ve been “pressured”, they’ve agreed. Then they say: “Ukraine won’t be part of NATO”. I say: I don’t know; I know you agreed in 2008, but why won’t you in the future? “Well, they forced us”. I say: why don’t they press you tomorrow to accept again? It’s all nonsense. I don’t understand who to talk to. We’re ready to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? There are none.
So they’ve started to “condition” Ukraine’s territory. Anyway, I’ve told you the story, how this territory developed, what kind of relations it had with Russia. Every second or third person has always had ties with Russia. And during the elections in the independent and sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence thanks to the Declaration of Independence, which says, by the way, that Ukraine is a neutral state, in 2008, the doors of NATO suddenly opened before it. It’s an interesting film! We disagreed on this point. So, every president who has come to power in Ukraine has relied on an electorate that, in one way or another, was sympathetic to Russia. We’re talking about southeastern Ukraine, a large number of people. And it was very difficult to “break” this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia.
Viktor Yanukovych came to power, and here’s how: the first time he won after President Kuchma – they organized a third round, which is not provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine. It was a coup d’état. Check this out: there’s someone who didn’t like it, in the United States.
Т. Carlson: In 2014.
V. Putin: No, that was before. No, no, it was earlier. After President Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. But his opponents didn’t recognize this victory, the United States supported the opposition, and a third round was scheduled. Can you imagine? It was a coup d’état. The United States supported him, and he [Viktor Yushchenko] came to power as a result of the third round… Imagine if someone in the United States didn’t like something – they organized a third round, which is not provided for in the American Constitution. But they did it there [in Ukraine] anyway. Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered a pro-Western politician, came to power. Okay, but we also established relations with him, he went to Moscow for visits, we went to Kiev, and I went too. We met in an informal atmosphere. He was pro-Western – well, okay. Let them do it, but let people work. The situation should evolve internally, in Ukraine itself. After running the country, the situation deteriorated and Viktor Yanukovych came to power.
He may not have been the best president or the best politician – I don’t know, I don’t want to make an assessment – but the question of association with the European Union was raised. We’ve always been very loyal to the European Union: it’s up to you. But when we read this association agreement, it turned out to be a problem for us, because we have a free trade zone with Ukraine, open customs borders, and Ukraine was supposed to open its borders to Europe as part of this association, and everything would have flowed to our market.
Labour Affairs 