The New York Times
October 5, 2003

Excerpts from an interview with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, as transcribed and translated by The New York Times.

Q.: Speaking about special services. The American special services and the White House had a number of surprises in Iraq. They were surprised that could not find any weapons of mass destruction. They were surprised that after the war all the fundamental institutions collapsed. And now there is a great debate in the U.S. about the quality of our intelligence. I am curious: Your country has had a long time relationship with Iraq and your special services paid attention to that country. Were you surprised by those things? By the absence of weapons of mass destruction and by the way the country sort of collapsed after the war?

Mr. Putin: The first thing I would like to say: I disagree with the critics who think that the U.S. special services displayed weakness and are not reliable. These are powerful and professional services. You know our attitude toward the war in Iraq and I have said it publicly. I said from the very beginning and still think that it is a mistake. This is why there is no surprise for us about the situation that has taken shape because we foresaw the development of the situation there just exactly as it is developing now. First of all, it deals with the political aspect, the collapse of the statehood, as you correctly mentioned. How could one imagine a different course of events in a case where the regime is dismantled? Of course, statehood is destroyed. How can it be otherwise?

What do the special services have to do with it? Of course, we always thought that there was a danger of the collapse of the state into separate components – its disintegration. And this is the danger we are facing right now. Of course, we know that the Saddam Hussein’s regime was not a liberal one, many called it a criminal one, and probably there were reasons for it, but it struggled against the fundamentalists. He either exterminated them physically or put them in jail or just sent them into exile. Now, there is no more Saddam and we witness on Iraq’s territory the infiltration of a great number of members of different terrorist organizations.

Q.: Which terrorist organizations?

Mr. Putin: From all Muslim world. Different fundamentalist organizations send their militants there. These organizations struggle against legitimate regimes in their own countries and in general oppose the entire civilized world in many regions of the planet: in Afghanistan, Iraq, in the Middle East, in our country, in other parts of the world. The coalition forces received two enemies at once both the remains of the Saddam regime who fight with them and those who Saddam himself had fought in the past – the fundamentalists. It is a difficult task to fight them efficiently. As for the weapons of mass destruction, in this respect we did not have any contradictions with the U.S. administration. We also thought that there might be weapons of mass destruction on the territory of Iraq. The question is what has happened to them? In this sense, it would be better if the armed forces and the special services knew in advance what was located where and would have seized these places during the first hours of the military operation. But if it did not happen, I would not like to blame or criticize anybody. I think we have to act differently. We have to unite efforts to do everything to neutralize these possible threats.

Q.: Now you have come to the heart of the matter. How specifically do we proceed in Iraq to neutralize that threat?

Mr. Putin: These specific threats or in general how to proceed in Iraq?

Q.: These specific threats or what we need to do in Iraq as a whole. And is Russia ready to help? And is Russia ready to send its troops if the U.N. sanctions it?

Mr. Putin: We think that Iraq’s problems can be efficiently solved only with involvement of the Iraqi people themselves. This task has to be solved with their participation and by their hands. But so that it would be efficient they have to believe in our serious intentions, in our desire to restore the sovereignty. This is why we think that the U.N.’s role has to be increased – not because we would like to diminish the significance of the United States, but in order to change the situation in Iraq itself. Make it clear for the Iraqi people that the situation is changing qualitatively. As of today, according to international law, the forces of the coalition are called the occupying ones. This corresponds to the fundamental documents of international law. Of course, how would the local population treat forces whose official name is the occupying forces? We need to change the status of these forces. We have to win the sympathies of the Iraqis. We have to get on our side the Muslim and Arab countries, whose mood toward a solution of the problem is very important.

Q.: How quickly can the status of the occupying force be changed, three months or what?

Mr. Putin: Formally, it can be changed very quickly if a corresponding U.N. resolution is adopted that defines the mandate of the international forces. They will turn into international forces. But along with this, in our view, in the Russian view, we have to stay on the realistic ground. We have to admit that the United States took up a huge responsibility in terms of both material and human losses. No matter how much we talk about the complexity of the situation, the coalition forces today are in fact the only military component.

Based on the situation in Chechnya since the mid-90’s, we know that once you allow for some vacuum of power, an uncontrollable development of events begins with very negative consequences. We think that it should necessarily be taken into consideration and we of course we will keep working at the acceptable resolution of the U.N. Security Council. We assume that in practice one has to be very accurate, bearing in mind the point I mentioned earlier. And this means that there should be some transition period. And transfer of power to the local authorities, including military structures, has to take place only when they become strong enough for this. We think that our position is very pragmatic and flexible.

You know my position. I think that these international forces could quite be headed by the United States, though far from all agree with this opinion of mine. But it is important for us that if this resolution is adopted, it should explicitly define this mandate of the international forces, the period of stay and all other formal matters, formal judicial matters that are envisaged if a resolution like this is adopted.

Now, about the possibility of sending our military contingent to Iraq: Before the adoption of the resolution, we do not even discuss this problem and this is why I cannot give a direct answer. But if you allow me, I would share few of my thoughts. Perhaps I will express aloud one thought of mine. It is not the answer to your question, it is just a conversation over tea. But this is something that deserves some thinking about. Of course, the more different types of contingents that are there, the broader the political base of support for the coalition forces will be. And this is very important, but there is nothing good in it from a military-technical point of view.

Even now these multinational, or I would call them, motley forces do not add anything good to the stabilization of the situation there. In order to act efficiently there, professionals are needed. There must be people who understand where they are, people who know the traditions of the local population and are capable of respecting these traditions, who are capable of finding and improving contacts, are capable of demonstrating their force and are capable of displaying big-heartedness. Today, according to information we have, these are poorly trained military formations, which think about fleeing as soon as possible, about being replaced as often as possible every three or four months. Then new untrained people come and commit the same mistakes for the third of fourth time.

Q.: What contingents … The Polish? The Mongolian?

Mr. Putin: Different countries of the coalition. I will not name them. You know them better than I do. Some abuse alcohol. Some write slogans offending and insulting local people and cause multithousand rallies and demonstrations against the coalition forces. The third begin to sell weapons. In general, multinational forces are good politically, but there is nothing good in it from the military point of view. This is why I think that the Americans could very well be put at the head of the forces of the international coalition because unity of command is needed. But as of now, there is a political drawback here that the local people are not very enthusiastic about presence of the U.S. military. I think that in order to improve it, we need patience and coordination of all the forces.

Q.: Do you anticipate that the American forces will have to be the predominant force there for considerable time?

Mr. Putin: It is difficult to answer this question now. Everything will depend on how the situation will develop. But I do not rule this out.

Q.: Are there any specific ways that you can imagine Russia lending assistance to the solution of the problem in Iraq?

Mr. Putin: I have just formulated my position.

Q.: I don’t mean just by sending troops. Are there other ways?

Mr. Putin: Yes, of course. We have large experience of cooperation with Iraq for decades. Many enterprises were built thanks to the Soviet and Russian economic assistance. To large extent, it is our outdated equipment. There is some more modern equipment. At least we have good experience dealing with the people of Iraq. There is a high degree of trust between our experts and their colleagues with whom they worked in nonpolitical spheres: economy, transport, oil production. Of course, we could take part in restoration of Iraq ourselves and get the Iraqi experts involved in it, activate their work in bringing order, the rebirth of the country and the creation of a normal situation there. We could take part in the experts’ training. I mean, we do not have acute contradictions with the United States and we could play a positive role in the preparation and working out of international solutions, including within a U.N. framework.

Moreover, the main partners of the United States, including those in Europe, do not want to broaden the split that formed between the United States and its traditional allies as the result of the Iraqi conflict. They would like to bridge this split and move ahead.

Q.: Do you see a parallel between the American situation in Iraq and the Soviet situation in Afghanistan?

Mr. Putin: I think that drawing historical parallels is vulnerable. The Soviet Union tried to improve the situation in Afghanistan. It was not very bad, but it decided to improve it and improved it with the help of war for 10 years. The United States began a military operation against a regime that had in fact opposed the international community for a long period of time. And this represents a great qualitative difference. Besides this, it was a regime that did not show any desire to change its nature, that was not inclined to compromises. And even our direct efforts to exert direct pressure on Saddam did not produce any results. This is why I would not put on the same plane the actions of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and actions of the United States in Iraq.

Q.: Can it happen that America will get bogged down there for 10 years?

Mr. Putin: You are a dangerous person. You are taking from my stomach everything that I am trying to hide. I think that what the U.S. administration is trying to do now to internationalize the situation there is the right course, because such danger exists, of course. For the internationalization to take place, one has to take into account the interests of those who are going to be involved – first of all, the Iraqi people.

Q.: For that reason, were you disappointed that with the new resolution, the Bush administration seems not to have adopted… ?

Mr. Putin: Your fears are not groundless. Of course it may become a new center, a new magnet that attracts all destructive elements. They will feel themselves there comfortably enough though Iraq, as far as its terrain is concerned, is not a mountain country like Afghanistan, but there may be problems for a long time.

Q.: Were you disappointed that the new resolution presented by the administration does not seem to have taken into account your concerns?

Mr. Putin: A young man can be disappointed when he finds out, after his marriage, that his fiancee’s capital is much smaller than he expected. We simply work. We would like it to happen but unfortunately our partners did not formulate their proposals in this part. We will keep working.

Q.: You know, America has had a very hard time getting other countries to help pay the cost of reconstruction. I wonder if there has been any discussion among countries like Russia, which are owed large debts from Iraq, about some form of a debt relief to help Iraq get though its transition?

Mr. Putin: Yes, it is a problem whose solution requires a lot of money. And I think that the president is right, of course, when he says that since the U.S. gives money for this, it has the right to make principled decisions on how to spend it. It is fair and just. He frankly said that in Camp David. What objections can one have? I think if Russia gave dozens of billions of dollars … We give dozens of billions of dollars, and some “kind uncle” comes and decides where to spend it? There are no fools.

As for Iraqi debt to many countries and to Russia, of course we understand that writing off the debts would help to clear the ground for restoration of Iraq. You know, Russia is not a wealthy country and nobody forgives us our debts. During the last 10 years we heard many promises of $40 billion credits on good terms or to write off our debts. We are constantly deceived. We pay old Soviet Union debts, though it is not clear why we have to. I would never have agreed to it, but the previous leadership agreed, made that decision and we fulfill these stupid obligations to pay for all the former republics of the Soviet Union. Russia is not a rich country, but as for writing off the debts of the poorest countries of the world, in absolute figures, I think we hold second or third place among all developed countries – I think after France and Japan. More than the United States. Iraq, in terms of its parameters – its potential – is not among the poorest countries of the world. It belongs to the countries in the middle. And it is capable of paying its debts.

The problem is to restore the country, its stability. The country will be able to pay its debts without large injections, but we understand the unique character of Iraq’s situation today. And we stand ready to consider within the frameworks of the Paris Club the possibility of partial debt relief. But we can do that only jointly with other Iraqi creditors. We cannot go it alone. It should be on the basis of coordination and it should be a good concentrated decision.

The original article, as it appeared in The New York Times on October, 5, 2003 is available from The New York Times Web site, to members only.