Sergey Brilyov, Russia 1 TV channel: For obvious reasons, most of the questions today concern domestic politics. And Dmitry Sergeevich has this green folder that you had at the meeting with the governors. But I'd like to ask a question about foreign politics. Long before the geopolitical situation aggravated, the foundation of the international relations we're used to had started to crumble. The USA withdrew from the ABM treaty. Then we failed to agree on the treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe. Then, to our horror, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty wavered. Speaking of future, will the New START treaty survive? Assuming that it wavers too, will it result in such an arms race that we'll have to increase the Russian defense expenditure so much that it will affect our habitual social benefits that are so much spoken about today. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: We didn't withdraw from fundamental treaties that are the cornerstone of the international security. We didn't withdraw from the ABM treaty, it's the USA who did it unilaterally. Now there has been much scrutiny over the problems of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Seemingly, conditions are being created and propaganda is being conducted for a possible US withdrawal from this treaty too. Besides, in fact, they've already withdrawn from it. They're trying to accuse us of something, but what have they done? They allegedly deployed ABM systems in Romania, but they actually deployed Aegis systems, removing them from the sea. But in these systems ABM interceptor missiles can easily be replaced by intermediate range missiles. So, in fact, the process has already started. If nothing changes, no good will come of it. But we aren't going to withdraw from any treaty. The same about the new START. We hear the USA saying it no more needs the treaty. This rhetoric is there. If this happens again, if the USA again withdraws from the treaty unilaterally, it will take a toll on maintaining international stability and security. As regards our military expenditure, we are aware of these processes. We understand what some concrete actions might bring about. We will ensure our security without being dragged in an arms race. And there's also the second part of the question. Give him the microphone, please. Wait... Wait a second. Won't higher military expenses lead to lower social expenses? You know, our military expenses are balanced by several aspects. First, we need to ensure our security. Second, we must ensure that it won't ruin the economy. It's what we proceed from. For example, the following military expenses are planned for the next year. It's 1.4 trillion for the government procurement and 1.4 trillion for maintenance. It makes 2.8 trillion rubles. It's about 2.8% of the GDP. Given the current exchange rate, it's about $46 billion. In the USA, the military expenditure bill has been signed, providing $700 billion against our $46 billion. Feel the difference. Can our country afford it? No, but what we spend, $46 billion, is sufficient for us. One can say that it's a lot too. You know, we have a joke. Those who don't want to feed their own army will feed someone else's. It's an ancient joke, but there are more modern too. I sometimes tell you jokes on the subject. I can tell another one. It has whiskers too. Though it's more modern.
An old officer asks his son: I had a dirk. Have you seen it? — Dad, sorry, I exchanged it for a watch. -Well, show me, — he says. — Well, the watch is good, well done. You know, if today we're robbed, robbers will kill me and Mom. Your elder sister will be raped. And you'll come out and say: "Good evening, the Moscow time is 12:30".
We don't want this to happen to us. So, we'll pay enough attention to the development of the Army and Navy, without being dragged in an arms race and destroying the budget.
