От Ильича до Ильича
by sonnet 2006 이글루스 TOP 100 2007 이글루스 TOP 100 2008 이글루스 TOP 100 2009 이글루스 TOP 100 2010 이글루스 TOP 100 2011 이글루스 TOP 100
rss

skin by 이글루스
태그 : 푸틴
2014/03/10   (해설 첨부)푸틴, 우크라이나 사태에 대해 기자들의 질문에 답함 [24]
2014/03/02   러시아의 입장과 '치킨 키에프' 연설 [23]
2010/04/10   다 장악할 텐데! [88]
2009/08/08   휴가 [40]
(해설 첨부)푸틴, 우크라이나 사태에 대해 기자들의 질문에 답함

푸틴의 기자회견 전문이 올라왔는데 한 번 같이 살펴볼 만한 듯 해서 약간 손을 봐서 올려봅니다.

우선 푸틴의 이 기자회견을 쓸모 있게 이해하려면 두 가지 측면을 분리해서 봐야 합니다.

1)푸틴이 무엇에 대해 거짓말을 하는가(변명하는가)
2)푸틴이 자기 입장을 어떻게 설명하는가

1번에 대해 말하자면, 푸틴은 거짓말을 많이 하며, 사실 그럴듯한 거짓말을 하기 위해 노력하지도 않습니다. 그 거짓말은 뭐랄까 '누가 뭐라고 하던 나는 그 점에 대해 공식적으로 인정하지 않을 것이다'란 의미로 받아들이면 됩니다. 그런 측면에서 푸틴은 정직하지는 않습니다.

2번에 대해선, 푸틴은 매우 솔직하게 자기 입장을 설명합니다. 그렇기에 이 기자회견을 읽을 때 다른 쓰레기들 속에서 이 부분을 건질 수 있어야 합니다.

러시아를 상대로 협상이나 흥정으로 1번의 잘못을 인정받기는 매우 어렵습니다. 아마 힘으로 싸워 크게 이기지 않고는 어려울 겁니다. 그리고 러시아 정부를 뺀 그 외 세력들에게 이것이 거짓말임을 보여주는 것은 그냥 언론에게 맡겨 두면 됩니다. 그런 일을 해낼 언론이 아주 많이 있습니다.

이 문제를 무력이 아닌 흥정으로 풀겠다고 한다면 2번이 중요해집니다. 그런데 앞서 말한 1)거짓말의 요소가 너무 많기 때문에 언론이나 평론가들이 이 요소를 폭로하는 데 정신을 빼앗겨, 2)푸틴의 주요 입장을 정확히 짚어내지 못하는 현상이 심한 것 같습니다.

그래서 이 두 가지를 좀 나누어 생각하실 수 있도록 제가 생각하는 1번 거짓말의 측면에 대해서는 취소선을 그어 표시했습니다. 그냥 이 부분은 거짓말이 다시 시작되는군 하고 가볍게 넘기면 됩니다. 그리고 푸틴의 입장에 대해선 원문에 붉은색으로 표시하고, 밑에 그 부분만 번역[과 약간의 해설]을 넣었습니다.


The President of Russia met with media representatives to answer a number of their questions, in particular with regard to the situation in Ukraine.
출처 : 크레믈린궁 공식 홈페이지
일자 : 2014년 3월 4일

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,

How shall we do this? This is what I’d like to suggest: let’s have a conversation, rather than an interview. Therefore, I would ask you to begin by stating all your questions, I will jot them down and try to answer them, and then we will have a more detailed discussion of the specifics that interest you most.

Let’s begin.

QUESTION: Mr President, I would like to ask (you took a lengthy pause, so we have quite a few questions by now) how you assess the events in Kiev? Do you think that the Government and the Acting President, who are currently in power in Kiev, are legitimate? Are you ready to communicate with them, and on what terms? Do you yourself think it possible now to return to the agreements of February 21, which we all talk about so often?

QUESTION: Mr President, Russia has promised financial aid to Crimea and instructions were issued to the Finance Ministry yesterday. Is there a clear understanding of how much we are giving, where the money is coming from, on what terms and when? The situation there is very difficult.

QUESTION: When, on what terms and in what scope can military force be used in Ukraine? To what extent does this comply with Russia’s international agreements? Did the military exercises that have just finished have anything to do with the possible use of force?

QUESTION: We would like to know more about Crimea. Do you think that the provocations are over or that there remains a threat to the Russian citizens who are now in Crimea and to the Russian-speaking population? What are the general dynamics there – is the situation changing for the better or for the worse? We are hearing different reports from there.

QUESTION: If you do decide to use force, have you thought through all the possible risks for yourself, for the country and for the world: economic sanctions, weakened global security, a possible visa ban or greater isolation for Russia, as western politicians are demanding?

QUESTION: Yesterday the Russian stock market fell sharply in response to the Federation Council’s vote, and the ruble exchange rates hit record lows. Did you expect such a reaction? What do you think are the possible consequences for the economy? Is there a need for any special measures now, and of what kind? For instance, do you think the Central Bank’s decision to shift to a floating ruble exchange rate may have been premature? Do you think it should be revoked?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fine, let us stop here for now. I will begin, and then we will continue. Don’t worry; I will try to answer as many questions as possible.

First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?
"우크라이나와, 그 수도 키예프에 대한 우리의 평가는 분명하다. 그것은 반 헌법적 탈권이며, 무력에 의한 권력탈취이다."
[현 상황에 대한 러시아의 선언적 입장. 그러나 뒤에 계속 언급되는 것처럼 흥정이 잘 되면 바뀔 수 있음.]

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.

2월 21일, 야누코비치 대통령은 유럽국가들 -폴란드, 독일, 프랑스- 외무장관의 중재를 통해, 그리고 내 대리인의 참관 하에, 반대파와 합의문에 서명했다. … 야누코비치는 사실상 권력을 넘겼다. 그는 반대파의 모든 요구에 동의했다. 조기 총선, 조기 대선, 2004년 헌법으로의 복귀,
[이 합의에 러시아는 서명하지 않았으나, 막후에서 야누코비치 정권이 양보하도록 압력을 행사했다고 본다는 폴란드 외무장관의 증언이 있음.]

I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? I want to understand why this was done. He had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. Everybody agrees on this, everyone I have been speaking to on the telephone these past few days. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer. Did they wish to humiliate someone and show their power? I think these actions are absolutely foolish. The result is the absolute opposite of what they expected, because their actions have significantly destabilised the east and southeast of Ukraine.

나는 이렇게 자문해 본다. 이런 짓을 하는 목적이 뭔가? 나는 왜 이런 일이 벌어졌는지를 알고자 한다. 야누코비치는 이미 사실상 권력을 포기했다. 나도 그렇게 생각하고 야누코비치에게 그렇게 말하기도 했다. 당신은 재선될 기회가 없을 거라고. 지난 며칠 사이 나랑 통화한 (세계 각 국 정상들) 모두가 이 점에 동의한다. 그런데도 이 모든 일을 벌이는 목적이 무엇이었나? … 그들이 원하는 것은 누군가(푸틴, 러시아)를 망신주고 자신들의 권력을 과시하기 위함인가? 나는 (우리에게) 이따위로 나오는 건 지독하게 멍청한 짓이라고 생각한다.
[이번 사태에 대한 푸틴의 반쯤 개인적 입장. 우리 쪽에서 그렇게 많은 양보를 하였는데 지금 뭐하자는 건가. 나를 망신주기로 작정했나?]

Now over to how this situation came about.

In my opinion, this revolutionary situation has been brewing for a long time, since the first days of Ukraine’s independence. The ordinary Ukrainian citizen, the ordinary guy suffered during the rule of Nicholas II, during the reign of Kuchma, and Yushchenko, and Yanukovych. Nothing or almost nothing has changed for the better. Corruption has reached dimensions that are unheard of here in Russia. Accumulation of wealth and social stratification – problems that are also acute in this country – are much worse in Ukraine, radically worse. Out there, they are beyond anything we can imagine. Generally, people wanted change, but one should not support illegal change.

(나도 우크라이나에 혁명이 올 만한 환경이 있었음은 인정한다. 하지만 그건 야누코비치 떄 시작된 것이 아니라 해묵은 문제이다) 국민들은 변화를 원한다. 그러나 이런 불법적인 변화를 지지해서는 안 된다.
[이 부분은 푸틴이 부패나 축재 같은 우크라이나의 여러 문제가 해결될 필요가 있음을 인정하며, 러시아도 동의할 수 있는 형식과 내용이라면 우크라이나의 새 정부 수립과 관련해 긍정적으로 반응할 것임을 시사한 것임]

Only constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space, where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal mistake in such a situation. Incidentally, I understand those people on Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another. Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming their own regional governments. There was a period in this country when the President appointed regional leaders, but then the local legislative authorities had to approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly. We have now moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this. And they began appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have been brought to power.

게다가 지방 주민들은 지방정부를 선출하지 못하고 있다. … 우리 러시아는 선거로 이행했지만, 무크라이나는 아직도 (대통령이) 주지사를 임명한다.
[이 부분은 2월 21일 합의에 포함되어 있던, 개헌논의에 포함되기를 원하는 러시아의 희망사항을 시사함. 즉, 러시아는 이번 혁명으로 반러 정치인들이 우크라이나 중앙정부을 지배하게 될 경우에 대비해, 우크라이나의 지방분권이 강화되어, 반러파가 우크라이나 전국을 지배하는 현상이 완화되기를 희망하는 것임.]

For example, Mr Kolomoisky was appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich two or three years ago. Scammed him, as our intellectuals like to say. They signed some deal, Abramovich transferred several billion dollars, while this guy never delivered and pocketed the money. When I asked him [Abramovich]: “Why did you do it?” he said: “I never thought this was possible.” I do not know, by the way, if he ever got his money back and if the deal was closed. But this really did happen a couple of years ago. And now this crook is appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. No wonder the people are dissatisfied. They were dissatisfied and will remain so if those who refer to themselves as the legitimate authorities continue in the same fashion.

Most importantly, people should have the right to determine their own future, that of their families and of their region, and to have equal participation in it. I would like to stress this: wherever a person lives, whatever part of the country, he or she should have the right to equal participation in determining the future of the country.

무엇보다도 중요한 것은, 그들이 어느 지역에 속해 있건 간에 이 나라의 장래를 결정하는 데 대등한 참여권이 보장되어야 한다.
[반러 정서가 강한 서부 지역이 우크라이나 전체를 장악할 수 있는 건 곤란하다는 말. 이 말은 뒤집어 말하면 적어도 이번 한 임기는 우크라이나 중앙정부가 친러가 아닐수도 있다는 것을 이미 각오하고 있다는 의미임]

Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.

키예프에 합법적인 정부조직이 있다면. 그것은 부분적으로나마 의회이다. 나머지 (혁명의 결과 임명된) 임시직들은 아니다. 야누코비치가 권력은 잃었지만, 법적으로는 계속 대통령이다.
[야누코비치를 다시 세울 생각은 없지만, 혁명파가 정권을 잡았음을 미리 인정하고 들어갈 생각은 없다는 말. 그러나 의회의 합법성은 인정할 여지가 있다고 하고 있음. 러시아가 대결에서 물러나야 할 경우, 키예프 의회의 권위를 인정하는 형식을 빌려 체면을 차리고자 할 것으로 예상할 수 있음.]

There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact.
우크라이나 헌법에 따르면 대통령은 죽거나, 사임하거나, 탄핵되어야 한다. 탄핵은 의회, 대법원, 헌법재판소를 가치는 복잡한 과정인데, 이 과정이 이루어진 바 없다. 그러니 그는 여전히 대통령이다.
[우리에게도 키예프의 혁명파 과도정부를 인정하지 않을 명분이 있다는 주장.]

Moreover, I think this may be why they disbanded the Constitutional Court, which runs counter to all legal norms of both Ukraine and Europe. They not only disbanded the Constitutional Court in an illegitimate fashion, but they also – just think about it – instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to launch criminal proceedings against members of the Constitutional Court. What is that all about? Is this what they call free justice? How can you instruct anyone to start criminal proceedings? If a crime, a criminal offence, has been committed, the law enforcement agencies see this and react. But instructing them to file criminal charges is nonsense, it’s monkey business.
그리고 나는 이것이 혁명세력이 헌법재판소를 해산해 버린 이유라고 생각한다.
[혁명세력이 초법적으로 통치하고 있음을 계속 주장.]

Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you may know, we have decided to organise work in the Russian regions to aid Crimea, which has turned to us for humanitarian support. We will provide it, of course. I cannot say how much, when or how – the Government is working on this, by bringing together the regions bordering on Crimea, by providing additional support to our regions so they could help the people in Crimea. We will do it, of course.

Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces. So far, there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. I would like to say here that the military exercises we recently held had nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This was pre-planned, but we did not disclose these plans, naturally, because this was a snap inspection of the forces’ combat readiness. We planned this a long time ago, the Defence Minister reported to me and I had the order ready to begin the exercise. As you may know, the exercises are over; I gave the order for the troops to return to their regular dislocations yesterday.

What can serve as a reason to use the Armed Forces? Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort.

First, the issue of legitimacy. As you may know, we have a direct appeal from the incumbent and, as I said, legitimate President of Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych, asking us to use the Armed Forces to protect the lives, freedom and health of the citizens of Ukraine.

What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev. I am sure you, members of the media, saw how one of the governors was chained and handcuffed to something and they poured water over him, in the cold of winter. After that, by the way, he was locked up in a cellar and tortured. What is all this about? Is this democracy? Is this some manifestation of democracy? He was actually only recently appointed to this position, in December, I believe. Even if we accept that they are all corrupt there, he had barely had time to steal anything.

And do you know what happened when they seized the Party of Regions building? There were no party members there at all at the time. Some two-three employees came out, one was an engineer, and he said to the attackers: “Could you let us go, and let the women out, please. I’m an engineer, I have nothing to do with politics.” He was shot right there in front of the crowd. Another employee was led to a cellar and then they threw Molotov cocktails at him and burned him alive. Is this also a manifestation of democracy?

When we see this we understand what worries the citizens of Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainian, and the Russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. It is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. Therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate President, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. We believe this would be absolutely legitimate. This is our last resort.
따라서 우리가 이미 합법적인 대통령(야누코비치)로부터 공식 요청을 받은 상태에서), 우크라이나의 동부지역에서 그러한 통제되지 않은 범죄가 창궐함을 목격하고, 그 지역 주민들이 우리에게 도움을 요청할 경우, 우리는 그들을 돕기 위해 모든 수단을 다 사용할 권리를 보유하고 있다. 이것은 우리의 최후의 수단이다.
[필요하다면 명분은 다 확보되어 있다 그러나 최후의 수단이라고 경고한만큼 우리에게 칼을 뽑게 하지 말라는 경고]

Moreover, here is what I would like to say: we have always considered Ukraine not only a neighbour, but also a brotherly neighbouring republic, and will continue to do so. Our Armed Forces are comrades in arms, friends, many of whom know each other personally. I am certain, and I stress, I am certain that the Ukrainian military and the Russian military will not be facing each other, they will be on the same side in a fight.

Incidentally, the things I am talking about – this unity – is what is happening in Crimea. You should note that, thank God, not a single gunshot has been fired there; there are no casualties, except for that crush on the square about a week ago. What was going on there? People came, surrounded units of the armed forces and talked to them, convincing them to follow the demands and the will of the people living in that area. There was not a single armed conflict, not a single gunshot.

Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defence of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. We did this, it was the right thing to do and very timely. Therefore, I proceed from the idea that we will not have to do anything of the kind in eastern Ukraine.

There is something I would like to stress, however. Obviously, what I am going to say now is not within my authority and we do not intend to interfere. However, we firmly believe that all citizens of Ukraine, I repeat, wherever they live, should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country and in determining its future.
(앞서 했던 말의 반복) 우리는 모든 우크라이나 국민이 어느 지역에 살든 동등한 권리가 주어지고 우크라이나의 미래를 결정하는데 참여할 수 있어야 한다고 확신한다.
[향후 흥정에 있어 러시아가 확보하고자 할 핵심조건이, 서부지역이 동부를 지배하지 못하게 하는 제도. 즉 지방자치, 연방제, 지역등권론 따위일 것임을 시사함. 따라서 러시아는 2/21합의 중에서도 개헌 프로세스를 강하게 요구할 것임]

If I were in the shoes of those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities, I would not waste time and go through all the necessary procedures, because they do not have a national mandate to conduct the domestic, foreign and economic policy of Ukraine, and especially to determine its future.

Now, the stock market. As you may know, the stock market was jumpy even before the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. This is primarily linked to the policy of the US Federal Reserve, whose recent decisions enhanced the attractiveness of investing in the US economy and investors began moving their funds from the developing markets to the American market. This is a general trend and it has nothing to do with Ukraine. I believe it was India that suffered most, as well as the other BRICS states. Russia was hit as well, not as hard as India, but it was. This is the fundamental reason.

As for the events in Ukraine, politics always influence the stock market in one way or another. Money likes quiet, stability and calm. However, I think this is a tactical, temporary development and a temporary influence.

Your questions, please.

QUESTION: Mr President, can you tell us if you expected such a harsh reaction to Russia’s actions from your western partners? Could you give us any details of your conversations with your western partners? All we’ve heard was a report from the press service. And what do you think about the G8 summit in Sochi – will it take place?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding the expected reaction, whether the G8 will meet and about the conversations. Our conversations are confidential, some are even held over secure lines. Therefore, I am not authorised to disclose what I discussed with my partners. I will, however, refer to some public statements made by my colleagues from the west; without giving any names, I will comment on them in a general sense.

What do we pay attention to? We are often told our actions are illegitimate, but when I ask, “Do you think everything you do is legitimate?” they say “yes”. Then, I have to recall the actions of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they either acted without any UN sanctions or completely distorted the content of such resolutions, as was the case with Libya. There, as you may know, the resolution only spoke of closing the airspace for government aircraft, while it all ended with bomb attacks and special forces land operations.
우리의 행동이 불법적이라는 주장이 있으나, 그럼 나는 반문한다. "당신들 행동은 전부 다 합법적이요?" 그들은 "그렇다"고 답한다. (그렇다면 우리도 그럴 수 있다.)

Our partners, especially in the United Sates, always clearly formulate their own geopolitical and state interests and follow them with persistence. Then, using the principle “You’re either with us or against us” they draw the whole world in. And those who do not join in get ‘beaten’ until they do.

Our approach is different. We proceed from the conviction that we always act legitimately. I have personally always been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. I would like to stress yet again that if we do make the decision, if I do decide to use the Armed Forces, this will be a legitimate decision in full compliance with both general norms of international law, since we have the appeal of the legitimate President, and with our commitments, which in this case coincide with our interests to protect the people with whom we have close historical, cultural and economic ties. Protecting these people is in our national interests. This is a humanitarian mission. We do not intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. However, we cannot remain indifferent if we see that they are being persecuted, destroyed and humiliated. However, I sincerely hope it never gets to that.
(나야말로 합법적인 형식을 갖춰 일하기 위해 노력하고 있다.)

QUESTION: How do you asses the reaction of the west to the events in Ukraine and their threats regarding Russia: are we facing the possibility of sanctions or withdrawal from the G8?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding sanctions. It is primarily those who intend to apply them that need to consider their consequences. I believe that in the modern world, where everything is interconnected and interdependent, it is possible to cause damage to another country, but this will be mutual damage and one should bear this in mind. This is one thing.
(제재를 가하면 나만 다치는 것이 아니라 너도 다친다)

The second and the most important thing. I have already told you what motivates us. And what motivates our partners? They supported an unconstitutional armed take-over, declared these people legitimate and are trying to support them. By the way, despite all of this we have been patient and even ready to cooperate; we do not want to disrupt our cooperation. As you may know, a few days ago I instructed the Government to consider how we can maintain contacts even with those powers in Kiev that we do not consider legitimate in order to retain our ties in the economy and industry. We think our actions have been absolutely reasonable, while any threat against Russia is counterproductive and harmful.
당신이 알지 모르겠지만, 나는 며칠 전에 우리 정부에게 우리가 합법적이라고 인정하지 않는 키예프의 세력(혁명정부)과도 접촉을 유지할 방안을 검토하라고 지시하였다. 양국의 경제산업적 관계를 유지하기 위해서다.
[러시아는 혁명정부를 공식적으로 인정하지 않을 것이지만 명분을 위해 실리를 버리지 않는 태도라는 것을 주장. 정당성 약화를 감수하고라도 흥정을 해볼 수 있다는 입장을 간접적으로 보여준 것.]

As for the G8, I do not know. We will be ready to host the summit with our colleagues. If they do not want to come – so be it.
(우크라이나의 중요성에 비하면 G8 따위 신경쓰지 않는다.)

QUESTION: Can I add about contacts? The way I see it, you consider the Prime Minister of Crimea Mr Aksyonov to be a legitimate representative of government authorities. Are you ready to have any contacts with those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities in Kiev?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have just spoken about it. You must have missed it.

QUESTION: I mean, at the top level for a political solution.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not have a partner at the top level there. There is no president there, and there cannot be one until the general elections.
총선이 이루어지기 전까지, 키예프에는 합법적인 권력이 있을 수 없다.
[키예프 과도정부는 5월 25일 대선부터 먼저 하겠다는 입장임. 푸틴은 총선-개헌-대선 같은 2월 21일 합의에 따른 프로세스를 주장하는 것임.]

As for Crimea, the Parliament there was formed in 2010, in December 2010 if I remember correctly. There are 100 MPs representing six political parties. After the previous Prime Minister resigned, the Crimean Parliament, in compliance with the existing legislation and procedures elected a new Prime Minister at a session of the Crimean Supreme Council. He is definitely legitimate. They have complied with all the procedures envisaged by the law; there is not a single violation. However, when a few days ago a group of armed men tried to occupy the building of the Crimean Supreme Soviet, this caused the concern of the local residents. It seemed as though someone wanted to apply the Kiev scenario in Crimea and to launch a series of terrorist attacks and cause chaos. Naturally, this causes grave concern among the local residents. That is why they set up self-defence committees and took control over all the armed forces.

Incidentally, I was studying the brief yesterday to see what they took over – it is like a fortified zone. There are several dozen C-300 units, several dozen air-defence missile systems, 22,000 service members and a lot more. However, as I said, this is all in the hands of the people of Crimea and without a single gunshot.

QUESTION: Mr President, a clarification if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why don’t you take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.

QUESTION: But were they Russian soldiers or not?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those were local self-defence units.

QUESTION: How well trained are they? If we compare them to the self-defence units in Kiev…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: My dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operated in Kiev were. As we all know they were trained at special bases in neighbouring states: in Lithuania, Poland and in Ukraine itself too. They were trained by instructors for extended periods. They were divided into dozens and hundreds, their actions were coordinated, they had good communication systems. It was all like clockwork. Did you see them in action? They looked very professional, like special forces. Why do you think those in Crimea should be any worse?

QUESTION: In that case, can I specify: did we take part in training Crimean self-defence forces?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we did not.

QUESTION: How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility of it joining Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we do not. Generally, I believe that only residents of a given country who have the freedom of will and are in complete safety can and should determine their future. If this right was granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this was made possible in many different parts of the world, then nobody has ruled out the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as I know, is fixed by several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke any such decision and will not breed such sentiments.
우리는 분리독립 운동을 먼저 부추기지는 않을 것이며, 크리미아를 합병하지도 않을 것이다 … (그러나) 코소보의 알바니아인들이 독립할 권리가 있다면(러시아가 반대했었음), 다른 지역에서도 그럴 수 있다.
[크리미아 사태의 전개는 조건부라는 말. 우리가 꼭 먹겠다는 뜻은 없으나 너희 행동에 따라 달라질 수도 있다는 말.]

I would like to stress that I believe only the people living in a given territory have the right to determine their own future.
(그 지역 사람들이 원한다는 말은 언제나 명분으로 쓸 수 있다)

QUESTION: Two questions. You said that sending troops into Ukraine is an extreme measure, but you are nevertheless not ruling it out. Still, if Russian troops enter Ukraine, it could start a war. Doesn’t that bother you?

And a second question. You say that Yanukovych did not give the order to shoot people. But somebody shot at the protestors. And clearly, these were snipers, trained snipers.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, some people, including those who were recently among the protestors, have expressed the opinion that these were provocateurs from one of the opposition parties. Have you heard this?

REPLY: No, I have not heard this.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look at these materials – they are freely available. That is why it is very difficult to get to the bottom of the situation. But you and I saw for ourselves when the Berkut fighters stood there with their shields and were shot at – and those were not air weapons that were used against them but assault weapons that pierced their shields. That is something we saw for certain. As for who gave the orders – that I do not know. I only know what Mr Yanukovych told me. And he told me that he did not give any orders, and moreover, he gave instructions – after signing a corresponding agreement – to even withdraw all militia units from the capital.

If you want, I can tell you even more. He called me on the phone and I told him not to do it. I said, “You will have anarchy, you will have chaos in the capital. Think about the people.” But he did it anyway. And as soon as he did it, his office was seized, and that of the government, and the chaos I had warned him about and which continues to this day, erupted.
야누코비치가 나와 통화했을 때 내가 무력사용에 반대했다.
(아마도 사실일 것임. 그리고 그것이 가장 막판에 야누코비치 정부가 붕괴하는데 일조했을 것으로 보임.)

QUESTION: What about the first question? Are you concerned that a war could break out?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not concerned, because we do not plan and we will not fight with the Ukrainian people.

QUESTION: But there are Ukrainian troops, there is the Ukrainian army.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine.

QUESTION: Can I ask a question, Mr President? Our colleagues, my colleagues, who are currently working in Ukraine, are saying practically every day that the situation for the Berkut fighters is only getting worse (perhaps with the exception of Crimea). In particular, in Kiev, there are injured Berkut officers who are in hospitals now, where nobody is treating them and they are not even getting fed. And their families, including elderly family members, they simply cannot leave the house, because they are not being allowed; there are barricades all around, they are being humiliated. Can you comment on this? And can Russia help these families and colleagues?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, this issue is of great concern to us. After all, these are not Russia’s Interior Ministry officers, and we were not managing the situation there. But out of humanitarian considerations, it would be good if our human rights organisations got involved in this as well; we might ask Vladimir Lukin, either alone or together with his colleagues, representatives from France, Germany and Poland, with whom he participated in developing the well-known document of February 21, 2014, to go on location and see what is happening there with these Berkut officers, who have not broken any laws and acted in accordance with their orders. They are military service members, they stood there facing bullets, they were doused with fire and had Molotov cocktails thrown at them. They have been wounded and injured and are now in a hospital. It is even hard to imagine – even prisoners of war are being fed and treated. But they not only stopped treating them, they even stopped feeding them. And they have surrounded the building where these fighters’ families live and are bullying them. I think that human rights organisations must pay attention to this. And we, for our part, are ready to provide them with medical care here in Russia.
(푸틴의 주장의 핵심은 EU3이 2월 21일 합의를 어겨서 러시아가 피해를 보았다는 것이기 때문에, 이 부분은 EU3+Russia가 우크라이나 사태에 대해 견고한 공조를 이루었더라면 좋은 결과가 있었을 것이라는 주장이자 아쉬움의 표현. EU가 그것을 좋아하든 안 좋아하든 간에, 러시아의 관점에서 그런 성공사례는 1895년의 러시아-프랑스-독일의 3국간섭이나, 짜르 알렉산드르 1세와 메테르니히 공작이 밀었던 러시아-프러시아-오스트리아 신성동맹 같은 것임)

QUESTION: Mr President, getting back to the West’s reaction. Following the US Secretary of State’s harsh statement, the Federation Council suggested that we recall our ambassador to the United States. Do you support this idea?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The US Secretary of State is certainly an important person, but he is not the ultimate authority that determines the United States’ foreign policy. We hear statements from various politicians and representatives of various political forces. This would be an extreme measure. If necessary, it will be used. But I really don’t want to use it, because I think Russia is not the only one interested in cooperation with its partners on an international level and in such areas as economy, politics and foreign security; our partners are just as interested in this cooperation. It is very easy to destroy these instruments of cooperation and it would be very difficult to rebuild them.
우리는 그런 극단적인 수단을 쓰기를 원치 않는다. 왜냐면 여러 가지 국제 문제에 있어 다른 파트너(강대국)들과의 협력에 관심이 있는 것은 러시아 뿐이 아니기 떄문이다. 다른 강대국들도 협력을 필요로 한다. 그런 협력관계는 망가트리기는 쉽지만 재건하기는 아주 어렵다.
[러시아는 여전히 흥정에 관심이 있다.]

QUESTION: Russia got involved in Yanukovych’s fate. How do you see his future role and his future destiny?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, it is very hard for me to say; I have not analysed it carefully. I think he has no political future, and I have told him so. As for “getting involved in his fate” – we did this on purely humanitarian grounds. Death is the easiest way for getting rid of a legitimate president, and I think that is what would have happened. I think they would have simply killed him. Incidentally, the question arises: what for?
(분명히 밝혀두는데 러시아는 야누코비치를 위한 왕정복고에 관심이 없다.)

After all, look at how it all began, what triggered these events. The formal reason was that he did not sign the European Union Association Agreement. Today, this seems like nonsense; it is ridiculous to even talk about. But I want to point out that he did not refuse to sign the association agreement. He said: “We have carefully analysed it, and its content does not correspond with our national interests. We cannot sharply increase energy prices for our people, because our people are already in a rather difficult position. We cannot do this, and that, and that. We cannot immediately break our economic ties with Russia, because our cooperation is very extensive.”

I have already presented these figures: out of approximately 14 billion [dollars] in export, approximately 5 billion represents second and third technological processing level products exported to Russia. In other words, just about all engineering products are exported to Russia; the West is not buying any Ukrainian products. And to take all this and break it apart, to introduce European technical standards in the Ukrainian economy, which, thankfully or unfortunately, we are not using at the moment. We will adopt those standards at some point, but currently, we do not have those standards in Russia. This means the next day, our relations and cooperation ties will be broken, enterprises will come to a standstill and unemployment will increase. And what did Yanukovych say? He said, “I cannot do this so suddenly, let’s discuss this further.” He did not refuse to sign it, he asked for a chance to discuss this document some more, and then all this craziness began.

And why? Did he do something outside the scope of his authority? He acted absolutely within the scope of his authority; he did not infringe on anything. It was simply an excuse to support the forces opposing him in a fight for power. Overall, this is nothing special. But did it really need to be taken to this level of anarchy, to an unconstitutional overthrow and armed seizure of power, subsequently plunging the nation into the chaos where it finds itself today? I think this is unacceptable. And it is not the first time our Western partners are doing this in Ukraine. I sometimes get the feeling that somewhere across that huge puddle, in America, people sit in a lab and conduct experiments, as if with rats, without actually understanding the consequences of what they are doing. Why did they need to do this? Who can explain this? There is no explanation at all for it.
우크라이나에서 서방이 이런 짓을 저지른 게 처음이 아니다. 나는 미국의 실험실에 앉은 이들이 그들의 실험이 어떤 결과를 갖고 올지도 알지 못한 채, 쥐를 갖고 놀듯 실험을 진행한다는 느낌을 받곤 한다. 왜 그들은 이런 짓을 저지르는가? 누가 이 사태에 해명할 수 있나? 아무런 설명도 없지 않나.
(러시아는 서구가 이번 시위를 뒤에서 부추겼다고 강하게 의심하고 있음. 그렇기 때문에, 이번 시위를 촉발시킨 야누코비치의 결정이 우크라이나-EU 관계를 끝장낸 것은 아니었는데, 서방이 그것을 명분삼아 그를 타도했다는 것임)

The same thing happened during the first Maidan uprising, when Yanukovych was blocked from power. Why did we need that third round of elections? In other words, it was turned into a farce – Ukraine’s political life was turned into a farce. There was no compliance with the Constitution at all. You see, we are now teaching people that if one person can violate any law, anyone else can do the same, and that’s what causes chaos. That is the danger. Instead, we need to teach our society to follow other traditions: traditions of respecting the main law of the nation, the Constitution, and all other laws. Of course, we will not always succeed, but I think acting like this – like a bull in a china shop is counterproductive and very dangerous.
(2월 21일 합의 프로세스를 다시 한 번 요구)

Please.

QUESTION: Mr President, Turchynov is illegitimate, from your point of view.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As President, yes.

QUESTION: But the Rada is partially legitimate.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes.

QUESTION: Are Yatsenyuk and the Cabinet legitimate? And if Russia is concerned about the growing strength of radical elements, they grow stronger every time they find themselves facing a hypothetical enemy, which in their view, they currently consider Russia and Russia’s position of being ready to send in troops. Question: does it make sense and is it possible to hold talks with moderate forces in the Ukrainian government, with Yatsenyuk, and is he legitimate?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Listen, it seems like you didn’t hear what I have said. I already said that three days ago, I gave instructions to the Government to renew contacts at the government level with their colleagues in the corresponding ministries and departments in Ukraine, in order not to disrupt economic ties, to support them in their attempts to reconstruct the economy. Those were my direct instructions to the Russian Government. Moreover, Mr Medvedev is in contact with [Arseniy] Yatsenyuk. And I know that Sergei Naryshkin, as speaker of the Russian parliament, is in contact with [Oleksandr] Turchynov. But, I repeat, all our trade and economic and other ties, our humanitarian ties, can be developed in full only after the situation is normalised and presidential elections are held.
(실무 접촉은 유지되고 있다. 러시아는 관여의 길을 완전히 닫은 것이 아니다란 말)

QUESTION: Gazprom has already said that it is reverting to its old gas prices beginning in April.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Gazprom could not have said that; you were not listening carefully or it did not express itself clearly. Gazprom is not reverting to the old prices. It simply does not want to extend the current discounts, which it had agreed to apply or not apply on a quarterly basis. Even before all these events, even before they hit the crisis point. I know about the negotiations between Gazprom and its partners. Gazprom and the Government of the Russian Federation agreed that Gazprom would introduce a discount by reducing gas prices to $268.50 per 1,000 cubic metres. The Government of Russia provides the first tranche of the loan, which is formally not a loan but a bond purchase – a quasi-loan, $3 billion dollars in the first stage. And the Ukrainian side undertakes to fully repay its debt that arose in the second half of last year and to make regular payments for what they are consuming – for the gas. The debt has not been repaid, regular payments are not being made in full.

Moreover, if the Ukrainian partners fail to make the February payment, the debt will grow even bigger. Today it is around $1.5-1.6 billion. And if they do not fully pay for February, it will be nearly $2 billion. Naturally, in these circumstances, Gazprom says, “Listen guys, since you don’t pay us anyway, and we are only seeing an increase in your debt, let’s lock into the regular price, which is still reduced.” This is a purely commercial component of Gazprom’s activities, which plans for revenues and expenditures in its investment plans like any other major company. If they do not receive the money from their Ukrainian partners on time, then they are undercutting their own investment programmes; this is a real problem for them. And incidentally, this does not have to do with the events in Ukraine or any politics. There was an agreement: “We give you money and reduced gas rates, and you give us regular payments.” They gave them money and reduced gas rates, but the payments are not being made. So naturally, Gazprom says, “Guys, that won’t work.”
(가스 가격 문제는 우크라이나 책임이다.)

QUESTION: Mr President, [German Federal Chancellor] Merkel’s Press Service said after your telephone conversation that you had agreed to send an international fact-finding mission to Ukraine and set up a contact group.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I said that we have people who have the training and skills needed to be able to examine this issue and discuss it with our German colleagues. This is all possible. I gave the instruction accordingly to our Foreign Minister, who was to or will meet with the German Foreign Minister, Mr Steinmeier, yesterday or today to discuss this matter.

QUESTION: All eyes are on Crimea at the moment of course, but we see what is happening in other parts of Ukraine too, in the east and south. We see what is happening in Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk and Odessa. People are raising the Russian flag over government buildings and appealing to Russia for aid and support. Will Russia respond to these events?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do you think we have not made any response? I think we’ve just spent the last hour discussing this response. In some cases though, the developments taking place are unexpected in my view. I will not go into the specific details of what I am referring to here, but the reaction that we are seeing from people is understandable, in principle. Did our partners in the West and those who call themselves the government in Kiev now not foresee that events would take this turn? I said to them over and over: Why are you whipping the country into a frenzy like this? What are you doing? But they keep on pushing forward. Of course people in the eastern part of the country realise that they have been left out of the decision-making process.
(러시아어 사용자가 많은 동부지역 국민들이 정치적 결정과정에서 배제되고 있다는 다시 한 번의 주장)

Essentially, what is needed now is to adopt a new constitution and put it to a referendum so that all of Ukraine’s citizens can take part in the process and influence the choice of basic principles that will form the foundations of their country’s government. But this is not our affair of course. This is something for the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian authorities to decided one way or another. I think that once a legitimate government is in place and a new president and parliament are elected, which is what is planned, this will probably go ahead. If I were them, I would return to the matter of adopting a constitution and, as I said, putting it to a referendum so that everyone can have their say on it, cast their vote, and then everyone will have to respect it. If people feel they are left out of this process, they will never agree with it and will keep on fighting it. Who needs this kind of thing? But as I said, this is all not our affair.
(개헌, 국민투표, 총선, 대선을 포함하는 완전한 2월 21일 프로세스의 요구)

QUESTION: Will Russia recognise the planned presidential election that will take place in Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s see how it goes. If it is accompanied by the same kind of terror that we are seeing now in Kiev, we will not recognise it.
(보다 러시아에 호의적이라고 생각되는 지역이나 정치인들이 새 정부 수립에서 배제될 경우, 우리는 그들을 인정치 않을 것임. 그러나 일단 두고보겠다는 말에서 드러나듯이 흥정의 여지 있음.)

QUESTION: I want to come back to the West’s reaction. As all this tough talk continues, we have the Paralympics opening in a few days’ time in Sochi. Are these Games at risk of ending up on the brink of disruption, at least as far as international media coverage goes?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I don’t know, I think it would be the height of cynicism to put the Paralympics at risk. We all know that this is an international sports event at which people with disabilities can show their capabilities, prove to themselves and the entire world that they are not people with limitations, but on the contrary, people with unlimited possibilities, and demonstrate their achievements in sport. If there are people ready to try to disrupt this event, it would show that these are people for whom there really is nothing sacred.

QUESTION: I want to ask about the hypothetical possibility of using the military. People in the West have said that if Russia makes such a decision, it would violate the Budapest Memorandum, under which the United States and some NATO partners consecrated territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for its promise to give up nuclear weapons. If developments take this turn, could global players intervene in this local conflict and turn it into a global conflict? Have you taken these risks into account?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Before making public statements, and all the more so before taking practical steps, we give issues due thought and attention and try to foresee the consequences and reactions that the various potential players could have.

As for the Memorandum that you mentioned, you said you are from Reuters, is that right?

RESPONSE: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How do the public and political circles in your country view these events that have taken place? It is clear after all that this was an armed seizure of power. That is a clear and evident fact. And it is clear too that this goes against the Constitution. That is also a clear fact, is it not?

RESPONSE: I live in Russia.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good on you! You should join the diplomatic service; you’d make a good diplomat. Diplomats’ tongues, as we know, are there to hide their thoughts. So, we say that what we are seeing is an anti-constitutional coup, and we get told, no, it isn’t. You have probably heard plenty of times now that this was not an anti-constitutional coup and not an armed seizure of power, but a revolution. Have you heard this?

RESPONSE: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, but if this is revolution, what does this mean? In such a case it is hard not to agree with some of our experts who say that a new state is now emerging in this territory. This is just like what happened when the Russian Empire collapsed after the 1917 revolution and a new state emerged. And this would be a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.
(러시아는 이것이 위헌적 쿠데타라고 주장하는데, 서구에서는 그게 아니라 혁명이라고 한다). 그런데 그것이 만약 혁명이라고 한다면 그건 무슨 말인가? 그런 상황이라면 우크라이나 영토에서 (우크라이나가 아닌) 새로운 나라가 출현했다는 우리 전문가들의 해석에 동의할 수밖에 없다. … 그러한 새 국가는 우리가 서명했던 기존 협정의 대상이 아니다.
(새 우크라이나 정부는 러시아가 요구하는 2월 21일 합의에 따른 합법성을 획득해야 한다)

QUESTION: I want to clarify a point. You said that if the USA imposes sanctions, this would deal a blow to both economies. Does this imply that Russia might impose counter-sanctions of its own, and if so, would they be a symmetrical response?

You spoke about gas discounts too. But there was also the agreement to buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian bonds. Ukraine received the first tranche at the end of last year. Has payment of the remaining money been suspended? If Russia provides aid, on what specific economic and political terms will this be done? And what political and economic risks are you taking into consideration in this case?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: To answer your question, we are in principle ready to look at taking the steps needed to make the other tranches available with regard to the purchase of bonds. But our Western partners have asked us not to do this. They have asked us to work together through the IMF to encourage the Ukrainian authorities to carry out the reforms needed to bring about recovery in the Ukrainian economy. We will continue working in this direction. But given that Naftogaz of Ukraine is not paying Gazprom now, the Government is considering various options.
(서방 국가들이 먼저 러시아보고 원조를 주지 말고 IMF로 가자고 했다.)

QUESTION: Mr President, is the dynamic of events in Ukraine changing for the better or for the worse?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Overall, I think it is gradually starting to level out. We absolutely must send the signal to people in Ukraine’s southeast that they can feel safe, and know that they will be able to take part in the general political process of stabilising the country.
(러시아는 반복해서 러시아어 사용자가 많은 남동부 지역의 정치적 대표권을 요구함)

QUESTION: You have made several mentions now of future legitimate elections in Ukraine. Who do you see as compromise candidate? Of course you will say that this for the Ukrainian people to decide, but I ask you all the same.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: To be honest, I really don’t know.

RESPONSE: It seems that the people also don’t know, because no matter who you talk to, everyone seems to be at a loss.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I really can’t say. You know, it’s hard to make predictions after events of this kind. I have already said that I do not agree with this method of taking power and removing the incumbent authorities and president, and I strongly oppose this kind of method in Ukraine and in the post-Soviet area in general. I oppose this because this kind of method does not inculcate legal culture, respect for the law. If one person can get away with doing this, it means that everyone is allowed to try, and this only means chaos. You have to understand that this kind of chaos is the worst possible thing for countries with a shaky economy and unstable political system. In this kind of situation you never know what kind of people events will bring to the fore. Just recall, for example, the role that [Ernst] Roehm’s storm troopers played during Hitler’s rise to power. Later, these storm troopers were liquidated, but they played their part in bringing Hitler to power. Events can take all kinds of unexpected turns.
정말 해줄 말이 없다. 당신도 알겠지만 이런 상황은 앞 일을 예상하기 힘들단 말이다. … 히틀러가 집권할 때 에른스트 룀의 나치 돌격대가 했던 역할을 봐라. 그 뒤 돌격대는 해산되었지만, 그래도 히틀러를 권좌에 올려놓는 역할은 했던 것이다.
(예상이 어려워 고민이 많다는 건 솔직한 심정인 듯)

Let me say again that in situations when people call for fundamental political reform and new faces at the top, and with full justification too – and in this I agree with the Maidan – there is a risk too that you’ll suddenly get some upstart nationalist or semi-fascist lot sprout up, like the genie suddenly let out of the bottle – and we see them today, people wearing armbands with something resembling swastikas, still roaming around Kiev at this moment – or some anti-Semite or other. This danger is there too.
(키에프의 과도 정부 구성세력 중 극우파를 겨냥한 발언이 앞에서 계속 이어짐)

QUESTION: Just today, incidentally, the Ukrainian envoy to the UN said that the crimes committed by Bandera’s followers were falsified by the Soviet Union. With May 9 coming closer, we can see now who is in power there today. Should we even have any contacts with them at all?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to have contact with everyone except for obvious criminals, but as I said, in this kind of situation, there is always the risk that events of this kind will bring people with extreme views to the fore, and this of course has serious consequences for the country.

QUESTION: You said that we should make contact with everyone. Yulia Tymoshenko was planning it seems, to come to Moscow.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As you know, we always worked quite productively with all of the different Ukrainian governments, no matter what their political colour. We worked with Leonid Kuchma, and with [Viktor] Yushchenko. When I was Prime Minister, I worked with Tymoshenko. I visited her in Ukraine and she came here to Russia. We had to deal with all kinds of different situations in our work to manage our countries’ economies. We had our differences, but we also reached agreements. Overall it was constructive work. If she wants to come to Russia, let her come. It’s another matter that she is no longer prime minister now. In what capacity will she come? But I personally have no intention of stopping her from coming to Russia.
우리는 우크라이나의 여러 정파와 일해 봤다. 레오니드 쿠추마, 빅토르 유셴코, 율리아 티모셴코. … 티모셴코가 오고 싶으면 러시아에 오라고 해라. 그런데 그녀는 지금 총리가 아닌데 무슨 지위를 갖고 온다는 건가? 개인적으로 못오게 막을 생각은 없다.
(몇몇 언론들이 주장했던 것처럼 푸틴이 티모셴코를 선호하는 지도자로 본다거나 만나주겠다는 의미는 없음. 푸틴은 질문에 답해 합법적인 우크라이나의 지도자라면 누구든지 상대하겠다는 원론적인 이야기를 한 것임.)

QUESTION: Just a brief question: who do you think is behind this coup, as you called it, in Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I said before, I think this was a well-prepared action. Of course there were combat detachments. They are still there, and we all saw how efficiently they worked. Their Western instructors tried hard of course. But this is not the real problem. If the Ukrainian government had been strong, confident, and had built a stable system, no nationalists would have been able to carry out those programs and achieve the results that we see now.
(서방이 혁명을 후원했다는 뿌리 깊은 의심) 하지만 우크라이나 정부가 강건하고 안정되어 있다면 상관없다.

The real problem is that none of the previous Ukrainian governments gave proper attention to people’s needs. Here in Russia we have many problems, and many of them are similar to those in Ukraine, but they are not as serious as in Ukraine. Average per capita [monthly] income in Russia, for example, is 29,700 rubles, but in Ukraine, if we convert it into rubles, it is 11,900 rubles, I think – almost three times lower than in Russia. The average pension in Russia is 10,700 rubles, but in Ukraine it is 5,500 rubles – twice lower than in Russia. Great Patriotic War veterans in Russia receive almost as much as the average worker each month. In other words, there is a substantial difference in living standards. This was what the various governments should have been focusing on right from the start. Of course they needed to fight crime, nepotism, clans and so on, especially in the economy. People see what is going on, and this creates lack of confidence in the authorities.
우크라이나 정부가 진정한 국민의 요구(민생문제)에 대처하지 못한 것이 진짜 문제이다.

This has continued as several generations of modern Ukrainian politicians have come and gone, and the ultimate result is that people are disappointed and want to see a new system and new people in power. This was the main source of fuel for the events that took place. But let me say again: a change of power, judging by the whole situation, was probably necessary in Ukraine, but it should have taken place only through legitimate means, in respect for and not in violation of the current Constitution.
다시 말하는데 우크라이나의 상황을 볼 때 권력의 변동은 필요할 수 있다. 그러나 그 방법은 헌법에 따라, 정당한 절차를 통해 이루어져야 한다는 것이다.
(새 정부 수립에 마냥 반대하는 것이 아니다.)

QUESTION: Mr President, if Crimea holds a referendum and the people there vote to secede from Ukraine, that is, if the majority of the region’s residents vote for secession, would you support it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You can never use the conditional mood in politics. I will stick to that rule.

QUESTION: Is Yanukovych even still alive? There have been rumours that he died.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have seen him once since he arrived in Russia. That was just two days ago. He was alive and well and wishes you the same. He’ll still have a chance of catching a cold at the funeral of those who are spreading these rumours of his demise.

QUESTION: Mr President, what mistakes do you think Yanukovych made over these last months as the situation intensified in Ukraine?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would rather not answer this question, not because I do not have an opinion to express, but because I do not think it would be proper on my part. You have to understand, after all…

QUESTION: Do you sympathise with him?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I have completely different feelings. Anyone in this office bears an enormous responsibility on their shoulders as head of state, and they have rights and also obligations. But the biggest obligation of all is to carry out the will of the people who have entrusted you with the country, acting within the law. And so we need to analyse, did he do everything that the law and the voters’ mandate empowered him to do? You can analyse this yourselves and draw your own conclusions.

QUESTION: But what feelings do you have for him? You said “not sympathy, but other feelings”. What feelings exactly?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s talk later.

QUESTION: You said just two questions back that we must above all send a clear signal to people in the south and southeast of Ukraine. The southeast, that’s understandable, but…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to make our position clear to everyone, really.

We need to be heard by all of Ukraine’s people. We have no enemies in Ukraine. Let me say again that Ukraine is a friendly country. Do you know how many people came from Ukraine to Russia last year? 3.3 million came, and of that number almost 3 million people came to Russia for work. These people are working here – around 3 million people. Do you know how much money they send back home to Ukraine to support their families? Count up the average wage of 3 million people. This comes to billions of dollars and makes a big contribution to Ukraine’s GDP. This is no joking matter. We welcome all of them, and among the people coming here to work are also many from western Ukraine. They are all equal in our eyes, all brothers to us.

QUESTION: This is just what I wanted to ask about. We are hearing above all about the southeast of Ukraine at the moment, which is understandable, but there are ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people living in western Ukraine too, and their situation is probably even worse. They probably cannot raise their heads at all and are a downtrodden minority there. What can Russia do to help them?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Our position is that if the people who call themselves the government now hope to be considered a civilised government, they must ensure the safety of all of their citizens, no matter in which part of the country, and we of course will follow this situation closely.

Thank you.
by sonnet | 2014/03/10 00:39 | 정치 | 트랙백 | 핑백(1) | 덧글(24)
러시아의 입장과 '치킨 키에프' 연설

3월 1일, 오바마가 푸틴과 90분간 통화를 했다고 하는데, 여기서 오바마는 "러시아가 우크라이나의 러시아계와 소수민족을 우려(러시아의 표면적 명분)한다면 적절한 대응은 우크라이나 정부와 직접 접촉해 평화적 해법을 찾는 것"이라는 주장을 펼친다.

여기서 눈여겨봐야 하는 것이 '우크라이나 정부와 직접 접촉'이다. 러시아는 이미 Euromaidan시위대 세력이 장악한 현 키에프 임시정부를 인정하지 않기로 결심했기 때문에, 이런 주장에는 응하지 않을 것이 틀림없다.

러시아의 주장은 현재 우크라이나는 적법한 정부가 없는 혼란 상태라는 것이다. 그렇기 때문에 러시아군을 출동시켜 현지의 치안을 확보하겠다는 것이 이유가 있다는 것이며, 이 정당성을 강화하기 위해 현지 지방정부(크림 자치공화국)와 협력하고, 또 현지 지방정부는 러시아에 망명가 있는 야누코비치 대통령에게 충성을 표한다는 형식을 취하는 것이다.

그럼 러시아가 주장하는 해법은 무엇인가? 사실 우크라이나 사태를 어떻게 해결할 것인지에 대해, 러시아가 명백히 제시하는 해법은 없다. "큰 몽둥이를 들고 말은 조용히 하라"는 격언도 있지만, 이번 사태에서 푸틴은 몽둥이를 뽑아들되 말은 아끼는 식으로 처신하고 있다. 이것은 어느 정도 계산된 행동으로 보이며, 결정적인 순간에 결정적인 방법으로 제시하기 위해 말을 아끼는 한편, "푸틴은 입을 놀리지 않는다. 주먹으로 설득한다" 같은 두려움을 주는 이미지를 구축하기 위한 것으로 보인다.

어쨌든 이 문제에 대해 미국이나 유럽에 비해 훨씬 더 많은 것을 걸겠다는 의지를 천명한 러시아가 정작 원하는 해법을 분명히 내놓지 않고 있다는 것이야말로, 이번 사태가 어떻게 흘러갈지를 예측하기 힘들게 만드는 제일 큰 요인이다.

다만 러시아 외교부 성명을 살펴보면, 2월 21일 합의(140221-UKR_Erklaerung.pdf)의 파기를 강력히 추궁함을 발견할 수 있다. 이 주장은 다소 기이하게 들릴 수도 있다. 정작 러시아는 2월 21일 합의 과정에 대표를 파견했으나 서명은 하지 않았기 때문이다.
러시아 특사 루킨은 서명하지 않았다.

하지만 이 이야기는 적어도 러시아가 무엇에 불만을 품고 있는지를 잘 보여주기 때문에 꼼꼼히 검토해볼 가치가 있다.

2월 21일 합의는 유럽 3개국 -프랑스, 독일, 폴란드- 가 파견한 외무장관 3명이, 야누코비치 대통령과 Euromaidan 시위대를 이끌던 야권의 세 정치인 클리츠코, 티야니복, 야체뉵 사이의 합의를 주선하고 참관인으로서 서명한 것이다. 그 주요내용은

1. 48시간 이내에 2004년 헌법으로 복귀하고, 10일 안에 여야가 모두 참여하는 거국일치 정부를 세운다.
2. 2014년 9월까지 헌법개정을 완료해 새로운 권력구조를 정립한다.
3. 새 헌법이 준비되는대로 2014년 12월 이전에 대통령 선거를 치른다.
4. 그간의 폭력사태에 대해, 여야, 그리고 국제사회의 참여 하에 합동 조사를 한다.
5. 정부는 계엄을 선포하지 않으며, 정부와 시위대는 모두 폭력을 자제한다.
승자와 패자. 비탈리 클리츠코와 야누코비치


이 협의에 따르면 야누코비치는 새 대통령이 취임하게 될 2015년 초까지는 대통령 직을 유지할 수 있으며, 거국일치정부의 운영과 새 헌법 입법과정을 통해 여당인 '지역당'의 지분이 상당부분 보장될 가능성이 있었다.

그러나 합의는 채 하루를 가지 못했다. 시위대 측에서 야누코비치 대통령의 즉각 사임을 요구하며 밀어붙였고, 야누코비치는 수도를 탈출해 잠적했다. 그리고 합의를 중재했던 유럽 3국과, 나머지 유럽 국가들, 그리고 미국은 합의 준수를 요구하는 시늉도 하지 않은 채 당연한 듯이 승자의 손을 들어주었다. 러시아는 이를 쿠데타로 간주하고 비난했으나 서구 정부는 이를 가볍게 무시했고, 서구 언론들도 마찬가지였다.

이제 2월 27일자, 우크라이나 사태에 대한 러시아 외교부 성명을 살펴보자.

"프랑스, 독일, 폴란드 외무장관이 중재한 2월 21일 합의는 여전히 실현되지 않고 있다. … 폭도들이 무장한 채 정부청사를 점거하고 있으며 전 우크라이나 지역들에게 명령을 내리겠다는 의도를 비추고 있다. … 거국일치 정부를 세우겠다는 약속이며 폭력사태를 공동조사하겠다던 약속은 잊혀졌다. … Maidan 세력들은 "승자들의 정부"를 세우려 한다. …우리는 우크라이나의 모든 지역과 모든 정치세력의 이해관계가 빠지지 않고 대변되는 헌정체제만이 이 나라의 평화와 안정을 장기적으로 보장해준다고 확신한다.

그럼에도 불구하고 우리는 행동할 준비가 되어 있다. … 2월 21일 합의에 따른 의무의 실현은 (사태해결을 위한) 중요한 일보가 될 것이다."


여기까지 살펴보면 분명해지는 것은, 러시아는 현 키에프의 임시정부와 쉽게 협상하려 하지 않을 것이라는 점이다. 힘으로 러시아의 기를 꺾어놓을 것이 아니라면, 사태를 신속히 봉합할 수 있는 서구의 남은 대안은 키에프 임시정부를 압박해 그들이 쟁취했다고 생각하는 전리품 대부분을 토해 내게 하는 정도가 아닐까 한다. (제3의 선택은 소극적으로 키에프 임시정부를 지원하며, 불안정한 대결을 이어가는 것이다.)


이렇게 그간의 전개를 되짚어보고 나면, 서구가 취했어야 하는 적절한 태도가 무엇이었는지에 대한 의문이 남는다.

생각컨대 우크라이나의 지정학적 민감성을 가장 잘 포착했던 이는 G.H.W. 부시 대통령의 'Chicken Kiev' 연설이었던 것 같다. 소련의 해체가 임박했던 1991년 여름, 부시는 키에프의 우크라이나 의회를 방문하여, 매우 조심스런 연설을 하였다.

그는 고르바초프의 개혁 노력을 추켜세운 후 이렇게 말했다. "미국은 멀리 있는 폭군을 가까이 있는 독재자로 대체하려는 식의 독립을 추구하는 사람들을 지원하지 않을 것이다. 우리는 종족적 증오에 기반한 자살적인 민족주의를 후원하지 않을 것이다." 이 연설은 우크라이나의 민족주의자들의 반발을 샀을 뿐 아니라, 미국 국내에서도 많은 비판의 대상이 되었다. 사실 후에 대통령에 오른 그의 아들과 측근들도 이 연설을 비웃었다. 부시는 한참 뒤인 2004년의 연설에서 "당신네 지도자들이 현명하게 행동하지 않는다면 모스크바로부터의 진압이 있었을 것"이라며 자신의 입장을 변호하였다.

오늘의 상황에 비추어 볼 때, 확실히 부시는 러시아에게 있어 우크라이나의 사활적 중요성을 정확히 이해했던 것 같다. 그리고 국내적으로 인기가 없을 게 뻔한 행동에 따른 불이익을 감수하는 용기도 보여주었다. 그리고 결과적으로 반 년 후, 우크라이나는 큰 충돌 없이 소련으로부터 독립하기도 하였다.

오바마나 이번 사태에 개입했던 유럽의 지도자들은 이런 면에서 아쉬움이 남는다. 서구는 제3세계의 반정부 시위를 종종 선이 악을 물리치는 이야기 쯤으로 읽는 경향이 있었고, 또 안일하게 대응하곤 했다. 선악에 대한 그들의 생각이 맞을지도 모르지만, 어쨌든 이 건에는 러시아라는 강대국의 사활적 이익이 걸려 있었다. 러시아는 '중재자'들이 전혀 약속을 지키게 할 생각이 없다는 것을 확인한 다음 자구책을 꺼내들었다. 또 다른 안일함의 증거는 "행동할 준비가 되지 않았다면 위협을 하면 안 된다"는 원칙을 전혀 지키지 않은 것이다. 푸틴이 몽둥이를 뽑아 들고 패를 같이 까보자고 하자, 서구의 허세는 여지없이 폭로되고 말았다.


2월 21일 합의가 뒤늦게라도 준수되는 것이 지금도 러시아의 목표인지는 불확실하다. 사실 푸틴의 입이 아니라 외무성에서 나오는 정도로는 그냥 명분을 위한 명분일 가능성이 상당하다. 하지만 적어도 고위급 접촉을 통해 확인해볼 가치는 있다. 오바마의 전화에서 나타나는 것처럼 그냥 'maidan 정부를 승인해라'는 입장을 고수하면 확인도 안 된다고 보아야 한다.
by sonnet | 2014/03/02 23:00 | 정치 | 트랙백(1) | 핑백(1) | 덧글(23)
다 장악할 텐데!


이만섭 회고록 중 한 장면.

3선 개헌에 반대한다는 이야기를 듣고 대통령이 여당 국회의원이던 이만섭을 청와대로 호출했다.

그제야 박 대통령이 입을 열었다.
“그런데…, 내가 나서지 않으면 정권을 야당에 빼앗기고 말 텐데….”
“그건 그렇지 않습니다. 각하께서 물러나시면서 ‘내가 못다 한 일을 바로 이 사람, 나의 후계자에게 맡겨주십시오’라고 국민 앞에 한 말씀만 하신다면, 그 사람은 틀림없이 당선됩니다. 왜 정권을 빼앗긴단 말입니까? 절대 그렇지 않습니다.”
“그러면 후계자가 될 사람은 있는가?”
박 대통령은 짜증스런 투로 내게 물었다.
“각하께서 김종필 씨가 후계자로 내키지 않는다면 다른 사람도 있잖습니까? 이효상 의장이나 백남억 씨 같은 분도 좋지 않습니까. 그분들 중 한 분에게 4년간 맡긴 뒤, 4년 후에 다시 정권을 잡으시면 되잖습니까?”
박 대통령은 내 말에 버럭 화를 내면서 소리를 질렀다.
“그렇지만 대통령이 된 사람이 자기 조직을 짜고 군대 조직까지 다 장악할 텐데 4년 후에 ‘정권 여기 있습니다’하고 내놓을 사람이 어디 있겠어…?”

이만섭. 『5.16과 10.26: 박정희 김재규 그리고 나』. 파주: 나남, 2009. p.136

자서전의 신뢰성 수준은 어느 정도 감안해서 봐야 하겠지만, 저 마지막 발언은 상당히 그럴듯하게 들린다. 박은 저런 수법을 시도해 볼 정도로 자신의 권력기반이나 장악력에 자신이 있지는 못했던 모양이다.
by sonnet | 2010/04/10 12:48 | 정치 | 트랙백 | 덧글(88)
<< 이전 다음 >>