We are working in other areas [like ALROSA] as well, so there are no radical changes to our position. It is not the case when we have to, as we say, make a lot of fuss about it. In other words, we do not have to be obsessed with privatizing immediately and at any cost.

It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

Are we not concerned, for example, by the growing danger related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology? All of this poses a clear threat to the world, to the region. However, we have obvious points of convergence that are related to our interests.

It was at a certain stage (you might have forgotten, haven't you?) that the United States actively collaborated with Saddam when he was at war with Iran: weapons were supplied, diplomatic and political support was provided and so on. Then the US fell out with him for some reason and decided to do away with him.

Concerning our possibilities on the international financial markets, the sanctions are severely harming Russia. But the biggest harm is currently caused by the decline of the prices for energy. We suffer dangerous revenue losses in our export of oil and gas, which we can partly compensate for elsewhere. But the whole thing also has a positive side: if you earn so many petrodollars - as we once did - that you can buy anything abroad, this slows down developments in your own country.

I believe that the presidential term should be limited.

My position is that the rate should align with the level of economic development. Because it is always about a balance, a balance of interests, and it should reflect this balance. A balance between those who sell something across the border and those who benefit from a low rate, as well as a balance between the interests of those who buy, who need the rate to be higher. A balance between national producers, for example, agricultural producers who are interested in it.