From Izvestia, June 7, 2024, p. 3. Complete text:
Editors’ Note. – Changes in the Russian tax system are relevant in view of the current stage of the country’s development. The nature of economic development in Russia is changing, and there is reason for cautious optimism. On the SPIEF sidelines, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told Izvestia about these issues, as well as tax reforms, the “peace formula” summit and negativity within Ukrainian society.
* * *
Question. – Delegations from 136 countries have come to the forum. Does this kind of geography correspond to geopolitical realities? What have we lost and what have we gained through the exodus of unfriendly countries?
Answer. – I don’t think we gained anything; we probably lost some things. Lost a number of businesspeople, but not many. Among them are some very big companies that have left our market, leaving gaps. They are now being happily occupied by businesspeople from our own and other countries. But yes, we lost some people, and that is not a good thing. But it probably made us look more actively for partners in other areas. So, indeed, international representation at the forum continues; maybe it is not as noticeable visually, because everyone is afraid of secondary sanctions. We know that our American counterpartners will stoop to anything, so we need to be on our guard. But nevertheless, the forum still retains its international orientation.
Q. – Speaking with all caution, Russia is dealing fairly well with the sanctions, and there are more than 15,000 of them. The World Bank, which is hard to suspect of any sympathy, put us in fourth place in terms of purchasing power, which is a very sensitive indicator, and it says a lot. In your opinion, will this positive trend continue?
A. – There is certainly reason for cautious optimism. This is, of course, the result of the thoughtful, exhaustive and successful work of our government under the leadership of the president. Here, too, we need to remember to give ourselves credit. The government is working, and we are seeing results. Domestically, there are factors that contribute to maintaining the positive momentum.
There are also factors outside the country that will try to hold back our development; these will require more effort, more work. But again, I repeat: There is reason for cautious optimism, and let’s hope that this trend of development will continue.
The most important thing is probably not even the pace, but the nature of economic development. We are developing through production, processing and services, not through oil, although oil, of course, remains one of the main pillars of our budget. But the nature of economic development is changing, and this qualitative change is extremely important.
Q. – One of the important topics that is being discussed at the forum is changes in the tax system. How does the Kremlin feel about the bills that the government is proposing [see Vol. 76, No. 22, p. 11, and pp. 11-13], and why is this fine-tuning happening now? Is it a response to some political and economic challenges? Or is it a response to the public’s demand for fairness?
A. – It’s probably a combination of factors here. Taking into account the current stage of development of our country, the question arises of a fairer scale of taxation, and, in fact, this idea was reflected in the legislative initiative of the Cabinet of Ministers. The idea is now being actively discussed in parliament, the expert community and business associations. You know that some people are suggesting certain adjustments, but a great many people are expressing their agreement in principle. We continue to watch this debate.
Q. – In a few days, Switzerland will host [Ukrainian President Vladimir] Zelensky’s so-called “peace formula” summit, which is already being called a failure due to the refusal of many countries to participate in it, as well as due to the absence of Russia there. However, Kiev said it intended to notify Moscow of the outcome of the meeting. How interested are we in the outcome? Will Moscow even pay attention to it and somehow react to the statements that are made there?
A. – I wonder exactly whom Kiev will inform and how – we’ll see. The collective West is still trying to give this summit more credibility by any means possible. In terms of content, however, it is certainly an absurd gathering, and it is doomed to be a waste of time. We will, of course, be watching it closely. Let’s wait for some wording, hear it first, and then understand it. We will continue the special military operation; the main thing for us is to achieve our goals.
Q. – The president has made his position quite clear on the situation with Zelensky’s legitimacy [see Vol. 76, No. 21, pp. 8-10] – the constitutional court of Ukraine should give a final answer. If this does not happen, if negotiations start, with whom is Russia prepared to conduct them and sign any documents?
A. – There is a certain problem here, because if we have a serious conversation with Kiev and try to reach a political and diplomatic means of settlement, the question arises: With whom should we talk seriously? This question is now fully relevant, and we see no answer to it. The other thing is that there are currently no grounds to start such a negotiation process. The Kiev regime continues to close all doors to dialogue. We are continuing to pursue [our] objectives through the special military operation.
Q. – The West is obviously using Zelensky to carry out some unpopular decisions in Ukraine. Mobilization, for example. What happens after, once he has done all this “dirty” work for the West; what could the prospects be?
A. – The outlook has nothing to do with the position of the head of state. Obviously, he will be removed. Obviously, by introducing a younger age for mobilization, he will cause an even greater wave of negativity within Ukrainian society. He will be the enemy of many, many mothers who will lose their sons. He’s going to have a very hard time living in the world.