democracy to the ability to actually make sure people actually ask questions and know how to read and interrogate the evidence before them. and five, she concludes, none of these arguments is sufficient without a supporting claim that practices, the humanities study and the kind of scholarship they cultivate have value for their own sake. that they are that they are good in themselves. it is not just because they are traditionally utilitarian. they are good in their own way. the searches will no doubt be debated in the u.k. and the u.s., but crafting a compelling narrative will undoubtedly produce a need to be as concerned with what the humanities will become as well as what they have been. let me go to the next period. would be spent on evidence-based narrative.

what would we spend the second on? as we ponder the future, we have to expect that the humanities will continue to demonstrate a vibrant and dynamic tension between continuity and change. long-standing disciplines such as literature, history, and philosophy remain ever important to humanistic scholarship and discovery. for nearly a quarter of a century, humanists have also embraced an aspect of interdisciplinary scholarship. trauma specialists have studied psychoanalytic studies, and have found themselves entering comparative literature. the story of how medicine has worked with literary scholars to help craft the medical humanities. historians and cultural anthropologists have created a conjoined field of history and anthropology. at the same time, media have participated in animating gender studies, sexuality studies,

ethnic studies, as well as the contemporary incarnation of american studies. to remindse examples us of the invention and creativity that exploded in the last three decades in the areas of the humanities. new approaches, new answers, and new ways of knowing, as well as new things we came to know. that is the legacy of the interim disciplinary -- interdisciplinary agency of humanities-based fields for reinvigorating much in the academy. we can talk about specifics later. but as i stand before you, i can imagine i'm even more radical turn, to borrow a phrase from my good friend, robert kelly. i propose that continued investment in the humanities is warranted, because there are new questions to answer and new methods to be developed, that take previous knowledge, new

tools, and methods. ago, a "wall street journal" reporter asked, how many articles on shakespeare do we need, after all? some of you may have actually seen this piece. she questioned the utility of mining old materials and retracing well trampled paths. , aseport today would be many as creative mind can produce, assuming they either add to the base of what we know or advance a new way of understanding the genius of the human imagination. let me turn to the example of adding to the base and understanding of the genius of the human imagination. i want to illustrate it with two things. first one comes from my days at emory. it was referenced at vanderbilt. salman rushdie decided to deposit his personal papers in

the library at emory. if you go online, you will find that connection -- collection included manuscripts, letters, personal documents, miscellany, and of course his computers. at the moment of her seat, the colleagues at the emory library discovered at least one of the amputers had been killed by [indiscernible] four emory, the irony was not missed. mythmaking that it was coke that killed him. some things on his computers could have been lost forever. it was not. technicians were able to recover essentially every keystroke, word, deletion. the example suggests that next generation of literary scholars will have an advantage

unknown here to four. -- heretofore. not only will they be able to analyze the literary genius, but aspects of creativity as well. composed,ce when he how he changed things. we can match it to the notes and marginalia of his drafts. we can go back and create simulations to figure out what may have been going on in the brain, as he was typing and retyping. that type of new possibility also suggests that other things will have changed. new kinds of teams will have to be creative. -- created. one might combine a literary scholar with data experts. other permutations are possible. , whate take away here is

we see in the future, as we think about investing, this is not a solitary, individual scholar working alone. there will be other worlds, where new collaborations will be created, because there are new questions and new ways of knowing what is to be known. we will have to deal with the prestige culture in the academy and who gets credit and how we deal with that, i'm how we think about who should be sitting next to whom. how do we harness the imagination to think about those new questions and new methods? to rushdie example calls mind the ways in which technology may offer the sidelogical -- pedagogical of the equation. this is part of the innovation we can imagine supporting. much as been printed about mooc's. no doubt many of you in this

room have your own opinions about their values and longevity. for one, i do not believe mooc's are going to replace demand for seats at vanderbilt anytime soon. date, only 10% of those who enroll complete a mooc at any point. if anything, the visibility of your faculty colleagues may produce more demand for seats in the residential program. should not be's confused with online learning. universities,nd no matter how well endowed they are, can afford to give away content forever. that is part of the business side of what it means to run a complex organization. but there are new questions that will and should emerge. harvard and m.i.t., online learning in a residential

environment -- one presented the knowledge that in trying to heelop the joint venture, has not read any of the literature on how students learn. there were 500 of us in that room that day. i daresay much of -- most of us have never read any of the literature on how students learn. future, one ofhe the questions i think we have to can that be tolerated, going forward? how do students learn? how do i, the faculty member, cognitive psychology and education? it will have to be on the table at all major universities and colleges in the near term. more important, once mastered, how do we begin to alter graduate seminars, so the next generation tends then some time studying pedagogical approaches

and theories? humanists have long filled the classroom. the language "flip the classroom" --isn't that what it means to read the novel before you come to class? we are being perceived as receptive to change, asking questions about the new ways of learning. part of what we can imagine will be the future for american higher education. if the mellon foundation wants to invest a second penny, it will be on the academy, research and pedagogy. we will continue to ask questions. how do we make sure we are , anchored the future and understanding our relationship to the past? penny inpend the third

support of expanding the public display of the humanities. on this point, i think two views continue to shape our world. otherance at museums and public humanities locations suggest the broader public continues to take interest in what is produced inside the academy. it may vary by age and year, but there is a demand. in a world that is flat. then the offer two examples to underscore the point. 150thear was the anniversary of the signing of ,he emancipation for cremation abraham lincoln's proclamation that freed african-americans in states at war with the u.s. that was celebrated by placing a copy of the document on display at the national archives in washington, d.c. the pathway into

and around the national archives. so because the document still carries the meaning. it can be about a connection between the past and the present. the presentation serves as a yardstick, by which may be we get the measure of how far we have come in 150 years. that is what some people said in line. the fact anyone showed up is perhaps even more surprising. viewing of a document that is 150 years old. in fact, thousands showed up. it was a way to acknowledge and a reminder that what happens in the humanities through history meets the public. we make those documents accessible to a broader world.

level, it reminds us in certain ways of our shared --tiny and are enter try and enter twine histories. i take guidance from an mine, whog friend of offered the following one day while we were talking. he went on, in a digital age which compresses time and space, they need to understand one another is greater than ever. to extend the calls engineering,f absent an appreciation of style and color, form and local sensibilities, language and culture, means we could find ourselves building products no one wants, starting wars for all the wrong reasons, and asking partial questions, and receiving incomplete answers. puzzled abouting why things are not working.

i had end, my friend and this conversation -- the engineer said to me, in the end, 9/11 happened despite technological sophistication. tools and ideological divides that have more to do with religion than science. becausethe humanities they enable a fuller understanding of the world, past, present, and future. through them, we deepen our understanding of the human condition. , the use of one's precious emmys in support of the humanities requires a clear right articulation of first and supposed. one should start with a clear sense of narrative or story for the humanities. investment follows, because the

case of support is clear. the humanities at 10 to our need for continuity and change. finally, the investment firm assist to explode or explore core aspects of the human condition and the human experience. , helpsthe process sustain a literate, diverse, educated citizenry. the andrew w mellon foundation are drawn to the belief that through forms of representation and expression, as old as rock art and ancient lyrics, and as music, there is a means to chronicle, analyze, record, and transmit human agency, dignity, history, and society. much of this work has been claimed by humanities and the arts. the humanities and arts deepen our understanding of the human

condition and human experience. they helped foster durable institutions. and societies. the foundation, and to promote the long-term well-being of the humanities and arts, i supporting leading institutions of education and culture, extend the standards for achievement, and work to secure our shared future. we support the humanities. we support them because they are critical to our efforts to educate, because they hope to generate new knowledge, knowledge that is key to our understanding of the past and present. in some ways because they tell us about the world as we can imagine it, and the one we want to create. it is think about it. we live in the age of the human genome.

pause on that thought for a second. how do we understand the age of the human genome, absent a of thel understanding historically constructed social artifice called race? what does it mean to actually understand and talk about the human genome if you cannot step back and talk about the creation of something as ever present as the term race? the humanity and the sciences in dialogue lead to a better understanding of the human condition and human experience. pennies, andree you would invest in humanities, what would you invest in? i know what we would invest in. thank you. [applause]

>> can we have time for questions? >> absolutely. that is the best part of all these trips, to have a calmer station afterward. i have been told there is a narrow window for me to move, so i will try to stay at my podium. if not, i have been known to ask questions. even distinguish audiences like this one. my last question, i will throw it back. you have three pennies. you are sitting in a foundation. what would you invest in? you are the president of the mellon foundation. you could shape the direction of our future by telling me the right thing. how would you spend my pennies? >> i would reflect only on my discipline of history, and suggest we invest in a truly global understanding of the past and the present around the world.

and get away from that which is important, the hierarchy of topics we have within disciplines. we do not cover africa here, for example, as we should. sitting nextudent to me, a graduate student, who wants to go to graduate school in african history. i have one working in the white house. for four years, i had her major in the history of middle eastern and african history, and come to me to complain she could not do african history has there was only one historian to do it. i happen to be one, but i am not teaching african history right now. we have the largest continent in the world, and one that impacts all of the americas, but we do

not investigate it. we still sit within our narrow boundaries. i would invest in pushing collaboration with professors across disciplines, and really think about what is, and tryinarity to move to something transdisciplinary, so we really begin to talk to each other outside of these boundaries that were actually formed at the end of the 19th century, and really have a conversation. do not really have conversations like we should. we have a narrative that we have conversations, but i am talking about actual face-to-face engagement. i do not know how to do that. that is your job. >> i am no longer a professor anywhere in america. you raise an interesting question.

emery, i decided i could try something on the more radical side and see how many times i get eaten down before i decide this is a bad idea. imagine a whiteboard. in could redesign education the united states for the next 25 or 30 years. we would come up with a new kind of structure. what would you do? we organize knowledge and the example on the ground is, the second or third most popular major in arts and sciences was the intersection of biology, psychology, and anthropology. it was a major that had not existed 10 years before. it was a major with no core faculty.

and yet it was the third most popular major among students. intersection that created a groundswell of enthusiasm from the bottom. what does it mean? why are we committed to those 19th century or 18th century configurations? i am not going to go on a recitation about the societies in the early 19th and 20th centuries, and the systems that have to perpetuate them. up of age in an -- weisciplinary program are a department and we do not know what to do with you. i am at berkeley. there are a lot of smart people.

i figured that all these smart people could figure out an answer to that question. it is not one we could not answer. is, howthe answer thinkingle are we about how students should learn about how we should organize the institution to enhance that possibility for learning? waydo we organize in such a to have the business of the institution? those are the kinds of exciting questions the foundation could help in playing. are 4300 institutions of higher learning in the united states. we only support a few of them. we should come up with an answer from our end. we should engage in each of the

campuses in trying to come up with an answer. >> i wonder how we can work to look at a priority system, and humanities under that. >> that is a good question. stem as an organizing principle for investment is not an american creation alone. i was in south africa this summer. much of the south african government was directed at stem. there is a global conversation about the need to invest in stem , in part driven by three

things. one, that we are at a particular moment in the world after the , wherecrash of 2008-2009 everything is viewed as having instrumental value. we are try to figure out an education to prepare one for a series of opportunities over a , revealingly are a producer of individuals who will go on to the first job in june, july, and august. there is a great philosophical debate underway, in washington and elsewhere, as to whether or not we train or educate. many people, well-meaning folks in this administration and others, that conflate training and education. and that is a challenge for us. i think part of the answer to your question is -- part of it

is where it started. it is controlling the narrative in some ways. beginning to understand really what the conditions are on the ground, not only at one's own institution, but across the spectrum of institutions in higher education -- it is not either/or. clearly, we are training young people because they want to go out and have a job. you receive thousands of dollars for education in vanderbilt. there is a return on that investment. tois not good for humanists say, i am not about my students getting jobs, and i am here to educate them purely for the duty of education. send toent who paid to privatetwo different schools in the united states over the last seven years, i want them off my payroll at some

point. this goes back to the narrative andhow we talk, recognizing engagement with the broader public. this goes back to national priorities. if you realize the budgets for the national endowment for the the endowment for the arts is $150 million in this year's budget. the budget for the national institute for health is in the tens of billions. the budgets for the national science foundation is $79 billion, -- $7 billion, $9 billion, something in that range. there is no president of a major college in the united states who would say to me it is far cheaper to hire five humanists than the one scientist they are going to bring and, looking at the start up costs alone. not of the job is, we are

going to win the battle in washington. i have talked to people there. it is the space between the public and the universities where we can continue to begin educate, and where humanists at vanderbilt and elsewhere become more engaged in their communities, to explain the ways the emancipation proclamation example is one. there are local versions here. learning and teaching. think about things as fundamental as this. -- we alreadyw know by the fourth grade which kid is most likely to drop out of high school. that are diagnostic tests have been verified over and over again. many of those kids enter elementary school with a 2000 word deficit in their vocabulary because of circumstances beyond their control.

it comes back. think of the projects that humanities could actually work or, and thinking of communities at risk in the shadows of our campus, online project was in and working with colleagues across campus and many different fields, to begin to introduce new ways to actually talk about various parts of the humanities. if you are not going to understand on today-- understand dante because you have not mastered early learning and reading. there is great opportunity for innovation here. i would not start in washington. that is part of the humanities debate that may not be solved in either of our lifetimes. part of it is at ground level.

is not a taxicab driver in new york city, in the suburbs, who does not like to talk about history. and oftentimes the history channel. this young lady here, and then i will go back. >> building on the question, i think not only creating and expanding the knowledge of humanities of making those connections and continuing those connections -- we speak about the public in the university, who aree intellectuals willing to do such things. you speak of this, and you may have an event here, there, and everywhere. nothing is about how going right, and things are not what they are supposed to be. there is not force behind that want anymore. there needs to be a continuous to connect those

barriers. the public fear and private fear in the universities, behind all of these schools, the standards met. i never heard of that in the humanities. her slowly, for me, i started vanderbilt cream and. i changed majors my freshman year. first, i saw the difficulty with in my classes. it is vanderbilt. no ap class could prepare me for this. i am now majoring in medicine. i love every minute of it. i like the fact that i am getting almost the it. epitome of a liberal arts education.

i see exactly what you are talking about, and how the connections between the sciences and humanities create a better base for you to think about the future and the past. we all need to push for that, and keep those connections, or we will still be sitting in the same seats, talking about, we should have done this, and lamenting about how things should be. as you raise a very important question, and a complex one. i suspect you know how complex this is. the 43 hundreded institutions of higher education in the united states, you realize you have to be sitting in one of the most purpose based. with that privilege comes its own set of responsibilities. vanderbilt and the private research universities in the united states account for about 5% of public institutions.

number of a good those going to medical school who graduate from medical school, phd's at the research universities. small in terms of total numbers. but the effect is huge. the question becomes, at least from where i sit -- how do you regulate, how do you control, how do you play with, how do you think about what i refer to as a tension between continuity and change? , my guess is,year you came in and you discovered what is referred to as the hidden transcripts. huge ways in which sometimes faculty would say things to you and you would pick up, and there was a message being conveyed. they did not even know they were

conveying a message, that you interpret in a message nonetheless. there are ways you walk across campus, and spaces you can feel in your gums. that is a continuity peace organizations struggle with. whether you are first-generation or not, you are part of the change. say, i see this script. it is important to me. and chancellor in south africa said to a group last week, when they were interviewing students, and a young african woman who was at the university of kingston -- she said, the most difficult part was, while she was in the majority, she was invisible to her professors. does that mean to be in the majority and invisible in certain types of spaces.

there is work that has to be done on the ground. i sometimes see activity by providing the resources for a certain kind of work. universities to know that sometimes it takes time. in 1990, i was chairing the center for african american and african studies. unitat point, there was a that was not allowed to make independent tenure decisions. it could only do so in partnership with a disciplinary unit. and i was determined to change this. i went across the courtyard to my colleague, who was the chair

of women's studies. we made a pact that we were going to change this. andoth looked at each other said, how long will it take us to change it? we said, 10 years. in 10 years, it changed. of it took 10 years dedicated action on my part, others, to keep pushing on this, and pushing. part of it is, there is a rare student who is here for 10 years. if you do, either your parent or someone else is going, get out of here. what are the institutions and organizations that go along with the individuals to assure that the change you can envision can actually be executed? years, 10 years, that

is 2/3 of that time. you will be somewhere else, and the alumni organization will be asking you for a donation, and you will give. and you may be coming to have dinner at some things. how do you change an organization, and what is the time horizon? most people did not appreciate the time it was going to take to get an organization to change. not enough people stay the course long enough. --you ask these questions the way to do it also is to make sure that as you leave, there is someone standing behind you who is taking it up. only 4 entering classes, if you spread that over time.

what does it mean to reclaim that space? those are complicated questions about something you are asking. as i was listening, i go, sometimes it will happen. sometimes, we will reach out to the communities. sometimes, we will not. but faculty come and go. students graduate. the institution is celebrating 100-plus years. but change is happening. i grew up in our part of virginia. the virginiabout we grew up in, and it is not quite the same virginia now. in our lifetimes, we can see that change. but you have to be sober about the time it takes to actually create the change that you want. we have time for maybe two more questions. >> there was a hand here and a hand there. i will take both. >> you talked briefly about mooc's.

they fall into a larger landscape of online education. massive and open -- it seems unprecedented. our on-campus students in certain environments can participate in global dialogues as part of their education. me there must be roles to humanity disciplines in understanding those dialogues, understanding the cultural applications of those dialogues, and even guiding those dialogues. i am wondering if you might comment on that? >> there was a question i saw someone saying. >> this might betray some of my own ignorance. but i am very interested in how the kind of work the humanities does to mediate between academia and the public could reach the adult population of learners?

for example, adults with low literacy, which i think is a pretty big problem in tennessee and nashville. what kinds of initiatives have you seen, or what kinds of conversations exist? are universities ever reaching out to community colleges? questions aimed into one another nicely. thank you both. it is my sense that you begin to look at the range of online vehicles that are out there. udacity or any of the others that have emerged. clearly, there is space there for the humanities. if you go back and start looking at some of the courses on the be they thetform, philosophy course or the

literature course on 10 -- at penn, there are fundamental questions for the humanities. i think one of the beauties in all of this -- it gets back to something tiffany said. where we inis is the academy can free our imaginations a little bit, and begin to ask the questions. thisdoes it mean to have audience? the most exhilarating aspect is having learners from all over the world who come in different ways. you have pure advisors who come in and embrace the subject matter, or someone who has read times,and read it 1500 but it is the first time someone is coming in from japan, where english is a second, third, or fourth language. they have seen something in a

different way, and it sparks a new way of interpreting literature that has seemed all too routine for a while. that piece, i think, is just starting to emerge. what is left to be done is trying to figure out the analytics behind it. how do we begin to replicate this in other settings? this inake it piece of this setting and use it someplace else? experiment, an age of experimentation in pedagogy. we should encourage as much of it as possible. we should research it and analyze it all stop it goes back to the adult learners. one of the things i have seen is , some of the online courses, there are adult learners. there are individuals with various kinds of disabilities, folks who have been told they could not learn, who, through

this particular medium, found a different way to interact and to express themselves. they are proving they can learn. they may have conditions which make it difficult to communicate. there is an intellect bursting for a way to express itself. that is the peace, going back to my talk -- if i have a great worry, it is that not enough colleges and universities i have had the pleasure of visiting in -- were enough faculty and graduate students themselves engaging in the experiments? learning to make use of all the tools is hit and miss. as we look to the next period,

it is something the mellon foundation will probably invest and, to be honest. how do we educate and train the next generation of faculty to be in greater command of the tools in the online sphere than is true today? i do not think you can be effective in reaching out to the community. there are some already here. i can see a grant coming my way. that piece -- that thirst is there. that is ourh opportunity. cap -- in the academy, we will recognize that and there will be experiments that will be run, and we will take note and analyze them, be they globally or locally. now, i willrs from

come back and know something different. thank you all for your attention. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] you fivee been showing of the supreme court's notable oral argument so far during this session. we will show you companies that sell stock options to employees as retirement investments. looking at some of our other prime time programming across the c-span networks, tonight at 8:00 eastern, it is a look at 2014 and 2016 political predictions. more on that in a moment. on c-span 2, more "book tv." 3, americann history tv, the gilded age of new york city. program ond our political predictions. here is a quick preview. but people who tell you that

they think they know what is going to happen in 2015 really are smoking something that is not legal here in colorado. are some clues. there are some clues. what i now am going to officially dubbed the host [indiscernible] inwas held a few weeks ago las vegas. you can tell from who chose to participate in the primary who is looking at 2016. not who is favored, but who is looking. these are people who went to a four room -- forum sponsored by the world's eighth richest man, sheldon adelson, whose principal interests are israel and the prevention of internet gambling, which will of course cut into the fact that he is the world's largelyichest man,

based on casino gambling in las vegas and macau. the people who went to las vegas to see sheldon adelson included a man you may have heard of, chris christie, governor of new jersey. anyone here a fan? he has been out of the news a lot lately, so i wanted to remind you he is the governor of new jersey, which includes part of the george washington bridge. only half of the george washington bridge, as my good friend points out. not the new york cap, which has behaved a bit better. but a number of other people went to participate in the adelson primary. they included scott walker, the governor of wisconsin. kasich, thed john governor of ohio. they did not go because they needed a trip to las vegas. explainlker did not

what the hebrew pronunciation of his son's name is, because he was uninterested in sheldon adelson's support. shamelessat we call pandering, which is what was going on in las vegas. they understood that this was, as was the case four years ago, when people came to visit donald needed, if they were seeking the republican nomination for president, three years hence -- they needed sheldon adelson's support. conferenced affairs on political predictions. you can see that tonight here on c-span, starting at 8:00 eastern. >> whether it is an award for good journalism -- as a anitician, i declare interest and openness to making a judgment on that -- but an

award for public service for possibly the greatest betrayal of our national secrets of all times strikes me as quite bizarre. i do think there is a real danger of a very cozy media world patting itself on the back without really understanding the consequences for the dangers we face in a very dangerous world. i think there is a dangerous disconnect there. as for the guardian newspaper itself, my view was, if i as an individual gave the names of operates outside a u.k. jurisdiction, that would be in breach of the 2000 terrorism act of the united kingdom. if that would apply to me as an individual, why not as an individual? >> former british defense edwardry liam fox on snowden, government surveillance programs, and privacy issues. saturday morning at 10:00

eastern. and from texas, the san antonio book festival, including authors and panels on the stories that shaped san antonio, and the nsa big brother for democracy. tour the national cryptologic museum and learn about the making and breaking of secret codes, and their role in u.s. history, sunday at 6:00 and p.m. >> in his annual call in program thursday, russian president vladimir putin was asked about ukraine, crimea, and other foreign policy questions. president putin also told viewers he does not fear the enlargement of nato, and later answered a question about nsa contractor snowden and government mass surveillance. this is his 12th: session.

this is courtesy of the english language news channel "russia today." [applause] >> hello, everyone. welcome mr. putin here. we are going to continue picking up your call today. you can call us at the number you see on your television screen. you can send a text message. you're welcome to phone us from the moscow region for free. for those abroad, you can see the telephone number on the screen. we have received over 2 million questions so far. we are going to hit a new record. lots of messages are simple.

like thank you for crimea. >> nice to see you. let me remind you that you can send your question by video, to your computer. there are two websites accepting your messages. you still have time to do it. i would like to bring your attention to the fact that we are going to provide transmission for people with hearing disabilities today. >> we are going to talk about ukraine, where events are unfolding at a very dramatic pace. on the 17th of february, no one would think that crimea would be part of russia and that people have to thank, in the east of

ukraine, these would be sent from the kiev government. mr. putin what would you say , about events unfolding in eastern ukraine? >> to characterize these events, let me go back a step and look at what happens in ukraine in the recent past. before that was a time when president viktor yanukovych chose not to sign this document on the association with the eu. it was not an abandonment. he said that would deteriorate the social and economic situation in ukraine. for the citizens, he thought they would need to think about it. unrest followed, which led to unconstitutional takeover of

power. some people liked that, others don't. in the east and the southeast of ukraine, people began to get worried about the future of their children, meaning that they have a desire -- there was nationalism. threats were expressed. there was a desire to cancel russian minority rights, even though that is not exactly a minority in that part of ukraine. they are an indigenous population. but the attempt was made to cancel early decisions about the use of their native tongue. and of course, this was a problem for those people. what began happening is that

instead of setting up a dialogue and helping these people, there was sent from kiev the local oligarchs, billionaires, and by that time -- there was not trust in those billionaires. they were sent as administrators. that led to additional discontent and people began to offer the wrong reasons. what did the kiev authorities do? they put them in prison. all of that against the background of military units. they were threatening to use force in the east. the east began to arm themselves. instead of realizing something was going wrong with the government of the states,

instead of attempts to start a dialogue, they began threatening. they moved tanks and aircraft against the civil population. that is one of the serious crimes of today's authorities in kiev. i hope you will be able to understand what kind of pitch , thet kind of habits situation is turning into, with authorities dragging their country down that road with them. it is critical today to think together about how we can come out of this situation to offer to people this real, not artificial, dialogue. kiev leaders come to the west. whom do they meet in the west? they meet their own representatives. you do not have to go out. you just call them into kiev. you need to talk to people, to

their real representatives. those whom people trust. bring them out of the prisons. help them organize themselves. east, they talk about federalization. in kiev, they talk about de-federalization. what is behind those words? we need to sit around the table, start negotiating. we are talking about dialogue, about democratic procedures, not the use of force. without intimidation, that is how you can put your country to order. >> we have a dialogue between the diplomats and the meeting has opened that is going to feature four party talks in geneva. could you explain russia's stance at these talks? >> i explained to you, we

believe this should not just be a showcase of all those people for themselves. they should have this dialogue with the people, searching for compromise. >> what would you respond to the statements coming from the west and kiev that claim that russia stands behind the uprisings in the eastern part of ukraine, that russia is allegedly sponsoring and financing these uprisings? >> it is nonsense. no russian units in the east of ukraine, no instructors, no special forces. those are all local residents. the best proof of that is that people, in the direct sense of the word, removed their masks. my western partners -- they have nowhere to go. they have no contingency plans. they are the masters of that land. you need to be talking with them.

>> we can talk about ukraine a little bit later. let's move over to crimea and the decision you took on crimea. throughout your whole political career, you never made any mention of reunification with crimea. you never spoke about it directly. how do you take that decision? did anyone speak against it? what were the potential risks that you evaluated? from sanctions to a civil war. >> the risks were that the russian-speaking population -- they were quite real. this led the people of crimea, the residents of crimea, think about their future and turned to russia for help. and this is what we were governed by. i mentioned during my speech in the kremlin that russia never planned any annexation or military actions in crimea. we wanted to build our relations

with ukraine based on the current geopolitical situation. we also always thought and hoped for that our russian speaking people in ukraine were in a comfortable political situation and would not be threatened. -- would not be suppressed. they would not be threatened. a situation came up with potential threats and repressions when the people of crimea began saying that they wanted self-determination. then we began thinking about, what should we do? it was only then not 5, 10, 20 , years ago, did we make the decision to support representation in crimea. nobody on the security council with whom i discussed this question objected, everybody supported my decision. i am pleased to admit that.

whatever was offered as a final action everything was followed , in a highly professional manner. it was done quickly and decisively. >> this has been really unprecedented, i would say. just as the referendum was organized in a really speedy way for the security issues, the way in which they were solved, the ukrainian military bases being stormed -- i had the feeling that something had been prepared. >> it was not prepared in advance. we were acting based on the situation and the spur of the moment. it was done very professionally.

our task was not to act with our armed forces in the true sense of the word. it was to ensure the residents were safe and they can express their will. that is what we did. without the support of the crimean themselves, that would not be possible. moreover, until the very last day, i never wrote the very last line, that i would send to the federal assembly on reunification with crimea because i was waiting for the results of the referendum. it is one thing when you have sociological surveys. it is a different thing when you

are looking at the will of the entire population. it is important to feel and see what their will is. when we saw the turnout was 86% and 96% plus voted for joining with the russian federation, it was clear that it was an overwhelming majority, pretty much the entire crimean population. >> right. let's invite the residents to join us. we have our film crew working there. ♪

[applause] >> hello, mr. president. i'm really happy to see my colleagues. we are reporting from the heart of the city. we have hundreds of people here from all walks of life. we have got navy seamen, white-collar workers, everybody who voted for the reunification. we worked today for two platforms. my colleague is working on the second platform. here he is.

>> right here is the base, the famous one, where the black sea fleet of the russian navy has based for over 200 years. we have people from all corners of crimea. we are ready for dialogue with you. we are ready to talk to you, mr. president. [applause] >> this is the heart of sevastopol. we have all of the historic landmarks. you have got lots of citizens coming here with flowers to this monument every day. this is really special. the residents of sevastopol 23 years choose their right to

speak russian, to be russian, and at the referendum, almost the whole city voted for reunification with russia. who would like to ask their question? >> hello, mr. president. the civilian personnel at the military base are concerned about the black sea navy. for a lot of us, this provides employment, as well as a really unique plant that is involved in repairing arms. repairing arms. what is going to be the future of these plants? >> you know this better than anyone else in russia. we had agreements with ukraine about the revamping of our fleet, upgrading of our fleet, but unfortunately those agreements were not followed and we had some problems with the re-equipping of our fleets.

the navy ships and support ships will be moved to sevastopol. number two, we have great potential in crimea in terms of shipbuilding and ship repair work. volume will be concentrated there for the repair of ships at the crimean shipyards. the minister of defense deployed or made an order and we will increase the potential of crimea. it has been sitting idle for a while. we're going to move in that direction, and sevastopol is a

city of russian military and naval glory, and this is what we will base our actions on. [applause] >> there are were lots of really various ethnicities in sevastopol. the recent tragedies that fell upon lots of people and residents. i know this includes you. you can ask one of the questions. >> hello, mr. president. my name is nina. the situation in ukraine is evolving in such a way that we have these borders divide our

families. this applies to lots of families in crimea. how can you make sure that our brotherly, fraternal nations remain fraternal? >> we are all governed by certain emotions, but if we love each other and respect each other, we have to try to find a way to understand each other. more simple betwene countries and states, i'm sure we will

find mutual understanding with ukraine. we will return to that problem again. let me point out this. if we respect each other, then we will have to recognize the right of each other for our own choice and people who live in ukraine have to respect the choice that the residents of crimea made. that is my first thought. my second thought is that russia is next to ukraine and it will always be ukraine's close neighbor. they will remember the help we provided to ukraine for many years. hundreds of billions of dollars. it is not only the money.

we are connected by a lot of common interests. if you want to be successful, we have to be cooperate. this understanding will come, despite all emotional difficulties that we experience today. [applause] >> we will take one more question from sevastopol. >> here in sevastopol, we have people coming from all over crimea. lots of people are saying it has been the third line of defense. remember, there have been two wars that sevastopol was involved in. now people are saying for 23

years they spent fending for the city of sevastopol, this was the third period in their history when they had to defend their city. the people are saying, what will follow the reunification? >> hello, mr. president. my name is yvgeny. i want to thank you for making us come back home. now we can call ourselves russian. [applause] thank you, thank you. but now that the government in ukraine is doing its best to impair the lives of the crimeans, we have all of the

banking sector fleeing crimea. we have problems with bank transfers. people cannot get deposits back because the ukrainian banks are ignoring the interests and demands of the depositors. my question is as follows -- how can the russian government fix this situation? >> today, it is one of the most topical and least regulated problems. i'm sure there are other problems in the power sector, and water, but the banking -- that issue has not been resolved fully.

we are trying to negotiate with our ukrainian partner. so far, it is failing. the head of the department, they do not, they are not willing to move to work with us. this only makes us split our power movement to rubles. we are looking at opening accounts and creating a banking network. it takes time to do it at a high level. we will need about a month to open the required amount of accounts and create the networks. with all of the necessary equipment. you mentioned pensioners and people who get their salaries from the budget. there are economic issues as well.

this is all a passing thing. we will overcome that. the pensioners and those who get money from the budget, you know, the government of the russian federation has made a decision that they should be made equal to russian pensioners and budget inquiries to avoid the surge of inflation and the cause of the crisis -- we made a decision to follow a step by step process to increase by 25% the income of the pensioners and budget professionals from april 4. then another 25% from may 1. then another 25% from june 1. then finish the remaining fund a 25% increase on the first of july. over this time, the increase of

pensioners, state-employed professionals -- for the pensioners, there used to be a 100% difference between the income of russian pensioners and ukrainian pensioners. russian pensioners get two times more than the ukrainians. in russia it is 11,600. they used to get 5500 in ukraine. we have a lot of military servicemen in crimea. there are a lot of crimean residents and our servicemen get paid four times more than the ukrainian counterparts. i hope that people living in crimea will feel the advantages of joining the russian federation in a material sense,

not to mention the development of the crimean economy, the development of tourism. that is what we will talk about later. >> we have a question asking whether the lady who is expecting her second baby can get her maternal care? >> of course. all of the benefits that the residents of crimea had when they were part of ukraine, they should not be lost. even if russia does not have similar things, using additional subsidies for the crimean budget, we will keep those and at the same time the residents of crimea and sevastopol will get all social allowances that are stipulated by the russian laws for the russian citizens. >> one more question from

sevastopol, please. >> mr. president, lots of people consider crimea a resort. what about our industry and agriculture? what is russia going to do to develop all of the industries in crimea? my second question is that you promised to create a free economic zone, a free economic area, what will that mean for ordinary crimeans? >> you are correct. crimea is associated with tourism, but it also has an economic industrial and agriculture potential. these enterprises require additional organization and extra capital. i mentioned shipbuilding and

ship repair. they have some promising infrastructure facilities. they have agriculture. compared with 1990, unfortunately, if we compare how crimean agriculture work to then and now, agricultural production went down by 60%. in 2014, agriculture companies of crimea produced only 40% of what they produced in 1990. agriculture also requires additional investment. that is also an issue that has to be resolved. the producing of rice requires a lot of water. this requires time and capital investment. this is what we will also be

doing. the services and recreational facilities -- crimea is a base of the russian navy and also a resort for the entire soviet union. this is what we are going to develop as well. unfortunately, facilities, they are building an infrastructure that has deteriorated. we visited the forts and found out that some of them cannot even be used for accommodations. how did people come there? it is shameful to admit, but

people were saying that they were just drinking alcohol and went to the beach. we cannot have that kind of approach. it will require additional investments of capital and a free economic zone that you just mentioned. we will move russian capital to crimea to speed up the development, to let the residents of crimea have their own proposals. we met the mayor of sevastopol and she talked about creating a development agency. i'm sure we are on the right track. we will get positive thoughts. >> i'm going to introduce a little bit of criticism. lots of text messages are saying

that perhaps crimea may lose its identity, so to speak. people are going to build lots of beautiful palaces, gardens, mansions. there has been no elementary utilities in crimea and there will not be any. >> they have enough castles in crimea. i think what they are lacking is this close attention to recreational facilities for the masses. like mushrooms, they spring up those castles for the rich people, for oligarchs. that is related to violations of the ecological legislation. i spoke to federal authorities

in crimea. we need to do everything we can to make timely decisions to get rid of such a way of developing the territories there. >> another text message is saying, who were those young people? >> those polite young gentlemen, you mean? i already mentioned that a few times before publicly in my conversations with my foreign colleagues. our task was to ensure that there are conditions for the free expression for the rule of crimeans were present. we wanted to avoid radicals and nationalists armed with

automatic weapons. of course, we have our servicemen. they were acting very correctly. at the same time, decisively and professionally, to conduct a referendum in an open way and tell people express their will. without that, this expression of will would be impossible. in crimea, they have more than 25,000 troops that are well armed. the warehouses with weapons and trains with ammunition. we had to protect the civilian

population from the slightest opportunity for those weapons to be used against them. [applause] >> let's give the floor to the head of the russian navy. >> i am commander in chief, vice admiral alexander -- >> i'm sorry we can't hear you. the commander should have a commanding voice. [laughter] >> let me take this opportunity to thank all of the russians. let me thank you for the support that we received throughout this difficulty period in crimea. over the last 23 years, there have not been any solid investments into the military

infrastructure of crimea, and now it is in a really poor state, especially this has to do with accommodations for servicemen and former servicemen from the ukrainian army who joined the russian black navy. the results of your project, mr. putin, are now a source of pride for russians. are you going to take another action plan, like the submarine plan you are talking about, to accommodate russian servicemen in crimea? >> first of all, there will be a program to develop the base in sevastopol and the black sea fleet in general and will extend social programs we have in russia to the black sea fleet in

sevastopol and also provide accommodations. >> mr. putin, you mentioned crimean self-defense. we have some of the representatives from the self-defense units here in the studio. some of them are crimean officers and some of the cossacks. there were some dramatic moments. once the officers were ahead of the extremists coming to crimea, they helped avoid tragedy, actually. i would like to give the floor to yuri. >> his original units were deployed in kiev at a very

complicated time. at a certain time, they were actually abandoned and they told me how they took their own decisions, how they collected their injured and wounded fellow officers, and they were constantly being fired at. >> hello. i am the commander. my name is yuri. here is what i want to say. my units were in kiev when the maidan activists took power over from yanukovych. we were being fired at. people threw stones at us, fired shots at us. we got dozens of people injured and killed. but there was an order to avoid bloodshed. but then we were betrayed. so i have got a question. you have long been in contact

with victor yanukovych in the coverage, especially when he was president of ukraine, has he always been such a traitor? [applause] >> you know, in russia we have this expression that any czars -- of head of any state bears a huge burden of responsibility. at critical times, a person acts according to his experience and his values. as for viktor yanukovych, he did his duty as he felt necessary. of course, i spoke with them

many times during the crisis and after he ended up in the russian federation. we spoke about the possibility of the use of force. you can think what you want about it, but this is what he told me, in response. as he put it. i thought many times about using force. and then he said, i could not make myself do it. sign that kind of order to use force against my own people, my own citizens. as for the special force, for sure you and your friends did an honest and professional job. you did your professional duty.

it makes me and others respect to you and your comrades, your other servicemen, but eventually what happened to you and your colleagues in kiev right now, this will hurt the ukrainian state back. you cannot -- you should not smear them. you should not avoid giving them medical assistance when they are in hospital. re who areple from their

in the hospital right now. they are not only not treated, but they are not even fed. we get no response. if the government treats the people like that, people who do their duty professionally, i doubt anyone could be doing that in the future. and that is what we are seeing right now. in the final analysis, i think people will realize how professional you were when you followed your orders, and we thank you. [applause] >> now, our viewers have a lot of questions on ukraine, with lots of historical reference. one describes the situation -- when the chilean president died

protecting his country -- won't -- but viktor yanukovych fled his country. would you fight to defend its independence? >> i would not say he fled. he had to go to a region of ukraine first. when viktor yanukovych signed it -- that agreement on the first of february, there were three european prime ministers of of poland, france, and germany, he believed it was there. and that it would be followed. according to that agreement, he would not use the army and

air force. he would withdraw units from the capital, and the opposition would leave the buildings they took over, destroy their barricades and disarm their armed units. viktor yanukovych agreed to have early elections to the parliaments. he agreed to return to 2004 constitution, to the elections in december. if they asked him to agree to heif they asked him to, would even agree to provisional elections in a month or two. he would agree to anything, but no. andoon as he left kiev withdrew military units from the capital, immediately the opposition did not stop there. they captured the building of his administration. this was a coup d'état, a classic coup d'état. in every sense of the word.

why did they have to do that? why did they have to act so unprofessionally and stupidly and put their country in that situation? i cannot understand that, and nobody has an answer to that. nobody can answer that. as for me, a person makes a decision in a critical decision just critical situation -- critical situation based on his entire life experience and of his values. you know, i used to work at the kgb over external intelligence, and we had our special training. one of the key elements of that training that you have to be absolutely loyal to your people and to your country and to your state. >> of course the ukraine, crimea, and the coup d'état is a really debated issue. for instance, 96% of all russians said they were right on the reunification with crimea,

but some people disagree. today in our studio we have representatives of both points of view, so some of these people include those who spoke favorably of reunification. let's give the floor to them. let me remind you that some of andsts and musicians performers in russia signed a letter, more than 500 people signed a letter thanking mr. putin for reunification with crimea, and this was a highly debated letter. how would you explain yourself? -- how would you explain your stance? >> i have repeatedly said there are two points i would like to make. the first point is that my father took part in the liberation of crimea. when he was 20 years old he was

the head over the artillery brigade. assault, andon the by the way, and he originally comes from armenia, and neither he nor his comrades had any doubts that she probably would -- any doubts that it was a russian city. he would probably not understand me if i took any other stance. when ukrainian statehood actually ceased to exist, there are no grants for the crimean people to have no right to determine their own future. in this sense, i do not really agree with mr. putin, that the ukrainian parliament is legitimate to a certain extent.

but i don't really agree because i would say a parliament that that canceled its own constitution can be legitimate at all so i don't think there's any reason that parliament and ukraine today, so the crimean people had their own right to determine their future. but of course, i know this was a difficult decision to make, and it has had and will have far-reaching and national -- far-reaching international consequences. my question to you, mr. putin, is as follows -- over the last 10 years we have been moving forward, closer and closer with china, and this progress on our side is reciprocated from china. do you think there will be a military alliance taking shape

between russia and china? >> thank you for your position on crimea and your support. as for our relations with the people's republic of china, they are developing quite successfully at a high level in terms of the level of trust and cooperation. this had to do with political sphere and our approaches to how we assess the global situation and how we ensure safety and security in the world. this is the basis of our intergovernmental relations. we are neighbors, and in that sense natural allies. we are not talking about forming some military or political association with them. i think the block-based system in the world has exhausted itself.

created to counterbalance the soviet union and the policy of the soviet europe, and the russia pact was created in response to that, and then the soviet union ceased to exist and nato is still there. we are told it is becoming a political organization. but nobody canceled article five of their charter about mutual military support. who is that? again, where is nato expending? against whom? to create new blocks like that, we have not thought about it, but for sure we will be expanding our operation with china. -- our cooperation with china. 27.5 is our turnover with the west, and with china, it's $87 billion.

it keeps growing in china. expertsrning into, as well know, economically, power number one in the world. the only question is when. 10 years, 20, 25 years later, but for sure it is going to happen, and with such a huge population of 1.5 billion, and as they modernize their a settled deal. a and it is a fact. i know for sure, we will develop our cooperation with china. we have never had so much trust in the military sphere. we are running joint military exercises on the sea, offshore in china and in russian federation. this gives us reason to believe that the russian/chinese relations will be a significant

factor in the global politics and will significantly influence the modern international relations architecture. >> mr. putin, i would like to come back to the letter in support of crimea. i would like to ask you -- what do you think of this kind of public letters? >> again, i am thankful to all who share my position and support my position on crimea and other issues. as for such public statements, such letters, it is a matter for every person. i know mr. -- for a while, but i did not know what his political views are. i did not expect that he would state in his own words our joint position on a number of problems.

as for collective letters like that, that is possible, but it should not be. -- it should not be formal. it should be natural, according to one's mind and hearts desires. it should not be formally organized. that is what i cannot support. that is not necessary. >> i think we should continue with this issue of reunification of crimea. with the russia, i can see my colleague, a popular journalist, we used to work together 20 years ago. i would like to introduce him now. andre is a journalist. you are known for your quite independent position that you take on various events.

but you said you supported reunification with crimea. but why did you say that? why did it cost so much -- cause so much criticism from your colleagues? >> >> i think it is not so much about the crimea story. it is really about my stance on the tv and radio station, the situation that happened. to me, actually, this testifies to a problem i faced a few years ago. i am really very concerned over the fact that lots of young people had a somewhat distorted picture of the world.

i work as a journalist, but i have to put in some effort, you know, to explain to some of my colleagues that they are not the same thing. -- patriotism and edict is in are not the same thing, but i believe for a teenager or a child, it is really important to follow the trend, so to speak. but the russian government, the russian state has not set any trends. it is out of session to be a patriot now. that is what i am trying to explain. when i was walking here to come here into the studio, i thought that i would be convinced that i am right. i have got four children, and my younger children are still in school.

and the school has now shifted the responsibility for bringing up and educating the children to parents' shoulders, and we work ed hard on this problem. we found a cadet school in moscow region, and the education at this school is based on historical tradition, the traditions of military service. most of the teachers are servicemen who actually bring up the children according to tradition of law for the whole land. they learn, the cadets, the young guys learn respect for women, for older people. they are accustomed to discipline and physical exercises. in other words, at the cadet

school, they are trained to become real men. this is what they only do in 15 moscow schools. these schools are very few and far between. what i am suggesting is that probably you should have some legislation and pass some legislation for these cadet schools. perhaps we could create and set up some foundations in the russian region that would help families with single-parent families who would like to keep -- send their kids to their schools, and then maybe it would -- patriotism would come back into trend and back into fashion. >> the idea is not fashionable in our motherland. maybe somewhere in your circle it is not fashionable. i was referring to my journalistic experience.

look at how the events in crimea emotionally impacted the society. we just found out that we do have patriotism. it is part of our nation, our nature as a nation. if even you, a journalist, was touched -- if you are the -- if you as a journalist were touched by this lack of love for our motherland and if you are troubled by that, that means patriotism is rooted deeply in you, too. you gaveaccident that your children to that particular cadet school. perhaps we need to learn about that and see if we have the

regulatory framework. let's look at this. i am sure we are moving in the right direction here, but should we do something on the legislative level here? i am not sure. but i promise we will look into that, and we will certainly develop this new form of training. you are right, and you are probably an affluent person, and you gave your child to such military-based school, but for some families with income with just one supporter, maybe a father, it is really important to reach a -- create a situation in which a child to be morally educated, to be raised, and to be given an education. let's look at this, see how we can provide for that financially. by the way, in crimea we also

plan to create similar educational institutions. including the ones based on the cadet runcible's -- principles. >> now, mr. putin, you probably know that the people who disagree with the reunification of crimea and russia have been really vocal, and some of them have prevented -- have presented some really tough wording. people are calling for people to shoot at russian soldiers. other people are calling for western powers to exert sanctions on russia. so we've got some people are against the reunification right here in this studio. as we have already mentioned, the russian polls have shown

that the people who have opposed the reunification are in the minority, but some of them are really famous. they include politicians, actors, singers, etc. they have been vocal in deed. their voices have been heard. we would like to ask why this dispute emerged in our society? >> mr. putin, i think there have been some false claims, and it shows that it is time to stop the media war. you should not ascribe these clichés to people who are trying oppose your point of view in a very gentle and polite way. i believe that crimea has always needed some sort of national

identification, but they have always wanted to be part of russia. now that everything has happened, you have won. you have indeed conducted a superior operation without making a single shot. you are right in saying that these green people, the so-called green guys, are the russian military servicemen who protected our own people, our russian people. this is really important to avoid any further speculation. you also resorted to compromise. you sent your foreign minister, mr. lavrov, to speak directly to the ukrainian government in kiev, which is the only authority you can speak to in ukraine. "time" has called you the most

influential politician in the world. i would like to state that we did not start the war, but only those who won the war will be able to put an end to this war because ordinary people in crimea will soon feel that they depend a lot on what is happening in ukraine. lots of the ordinary people are increasingly feeling the consequences of the struggle between the members of their families even. let me tell you, as a former politician, that europe has never solved any questions because it does not like solving these problems, these questions. it likes resting. it likes a calm life.

we are engaged in dialogue with the united states, and ahead of the election, russia is insisting on a referendum on a agionalization or constitutional conference before the election actually takes place. but i believe that as long as russia and the u.s. continue to stick to their own positions and their views, the war will spill over into the whole space out and neither you nor the russians nor the crimean's nor the ukrainians nor the russians and ukraine will actually like that. the possible compromise involves a regionalization of the ukraine, which means the east and some in ukraine will be able to speak russian, to have their own authority. but at the same time, we should recognize that we need an early election to make sure that

everything calms down in ukraine. so do you think russia can offer a compromise between russia and the u.s.? on the one hand, we are going to have elections in the ukraine on the 25th. on the other hand, by some diplomatic means, they will agree. do you think this is possible at home? >> can compromise be found on ukraine, between the u.s. and russia? compromise should be found not before third parties, but between political forces within the ukraine itself. that is the key issue. from the outside. we can just support it and follow that. the goes first --

referendum on constitution first and then the election, or should we stabilize the situation first so we have elections and then the referendum? the important question is, we need to ensure russian rights -- lawful rights and interests of russian speaking residents in the southeast of russia. czar, this is called new russia. this was never part of the ukraine. these territories were passed on to ukraine in 1920 by the soviet government. why the soviet authorities did that, i don't know, what -- but it all happened after potemkin and catherine the great's victories in the wars.

the center was in new russia. today they are citizens of ukraine, but they should have equal rights with other citizens . it is not the point what comes first. the referendum or the elections. the election and then the change of the state structure. the problem is the guarantees for those people. we have to make them understand that ukraine needs to find the solution to this question of where are the guarantees. those who live in ukraine in the southeast will ask the current government in kiev, tomorrow you will forget about that. other times we will ask, where are our guarantees?

-- other times we will send another oligarch to rule us. where are our guarantees? this is what we need to resolve. i hope the answer to this question will be found. [applause] >> i would like now to give the floor to another lady. she has a distinct stance. irina is the editor in chief of a leading literature journal in russia. >> mr. putin, i will probably talk a little bit about the culture aspects of the crimean events. you probably remember that when gerard depardieu was looking for russian citizenship, he was speaking of his life in russia as an amazing, great culture, and probably the crimean events have given a certain impetus to the events in culture. we have got persecution against

modern art, we have got people accusing culture, the artist, of all sorts of mortal sins, and culture is becoming a place of ideology. so there is internal division that the people themselves are introducing. when the people who speak up with alternative positions are denied being a patriotic person, they are called unpatriotic. i believe that everyone understands that what happens in crimea was not -- was actually a forced event. so this kind of alienation, anger that we have inside the

russian society, was lots of even politicians speaking against people with an alternative point of view, do think this is going to deprive russia of the status of the great cultural power. >> thank you for your question. to be honest with you, i do not feel any special change in the situation, any special tension, even after the events in crimea. of course, there is this battle between motives and opinions, but everyone is free to express. nobody imprisons anybody for anything. nobody is sent to labor camps like in 1937. people express their opinions freely. people who do that are sound and

healthy, and they are continuing to do their professional duty but it's only natural that they find the opposition and the other people who oppose them. some of our intelligentsia are not used to that. some of those believe what they say and that is the absolute truth and when they hear an objection, they become , they become very emotional. situation the last couple of months in crimea, yes, intellectuals want defeat for their own country. and they think it would be better. and that is also part of our tradition. if you remember the bolsheviks during world war i also called for the defeat of their own government or their own country, which led to the revolution. know, there is just oracle continui