bear should just sit and relax and eat honey instead of hunting animals. what they're trying to do is chain the bear his fangs and claws. this is how it is working at the and we could even hear that from officials saying that -- but how can they say it is unjust? to snatch texas from mexico but it is unfair that we are working on our own land no, we have to share.

and then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. perhaps they'll stuff it and that's all. protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. if we believe that one of the current problems including in the economy as a result of the sanctions is crucial, and it is so because out of all the problems the sanctions take up about 25% to 30%. but we must decide whether we want to keep going and fight, change our economy for the go through all this or we want our skin to hang on the wall. this is the choice we need to make and it has nothing to do with crimea. >> the russia channel is

responsible for our broadcasting. >> good afternoon. the crimea issue is more or less clear. the only question perhaps is how much we will have to eventually invest in its development after the difficult ukrainian past. the most urgent question for me is about eastern ukraine, which is now calling itself novorossiya. that is what they call themselves. how do you see the future of that part of ukraine? do you believe in the success of the minsk agreements? do you think they will help reconciliation? and how are we going to further help donbass? will it be humanitarian aid, as it is now, or something else?

>> i think i answered a part of your question in my response to your ukrainian colleague. we believe that the crisis will be resolved sooner or later. the sooner the better, of course. this is the first point. second, it should be addressed and settled by political means, and not through pressure, no matter what type of pressure, whether an economic blockade or the use of armed force. and we will help the people, as we are doing now. as you may know, a tenth humanitarian convoy has been sent. after all, we should proceed from the fundamental principles of international law and from people's right to decide their fate on their own. it's not just a casual phrase, when i said that peace should be restored and problems should be resolved by political means. it's hard to say at this point what it would look like, but i

think we should strive for this. the problem is, however, that both sides need to strive for this. people living in ukraine's southeast should be respected. economic ties should be restored. it is a fact that much of ukraine's power industry burns donbass coal. we were asked to influence ukraine's southeast, donbass, to make the miners agree to supply coal. but they are not buying it. because they've closed all the banks and are unable to make payments. our colleagues told me yesterday we are ready to pay and have transferred a prepayment.

they allegedly wired the money to the miners' bank cards, but the cards are not working, and this is how it is with each issue. there is no other way but a peaceful settlement. as far as the minsk agreements are concerned, it's a very important part of this, and we want them to be complied with the minsk meeting came from me and from petro poroshenko. i have no doubt that he is striving for this. but he is not the only one over there. we have been hearing statements from other officials, who advocate basically a war to the end. that all of this is likely to lead to a continental crisis. we hear many statements.

president poroshenko is oriented towards settlement. but concrete actions and steps are needed. our representatives in minsk signed a memorandum in september and there were protocols to it that defined the disengagement line. representatives of donetsk didn't sign those protocols. that's the problem. they said at the very start, we can't. when we tried to insist, i'll be frank with you about this, since the public needs to know these things, they told us that they can't leave these villages. their families live there, and they can't risk their children, wives and sisters being killed

or raped. however, the ukrainian officials did not withdraw their troops from the areas that they were supposed to leave, such as the donetsk airport, either. they're staying there. are you aware of the latest developments? the militia allowed them to rotate their troops at the airport. they took them to a bathhouse and sent them food. but this is a positive development. everyone is insisting on exchanging prisoners of war. i believe that they should all be exchanged unconditionally.

but life is more complicated than that. these lists became include people who have been detained not in connection with the hostilities in southeastern ukraine, but somewhere in kherson or odessa. these lists must be checked. yesterday, they agreed to exchange 30 people. representatives of the self-defense forces went to the exchange location, and a representative of the kiev authorities said we are not going to proceed with the exchange. but these are details. anyway, it would be a positive move, including in terms of implementing the minsk agreements, which is an

videoconference today or tomorrow. the next step should be made at a meeting in minsk. there's another important thing. it's essential for the kiev authorities to keep their end of the bargain. there was an agreement on adopting an amnesty law. it is nowhere to be seen. they keep telling us that a law on special status was passed, but it couldn't be implemented, because the law could come into force and actually become effective only after the other law had been adopted about the disengagement line. it has not been adopted so far. if ukraine wants to restore peace, tranquility and its

territorial integrity, the people who live in certain regions of the country must be respected and a straight, open, and honest political dialogue must be maintained with them. i hope that in the end everyone will go down that path. >> thank you. this year, it became clear that energy diplomacy has become a key factor in geopolitics. how justified is russia's turning to the east and the gas contracts it has signed with china and turkey? have all the pitfalls of these projects been considered? many still doubt that the chinese contract will be profitable, while the potential turkish stream will leave russia dependent on turkey.

do you have anything to say here? >> no, i don't. it would be impossible to argue. if you read american analysts, they also write about the united states' turn towards the east. is this true? the asia-pacific region shows faster growth than the rest of the world. new opportunities open up. as for energy, the demand for resources is racing in leaps and bounds in china, india, as well as in japan and south korea. everything is developing faster there than in other places.

so should we turn down our chance? no, we are working on were planned long ago, even before the most recent problems occurred in the global or russian economy. we are simply implementing our long-time plans. about the chinese contract it is not a loss-making project. both sides on both sides, i must stress. china offered some benefits as well. i will not go into details right now. the chinese government simply decided to provide some support to the project participants. we, in turn, agreed to do the same. so the project definitely became profitable. we have agreed on a pricing formula, which is not much different from the one applied to our european contracts, except for the specific regional market coefficients.

in addition, it will help russia, which will receive and accumulate gigantic resources at the project's initial stage, to begin connecting our far eastern regions to the gas distribution grids, not just to export gas through the pipeline. this will allow us to make the next a very important step. we will be able to link together the western and eastern gas pipeline systems and promptly channel resources back and forth when needed, depending on the international market. without it, we would never be able to connect eastern siberia and the far east to the gas distribution system. not to mention that it is a huge construction site that will revive russia's far east and the entire region. about turkey.

the turkish economy is also growing and requires additional energy resources as much as the we built the so-called blue stream pipeline many years ago, and now our turkish partners are considering increasing the supplies to the turkish market. should we refuse? we have reached all the key agreements with them, which cover the pricing formula, supply schedule and other aspects. we more or less understand their requirements, and we will certainly sell them what we have and what they need. we will do this. will a so-called european hub be built on the border of turkey and greece? this is not for us to decide. the decision largely depends on our european partners.

if they want stable, guaranteed, and absolutely transparent energy supply from russia, which they badly need, without any transit risks? then we'll start working, and the pipeline would reach macedonia via greece, go on to serbia and to baumgarter in austria. if they don't want this, we won't do it. the thing is that there is no cheaper and more reliable supplier than russia, and there won't be any in the near future. >> mr. president, i'd like to go back to the situation on the

currency market, which changes from one day to another and is a great concern for millions of russians. many experts, including you, mr. president, have said the current situation could be blamed also on currency profiteers. can you give us those names? are they russians or foreigners? why can't they be stopped? are they too strong? or are we too weak? a second question on the same subject, if i may. do the central bank and the government plan to peg or devalue the ruble? >> this is what our ukrainian partners did, quite unsuccessfully. they would just buy it back the next day, as it happened in kiev

and as it happens in other countries. the next step in this case should be to set a limit on the purchase of foreign currency on the domestic market. we won't go this far, and so the central bank and the government are not planning, quite correctly as far as i see it, to limit our exporters in this field. this doesn't mean, though, that the government should not act through its representatives on company boards. our largest energy companies. they are partly state-owned, which means that we can influence their policies, but without issuing any directives or restrictions. as for the so-called profiteers, it is not a crime to play on the currency market. foreigners or various funds, which are present on the russian market and have been operating quite actively there.

or they can be russian companies. as i said at the beginning of this meeting, this is an accepted practice in a market economy. they always appear when there is a chance to make some money. in the market by creating favorable conditions, by pushing, for example, as was done in the beginning of this process, like, in this particular case, the central bank of russia was pushed to enter the market and start selling gold and foreign currency reserves in the hope of intervening and supporting the national currency. the central bank stopped, and it was the right thing to do. perhaps it would have been better if it had been done earlier and in a tougher way. then perhaps it wouldn't have been necessary to increase the rate to 17%. that is a different matter. i told you who they are.

two days ago i had a friendly telephone conversation with some of them and i asked, "why are you holding back?" "our loan payments are due soon," was the reply. "can you enter the market?" he took a minute and replied, "well, i guess we have $3 billion." they have $3 billion in reserves. and this is just one company. so if each company has $3 billion, in total it is not $30 but $300 billion. we can't force them. stability of their companies.

to this end, the government must work very closely with them and ensure, along with the central bank, foreign currency and ruble liquidity whenever it is necessary. >> good afternoon, mr. president. the number of beds in hospitals in several regions, and mainly in moscow, is decreasing. the number of staff is decreasing. what do you think about that? and will a similar experiment be carried out in other regions? people are concerned that as a result of the reform they will not be provided with the right to medical aid that is guaranteed by the constitution. >> you know, you are talking about a major issue in our life at present, one of the fundamental issues i would say.

education and healthcare must always be within clear sight of the state and the regional governments. naturally, we must see, understand and react precisely to what is happening in a particular professional community. any changes that occur must be introduced in cooperation with representatives of the medical community in this particular case. if the moscow government skipped this stage for some reason, it is a mistake that must be corrected. first place when working on issues like healthcare and education, we should be guided by people who use the healthcare

and education services. millions of people are waiting for the healthcare industry to improve. our citizens, consumers of healthcare services are those, whom we must think about first of all. what are people saying? they are not pleased with the healthcare. we must analyze what's going on and what should be done to improve the situation. i won't assess what the moscow authorities have done now. they acted within their competence. we're saying that our healthcare is expensive but not very efficient. in many cases beds are used not for treating patients, but for improving their health, we must make our medical aid high-tech. for four or five days a person

receives intensive therapy in a hospital and then completes his treatment at an outpatient clinic. moreover, the city of moscow believes that the bed capacity is excessive by about 30%. to keep it the way it is, we will have to pay for land, electricity, heating and the like. these are inefficient costs. it's better to spend the funds on improving the quality of medical care, equipping hospitals and outpatient clinics with modern technology, and on training medical personnel. i'm now referring, as i see it,

to the reform of healthcare as a whole rather than actions of the moscow authorities. but i think what they have done recently is correct on the whole. they launched a dialogue with the medical community. they made a decision on additional compensation for doctors. 500,000 rubles to medical specialists. 300,000 to the nursing staff and 200,000 to auxiliary medical personnel. moreover, they are drafting a

program for retraining specialists. from two or three months to two years. the city needs to decide who will work and in what position but this cannot be done without consulting the medical community. moscow will act carefully, very carefully, without hurting anyone. the main point is that they should not forget the most important principle of not only a doctor but of all transformations in healthcare do no harm. >> good afternoon, mr. putin. speaking to the federal assembly , you used the expression "national traitors." you didn't specify whom you meant, but thanks to you the

term has again become part of the political vocabulary. your supporters have labeled those who oppose the authorities the fifth column. to whom were you referring when talking about national traitors and the fifth column, and where, is the line that separates the opposition from the fifth column? >> i do not feel any responsibility whatsoever in this respect. everything i do is aimed at consolidating russian society, not dividing it. if you think it did happen, i believe you. maybe you have an even more acute feel for it than i do.

in my public statements i have to be more cautious. we can't mask the truth indefinitely and sometimes it is our duty to call the things by their names. your question isn't easy, since we're walking a very fine line here. it would probably be very challenging to come up with an definition of where the opposition ends and the fifth column begins. this very year, we celebrated the anniversary of mikhail lermontov, the genius of russian poetry. we all remember his lines. we remember what he wrote about the borodino battle. "by moscow then we die as have our brethren died before." but he also wrote -- "farewell, farewell, unwashed russia, and you, blue uniforms of gendarmes, and you, obedient to them folks." was he an opposition activist? of course he was. as you may be aware, and

probably a lot of you know, when he wrote "the death of a poet" on the death of pushkin, one of his relatives saw the text and asked lermontov to soften it a bit. lermontov was so infuriated, that he actually made it even more bitter and edgy. he was definitely opposing the authorities, but i think he was also a patriot. this is very fine line. he was an officer, and a very brave and courageous one, who wasn't afraid to get into the line of fire in the country's interests. by the way, in the last movie by nikita mikhalkov, such officers, who actually brought these efforts to their logical end,

the revolution, were later killed by revolutionaries. after all, the line that separates opposition activists from the fifth column is hard to see from the outside. opposition activists may be very harsh in their criticism, but at the end of the day they are defending the interests of the motherland. the fifth column is those who serve the interests of other countries, and who are only tools for others' political goals.

>> our minister of defense -- at the moment, it is about $50 billion in total. the pentagon's budget is 10 times higher. i think the congress recently had a new defense contract. do you think this aggressive policy? >> does it sound logical or reasonable to you? is it us who move our military forces to the borders? is it us who move our military structures? does anyone listen to us? is anyone engaged in the dialogue with us? no. what we hear is just mind your

own business. every country has the right to share security. why are we not allowed to do that? we are supposed to have that right, too. i spoke about the treaty. it was one of the cornerstones of the security system. who withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty? the united states did so, and they deployed their strategic systems in europe. they are trying to say that it is not an aggressive policy? whether we want to maintain relationship based on rights -- yes. we want to build relations based on equal rights.

we have been maintaining negotiations on wto for many years. we believe that the agreements reached were supposed to be solid. i'm not speaking about who is guilty and who is not. i believe we are right. our western partners are wrong. but we joined the wto, and they are in violation of the u.n. charter. there have been sanctions introduced against russia in an absolutely illegitimate and illegal way. the only thing we want is to promote relations based on equal rights. we would like to work together. we want to work together.

transnational organized crime. including the ebola virus. we will work together if our partners wants to cooperate with us. >> hello, mr. president. i am from kazakhstan. i have a question related to the legislation process. since january 1, the union of belarus and our media are going to join. given that developments in our economy, are there reasons to be concerned?

could you comment on your prediction and vision of the common market? >> kazakhstan and russia both produce oil. it is not related through integration. i am just saying that kazakhstan is facing the unfavorable economic situation at the moment. speaking about all the economic difficulties, the global economy is growing. and there is growing demands for energy resources. speaking about your proposal, it is as follows. it is to work together. we can take a single economic space for free movement of human resources. of course it is easier to do that together.

it has increased 50 fold, and it is very impressive. of course we are going to further benefit from integration. >> given that we have produced 104 billion barrels, the policy is very great. my question is related to the development of our agricultural sector.

it is impossible without addressing the human resources issue. there is a farmer in our area, and one of his workers recently resigned. then the farmer was trying to find a worker to replace him, but no one wanted to work on a farm. no one is going to do the work on the land, on the soil, people are not willing to work on the soil. some believe that it could affect our food security. >> of course i share your concerns. it is very hard to work in the

current conditions, but at the same time we cannot share the optimism of those who believe that quitting the domestic market for internal producers will increase opportunities. of course we have to think about addressing the issues. of course we have to think about vocational training and educational opportunities. with very good vocational education in agricultural areas, it will be beneficial for this area of the russian economy. as well, just yesterday we discussed the decision to support the agriculture. i hope that our agriculture workers will appreciate it and

benefit from it. what is very important to do now is to make sure that they sell their grain, we have to make sure that they reach, that they are not all received by intermediaries. we have to provide educational training. speaking about the prices of industrial goods -- it is not a good thing for consumers but it is a good chance for producers and i hope they will benefit from it.

>> i was already thinking you didn't want to answer. mr. president, what are the prospects of the russian -georgia relationship? does russia believe that we are going to raise those relationships to a new level? do they require more active actions? will the georgian relations with the european union discussed -- and what would be the role of russia in settling the conflict?

for russia's part, the territory of georgia was occupied, in the conflict remains unsettled. georgia, of the georgian people, it is a bleeding wound. but 1919, everyone remembers that year. the grave situation after the dissolution, georgia declared its independence and said they are going to stay with russia.

it was the same punitive operation. that is not forgotten. everyone accuses us of all the things, but that was not our work and we are going to help settle the matters. after our warnings were ignored, hostilities started and we acknowledged independence of

those republics. frankly speaking, it is very difficult. as for the meeting, in georgia, we have very little contact. there are internal power struggles. as for liberalizing the shipments of georgian goods to russia, we did that. the response to the promise of georgia not to stop russia from entering the wto despite our political differences, that was a very welcome gesture from the georgian authorities, and we

answer that with being ready to follow in that direction, and if georgian leaders we will be very happy to see georgia and moscow. >> maybe our colleagues -- please, you have the floor. >> good afternoon, mr. president. we had the dialogues, and you were there and i am very grateful for that. of course there are sanctions, and not very friendly relations of different countries towards russia, but we see that there have been slavic peoples that joined us.

we always considered them friendly. in that regard, i would like to hear your opinion on the prospects of the slavic peoples, czech republic, bulgaria, people who could form a friendly alliance so that they could help us in international affairs just like it is done with english-speaking countries. another question i have -- he has never violated the constitution and he will never let the constitution be violated in the territory of the republic. i was silent when you blatantly -- you were not stopped from asking

the question. i have the following question. when innocent people, people that work on the roads, teachers, journalists, when their lives are put in danger when comrades die, went roads are inspected, his children were left as orphans and he had a pregnant wife, and he knows exactly when certain families were in contact with the militants. not militants, terrorists. there are no more militants in chechnya. they were asked to get back those people, but they called those people in the woods -- they were asked about their comfort and that is according to helping terrorists.

those people should be held responsible. do we believe, in regard of terrorists, if we should use the means that we have so as not to endanger the lives of hundreds and thousands. if we had not taken measures we would have a half a million victims. >> i understand the grief of people, of the families of people who died. i am sure that he will never leave those people alone. as for helping terrorists, of course all of the accomplices should be brought to justice but of course within the law. what really was the case, that will be clear during the

investigation. the fact that we have combated terrorism in all dimensions including helping the terrorists within the law. the slavic countries, they are in a difficult economic situation. they are under pressure. you see that pressure is of course due to the economic situation and with sanctions and we are being under pressure but those minor countries are of course more susceptible. and the serenity is going

through hard times. but i know within the people, the will is not political but cultural and spiritual unity it will prevail. it cannot be eradicated. >> mr. president, a year ago, you, in this hall, announced that iran is our neighbor. it is one of our priority partners. i am quoting you. and we are going to develop relationships with those countries. and this is our choice, you said. a year has passed. turnover has decreased. and no contract that could lead to an agreement emerged.

iran is not in the eurasian community, iran does not participate in projects, the large oil contract has not been implemented. and i am building on the fact that the this year is less than half a percent of the turnover with other countries that russia has, so there is a paradox. no one in russia is responsible for this state of relations. maybe you should think about maybe ordering somebody to be a representative of the government responsible for the turnover

with iran and the development of economic relationships with it. a lot depends on the actions of the ambassador. maybe you should analyze the duties. if an ambassador does not contribute to economic traded by 5%, then you might criticize them. if it is next year, you might change an ambassador. i believe that the direction of interaction of iran and russia would give a lot. last year you said he would visit iran. that has not happened at the in agreement and that has not happened either and i do not understand it. have there been any changes to be strategy?

thank you. >> first, as far as ambassadors are concerned, of course constant improvement of relationships is their duties but that is not directly within his duties. according to your recommendations, we will not have ambassadors to be ambassadors. as to whether diplomatic missions work in a country, that is determined by the minister of foreign affairs. after your question, we will analyze the efficiency of our embassy in iran. on the whole, we are satisfied with their work. as far as the turnover, it has

slowed down. we discussed that with the president of iran. we are taking steps to improve it and improve the structure of it and that the volumes of it. it is not just dependendant on us, it depends on the global economy. this is the objective process, if i may say so, because iran is an oil and gas producing and extracting country and their economy is largely linked to the world's oil sector. now we are witnessing the falling down of prices, oil prices. there are many discussions on that project, why is that happening, is there a conspiracy to punish iran and the economy of russia and venezuela, etc.

it might be or might be not. maybe it is just the struggle of the traditional producers of raw materials with the shale oil, for example. maybe you just hold the price and squeeze the shale oil out of the market and then increase the price. go to the interests of the u.s. oil producers coincide, of course, because the u.s. administration is very calm about the investment done by private companies. low, thenined companies would stop investing in extraction and against the

growing economy, the prices would lift up so much it would be bad for developed countries. most people understand that at our chinese friends understand that, too. they are not interested in oil prices going too low. but i ran depends on that directly, and you cannot do anything with that. we are looking for opportunities to diversify our operation with iran and will continue to do so. we are doing that sincerely. we have had success and some failures. we are cultivating and machinery construction, etc., besides the oil and gas sector, but the contract you mentioned, we wanted to implement it. you are incorrect when you say no one is responsible, the minister for energy has had multiple visits to iran and invited partners here. it was a difficult process to

look for a compromise and mutually accepted solution and a solution has been found. the calculation is very difficult there. there is a whole range of problems but on the whole we have solved it. it needs will from both sides. the contracts need to be beneficial for everyone because not the government will be selling the iran oil. the companies will do that. we have to make the contracts beneficial for them. we are interested in it even do though it is difficult and will continue to do that in order to find the ways to expand our turnover. of course we will work together with our irani partners to solve the nuclear program of iran issue. i believe we are close to finding the solution to this problem because the leaders of iran are demonstrating great flexibility, i believe.

i do not understand why the final or the last resolution on the nuclear program of iran has been signed. i hope it will happen in the near future. if it is so, we will see a change in economics. my visit to tehran is quite possible, and we are now agreeing on that by diplomatic channels to find the time that will be acceptable for me and our partners. the visit is not quite important because when i visit tehran, i will meet the president but i just met him. we will continue to meet each other and continue our contact. if we need a separate visit, we have no limitations about that. there is no external pressure on

that. we promised them we would build a nuclear plant and we have done that. we have signed a new contract on the continuation of our joint work, and we have done it. so the question is technical and we will work on that. today, the brookings institution hosts a discussion care. military health live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] today, we will join investors who served in egypt, sudan, live from the u.s. institute of peace at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. here is a look at some of the programs you will find christmas

day on the c-span networks. start ate festivities 10:00 a.m. eastern with the lighting of the national christmas tree followed by the white house christmas decorations with first lady michelle obama and the lighting of the capitol christmas tree. just after 12:30 p.m., celebrity activists talk about their causes. at 8:00, supreme court justice samuel alito and former governor jeb bush on the bill of life and fathers.ing on c-span2 on 10:00 a.m. eastern, ventured to the art of good writing with steve pinker, and at 12:30, see the feminist side of a superhero as jill lepore discovers the history of wonder woman. and authors discuss their reading habits. and on c-span3 at 8:00 a.m. eastern, the fall of the berlin wall with c-span footage of president george bush and bob dole with speeches from president john kennedy and ronald reagan. at noon, fashion and words on first ladies' fashion choices

and how they represented the times in which they live. then, tom brokaw. that is this christmas day on the c-span networks. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org. coming up, live on c-span, "washington journal" is next. and at 1:30 p.m. eastern, president obama holds the year-and press conference. coming up in about 45 minutes on "washington journal," daily beast contributor gordon chang discusses what is next for north korea leader kim jong own and the country's suspected involvement in the hacking of sony computers. at 8:30 a.m., michael toscano looks at the rules and regulations for drone technology. at 9:15, lynda laughlin of the

u.s. census bureau and kristin of child trends on child well-being in the u.s. and how structures affect childhood property. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: and it is looking more and more like the u.s. government will name north korea as the culprit in the sony hacking case. what is your reaction? should the u.s. retaliate? if so, how? share your thoughts with us this morning on the "washington journal". you can see the numbers on the screen. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents.