Vladislav Surkov:
First of all I would like to say that there will be no lecture. I do
not think it is possible for me to teach anybody here, but I am ready to
answer questions.My recent biography has been briefly described here. I
really worked in private business, including quite large companies,
from the very first days of reforms in Russia, then I worked in Russian
television, at the main channel for a while. After that I worked at the
Presidential Executive Office for 11 years; I was involved in issues of
development of the domestic policy, the electoral system, religious
relations, the regional policy. And since 2012 I have been working at
the Government, in charge of issues of state service and innovation
development, as well as modern culture.

If you
would like to ask me something, I am ready to answer any questions. I
believe this kind of conversation will be much more interesting that a
lecture, because I am still not fully aware of what you are interested
in.If you give me a topic, I can read you a lecture, but I think it
would be better to have a conversation.

I will be
using headphones, since my English is not good enough to understand you
right away. I will be speaking Russian, I beg your pardon for that,
because I am Russian.

I am ready for our conversation. Let's begin.

Moderator: I
propose asking questions related to any aspects of work in Russia. I’ll
take questions, perhaps two or three at a time. But if you (addressing Vladislav Surkov) wish to interrupt and answer some question in full, please go ahead. 

Question:
It was mentioned in your biography that you are a trustee of the
Skolkovo Foundation, and back when the whole project was started you
wrote a big editorial with Vedomosti describing all plans related to it,
plans to bring people together and perhaps produce some sort of miracle
of innovation in Skolkovo. I’m not sure whether it has been produced,
but of course you know recently in Skolkovo a representative of Intel
was detained with his passport taken away and then he left Russia
quickly, and the fact that Skolkovo has been investigated for handing
outside of 750,000 dollars for a series of lectures by Ilya Ponomaryov.
So I just wanted to ask how this project is progressing, and
specifically we have a situation with the foundation handling so much
money for the reasons that the law enforcement is alleging, and we have a
situation where a law enforcement officer decides based on whichever
reasons he has that a fee paid by the foundation is correct orincorrect…

Moderator: Do you have a question? 

Remark: My question is whether the constitutional structure is conducive to innovation, or perhaps some changes are required to it.

Question:
I also have a question about Skolkovo. Don’t you think that development
of Skolkovo and similar projects would actually draw results – and by
results I don’t actually mean only financial results but also
administrative and human capital results – away from the Russian
science?

Question:
First of all I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate you
on the 1st of May. It is celebrated in Russia today and it’s a special
day for Russia.Now the question: Nowadays a very large proportion of
discussions about the development of Russia is dedicated to discussions
of pouring investment into Russia, ways to encourage foreign investors
to invest money in the Russian economy and I wanted to ask you not just
as an deputy prime minister, but also as the person who introduced the
term of “sovereign democracy” to the Russian politics. Do you feel that
there is a potential danger that this devotion to attracting foreign
investment into the Russian economy can potentially lead to violating
Russian sovereignty because foreign investors or generally Western
parties can use their position in order to influence the domestic or
foreign policy in Russia in order to secure this investment?

Vladislav Surkov:
These are very big questions, so I will still have to resort to a
lecture after all, because it is difficult to answer them quickly. And I
will answer them in the order they were asked.

First,
about the situation in Skolkovo. I think I need to tell what Skolkovo
is, because I am not sure that everybody knows. In fact, several years
ago an idea was proposed, in which I participated very actively, to
create the Skolkovo innovation centre in Russia. Actually, this was not
some unheard of innovation; this is a rather typical project for modern
innovation policy. It is an attempt to create an innovation ecosystem in
a single place, quite a concentrated one, with a very high density.
Because it is considered – and practice reflects this – that a “chain
reaction” takes places where scientists, students, business people,
interested parties, of course, the state to a certain degree (depending
on the country) gather together: new ideas are conceived, they turn into
new products, become commercialised, and new markets, new products and
new services emerge. 

Actually,
Silicon Valley, where everything I’ve spoken about here is concentrated
in a single place, is often cited as an example. It was an organic
process. Many countries replicate it and build such facilities at new
locations. This is normal and natural. It was done in the United State.
Today, for instance, we visited the QMB Innovation Centre at Queen Mary
University here in London. This is a large centre that brings together
biomedicine, a huge clinic, scientists, the university and large
companies, and all of which is partially supported by the government.
This centre was built with the help of the government. There is nothing
really new about that.

The
miracle is not reproducing this classic model for creating a large
technology park. The miracle is if it succeeds, because, like I said,
you can gather everything together in a single place, but life will not
necessarily bloom there.

We
decided to build an innovation centre in Russia as well, to build it in
an open field, from scratch – to do it like China, Singapore, Brazil and
India, and even the United Arab Emirates and many other countries.
Again, it’s all been done before. There’s nothing exotic about this
idea. It is just as common to build such centres today as it is to build
schools and hospitals. To emphasise, this is an international trend.

Our plan
for such a centre was dictated by the need to concentrate the quite
disparate, divided intellectual forces that we possess in a single
place; to take something from the Academy of Sciences (I will return to
this later), take the best from there, from universities, provincial
cities, and gather it all together so as to have a critical mass of
intelligence per unit area. And, of course, to attract international
companies there. And you have to build a new city for this with a new
architecture, because architecture also matters. The main thing that
needs to emerge in Skolkovo is a new environment and atmosphere of
collective creativity, where people will be able to find and communicate
with each other, experiment and find business applications for new
ideas.  

This is
why building the new centre is important. It is not as large as it
seems. We plan to have about 6,000-10,000 people living and working
there, which is not a lot. China has centres with hundreds of thousands
of people, even  a million or so (I have been in such centres in China).
So 6,000-10,000 people is not a lot, at all.

In
addition, the Soviet Union had a great amount of experience in creating
science towns. They were created under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
New science towns were built outside big cities, including renowned
science towns, such as Dubna and Sarov, to name a few.

So, how’s
it exotic? There’s nothing new here. Russia has always built science
towns, I’ll say it again, from scratch. There’s nothing surprising or
unusual about this, either. Nevertheless, this idea was met with
scepticism right from the beginning, even thought it was clearly
something we needed, and it immediately had supporters and detractors.
The detractors say: “Why spend so much money to build a new university, a
new technology park, or a new town?” (In fact, the issue is about
building a small town with a very special atmosphere). Why not take this
money and give it to existing universities or poor people, build new
roads or do somewhere else rather than spend it on building this town?

Other
people say: “Why make this project an open one?” (It’s an open project
involving the participation of the world's largest companies. We’ve
partnered up with MIT to build a university in Skolkovo.) There are
people in Russia who say: “This is wrong. Why do we need foreigners on
this project? We are not going to share our scientific achievements with
foreign companies for nothing. It’s just not right.”

The
project, anyhow, has run for two years, which is not a lot for a project
like that. As you may be aware, a research grant is usually issued for
three years in order to get any results, including negative ones. But
it’s only been two years. We are going ahead with the construction,
funding is being allocated, and we will introduce the first phase of
this town in 2014, and the rest, I hope, in 2015. The university and
several infrastructure facilities are being built using budget funds.
Housing is being built by private companies.

We are
already actively funding R&D activities. I invite everyone who’s
interested in innovations to join us, because the terms are quite
favourable: the state covers half of the corporate costs involved in
research on an irrevocable basis. The state gives these funds as a gift
to these companies to encourage their research activities, because
Russia's economy is based not on innovation but on commodity exports. We
have two kinds of big business in Russia: exporting commodities and
importing finished goods. Only these two areas are big money makers. We
haven’t made much money on inventions. We don’t have people like Steve
Jobs; we don’t have companies like Kodak; we don’t have people who have
invented something, created a new market based on this invention and
made large fortunes.

We would
like to turn this trend around. We need at least one success story,
where a Russian billionaire made his billion dollars not by selling
lumber, oil, or iron ore, or by selling sneakers imported from the Great
Britain. That’s not bad, either. Someone has to be out there selling
sneakers, but we must also do something intellectually advanced as well.

For this
to happen, we have already started financing such works. Though we
provide half of the money to companies, we ask for only three things.
First, we want the technology to be truly innovative, not something
built on existing ideas, otherwise the money will be wasted. Second, we
want a foreign participant in such a project. We insist on this, because
we believe that Russia can evolve only if it mixes its  culture with
the culture of advanced economies. We believe that only an open economy
is capable of innovation-based growth; therefore, the presence of
foreign experts in the project is a prerequisite for funding in
Skolkovo. It is very important for us to acquire skills that are simply
non-existent in Russia. Few of our researchers are capable of
commercialising their designs; we have no research managers, either.
There may be a few, but they have no bearing on the economy. In order
for us to have such people, it’s not enough just to read books. We need
to create international teams. People learn faster when they work
together. I don’t believe in virtual workplaces. I don’t believe it when
they say that thanks to the Internet researchers don’t have to work
side by side, because it's expensive. Let one researcher sit in China
and the other one in San Francisco and work on scientific problems.
 Things like this are advanced by people who themselves bunched together
in great numbers in California.

They sit
there together and tell everyone else to part ways and do research
separately. That’s not the way to go, and it’s been proved. So we
certainly need Skolkovo. The third aspect is cooperation with Russian
universities. This must be done as well, because we believe that
universities, students, and graduate students should be actively
involved in research. This kind of work is also in its infancy in
Russia.

We have
already disbursed about eight billion roubles for research over the past
year or two. We have British and major international companies working
there. The Skolkovo board has people like Eric Schmidt from Google and
the CEO of Siemens. Our key partners in the Skolkovo project include
Honeywell,  Nokia and other leading companies, including major Russian
ones. They are serious about this project and enthusiastic about it,
too. For example, people such as Mr Chambers from Cisco are active
supporters and advocates of Skolkovo. This is very important for us.
People have faith in this project. The research board in Skolkovo is led
by Mr Kornberg, a distinguished Nobel laureate, and Mr Alfyorov, the
board co-chairman, the only Nobel laureate in Russia..

Eight
billion roubles is about 160 million pound sterling. That’s a fair
amount of money to finance research. Regarding how clean the financing
is, you know that government spending, or any major spending for that
matter, is fraught with fraud. It can happen.

I believe
that Skolkovo is one of the cleanest projects in terms of potential
abuse for one simple reason: Skolkovo is managed by Viktor Vekselberg,
one of the richest men in Russia. When I was looking for a manager to
head it all, I thought that a major businessman with so much money that
he wants something from life other than money would be a perfect fit. A
man who has made enough money, who isn’t too young and who thinks about
what will be written and said about him after he’s gone. It was
important for him to be rich enough so that he’s not tempted to steal.
We have found such a man. It’s Viktor Vekselberg. You know, he recently
sold his stock in TNK-BP for several billion dollars. It's very unlikely
that he’ll be tempted to steal the paltry hundreds of thousands of
dollars which you just mentioned. I’m sure he won’t be tempted to do so,
he doesn’t need to. I'm not poor, either. I worked in business for 10
years and I might continue to work, if need be. I was successful in my
area of business, which was advertising, public and government
relations. That’s a fact that you can check for yourself. There are
written records to that effect available. This was before I started
working in the Presidential Executive Office. Even then I was successful
as one of the industry’s leaders. So I don’t need to get involved in
this, either.

They say
in Russia that a fish rots from the head. Our head here is not rotten,
and so the body is much cleaner than in many other Russian projects. Is
that an iron-clad guarantee that no one has stolen anything in the
process? Of course not. But then again, haven’t there instances of theft
in large corporations? There have. On many occasions. I can name them.
They made headlines around the world. Executives were arrested and put
behind bars. These were major multinational companies. So what? These
companies are still there. They haven’t been closed and they have
partners to do business with. The banks that were caught red-handed
still have customers who keep their money with them, including you. What
happened? If some pig tarnishes your reputation, it doesn’t mean that
all of your business should come to naught, right? You just have to kick
the pig out and continue to work.

As for
the current situation in Skolkovo, there’s no single case of proven
fraud. The Investigative Committee has some ideas about these relatively
small amounts of money that, by the way, cannot be compared with the
Skolkovo budget. This may be crime, but maybe not. It is necessary to
take these matters to court and let the court decide whether it’s a
crime. The energy with which the Investigative Committee is making its
thinking public makes ordinary people feel that there’s been a crime.
It's just the energetic style of the Investigative Committee. Let them
prove that these people are guilty of a crime, and we'll see whether
they can prove it, with all due respect. This is a slippery slope for
Skolkovo, since this project is hypersensitive to reputational damage. I
believe it’s way too early to talk about possible violations before a
court weighs in. What I mean is that we should talk, but it’s a question
of how loud we’re talking: I believe we should turn the volume down.

If the
Government cares about the projects that are just getting underway …
This project is  just two years old. That’s not a lot for a human being,
it’s even less for a new university and nothing for a new innovation
centre. If we start bombarding this very fragile entity with artillery
fire then, of course, we may suffer, as the military say, unacceptable
damage, because there’s always someone who will make a political story
out of it, which is probably what your question was about. Any question
can be tied in with politics and become part of legal proceedings or an
inspection, which are absolutely normal and legitimate. Government
spending should be monitored. If there’s abuse, it should be immediately
stopped and the culprits should be punished. The only question is
whether a crime has been proved and the attitude to such projects. I
believe that we should be sparing and delicate with regard to such
projects, because if we get tough, the project will come under threat.
It is quite obvious, and everybody, including our partners and
journalists, are asking such questions. I’m absolutely convinced that
everyone should be equal before the law, innovators and non-innovators.
However, findings should be made public at the end of proceedings, and
reporting in the media must be unbiased.

However,
I’m absolutely confident that Skolkovo and its philosophy will live on
and evolve. Russia absolutely needs this project. A lot of people have
come aboard, and I very much hope that this project will be completed
successfully within the timeframe that I mentioned in my interview. I
said back then we can expect the first substantial results 10-15 years
from now. All those involved in such a work should understand this. Not a
single university can produce results quickly, not a single scientific
school takes shape instantly. You and I realise this, and I believe that
the project will be judged correctly and continued into the future. The
project should be able to remain active for as long as needed in order
to produce the results which I absolutely believe it will achieve.

Some
wonder whether Skolkovo will nab researchers from the Academy of
Sciences. It will, and a certain number of researchers will go to work
at Skolkovo. The Academy of Sciences is working with Skolkovo, and a
number of academic institutions have signed agreements with Skolkovo. We
just don’t call this “nabbing.” Instead, we call it integration. This
is an issue of perspective. Skolkovo  already has joint projects with
academic institutions, and I very much support the Academy of Sciences
and strongly support the cooperation between Skolkovo and the Academy of
Sciences. Of course, researchers from the Academy will work at
Skolkovo, but talented people from Skolkovo will move to the academy, if
needed.

With
regard to foreign investment and sovereignty, you mentioned my favourite
theory of sovereign democracy. It has to do with, first, understanding
sovereignty in the modern sense of the word, not as isolation. By the
way, the term "sovereign democracy" came to us from the West. It has
been used by major US and European politicians. We did not come up with
it ourselves. In introducing it to Russia (I remember well the
discussion), we have tried to prove that one can be a sovereign and open
country at the same time. The point was that an open country's tools
for preserving sovereignty are somewhat different from the tools to
protect the sovereignty of a “closed”country.

For us,
as a country that is going through a period of transformation, this is
important. I don’t think it’s important for British democracy. Things
are pretty much clear here, and there’s nothing to discuss. But in a
country that just thirty years ago was totally “closed” to foreigners
and understood sovereignty as isolation, it was important to clarify
that there may be a different kind of sovereignty and that identity can
be preserved in other ways. Our goal was to prove that foreign
investment poses no threat to the sovereignty of Russia. On the
contrary, it’s beneficial for Russia. Still, Russia has several
strategic industries that are off-limits to foreign nationals and we
have a Government commission
(of which I’m member) that takes decides whether to allow certain
foreign investments. That includes such sensitive things as nuclear
energy and medicine (and vaccinations, in particular). We recently
refused an offer by a US company to buy a Russian company, because we
believe it’s still premature. But this is a fairly narrow sector, and
such commissions exist in all countries. Take a look at the way things
are done in the United States (not to mention Britain). There's a lot of
rejections, and the president may take unilateral decisions with regard
to a number of industries. He may decide not to allow the sale of a US
port to a particular country. Why? Because. No explanation is provided.
The answer is: “We believe that we shouldn’t sell it.” This is a normal
way of doing things, but the number of such industries should be
limited. These are the industries that the country believes are of
critical importance for its survival and where it’s concerned about
potential damage. Most of the industries and sectors of the economy
obviously should be as open as possible.

Question (via interpreter):
More than two years ago, you said that the best part of Russian
society, or at least the most productive part of it, deserves respect.
And I think this part of society, of Russian society, will determine the
success of Russian innovation. What has the Russian Government done
since to address these concerns, and what has it done for the most
productive part of society?

Vladislav Surkov: Thank
you. As a matter of fact, what we are discussing, including Skolkovo,
is also a concern for that part of society. Innovation in general means
strengthening or creating institutions that can tap the potential of
this most productive part of society, the productive minority (if this
is a relevant and correct term).

That’s
why we have taken certain steps towards greater openness in the
Government. We have drafted a lot of documents and regulations that say
that the Government basically cannot take a decision without prior
discussion with the expert community. We are simply obliged to do it.
The Government cannot pass certain documents unless there is a
certificate attached to them saying that they have been discussed with
stakeholders. This is true of major acts and routine regulations. I
think we are doing enough today to engage in dialogue that part of
society which has something to say.

Question: Good
afternoon. Russia is such a big country, and some remote regions often
do not share in the success of the Moscow Region. What sort of impact,
in your view, will Skolkovo and other innovative projects have on these
remote regions?

Vladislav Surkov:
They’ll have a positive impact on certain regions. I think all the
projects that open up new opportunities for our country have a positive
impact on all regions. Some regions have raw materials, some provide
infrastructure services and some provide intellectual services. Russia
has different regions and each of them contributes to the prosperity of
other regions. I don’t see why the rapid development of the Moscow
Region where Skolkovo is located should pose a problem. It is a region
that attracts investments. Moscow is expanding. A huge metropolitan area
is emerging. I see no harm being caused to other regions (if that is
what you are hinting at), because a richer Moscow means a richer
country.    

Question (via interpreter): Reuters.
Supporters of Vladimir Putin say that he's brought stability to his
country. But his opponents say he's brought stagnation. What do you say
to opponents who say that Vladimir Putin has been in power too long? And
could you tell us, what do you think the biggest political risk is for
Russia's development? Thank you very much.

Vladislav Surkov: What can I tell
Putin’s opponents? The debate over how many terms a president should
serve seems rather meaningless to me and a bit contrived, in my opinion.
Putin is serving a third term. Blair (Tony Blair, British Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007) was elected three times, if memory serves. Angela Merkel (German Federal Chancellor)
looks set to become Chancellor for a third time, and this raises no
questions. I once delivered a lecture on Roosevelt, who served four
terms as president. What did he do that was bad for America?

Putin is
absolutely legitimate. Incidentally, he could easily have changed the
Constitution (I worked in the Presidential Executive Office at the time
so I know what I’m talking about) and remove the term limit (no more
than two consecutive terms). He chose not to, and instead took a very
difficult step: he left his post and became Prime Minister at the peak
of his popularity and at the peak of his powers. He deserves recognition
for that.

As for
“stagnation or no stagnation”, honestly, I see no stagnation. Life in
Russia is vibrant and dynamic and very turbulent. We have many problems
and many concerns. If we had stagnation things would be so quiet… We
would be laid back: we would come to work late and come home early. But
somehow we cannot get to stagnation. Even if we wanted to we wouldn’t be
able to. You with your world crises, our own people in the Caucasus,
this and that. Stagnation is just not the name of the game.

As to
what the biggest risks are, I am convinced that the main and fundamental
risk for Russia is the one I have already mentioned. We must embark on
the path of innovation-driven development. If we need a regimented
country where the main concern is to screen everyone, that’s one trend.
If we need a country where one can be creative and free and make things,
products and services that are useful for all, that is a totally
different strategic choice. We should do everything to break out of the
paradigm of a military power with a lot of raw materials and embark on
the path of a post-industrial society, travel that path and take our
place in the world division of intellectual labour. We must produce
valuable technologies that others do not have and make our economy smart
and intellectual. This is our main challenge. If we fail to meet it, I
for one am convinced that Russia will not survive as a country. It is
really an existential choice. It is not a matter of taste, it is a
question of survival: either the country survives, or it does not
because all the development potential will have been exhausted.   

Question (via interpreter):
Financial Times. According to a Levada opinion poll this week, more
than 50% of Russians now agree with the statement that United Russia is a
"party of crooks and thieves" ("partiya zhulikov i vorov"). Does
that not, even more than many other signs that we've seen in the last
year and a half, show that the political system, of which you are quite
often described as the architect in Russia, is broken, and needs
replacing or reforming? If so, what kind of democracy does Russia need
now?

Vladislav Surkov: Thank
you. The system is not broken. It is not broken. That is wishful
thinking. The system of which I have the honour to be a co-author is
alive and well, it survived the 2011 elections. It was the same system
at work. Do you really feel like the old system collapsed after the
December 2011 rally? No, it has defeated the opposition, there is no
doubt about it. The system must not be liquidated, it must not collapse,
it must adapt to changing conditions. The system must change. Change
within the system does not mean its liquidation.

Life
changes and the political system must also change, there is no
contradiction there. When it faced certain challenges and saw that there
is discontent in society, profound discontent, it adapted itself. It
took a tough stand, at long last, with regard to extremists. At last
those who thought they could get away with beating policemen got the
punishment they deserved. The situation in Russia before was  rather
odd. If you broke the law during a rally it somehow wasn’t against the
law. But why? Because people are expressing their feelings? Express your
feelings, but do not break the law.

Here in
your country when people caused some mischief, burned something in
London, many of those who did it are still in jail. Why should we allow
our people to beat policemen and throw stones at them? No, no. The
system has shown that it can be tough. At the same time it has shown
that it can be open. Think of the law that simplified the procedure of
registering new parties. Many used to say that we do not have enough
parties. Indeed, there were few parties, we were living through a period
of cleaning up the political space, but once that was accomplished the
law was drafted. I have to remind you that it had already been drafted 
before these events. The system was already responding to tangible
changes in society. Today there is essentially open registration for
parties all over Russia.

The
question about United Russia’s a significant negative rating is a
legitimate question. I think United Russia must survive in a competitive
environment. This is normal. Competition will increase. I am sure, for
example, that Russia would benefit from having a second party as big as
United Russia that could seriously compete with it; perhaps we should
even help such a party to stand on its feet because this is a normal
process. Why wait until something happens spontaneously? We see a normal
process which reflects the evolution of society to the extent that it
has taken place, no more and no less. It is dangerous to run ahead of
organic changes in society (change happens all the time because society
is a living structure): one can run too far ahead. But one should not
lag behind society either. I am sure that our political system is
marching in step with society. It is part of society for we have all its
institutions in our heads. The political system that we have in Russia
reflects the mentality and the soul of the Russian people.     

Question:
Good afternoon. I’ll ask my question in Russian. There are many Russian
students in Britain, including London, who study here, there are so
many of them that a deputy education minister came here in October and
urged Russian students to come back to Russia. But when it came to
specific programmes, it turned out that nobody needs us in Russia with
our English degrees: the Russian Foreign Ministry hires many more people
who have graduated from MGIMO. Businesses, politicians and the state
prefer people with Russian degrees. How does the Russian Government
propose to change that? Will there be any concrete programmes, vacancies
and the like?

And a
very short question regarding VKontakte. Is control over a social
network going to increase? There were rumours recently that it was going
to be sold. These are my two questions. Thank you.

Vladislav Surkov: Thank you very much. VKontakte, for those who don’t know, is a social network in Russia similar to Facebook.

First
about the demand for those who study here and the possibility of
returning to Russia to complete their education or to work.  I think we
are doing enough to make sure that the creative young people who study
here, who have a bent for technology and science, the best, the most
advanced of them come back to Russia. You cannot order them to come
back, it is necessary to create conditions to attract them. But I can
say that there is already a fairly intensive flow of specialists – not
only foreign ones, but those who had left Russia to study and have now
finished their course and are returning – a considerable number of
people because the terms are comparable, sometimes even better. It’s not
only about salaries; universities have sprouted laboratories, which is
also important. There are things to do, contracts are available, that
is, there is work for people in Russia.

As for
jobs, I think there is normal competition. We are an open society. You
have come here to study, you can find a job here or you can find one in
Russia. Whether or not you will find a job has to do with your
qualifications, your charm and the demand of the market. I think you
should rely on yourselves. We are all liberals, aren’t we? Let us each
rely on one’s own strength.

As
regards VKontakte, I think there is some pot-stirring going on there; I
don’t know the whole story, so I won’t stick my neck out for fear of
misleading you. I know Pavel (Pavel Durov is one of the founders of the VKontakte social network)
and I hold him in high regard. All sorts of things are being said, I
don’t want to go into it, I don’t want to make any comments because I do
not know what has really happened. But clearly there is a situation
involving owners and new deals and so on. I am sure that it will survive
in one form or another because it is a very popular network in Russia.
Having said that, I think Pavel is the soul of that project. I very much
hope that everything will turn out well. VKontakte has been criticised a
lot over various things, but it is a fact that this is a very talented
team which has created a very popular, one of the most popular networks
in Russia. I very much hope that it will continue to be as talented as
before.

Moderator: I
would like to thank our speaker today. Thank you very much, we are glad
that you found time to visit us and to answer our questions.

Vladislav Surkov: Thank you.