Serbia's Aleksandar Vučić: Putin, Zelensky & the Next Big War

I hate to say this. You asked me what I think personally. I think that we are at the beginning of a bigger war. Mr. President, you are considered to be the leader in Europe closest to Russia, particularly close to Putin, who you personally know and have met many, many times. So it was a big surprise, quite a coup, that you invited the Ukrainian President Zelensky and had a long conversation with him yesterday during his state visit to Serbia. So why did you invite him? First of all, we have met each other many times and both Russians and Ukrainian Ukrainians, they have always been traditional friends of Serbia, Slavic, Zvi, just to say, sisters and brothers, and Ukraine is an important partner, and speaking even about the level of trade is successfully increased and improved that from, let's say, 30, 40 million, up to half a billion, of heroes and older numbers are going on. And I can tell you in a way that Western media is always exaggerating and victim in its crime, as soon as the Russians opted state, and whatever else, which was not true, but always, under sovereign nation on the other hand, you have the dice and cannot say the majority of the population, but a big portion of our people that are, as a matter of fact, very much, and tell you Ukrainian or the end, because they have something in the dice Ukraine, but they have many things very much in favor of Russia. I was taking care. But let me try to then understand the real overriding agenda. I mean, there must be a conceptual fault behind it. Is it rather economic interests? Is it rather EU agenda in order to show that you are at potential EU member and that in a spirit of solidarity, or is it really conceptually kind of switching sides that you think and see that Russia is about to lose the war in Ukraine, and that's why it is now, in a way, time to build new alliances. I'd really try to understand the most important aspect conceptually behind that visit. This is a full, in main topic of our presentation was very robust. And I was explaining something that I was writing and signing together with Edirama. And it's an issue of unique market open borders within Europe, because I believe that speaking in a realistic way, we cannot expect to become a part of Europe anyway until 2030, or even further more. And having that in mind, wanted to discuss it with Ukraine, because I'm less optimistic than President Zelensky is about Ukrainian and European path, as well, and I was not hiding it. I said to him, what I thought of it. That's it, I wanted to hear him and learn a lot from him. But his experience is his thoughts and his expectations. At the end, I think it was very important to make a better cooperation between our two countries, regarding EU path of all of us, and how we can cannot say fully coordinate, but at least cooperate on that path, and how we can better understand our future, out of the EU or within the EU. Did you discuss with the president next to the topics that have already been explained publicly, a pre-trait agreement between Ukraine and Serbia? Yes, yes. Some economic corporations. Did you discuss also concrete plans with regard to defence? There is this speculation that you are about to build drones together with Ukraine and the UAE. Did these topics play a role in your conversations? Actually, we did not speak about it. Of course, we spoke about war, we spoke about everything. But we are building that factory, drone factory with Israelis, and this plan will be opened by the end of September. And that was something that he knew, and it's going to be, I believe, pretty much sophisticated drones that work so far, only by its railways, and now those drones will be produced in Serbian law. But we discussed free-treats, either agreement, or we discussed an overall situation which is very important, because for you, it's easy, you have your sides, and Serbia has no sides. We are in a terribly neutral country. We are on the EU path, and we'll be on the EU path. And let us see. But you did not join the EU sanctions against Russia, so that was your decision in favour of Russia, in a way. And now this new kind of alliance with Ukraine, that's just a part. Just the decision, Matthias, was in favour of Serbia. We were bringing and making decisions in accordance with Serbia's interests, not in the interests of any other country. And I'm not here to please Russians, to please Ukrainians, to please anyone else, but Serbia's. And I see that there were a lot of misunderstandings in Serbia. I'm now seen as a biggest figure, because I was meeting President Zelensky, like that was not my job, because if someone's against Russia, you don't have your right to meet him. And I cannot say that, I can say that nothing that we talked about, was bad for Serbia, or bad for Ukraine, we discussed even participation of Ukrainian companies in our important infrastructural projects. And these talks were very serious. We were discussing a global political map, in a way, that we also understood, because not only because of the fact that we are both slaves of the Tarnations, we've always been close to each other, but we tried to understand what was going on in Europe, what was going on in the United States, what was going on in Russia, and all over the world. And I think it was very useful meeting for both of us. I know that no one actually, absolutely no one likes and appreciates this type of politics. And everybody was saying you have many different shares, you have to equine on that set. Yes, we picked that. That's Serbia chair. Why say this? This is, we have our strategic role, which is full-flags membership status in the European Union. Number two, we want to keep our traditional ties, not only with Russia, but with China, India, and all the other countries, but Africa, countries. With many of them, we were together in that non-aligned movement 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago. And this is something that we believe served the best for Serbia and interests. And the time right, I have some proofs. First half of this year, Serbia was number one country speaking about the level of growth rate in the entire 3.5%. Next year is for seen by an IMF, by a World Bank, not by me. If we are going to be at a level of 4.5, we expect 4.3, but anyway, will be number one even next year. You cannot divide, you know, like global politics, international politics, and your economic situation, because it's like everything is related to each other and everything is interconnected. And this is what I think that we were doing in a very best interest of Serbia. And to tell you the truth, we'll have elections within 70-80 days. And I don't care what people will say, I care what people will say to me, but I don't care what people will criticize regarding something that I believe very much that we did in a very best interest of Serbia and people. There was nothing bad in Zalenski's visit to the country, to the country, and I believe that this will be seen in the future. And on the other hand, I'll have to speak, doesn't matter whether it's going to be within seven days or one month with Putin or Neuropath in Serbia, because you know that we have these problems with Central, anything else. But I mean, particularly because you were criticized very predictably in your own country, because of that visit, I assume that there must be a very big overriding conceptual thought behind it, an interest behind it, because otherwise it wouldn't have been worth it. So let me get back again to defense issues. You said that you are building drones together with Israel. You are already, as far as I know, delivering ammunition to Ukraine. Could you imagine to do more for Ukraine? Building weapons, delivering weapons, supporting Ukraine in that conflict in order to help them to defend their country? Or would you exclude that for the future? We haven't been delivering Ukraine our ammunition, but what was happening, going surely, and we decided that with Russia as well, we were selling our ammunition to some or too many Western partners, to some African countries as well, and then the Taliban torments and ammunition was ending in a way in Ukraine. And Zelensky, in your rules, he knew everything, and we were discussing issues, what we're going to do with it. We were worried about what we can do together on third markets, even regarding defense industry, but not direct deliverance or whatever. And we were discussing also financial support from Serbia, how to revive the new or some of smaller towns in Ukraine, something that we'll invest to, we discussed all the other issues, but this was not an issue. Was there any surprise during the war? the meeting during the conversation that you had, something that he mentioned, something that he asked for, that you didn't expect, that surprised you. We know each other, we were meeting each other for many years and we have always had good contacts and good relationship because I do understand his position and I believe that he does understand my position. We have a very thorough and a very compelling discussion on many issues, this is all I could say. Let's speak perhaps a little bit more about the Russian perspective here. You have not only been criticized in Serbia but also Russian propaganda predictably criticized this event. So how should I think about the days or weeks before the visit? I assume that the Russian president was not surprised by it. So I assume you spoke to him about it. What is his take on that move? I didn't speak to him because I'm not announcing my political agenda to anyone because Serbia is not a puppet of any other country in the world. We have our own agenda and we take care of our foreign policy. That's it. I didn't speak to him like he didn't speak to me meeting Trump, Whitkov, Kushner, all the others or Europeans or whoever else. We are a independent country and this will remain the same in the future. Did you see any kind of indirect efforts from the Russian side to prevent that? I saw a lot of criticism against myself, I always pretty much the same journalist but we know real arguments. Even here, it's very strange in Serbia. Those big patchwears that would always say "Utrich is not defending our national interests in a proper way" that were always speaking about Kosovo. We were as a Lesky, even as a Lesky, we were saying "Yes, Idukro". We do advocate, we do support the territorial integrity of Serbia in accordance with the event trot or any other resolutions. They went against him once again and against me because even Kosovo doesn't matter because some people had to be aligned only with Russia and I'm aligned only with Serbia's interests not with Russia's interests. Because they were criticizing me and they are criticizing me and they will continue so in a way that I was criticized by many in the West and that's it. And keeping my position and we'll always think that's the best position of Serbia. And if you ask me whether I'm going to ask anyone else in the future who I'm going to meet and what I'm going to speak about, I will never do it otherwise. I'll never be in a position of the president or communist or whatever in this country. Could you describe perhaps a little more in general your relationship with Vladimir Putin, whom you know for many, many years whom you have visited many times and with whom you speak regularly? How is that relationship? Is it friendship? Is it political pragmatism? And how in practice does it function? Could you describe that a little bit? I have less contacts recently than it used to be the case. We were seeing each other not once but several times a year. At a mutual respect there to see and I spoke to him, I don't know exactly, 21 times, 22 times and was visiting Russia many times. He was visiting Serbia as well and we used to have, we'll always have traditional ties. With Russia and also we have always been commemorating Victory's Day online with me, always together because they had I'm ahead, a huge impact on liberation of Serbia and also we had Uj economic interests. We are still getting majority of gas quantities from Russia and at the same time they are still owners of our oil industry which was sold to them by previous government in 2008. As you know, as you can see a lot of common denominators, a lot of common interests and it was very regular, very normal to discuss all these issues with a friendly country as it was and as it is. Russia but what was not true, what was always like tried to be dictated to everybody in Europe was the fact that we were depicted as Russian opiates as a little Russians, whatever which has never been the case here, proud Zürts and have always been taking care of our country and our niche. And speaking about Vladimir Kutat is an intelligent person, tough person but he's also men that I don't know whether he likes to hear it or not, but he was able to hear different, any hundred different issues from the other people. These people were ready to listen to me when I was thinking different. Could you describe how Putin has changed over the last decades and particularly how Putin has changed during the war in Ukraine? Is it still the same Putin? No, I see, even if I see something, even if I feel something, I cannot speak about it because no doubt that I have changed myself, it's regular, it's normal that people are changed and I cannot define it properly and I would overestimate my knowledge and even my nose if I was taught speaking about it. I really expect that they'll get a peaceful solution at the end. Is it possible that Putin gets more and more nervous about the outcome of the war because the domestic pressure on him is increasing and could that lead to a change in strategy? You have both leadership in both countries under big pressure, both in Russia and Ukraine and it's not easy for anyone who is losing hundreds or tons of soldiers on a daily basis, not all of that. It's hard, I'm easy, it cannot be an easy, economy situation. During the war in many single countries, I can imagine how difficult that is for both Russian and Euphranial is. If you ask me about my forecasts, I don't see the end of the war this year and I don't see the end of the war before next spring. I'll tell you why because I think that one side has to be stronger and this is another way victorious in order to stop the war. Otherwise in today's day or mid, I don't see the possibility for possible compromising solutions. But it's then today Putin's realistic endgame, what does he really want to achieve with this war? I cannot say anything on behalf of him, I can have some predictions for myself but it could be irresponsible speaking about it publicly and openly but what I believe is that she wants to take control of entire Donbass area and then I think you're ready for the end of the war. That means he still needs to take full control of Olimana, Ahatorsk, Svabiask and Elbevo from his point of view. In any case, Ukraine turned out to be way stronger than expected and is meanwhile perceived in the no doubt. Is perceived in the world not any longer as a poor victim but rather as a very important asset with regard to modern warfare and technologies behind it. So in a way, the outcome from a today's perspective is surprising and that leads me to a different question here. I'm very much under the impression of the various attacks, cyber attacks, attacks on leaders of defense companies but also attacks like the one a few days ago where a drone with explosives was used at the airport of Leipzig. So in a way you could say Germany and Europe is already under attack without any proof so far who is behind it but a lot of suspicion and likelihood in that context. So could it be that the Russian president Vladimir Putin has changed his priorities while he may not achieve his goals in Ukraine because Ukraine is way stronger than expected, he could switch gears and go more aggressively against Europe, against Germany with all instruments of hybrid warfare and in the end perhaps not win the war in Ukraine but win the hybrid war in Europe. But here you're speaking about hybrid war that was ongoing or launched by Russia against Germany and some other European countries but it's pretty much the same that Europe was doing their gains Russia or even what Europe was doing against Russia was more than that. You were arming up, you were Ukraine, sanctioning Russia, you were at the same time financially supported to Ukraine, what is that if not a hybrid war against Russia. They were doing pretty much the same, it doesn't mean that I agree with that but I'm telling you that there is an easy justification. If they really do so and here from here we noticed we had some examples and we as a matter of fact operated even with your intelligence agencies in order to prevent some of these hybrid attacks and we had some of some successes very recently and I believe that you're learning our public got his information. But what you all need to do is more of a rational approach. You need to put yourself into material, say, know that it's very difficult, speak to. It will then be a war sided. But you need to put yourself into both Shuzlze, Zalensky, Shuzlze, Putin, and then to make some conclusions and rational decisions. Otherwise, it will lead us nowhere, it will lead us further. But what does that mean concretely? I mean, what should then Europe do? What should the United States do? What should they do, perhaps, together in order to change? I'll tell you what would be fiverr them, what would I do? If I were American president and if I were a big European leader, as German leaders, or French leader, or whatever, I wouldn't wait for full exhaustion, exhaustion of Russian troops. And would not wait for a certain moment where we believe that Russia will become much weaker because of that war in Ukraine. I would work tirelessly on a daily basis in order to bring two sides, a negotiating table, and once again, in order to stop the war as soon as possible to make. Troules is fire, whatever you call it, when people stop killing each other, then everything will become more possible speaking about final agreement. And that can be refused by one side, by both sides, whatever, thousands of times. Even after 1,000 times, I would still be insisting on. Because if you analyze today's situation, I believe that, and I know that, at the end, you can agree with me on this. Nobody wants to see peace. Everybody wants to see the defeat of the other side. And there are people in the world that would like to see the real peace, not the peace that will soon fit our interests. But we need peace, doesn't matter what peace, that peace is better than the war. And then you're gonna say, "But don't we don't need that, it's not gonna be. It's gonna be justification of invasion and death and death." Hey, come on. What was the justification of invasion against Serbia? And it was better to reach that arrangement after 78 days of war with NATO from outside and from NATO side as well in 1999 than to continue that war. And it's always a better option. And then you start negotiating, then you do something, whatever, it's always where far the best possible option. This is what I believe. And I know that everybody will spit on my statements because they will say he is doing that for the other side. Today, I am the most criticized person in Western media and at the very same day, which is Sunday, take a look, I don't know, on life, or something like that of always the most criticized person in Russian media as well. And it gives me a right to say what I really think about. And it cannot be the case that I am that very much disliked from both because I was taking care of one side. No, I'm trying to say the truth, but I'm not sure that anyone wants to hear the truth because what has changed in your personal view with regard to the conflict and with regard to Russia over the last years and month and weeks? Something must have changed. A lot has changed. I learned a lot first of all. I learned a lot and you're right. You're crane, show the ability, real ability to defend itself. And at the same time, you know, it was unimaginable for me that Russia can lose the sort of influence in both Caucasus republics as a region in Armenia. Today seems to be inevitable. And it shows to me that politically speaking things were and things looked different. Then I saw it five, six years ago. But speaking about Serbia from the very first moment, we were having like a very rational, very objective approach, supportive, supporting territorial integrity of Ukraine, UN Charter, which is very principled. And at the same time, we were, as you have already said, the only country that did not impose sanctions over Russia, but you need to understand that we were under sanctions of Europe and United States for many years. And we know how does it go and it would be like doing against someone something that we were victims of in the past. And it was very difficult for us. And I believe that we brought up at the end a good decision, a good decision for Serbia. But I cannot speak about everything that I see. Of course I cannot. I cannot speak about many things. That are actually changed in the world, openly because that will harm political position of my country, which I love the most. And that's it. But what I was able to say, I believe that I have already said to you. You spoke to Putin. You spoke to Zelensky, who has at this moment the more realistic view on the war and its potential outcome. I cannot say that because I don't know what would be final outcome, what would be the end of the war. But I will what I can say because I spoke by the president Putin few months ago. And what I can say. When did you speak last time? I believe two, two or three months ago, four months ago. We had this discussion regarding the oil industry of Serbia and everything else. Did you speak more frequently together, let's say a year ago or two years ago? Has that relationship suffered a little bit? Yeah, we spoke more often, let's say, three or four or five years ago, that it was a test a year ago or two years ago. No doubt. How high is the danger that if Putin faces more and more successful defense in Ukraine, than expected, and is less successful than planned, that he is doing things that could really escalate and could really get dangerous? How nervous is he? I cannot say that he is nervous or he is not because I don't know. And I cannot be, I'm not someone who is able to say this because I see that people are saying, invest in press, which is nervous because of that although I was not nervous at all. And it's very wrong assessment that I see from time to time. What I can say is that I believe that he'll do his best in order to take full control of Dombassaria using all conventional means. That's it. That's what I think. Could you imagine that he is systematically testing Article 5 with these forms of hybrid warfare in order to test and see how firm NATO acts? Yes, you are one of the smartest people I have ever met, but you are so much one-sided, which is okay to me, because you always speak about hybrid war that is coming only from Russia, but he has a very simple response to that, which is you launch that hybrid war against him as well. And he is going to say to his people and not from Fulik that he was responding to that, then you can say, "Okay, you will start it first of that sentence." You need more talks about how to stop the war. This is what we need. And you're speaking all the time. You're speaking all the time in a way, "Okay, how are we going to beat Putin, how are we going to win against Russia?" I don't know how you can win against Russia because I believe that it's not going to happen easily because at the end Russia is a nuclear power and it cannot be attacked by anyone easily or whatever. You need a compromise in solution, not a defeat of any side. But just to avoid misunderstanding as any reasonable person, I'm also absolutely interested in peace. That is the most important goal the only question is how? And if peace comes with the cost that you basically surrender towards an aggressor or that you accept that territory is occupied in a war, then I think you are sending the wrong signals to the world and that is also to be seen in a larger geopolitical world or a contest. Can I hear something Matthias? If you want to have this kind of discussion because I believe that would be good for your viewers to hear it. Why did you take 14% of Serbia and territory which was guaranteed by UN Trotter and by UN resolution as well? And it was happening just after the aggression against the Republic of Serbia which was led by 19 NATO countries without permission of security council of the United Nations. And you want me to ask you thousands of times was it just solution to do it or my question would be wasn't that an opening of big pandora's box. And at the end actually it was. And you cannot have this kind of double standards or saying well this was okay, although we didn't get security council, UN Security Council decision and permission on that. Of you were doing so and we were taking Serbian territory although that was international we recognize territory and although we did it against UN Trotter but we are strongly against it because it's a wrong message when it's happening in Ukraine. And I agree with it. No, no, Matthias, I agree with you. That's why I can say that we do support territorial integrity of Ukraine and we do support territorial integrity of Ukraine. But we have this right to say and even with that we are saying we need to reach a peace and you you're saying well we need to avoid we need to avoid any kind of wrong messages to the world. But we have already had wrong messages you can now discuss it whether it was humanitarian disaster in Serbia or it was not humanitarian disaster. Then Russians will say it was humanitarian disaster in the east of Ukraine they banned their language and everything else. Put that aside, let us stick to international public law and let us stick to something that is an interest of all the people which is peace. It has to be a compromising solution. There will be never ever good messages after any single war in the world. Never ever it has never been the case what were the good messages after the second world war what were very good messages tell me that we are now in a way close to the very similar situation. - More or less, what were the good-pay insists in that context only on one principle that if we discuss negotiations, peace solutions, compromise that we do not mix up perpetrator and victim, that we do not mix up and start it conflict and to react to the conflict. And that is true in the case of Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine did not interfere in territorial integrity of Russia, did not start any military actions against Russia, not at all. It was just attacked and the same is true in Israel. It was not Israel attacking Hamas, it was Hamas attacking Israel October 7th and sometimes this seems to be locked. And this turning night down of perpetrator and victim of the beginner and the reaction to this, this of the not tolerated. - Yes, fully agree with you. My question is, which territory Serbia attacked that caused your reaction that you bombed Serbia? It was Serbia, it was Serbia territory, it was we believe still and in accordance with our constitution it is. But my question to you is whether that was somewhere abroad or here in Serbia, that was Kyrgyzstan, that's why I'm telling you. Anyway, honestly, I think Russia, Ukraine is complicated enough, let's not dive deep into this conflict, I know that it is of course very kind of emotional, I have this context. I have this context. It's that also explains a lot of what we have discussed. I mean, behind you is the European flag. I know that it is one of the most important goals that you have EU membership of Serbia. Let me again ask whether this visit yesterday plays a role in that bigger scheme of things, plays a role in the sense that you are shifting more to the EU and its interests could there be also an aspect of it. - You were discussed it. - And there is a strategic role of Serbia. And I'm not, I believe the time of decent person, but I'm not someone who is very much flamboyant about and the EU accession process and everything else. So I'll tell you why, even with that I showed my skepticism because I am a realist and I see what is happening within EU and it's, and I don't criticize that. I take it as a fact. You know, just three or four months ago I had an important meeting with also Anantonio, then after that they invited me to go to Tivot and I had a very important meeting with Chancellor Merz, who was President Macron and with two presidents from the lion and Koshla. And I was all alone. And we were discussing the issues, EU path of Serbia and they were asking me whether I was still standing on a position, I myself personally on Serbia's EU path and I said to them yes. But the real issue is whether I am disappointed with many things as you are with me. I am also disappointed with many things that were happening to us, particularly after 2013, after Brussels agreement which we signed and only one thing that had to be done by Albanian authorities in Kosovo, which was formation of Serb Municipal Association, was not delivered at all, but it was cosigned by European Union. And then, but we at the same time delivered on dismantling some of our institutions and everything else. But even for getting that, we had some things to deal with which no other country is dealt with, which is not only Kosovo issue, which is a special chapter, 35 chapter, we are the only one who has that chapter as a matter of fact. But it's also about some, let's say, regulatory agency for electronic medias. What was in a way tried to be imposed on Serbia was the case nowhere else, Ciliro. And I was profoundly grateful to Antonio Koshta and Tursula and they were saying that, they were confirming that. They were saying really that meeting, okay what Alexander is facing regarding that, it's the case that was not present anywhere else. And then we had a very good discussion and those people said to me okay you do this Alexander and we'll deliver on this. And we delivered on four items, on four items that we were asked for, four out of four. And even after that, European Council did not open cluster three for Serbia. And they expected like a huge political avalanche from Serbia for myself to say to people, now we are not on EU path, we are angry. No, not. I expected it. I expected it because you were creating not too much years, but many people were creating an overall atmosphere against Serbia in the recent years, lying about sonic weapons, lying about Sarajevo Safari. I cannot say it's a fabrication, it's a lie, lying about many other things. Then when you dehumanize one, when you dehumanize the person, how you can deal with him, then you can say they progress on EU path, how can I say that we progress on EU path, that guy was killing innocent civilians somewhere. Although it doesn't matter whether it's a pure lie or not, who cares? And you do this kind of dehumanization, criminalization, not to mention denial of the real results because Serbia progressed the most in an entire region. Serbia overtook Montenegro, we were lagging behind for 50%, 50% they were ahead of us regarding average wages. And now we are ahead of them with a very low public debt to GDP ratio. Is it acknowledged? Is it confessed by all the others in Europe? No, it's not. Serbia is today just for you to know, 51% of overall western Balkans GDP. We are 57.1% of overall western Balkans export to European Union countries. Serbia is 57.1% and we are 61% of overall FDI attraction. It's you know it's like and then you say to us, okay, you're not good enough. Okay, you're not good enough. You always pick about merit-based, but we see that it's not about merit-based, it's about all it is based. And but whether we are going to what I'm going to surprise that we are going to be even more on EU path and we are going to deliver even more and even faster and even in a more efficient way, in order to see what they're going to say to us. Even if they're going to get to us with two more, three more preconditions, always moving targets. We'll say okay, we'll fulfill that as well. We'll fulfill that as well in order to show you that we have no problems with it or the recommendations, all or the recommendations for elections we're going to fulfill. Everything you asked us about that justice and judicial issue through Venice Commission and the other institutions we have all been delivered. Whatever else we're going to do it. What I would really like to find out why is Europe so important for you? Europe's performance these days is not the most convincing one with regard to migration, with regard to growth, with regard to innovation and so on. Europe is criticised big times all around the world. It's lagging behind the United States and other growing economies. At the same time, Europe faces three main antagonists or adversaries of the Open Society model of Europe that is Russia, that are islamists and particularly Iranian proxies and that is most importantly China. To two of the three, you have very close and long-standing relations and a lot of business ties, China and Russia. And you could simply say they are my allies. Why do I need the EU? Could you explain where you see Europe 10 years from now and why Europe matters so much for you? First of all, I believe I'm not going to flatter European Union officials and all the others because I don't do that because everything you said we were pretty much right. As Europeans we are lagging behind. We are lagging behind because we work less than Chinese and Americans. Let us make it very clear. Is it true Matthias? It's true. You know how much people in the United States work? They have longer working hours, even less paid, but I still have an eye on a tiger in order to deliver the very best results. It's very much the same situation in China. In Europe, we enjoy our lives. All of us, I'm not exploring Serbia. We indulge our lives. We go twice for a vacation, 15 times a year and to city break, making city break destinations. And we believe that something will come out of the blue that will be able not to lagging behind the United States and China. This is reason number one. We work less than Chinese and Americans and it's our fault. It's not their fault. This is number one. We need to change something on this and we'll have to work harder and we'll have to work more. Number two, we have to change ourselves. We have to understand what is going on in the world. We have to understand why China is progressing so well, so fast and why we are not doing so. And I was trying to make the very best connections for my country with China, where the United States of America, with all the others, of course with Europeans in order to create the very best conditions for business growth, for economic growth in Serbia and we partly did it, which is seen in the results. But what we need, what I believe that Europe need to do, I cannot tell you where do I see Europe in 10 years because what I see, you know, people are having this type of burden on their shoulders whenever I see them. I see that they have their internal issues, they have external issues, always Ukraine is a separate issue, another issue, they are pushed by their domestic audiences. There are no strategic decisions, but yes. There are no strategic decisions, and meaning strategic political decisions, not to flatter social networks, not to flatter the crazy guys that would get their vote for just whatever, because they're loud enough in social networks. Europe need to change itself as soon as possible. You speak about migration. One intelligence agency can organize what was happening in Ceuta. Another one will be able to organize it in bigger numbers, so are ours. And we are not ready and we are not ready to respond on anything. I was asking Angela Merkel several times what is your expectation and was asking all the others from Serbia what we need to do regarding migration crisis. And then I was doing something like I thought by myself that was good for the country and that was good for Europe. Although I didn't get cannot say instructions because I don't take instructions, but I didn't get really even advises on this. And you Europe has to speak in a proper way because everybody is now waiting for strong German economy to deliver money to those guys that are poorer in Europe and everybody is thinking of themselves. But we need to think about Europe in general and Europe in general has to change itself. Otherwise we'll be lagging behind United States and China significantly in the future with the growth rate averagely 0.8, which is for six months. Everage rate for the Eurozone 0.8, you cannot compare with 5% in China. You just cannot race with them. And this is true and it's not the case for one year, it's not the case for two years, it's the case in last 10 years. And it will remain so in next 10 years. And then someone has to say okay we are losing demographically, we are losing in all different fields, economically, Germany. The most and the best industrialized country is lagging behind Chinese today. What is your advice to Chancellor Matt? He needs to change all of us. It's not about changing habits, it's about changing everything. I don't know who'll be able to deliver on this. Most probably I wouldn't be able to deliver here in Serbia. But if you remember when Sireza was winning elections in Greece, then when they were saying okay we're going to take war compensation from Germany and we'll live nicely, we don't need to work. I was saying no, no, no, these ideas in Serbia, no, we need to work very hard. And I was cutting obliquages, was cutting pensions and was making a new labor law, which would. So your advice would be Germans need to work harder? Our service as well. We were still more diligent than us. Is it actually true that you are learning Germans quite a while? Yes I do. I was better speaking German a year ago, but yeah, but why a dollar she speaks perfumes German? She used to study in Berlin and she speaks, I cannot say perfumes, very very good German, English and Russian as well as. We have to come to an end, but I have to ask you about the upcoming election in your country. It's going to happen in a couple of weeks and maybe you will change roles. Is your ambition are you ready to become the prime minister of your country? I'm going to discuss it first of all with people from the party we tried the long tool. Also then it's up to people in Serbia if we decide so. It's today the other side, so-called students list, they say that they are in the lead. I believe them will have an adult very tough election campaign. And what I believe that what I was saying and I was inviting them for talks on resation, which they did not accept, I believe it's important that I have already said if they win elections for 1%, 0.5%, margin that I will immediately admit that the lack knowledge it and will congratulate them. I didn't hear that from the other side. Anyway, we'll see what people of Serbia will decide. It will happen most probably either October or in November. Okay, to conclude two last questions rather about the very big picture. The war in five years. Will we have peace, a bearable solution or could it like World War One, which in a way was initiated in your country indirectly? Is it possible that we are only at the beginning of a way bigger global war or in any case a war between Europe and the press? It's your last question. What I think personally and I'm not going to paint why I think this, I think that we are at the beginning of a bigger war. And that's why I was hoping that someone else would have done something so far in order to create a peace. It did happen and it more happens. Which means that we are on the edge of how much much we don't want. I hate to say this. That leads anyway indirectly to the very last question world order. Five years down the road. How do you see it? Which role is Europe going to play? Which role is America going to play? Which role is China going to play? Will China be then or in 10 years the largest economy in the world? And the dominating political factor will autocratic systems be stronger or will the open society model be healthier than today? What is your prediction? How is world order going to look like? It will in different countries will strive for bigger independence for themselves and less dependence from outside. On the other hand, you have two big powers which are United States of America and China. You have the third one which is or should be European Union. I'm not sure whether Europe will be able and I hope it will be able to establish itself as a third pillar. Number four, you'll have Russia, India and the other huge continental or regional powers. You see this new alliance between Turkey and Pakistan as well. And this will create a totally different divisions and atmosphere all over the world. And if you ask me how this will look like in Fagoras, I would say will be in a process still of defining defining it with more destructive means than it is the case today. And it's good that everything is digitized and someone will be able to assess my words with this it's use. Thank you very much for taking the time for this conversation. Thanks a lot. [Music]