Rossiyskie Vesti’s correspondent discussed Russian-American relations and their future development under the new U.S. president with Igor Yurgens, the chairman of the board of the Institute of Contemporary Development and the vice president of the Russian Union of Industrialist and Entrepreneurs.

- How would you assess the first political steps and the staff appointments of the new U.S. president, Barack Obama?

- I will start with what I know for sure. And with the people who received the highest government positions and are now concerned with the issue of Russian-American cooperation. Michael McFaul became the president’s special assistant at the National Security Council; he is a renowned expert who knows Russia first-hand. And although he is critical of several aspects of our domestic policy, he can be considered a sober politician, one with whom it is possible to have a conversation.

It looks like Rose Gottemoeller will be named the assistant secretary for non-proliferation and will conduct important negotiations with Moscow on strategic nuclear weapons. She will have to conclude and sign an agreement on offensive weapons with us in the near future, preferably this year. Gottemoeller used to head the Carnegie Moscow Center. In this city she is known as an active, well-intentioned, pragmatic and smart woman with a great deal of experience in the field.

As far as I know, Mary Warlick will be the one responsible for Russian affairs in the Defense Department. She spent many years at the American embassy in Russia in the economic section. She remains in very close contact with our institute. Warlick is known as a sensible and balanced person.

It’s very good that the third highest person in the State Department is Robert Burns, the former American ambassador in Moscow. We have very good memories of him. He is a person who has an excellent knowledge of our culture and language. During the crisis in the Caucasus, I had the opportunity to hold consultations with him, the results of which show that it’s possible to reach an agreement and to make your voice heard in conversations with a high-ranking American diplomat.

It is anticipated that people directly or indirectly connected to Russian diplomacy will be appointed to a number of other important positions. That said, from my point of view, all of the appointments are thus far positive.

John Beyrle, the American ambassador to Russia, continues to make a good impression on me. He has a very interesting family history. His father was, I suppose, the only officer in the American army who also served in the army of the Soviet Union. The fact that our soldiers liberated him from German captivity and then he fought on our side until he reached Elba together with our troops is a symbol of our military friendship in 1946. Beyrle’s son is a highly professional diplomat who has spent a large amount of time here and, according to our information, will apparently remain the ambassador.

So, in sum, I can say that through the indirect signal of these appointments, the people who will be responsible for relations with Russia are high-class specialists, ones who have a realistic outlook on the issues and are prepared to create a new and positive agenda Russia-U.S. relations.

- Is it possible that a conflict will arise between the politicians at the highest levels when it comes to relations with Russia? I’m referring to politicians such as President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joseph Biden and Pentagon head Robert Gates.

- I don’t think that we will ever know the nuances of these politicians’ relationships. They are authoritative, powerful, professional people, very famous inside their own country and abroad. It’s clear that formulating a common position on controversial issues is a difficult task. I think that if the very first meeting between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama sets the right tone for our relations, the latter has enough authority, wisdom and intuition to guide his administration in the right direction.

The first sign – the recent phone conversation between the presidents – is certainly encouraging.

- Do you think Biden’s position on Russia will change for the better? Will he become an advocate of intergovernmental cooperation?

- I wouldn’t call Biden’s position anti-Russian. Nevertheless, I won’t deny that harsh pronouncement and anti-Russian rhetoric (rhetoric, I stress, not actions) were attributed to him during the Georgian conflict.

I met with Biden’s people during the height of the conflict in South Ossetia. And I can say that this politician’s above-mentioned characteristics were, in many respects, exaggerated by the media. During meetings and conversations with Russian diplomats, he time and again displayed a deep knowledge and fairly balanced view of Russia.

It seems to me that Biden’s supposedly anti-Russian attitude is a myth.

- Considering that the United States is intensifying its activities in Afghanistan, is it possible that Russian-American cooperation will also be strengthened in this area?

- I think that if the United States fulfills the first part of its incredibly difficult political program and withdraws its troops from Iraq in 16 months and closes the Guantanamo prison, on which Obama placed high priority, then the Americans will be able to build up their presence in Afghanistan. I cannot imagine how they could do this without leaving Iraq.

Then the war for Afghanistan will enter a very interesting stage. The Taliban and the Islamic extremists have virtually blocked troops, ammunition, supplies and weapons from entering through the south. Only the northern routes are left, and they pass through either Russia or our allies (former Soviet republics). And the role of Russia is difficult to overestimate here, when it comes to shipments and supplies.

From my own point of view, it is in Russia’s long-term interest to see the country under the control of sensible authorities, eventually democratically elected by the people of Afghanistan themselves. Otherwise, the Taliban has already shown its opposition to the pro-Russian attitude of the Uzbeks and other armed groups, to secular authorities in general. It is an extremely unreliable partner, disposed to military action and drug trafficking, which has already increased by a large amount.

An extremely dangerous situation will develop if these people, who don’t see any prospects for themselves besides war, join together with forces tied to al-Qaeda and the Islamic extremists of Pakistan. They could take possession of nuclear weapons. Then we will have to talk about a terrible threat not only to us but also to mankind in general.

Thus, it is in our interest that the United States and its NATO allies succeed in transforming Afghanistan into a more civilized place. I’ve heard various options for Russia to participate in this process: from giving logistical help (giving permission to transport humanitarian supplies through its territory) to aiding the American operations in the fight against the Taliban, a scenario discussed by a number of Russian experts.

I can’t exclude another option. During his election campaign, Obama talked about possibly starting negotiations with the more moderate wing of the Taliban. Now it is difficult to believe in this. There are extremely few people who could be considered part of the moderate wing of the Taliban – at least I’m not familiar with them. Nonetheless, Obama’s words shouldn’t be rejected so quickly. And we should somehow participate in this process.

- To what extent is it possible to settle Russian-American disagreements over the post-Soviet space?

- This is an issue on which we haven’t been able to come to an agreement for some time. It is essential to discuss it in the context of all of the other issues important to Russia-U.S. relations.

Nonetheless, I think that there are more severe problems. Such as the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. But in the context of the given issue and many others, we will always have to discuss the questions of what role will the United States play and what are Russia’s vital interests, the ones that we will defend at any cost.

Paradoxically, the recent history with Georgia and Ukraine showed the moderate forces in the West that it is undesirable to make advances toward these regions. Neither Mikheil Saakashvili nor Viktor Yushchenko, regardless of how much they showed off for those in the American administration associated with Dick Cheney, turned out to be a champion of democracy. And this is now clear to many in America and Europe. Thus, there is now an understanding that Russian concerns were never based on any sort of imperial instinct. They were based on reality. All this has turned out to be a blessing in disguise, fortunately.

But as a matter of fact, we are far from being fortunate. We have to discuss many problems and resolutely defend our position. And there certainly will be difficulties. For example, Iran announced last week that it has launched a satellite. That is, it has developed the technical capabilities for creating long-distance missiles. And North Korea declared that it possesses a rocket launcher with a range of 6,000 kilometers, which means it could reach the territory of Japan and the United States. This is a real threat for Washington. And on top of that, the negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear weapons have been rather difficult. This issue throws a monkey wrench into the negotiations on missile defense with Eastern Europe. Because now there really is an actual threat that Iranian rockets will reach the territory of the U.S. and of its allies. We had rejected the possibility of such a scenario earlier. It looks like the Americans won this argument.

Nonetheless, it’s always possible to look for an outcome that is advantageous for us. If we can undo this knot, a number of other knots involving security issues in the post-Soviet space could come undone. And if they come undone, it will be possible to talk about more serious issues.

The West will never talk with us about zones of vital interest. For them this is already ancient history. We can talk about Russia’s vital interests, about its security and neighborly relations with the surrounding countries. Negotiations must proceed through the prism of securing Russian borders and Russian interests. I think that such negotiations could elicit a more receptive reaction from the American side now than during the last administration.

- And is it possible to talk not about zones of vital interests, but rather about zones of responsibility, in the same sense that the United States understands this word?

- I think this phrase is better already. Especially when it involves states that throw out such capers like Georgia and Ukraine. One in the military arena, and the other in the energy sphere.

Published in Rossiyskie Vesti, February 11, 2009
Interview conducted by Dmitry Ermolaev