Past advisor to President Jimmy Carter's national security and one of the most recognizable political analysts in Washington, the U.S. gave an interview with columnist "Kommersant FM" Konstantin Eggert.
— What is the American policy remains unchanged, and that may change under the impact of these events after the presidential election?
— The South American attitude to of, I think, realistic and wants to play. Relationship 2-states depend on the 2-reasons. In this case either one of them is not according to the United States. First comes to security in the region, close to the Russian Federation, to be exact — located to the south of it. This can lead to complications in our relationship — not the fault of Washington or Moscow, in connection with unsafe developments in the region, of which we know. The second factor — the growing internal difficulties RF. It is both economic and social objectives that are sovereign Putin does not seem to fully understand. What he is doing to resolve the problems, in my opinion, will only lead to more languid internal crisis.
— What's wrong Putin directly?
— I think he does not realize that the Russian economy, which is actually very reminiscent of the Nigerian economy, does not meet the aspirations of the Russian people. After all, they no longer live in an isolated country, they are perfect for yourself, what is the present.
— When you are the voice of the complications on the southern flank of, you mean the Middle East, Iran, Syria?
— Fully correctly. And South RF — The Caucasus and Central Asia.
— Many people in Russia and in the U.S. they say that the policy of Obama's reset policy towards Russia or to nothing, as it is the policy of helplessness. Do you agree with that?
— No, I can not agree one hundred percent. I do not think it is a question of helplessness. All right — South American policy was passive, not active, not creative, indecisive. At the same time in Russia was Medvedev's interlude, intermission, when it was not entirely clear who is really responsible for everything. And led to the stagnation of relations. I did not particularly blame in this, but I think that this result is not the most successful.
— As the situation in the Middle East and around Syria and Iran, can affect the Russian-American affairs? What would you advise the administration, so, speak out so that our homeland more positive attitude towards the initiatives of the United States?
— I think it is a question not only of Russia. This is a question about whether America can and are equally Our homeland and China, and other countries to work together. As long as their is not coming out. In this regard, I have criticized the South American policy, which was very lopsided in Syria. A dilemma is added to the Syrian and Iranian hitch. There is our homeland and China with America more or less work together. But Syria could become a severe discrepancy. It should be a situation where getting out of control and will only need a few weeks to get started in the destabilization of Iraq and Lebanon.
— You have said that the policy of the current U.S. administration's RF was rather passive. What advice do you do to make it more active?
— I think we need to do more constructive things and get back to solving those problems, which now, due to the lack of any movement in the last four years, will be more difficult to cope. This is a great plan of action — and the security issues and the economy, and regional development.
— At the same time, if you look at the role that our homeland is now playing in foreign policy of the United States, it is obviously not the main value. Maybe because there are problems and, as Russia is not paid enough attention?
— At first, you are led to the problem of extremely high precision.
I am troubled by nationalism, strained posturing, like the creation of the Eurasian Union, to which, it seems, no one wants to join, not including Russia itself. This policy, in effect, means an escape from the real problems.
— What needs to be realistic with your point of view, self-evaluation and assessment of Russian control of Russian history, the historical context?
— You — part of the European civilization.
— When you work in the administration of President Jimmy Carter's first three years, there was tension in the relations with the Soviet Union, but there was a certain dialogue: come to agreement on SALT which was signed in Vienna in 1979. What happened after the invasion of Afghanistan. In the last year of Carter's presidency organized a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 and spent a very hard line against Moscow. Do you feel that the situation segodnyaschy something similar and can move to a confrontation, at least on a symbolic level?
— I would not present here the direct historical analogy. But I think that the internal problems of the Russian Federation worsen. Solve them by means of foreign policy adventures unrealistic. So forces have RF for this kind of policy is not. The Russians and the need to update their favorites Russia. This is significant in scale task. It is historically conditioned. This is a basic task. Its solution will enable the Russian people, RF Favourites to become a European state, to play a global role. And that — the reason for Russia to be shared with Europe and America. Especially in an era when the world is rebuilt and new intercontinental alliances. If I were a Russian, then looked to the east and the rapidly would understand to whom I should be targeting.
— You mean China and its attitude to the Russian Federation?
— (Laughs). This you said.