Mikhail Stolyarov

Russia Today: Presidents Putin and Bush are meeting at the G8 summit in Germany. What's on their agenda in your opinion?

Mikhail Stolyarov: First of all, what I would like to underline, it is good that they are meeting, that they have a chance to meet and to discuss very important questions.
 
RT: It is their first meeting in quite a while, isn’t it? 
 
M.S.: Yes, it’s been quite long time. Though, President Putin had several opportunities to express his opinion on this deployment [ of anti-missile defence system in Europe] and many other cases. Why is it so important that they are meeting? Because the time has come now to clear up several things which appear to exist in our relations with the Unites States. That includes many small difficulties, but, hopefully, that will be a good start now, during the meeting in Germany, and then, maybe later in the U.S. We have a good time period for clearing up many things. If  we talk about substance, first of all, it’s good that they are meeting. You remember, when President Bush was in the Czech Republic, he talked to Czech President Vaclav Klaus. During the press conference Mr Klaus complained that consultations with, first of all, people of the republic were still needed, then they should pay attention to, Russia’s attitude to the deployment. And Bush’s reaction was very affirmative. He said, “I’ll try to persuade Mr Putin, I’ll explain to him what is what concerning the deployment of this anti-missile system in the Czech Republic”. So, practically, he already foresaw that there would be a chance to persuade Putin and that there’s nothing bad in this deployment of rockets in the Czech Republic. He feels that  there is nothing bad in deployment of some missiles in Poland, in the Baltic states and in other places.
 
RT: Surely, the U.S. must have seen this reaction, the reaction that his followed, that Russia would react like this?
 
M.S.: Sure, after all, Russia has its dignity and we are proud that President Putin can be vocal on that.
 
RT: But is that just pride that is getting in the way? Is Russia not looking further than its nose? Some of the problems that President Bush has mentioned is that If rogue states states do get nuclear weapons in 10-15 years’ time, it will be too late to build anti-missile shied. Why doesn’t Russia work together with the U.S. on that? 
 
M.S.: As I remember, when President Putin spoke with correspondents from different countries, he referred to that. Now the U.S. are going to protect us from some invisible enemy – namely, from Iran that was supposed to use some offensive weapon, but, in fact, doesn’t have it, or from any other danger from around the world. On the other hand, we talk about conventional weapon, where we restrict ourselves and say “no, it’s enough, we fulfilled all the duties concerning that”. Therefore, you are right - and at the same time wrong to some extent - saying that we should foresee some dangers in the future. 
 
RT:  Does it seem to you that with the U.S. anti-missile systems in Europe - countries in Europe have to make a clear decision whether to be pro-Russian or pro-American?
 
M.S.: I agree, there should be a balance and a balanced approach to this very complicated question. But, there should be additional consultations, some more efforts should be done from all the sides to keep this balance. The U.S. can’t just say, “We deploy it. And you take it as it is. That’s it.” That is not the way to talk in a secure world. If we need a secure world, we should have a balanced approach from all the sides. 

Earlier, Mikhail Stolyarov commented on Russia’s latest move not to ratify the Energy Charter and provided more detail about current EU-Russia relations.

According to Mr Stolyarov, Russia is ready to sign the Energy charter but its conditions should be revised. “Why doesn’t Russia want to sign to the Energy charter? This is a direct question but it is quite difficult to give a direct answer to it. I don’t agree that Russia doesn’t want to sign the charter. The question is on what terms this charter might be signed. When signing that document Russia wants to have a balance of interests. And finally, just if we remember the recent events in Davos, when we started to feel that western partners accept Russia as an equal partner but suddenly, as we return to the charter again, it turned out that Russia was deprived of its dignity to some extent, saying that they were ready to sign the charter, but in return, since the charter is connected with the agreement between Russia and the EU, Russia should be given some priorities in relations with the EU,” the expert said, and then continued:

“The dignity I’m talking about is that of Russia as an equal partner in the economic relationship. Russia has recourses and Russia really has something to trade with but in this trade we really have to be acknowledged as an equal partner and to have the access to the energy resources in Europe, as well as Europe having access to resources in Russia. And Russia now makes a hint that they are preparing to sign the agreement with the EU but that sort of agreement should be interlinked with the energy charter and only when all Russia’s interests are taken into consideration the country will be ready to sign the charter. Why not sign it then?”

Mr Stolyarov believes that the only way out of the current situation is a multilateral agreement between Russia and its partners: “Europeans, blaming Russia for being an unreliable energy supplier, should also address their criticism to transit countries, which still takes Russia’s energy. In this respect, I do believe that only a multilateral agreement, considering all the interests of all the parties involved, can resolve the problem, but not some bilateral agreements, as we could see between Russia and Belarus or between Russia and Ukraine.”

“Nevertheless, I am optimistic about the EU-Russia relations in this sphere. The multilateral agreement can be signed. That is only a question of negotiation,” concluded the expert.

Earlier, Mikhail Stolyarov spoke to Russia Today about the Russia-NATO partnership.

"It is not the same way it used to be in the time of the Soviet Period, but it is the sort of threat. It is not occasionally that the leading forces of Russia's political parties, the Russian government are against closing the NATO forces just to the territory of Russian Federation and it is really dangerous, because we see now the circle around us, we have Georgia already which streaming into NATO, we have Baltic States with their positions towards NATO, and very much inspired by this meeting taking place on their territory. And we see Ukraine from the other side which is also ready to provide its territory for NATO forces. And during recent time we have been witnessing already many things and many occasions where NATO does not behave like a dove of peace, like they proclaim themselves to create a sort of defence system for the whole mankind. We can say that, of course, Russia is interested to be a partner of NATO, because we understand the danger of terrorism, we understand the problems of globalisation taking place around the world. Therefore, when we summarise all the problems in our relationship with NATO, we do understand that we need to be partners of NATO, but what we have today, we have the chance that is really directed against Russia, against Russia sovereignty, because the NATO programs create obstacles for Russia," Mr Stolyarov said.

He said that as well as all the Baltic States, Estonia wants to approach NATO, but there is something strange in this case. "What I would say is that they want to create a good relationship with NATO, just basing themselves on the anti-Russian position and thats what makes a sort concern for us, because they say that they are interested more in balancing their priority. What exactly the President of Estonia said – their priority is not Russia, their priority is NATO. And when we hear such words from our neighbour's leader, it sounds a bit dangerous for us. More of that, we see that they are talking about democracy, but they are democratic as far as some other larger countries allow them. For example, when the president wanted to make a sort of estimation of the role the U.S. in Iraq, finally it appeared what he has said: "we are dismayed to find that the threats we were told were there, were not there". There was not anything said on Iraq. But anyway, the president agreed that the course was right. And that's what he had said proves that Estonia can not act as a sovereign state themselves. They are really a puppet democracy and the danger of this democracy is near the Russian border," Mr Stolyarov said.