Viktor Linnik

Russia Today: This summit comes at the time of very tense relations between Russia and the U.S. It has been said that we maybe are heading towards another Cold War. Do you agree with that?

Viktor Linnik: I understand why we can have this kind of reading of the current situation in our relationship. But basically I think there have been highs and lows in this really long dialogue, post-Perestroyka if you will call it dialogue between the U.S. and Russia. And I think that there have been some storms, but notwithstanding that I think that we face very real issues in our problems and I do not think that Russia could be happy with new ABM defence systems deployed in Eastern Europe. This is something that Putin will be talking about to President Bush. And when President Bush says Russia has nothing to be afraid of regarding these systems, I think that is not the kind of talk Mr Putin will accept, you know, straight-faced. 

RT: How far do you think personal meetings like this one go towards resolving tensions?

V.L.: A very good question. I think what we will see today, these meetings do not resolve the issues, I mean by at large. They certainly do help to air the agreements, the tensions, the points we find disagreements over. But you cannot exclude any big decisions out of these personal rendezvous. This is not to say they are useless. They are good. They are good and I think especially at this period of our relationship when Russia is increasingly criticized for lack of democracy at home and certainly the White House is increasingly criticized for being too NATO-minded in its approaches to Russia.

RT: As Germans would love to play out the differences between the two countries, but there are certainly issues that they have in common, where they can found common ground like, for example, aid to the developing world, co-operation on against terrorism and those sorts of things. Do you think that there is room for consensus and progress there?

V.L.: I am absolutely sure that whatever areas, you know, would be covered on common ground, I think we will go on these issues and certainly whatever disagreements we have, they are not to deny the common ground that we already have and will have in the future. So I think the disagreements will always exaggerated?, you are absolutely right, because they are a sort of flashy, if you want. But certainly we will stock the way, we will go the way we did in the past and I think that disagreements will be there in the future; this will not stop us, as I think, from going on with the dialogue.

Earlier, Viktor Linnik joined Russia Today to comment on the President Putin`s address to the Federal Assembly.

Russia Today: First question regarding the moratorium on the Adapted Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Will Russia implement it? Are these intentions serious or is it just rhetoric?

Viktor Linnik: I think, we certainly see here a very important shift in Russia’s position. It became clear with the visit of U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates last week, when the American secretary wanted to persuade Russia, that there is nothing wrong with the deployment of air defence missiles and systems in Europe. I think, what Mr Putin has said in his address is a clear answer to that particular move on American part.

RT: So, it is a definite massage to the Americans?

V.L.: I think so.

RT: It appears that Russia is now going to start spending the money it is earning,  investing billions of roubles into its own economy? This is a big shift in policy?

V.L.: It is high time for us to do so, because Russia has never headed better in terms of foreign earnings from oil and gas, obviously. I think, Mr Putin says: we have earned enough, let’s turn to the country’s needs.  

RT: It will be a huge mistake, if the country didn’t do it at this stage, won’t it?

V.L.: Absolutely.

RT: This means so much for Russians. If President Putin, for example, will make sure the pensions` increase by 65% in the next two years, is it really feasible?  

V.L.: I think it is feasible, considering that today’s level of pensions is not that high. It is about $US90-100. I think he will do some like $US200.

RT: What about housing?

V.L.:  Exactly. This is another huge problem for the country. Mr Putin has severely criticized many authorities around the country for not implementing the housing programme. People still live in Khrushov`s houses built some 50 years ago. Another problem is infrastructure. Such huge country as Russia can’t do without roads. We cannot develop industry without road infrastructure, in the first place. 

RT: Mr Putin has said he will not be making the address next year.  Do you think he is creating a legacy from self: everybody will look back and say, these were the years when the situation really changed, the prosperity happened during Mr Putin`s time as President?

V.L.: Yes. I think, he should be credited for having changed things at least in that respect. And I think what is also important in Mr Putin`s address, that he defiantly said, he will step down. Another peaceful change of power, constitutional change of power – is also very important for Russia. I think, by and large, it gives a very good sign for the future. 

RT: Will there be major changes in Russia's foreign policy after the address?

V.L.: I think, what Mr Putin has said about foreign policy in today’s address is basically a continuation what he started saying in Munich last fall. This means a more assertive Russian foreign policy, the policy that others should respect. Russia cannot be toyed with like West used to do in Eltsin`s years.

Earlier Viktor Linnik shared his opinion with Russia Today on the current political turmoil in Ukraine.

Russia Today: The Ukrainian Constitutional Court has already started considering the application of the Supreme Rada, which opposes President Yushchenko's decree to dissolve the parliament. How likely is it that the decision will be made any time soon? If it is made who do you think it is going to be with?

Viktor Linnik: First of all, nobody knows how long it will take. Then, the members of the Constitutional Court would be under heavy pressure from both sides in order to affect their opinions on this very vital issue. So, I do not think it would be more effective in working with the members of the Constitutional Court. Also, whatever decisions the Constitutional Court passes, I do not think it would strongly affect the situation in Ukraine because we could recall that back in 1993 the Russian Constitutional Court passed a decision in favour of the State Duma, the Russian parliament, and it did not stop former Russian President Boris Yeltsin from moving on the parliament with the tanks and all that.

RT: We have a Constitutional Court ruling one month ago in Ukraine which was more or less effective. You do not think it could be in some way affective this time?

V.L.: As I have already said, I do not think that the decision of Constitutional Court will be that objective because it is very hard to see an unbiased decision under the circumstances Kiev finds itself in today. If it does, then either side which don't benefit from the decision will oppose.

RT: Fair enough. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and his parliamentary coalition refused to hold the election. What if the Constitutional Court votes in favour of the President Viktor Yushchenko's decision to dissolve the Ukrainian Parliament? Do you think that Mr Yanukovich's party is actually strong enough to win these elections or do you think that the opposition has a chance to grab these seats in the Parliament?

V.L.: I think we should name actually the reasons of Mr. Yushchenko's decision to dissolve the parliament. The reasons, as I think, were that Mr. Yushchenko's fraction in the parliament lost 32 deputies as deserters to Mr Yanukovich's side, to the opposition, and as many days. So that clearly shows the trend in the alliances of the deputies. So I think that the polls right now show that each fraction, the Yulia Timoshenko fraction and Viktor Yanukovich fraction, will stand on their own. They will get as much as they have today, Ms Timoshenko might win but Yushchenko stands to lose.

RT: Yanukovich said on Thursday that he would turn for help to Russia, Austria, Poland, maybe other countries as well to solve the constitutional crisis in his country. Meanwhile, at the same time the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry comes out and says "we do not need any external help, we can handle the situation in Ukraine on our own". The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry is well known to be pro-Yushchenko. Do you think that Ukraine is able to actually solve its own crisis on its own or will there be someone else helps from the outside?

V.L.: I think that Ukraine will have to solve its crisis on its own and no international mediation will have any great affect on how the crisis will be solved. The problem is that Mr. Yushchenko, I think, really wants to be a new Nero, who wants to burn Rome to make his mark in history. So this is what is behind this crisis and I think that in reality about 80% of the population of Ukraine is against joining NATO. Mr Yushchenko strongly wants to join NATO. So, what is the only possible way to achieve this? To create a hurrah on the streets of Ukraine and political perversities of Ukraine, to create a main crisis and that is what we have.

RT: As the situation is looking today, what are Mr Yushchenko's chances to succeed with his plans?

V.L.: I think, that no matter what the situation is, Mr Yushchenko stands to lose and I think that the real benefactor will be Yulia Timoshenko. She is a much stronger personality so she will be there.

Earlier, Viktor Linnik joined Russia Today to give his view on the current row between Russia and Belarus.

Our guest is sure Russia took a completely wrong position in dealing with Belarus, and is already suffering the consequences.

“I think Russia’s reputation suffered a very serious blow as the result of this very unthoughtful dealing with Belarus on the gas issue,” he stressed. “Those were very clumsy actions, because Moscow did not see a clear goal, that it wanted to reach. Did it want to subvert Belarus, did it want to coerce it into joining the union that has being talked over for years, or did it want to send a message to the West? It certainly did send a message, but I think, not the kind of message we wanted. It was that if Russia can treat its only strategic ally on planet Earth the way it does, then what can it do to the rest of its customers?”

“The first mistake was that the Ministry of Economy saw only money: We are missing, as the president said, $ US 4 BLN annually on the most favourable status for Belarus - so why can’t we take them? I think that this money issue was singled out of the spectrum of relations and the many ties with Belarus – political, military, psychological, ethnical, if you like. That was a very bad approach,” the expert concluded.

Mr Linnik was very decisive in claiming that Belorus should not have been treated by Russia just like any other country.

“If you’re talking about, say, Somalia, yes, dealing with them on a strictly economic basis would be understood. But with Belarus it’s a very counter-productive approach in the sense that, yes, money is there and should be looked at, but you should not miss the rest of the picture. And the rest of the picture is, for example, that Belarus is the only air defence shield we have at the western border, and there are two air defence bases we have on the territory of Belarus, which are operated by Russian military personnel. Such things must be taken into account.”

Summing up, Mr Linnik called for a new way of dealing with Russia’s western neighbour.

“I think we are sending a clearly wrong signal to Belarus. I think Belarusians are not very easy to coerce. I think it has been wrong tactics from the start. I think President Putin very correctly stated that negotiations should be continued. And I think we should find a new basis for this issue,” he stated.