Ivan Safranchuk

Russia Today: The deployment of the anti-missile system in Europe is not on the agenda of the G8 meeting.  Is it possible there maybe discussions between leaders outside the summit?

Ivan Safranchuk: I think they will have a lot of opportunities to speak about it. Missile defence issues are so important and I’m almost sure it will be discussed. Besides, President Putin will probably raise this question during his briefings. It’s extremely important for Russia, it’s extremely important for Europe. Where else to discuss it if not at the G8 summit? 

RT: As we know, a large number of people in the Czech Republic have protested against an anti-missile radar on their territory. Is it time to hold a referendum?

I.S.: Well, I am against holding a referendum on any military issue which is controversial enough. Although, it would be in Russia’s interests, if such a referendum was held. But I think it’s not the way how strategic issues should be discussed. What disappoints me very much is that the political elites in Eastern Europe aren’t exactly saying what their public says. For me this is the sign that they cannot explain what they are doing even to their own public. And if they cannot explain it they probably should give a second thought to what they are doing and revise their arguments. Maybe something is wrong with them.      

RT: Well we've just discussed the reaction of the Czech people - and many of those are obviously against the radar. Now we also know Russia criticises the American plans. At the same time the U.S. assures Russia that the anti-missile shield does not threaten the country's security. What's your view on this?

I.S.: On the one hand the American position is correct, but on the other hand it is hypocritical. If you take 10 interceptors in Poland they don’t pose any threat to Russian ICBMs. But the radar in the Czech Republic will be able to monitor the Russian territory up to the Urals, which is unpleasant. Honestly, this is not a problem for Russia. But what if in 5-7 years the system is substantially improved? In 7 years there will be better technologies, interceptors will be of longer range, they will work quicker and more precise. An updated missile defence system in Europe may pose a threat. And the problem here is: maybe the U.S. is honest in their intentions, but what about capabilities? Capabilities of this infrastructure will exist for 30 years or more. 8 American administrations will change. Will they live up to their initial intentions? I doubt it. There will always be temptation to make the system double purpose and to target it against Russia. Such temptation will exist all the time and for Russia it will always be a military concern. So there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about it right now.

Earlier, Ivan Safranchuk gave Russia Today an in-depth look at the Russian-Chinese relations.

Russia Today: Relations between Russia and China seem to be strengthening. But are there any issues that could cause friction?

I.S.: Right now relations between Russia and China are now very stable, all the difficulties have been settled through the previous years. So we can speak about different prospects and alternatives, but there are no real disagreements. Both on the international arena and in the bilateral format, our positions mostly coincide. We may have different interests, by there is no intriguing.

RT: You said Russia and China have similar positions on international issues, like Iran’s nuclear programme?

I.S.: More than that. We agree on such general issues like the role of international law, for example, or the role of the UN Security Council and other international organisations. In the global arena, Russia and China are partners. In Central Asia there was certain competition between our countries, but recently we have found a formula of co-operation in the region and now we purposely avoid such competition.

RT: Historically relations between the two were rooted in ideological similarity. Would you say that nowadays it's based on business?

I.S.: Surely. When our relations were based on ideology – between 60s and up to 80s - we did have many huge disagreements. Now our relations are driven by national interests and they are very good.

RT: Up and coming China is regarded by many in the world as a threat. Are these fears justified? Does Russia have anything to worry about?

I.S.: In the mid-90s there was a very intensive debate in Russia on weather China would become an ultimate friend or an ultimate competitor or even enemy in the future. This debate resulted in a sort of consensus that in the near future there is no potential threat of conflict between China and Russia. That’s why the treaty on friendship was signed in 2001, and this treaty is for 30 years. So there is mutual trust in relations for decades to come.

RT: Let's talk about the Shaghai Co-operation Organisation which includes both Russia and China. What do countries get out of being a member of it?

I.S.: The organisation focuses on Asian politics and in particular on Central-Asian issues. Before this organisation was established, there were concerns in Russia that China would probably try to undermine Russia’s position in Central Asia. But now, when almost all of the region’s countries, except Turkmenistan, are members of the organisation, Russia and China have a wonderful forum to co-ordinate their efforts in Central Asia. Both countries see some global perspective for it, but it’s not some sort of a counter-group to NATO. Rather it has a global perspective, along with the EU and the U.S.

Earlier Mr Safranchuk spoke on RT about Russia’s policy in the Middle East. Mr Safranchuk is sure Russia's support is really important to Lebanon.

“Lebanon is most interested in Russia’s support since we have good relations with Israel. To add, last year Russia made efforts to establish good relations with so-called democratically elected radical Islamic forces in the Middle East like Hamas. So it is natural for Lebanon to take into account Russia’s position,”  Mr. Safranchuk pointed out.

The expert touched upon Russia's position on dealing with Syria's involvement in Lebanon.

“Russia maintains good relations with Syria and is not interested in marginalising Syria’s role in the Middle East. Russia did influence to some extent the course of the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri so as to prevent it from being centred around the possible Syrian involvement. However, Russia is not able to block the investigation if it is underway,” Mr Safranchuk remarked.

The expert believes it is better for Russia to avoid taking sides in  continuing calls for a National Unity Government in Lebanon.

“The protests currently underway in Lebanon are the country’s internal affairs, so Russia should restrain itself from such involvement. As I view the present situation in Lebanon, its political forces will eventually end up forming a National Unity Government, it is only a matter of time,” Mr Safranchuk said.

Ivan Safranchuk does not exclude disagreement between the EU leaders and Russia in connection with the investigation of the former Lebanese prime minister’s murder.

“The EU leaders will most likely demand access to all major officials who may be linked to the assassination of Rafik Hariri. It is possible that the EU members will call for imposing sanctions on some Syrian players involved in the case. I presume it is this issue that may cause disputes between Russia and its European partners,” he stated.