Andrey Kortunov

Russia Today: The Crown Prosecution Service wants Andrey Lugovoy to be extradited to the United Kingdom to stand trial. It appears that is not going to happen. So what is next?

Andrey Kortunov: Well, I think that the next logical step for the Russian side would be to request documents from the British side and to see how substantial the evidence is. And if the evidence turns out to be really substantial, which is likely to be the case, Russians will probably start their own procedure against Mr Lugovoy. At least, this is something that can happen here.

RT:  Britain has said it expects full co-operation from Russia on this matter. Is that going to happen?

A.K.: That depends on how you define "full-so-operation". If full co-operation means extradition, I think it is difficult to expect that Russia would do it right away. And of course they have a very good pretext not to that because the Constitution explicitly rejects such an option. However, if full co-operation means participation in the investigation, I think the Russian Prosecution General's Office will try to demonstrate that they are ready to co-operate and they are ready to assist their British colleagues especially because they have just signed an agreement on co-operation with the British Justice.

RT:  What is the mechanism for a Russian accused of a crime abroad to be brought to justice then?

A.K.: Well, at least the standard practice is that the Russians should be tried and prosecuted here, in Russia. Therefore, if a Russian commits a crime abroad and this particular person is located in Russia, then the Russian Prosecutor General's Office should raise charges after having received a request from their foreign counterparts. So, basically, if the evidence is credible, if the evidence is substantial, they can start a process, a trial, against Mr Lugovoy.

RT:  Andrey Lugovoy maintains his innocence saying the charges are politically motivated. Do you think there is a political tint to it?

A.K.: I think that it is definitely something that can be used for political purposes and we know that many in the West are trying to accuse Mr Putin personally that he is behind this crime. On the other hand, in Russia there are many of those who believe that this is a conspiracy from the British side. And it shows that at least some factions, some circles, in the British leadership are trying to disrupt relations between the two countries. So, definitely, there is a political colour to what is going on.

RT: How do you think this will affect already strained relations between Russia and the UK?

A.K.: I am afraid that the relationship is not going to get any better or, at least it will get worse before it gets any better, because, indeed, no matter what happens, we cannot expect full co-operation, we cannot expect extradition and many in the UK will fell unhappy about this decision.

Earlier, Andrey Kortunov joined RT to comment on the U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice's official visit visit to Moscow.

Russia Today: Mr. Kortunov, you have met Condoleezza Rice during her visit. What did you talk about?

Andrey Kortunov: She wanted to deliver a general message the U.S. is trying to avoid further deterioration of further U.S.-Russian relations. She noted the U.S. doesn’t want to interfere with Russian domestic affairs. But she also wanted to get the Russian political experts’ opinion on what’s going on in Russia, what is happening with the Russian democracy and whether we see any prospects for better relations between the countries.

RT: Tensions between the two nations are high at the moment. Do you think Condoleezza Rice's visit will really make a difference?

A.K.: I think we shouldn’t expect a breakthrough primarily because there will be soon political changes in both countries. In Russia a lot will depend on the outcome of parliamentary and presidential elections and we shouldn’t expect any major changes before we have the sickle completed. And likewise, many would argue that in the U.S. the republican administration has already become a lame duck. Therefore, we should wait till they have their presidential elections completed. So only in early 2009 we can expect a new chapter in the U.S-Russian relations.    

RT: Russia has strongly opposed U.S. plans to build elements of a missile defence system in Eastern Europe. We hear today that the U.S. says that won’t stop it from setting up the system. So what now - are talks over the subject at an end between Russia and U.S.?

A.K.: The name of the game is “damage limitation”. I don’t think the U.S. will change their posture. These disagreements will remain. However, I think both sides are trying to avoid a serious crisis in the bilateral relationship. No-one is interested in getting back to the Cold War days. So in terms of political rhetoric both sides will try to make sure that, despite the fact that we differ on many points, we will still have smooth relationship without sliding into a deep crisis.   

RT: Russian diplomats have been waiting for Condoleezza Rice's visit before they review the UN resolution on Kosovo's independence, so is it going to play a key role here? As Russia says, it wants to find a solution agreeable to all. Do you think much would change after Ms Rice's visit?

A.K.: I hope so. And definitely Condoleezza Rice is the best envoy that Washington could dispatch to Moscow as she knows Russia, she studied Russian and she has good acquaintances in Russia. At the same time, there is not much she can do. I think we can somehow soften this transition. Hopefully we reached the bottom in our relations. But, as I’ve already said, too much has to be done to achieve a breakthrough in our relations. 

RT: The U.S. has expressed concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia. What did Condoleezza Rice have to say to you about that this morning?

A.K.: She was very cautious not to create an impression that the U.S. teaches Russia how to live or that the U.S. is ready to interfere with Russian domestic affaires. However, she emphasised the U.S. wants to assist Russia, if Russia, of course, wants such an assistance. The U.S. will have its position on political developments in Russia, and these positions won’t necessarily coincide with the Kremlin’s positions. She also said that despite all disagreements we have, we should develop relations in various spheres.  

Earlier, Andrey Kortunov joined Russia Today to comment on the annual Presidential address to the Federation Council.

Russia Today: What parts of the President Putin’s speech do you find the most interesting?

Andrey Kortunov: Well, in my view, most interesting was his very powerful social part of the speech. He clearly indicated that Russia is going to be a social state. It is not  private business, it is not the foreign investors, but the state that should take care of the basic social needs of the Russian population. That was very clear and very forceful.

RT: Normally, he  focuses on the economic achievements and, you know, how to increase the country’s GDP. Apart from that, he talked on how to develop Russia into a more civil, cultured, society. There was a lot of the euphemism “culture” as well, was it not?

A.K.: Absolutely, and I think that his message was that the state and society should work hand-in-hand, and that no citizens should be left behind. That we will have a social state, something maybe close to a social democratic model in Western Europe.

RT: What did you think about the President’s suggestion for Russia to quit the Conventional Forces Treaty?

A.K.: Well, I think it is just an indicator of his irritation with how Russia is treated by the West. It is not particularly about this treaty, but it is about the overall attitude, and the perception here in Moscow shared by many people, that Russia is not treated fairly, and that is why Russia should show some teeth, or at least it should indicate its discontent.

RT: And do you think, this is going to affect relations between Russia and the NATO alliance and the U.S., and between NATO and the U.S. themselves?

A.K.: I think that it is just a very general statement. I think that it indicated something that Russia might do but is not bound to do. I think  Putin and his team still believe that the West will be more receptive and more sensitive to ideas coming out of Moscow and to the Russian interests.

RT: Now some of the goals he sounded out were long-term and it will be up to his successor to carry them out and actually produce results. How will Mr. Putin supervise this? Do you think he will still have any role?

A.K.: Well, I think that 'supervising' is probably not the right word to use, because it will be up to his successor to supervise, at least formally. But definitely Mr. Putin can monitor the implementation of his plans. He can render his advice to his successor and he can still play a very important role because his credentials in the country are high. He is influential and I think that even in his non-official capacity he might still be quite an active politician.

RT: I was reading some statistics earlier which showed that many  people actually find that this kind of address dictates a long-term development for the country. Do you think this address will be popular with the people?

A.K.: Well of course you know people need to have a guide book; they need to have some kind of a reference. But my guess is that these addresses are popular primarily because it is Mr. Putin who delivers these addresses. He is clearly the most popular politician in the country and they want to follow his ideas, they want to listen to what he has to say. So, this does not necessarily mean that such addresses delivered by another person would be as popular as they are right now.

Earlier, Andrey Kortunov joined Russia Today to comment on the current political crisis in Ukraine and compare it with the situation in Russia in 90s.

Russia Today: Are the divides strong now in Ukraine? Can all sides eventually work together on the “orange” coalition?

Andrey Kortunov: Well, indeed it would be tentative to suggest that history repeats itself and that's what we saw in Russia back in 1993 when the President had a real confrontation with the Russian parliament and that's now happening in Ukraine. However, despite these evident similarities there are some differences as well and I would venture to say that Ukraine today is probably more divided than Russia was back in 1993, because it is not just about particular social groups or political movements. Ukraine is divided and will continue to be divided. Geographically, there are clearly two parts of the country and there are major differences between them, not just in terms of the political legacies but also in terms of the culture, of the economic structure and even in terms of their language. 

RT: Why is President Yushchenko so risky? Could he risk himself in political isolation? What do you see happening over the next 48 hours and what is going to happen in a long term?

A.K.: Well, first of all the political risks are for the President Victor Yushchenko. No matter what he does right now would be risky. If he continues doing what he does right now it would be risky. If he steps back it would be risky. One can argue it would be the end of his political career anyway because if they have elections the odds are that Yulia Timoshenko will lead the opposition, not the current president. Now if you talk about a long-term solution – I think that one should understand that there will be no clear-cut victory for any of the Ukrainian political forces right now. You cannot simply eliminate Mr Yushchenko or Mr Yanukovitch from the political scene because they both represent very serious social and economic interests in the country. So not only they have to somehow co-exist with each other but they have to also co-operate with each other and this is exactly what Ukrainians have to figure out how to live with.

RT: But the key question - is it going to happen, do you think?

A.K.: I think sooner or later it definitely will happen. I think there is a certain chain reaction that can not be stopped right now.

Earlier, Andrey Kortunov commented on the visit of U.S. National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, to Moscow and the controversy around America's plans to deploy their missile defence bases in Eastern Europe.

Russia Today: In a recent newspaper interview German Foreign Minister Steinmeier criticised the United States for not talking with Russia about its plans beforehand. Do you think Hadley's visit is an attempt to improve this situation?

Andrey Kortunov: I think so. I think the United States has too many other problems and it simply cannot afford to start another fight with Russia, so there is an attempt to be softer with Russians and to demonstrate that the U.S. is really willing to co-operate.

RT: Why has Russia reacted so vigorously to the U.S. plan to build missile defence bases in Eastern Europe? Why is it of such concern to Russia?

A.K.: I think that militarily it is not really a big issue because the American missile defence system is not efficient for at least a couple years from now, and Russians argue - legitimately, I think - that the whole concept has some major deficiencies. However, politically it is significant, because the U.S.-Russia relationship right now is really schizophrenic: on the one hand we claim that we are friends, partners, and on the other hand the logic that we see behind this move is something which is very similar to the Cold War logic.

RT: Russia in fact does not see the logic. The Pentagon has selected these countries for the bases saying they are set to intercept Iran or North Korea's ballistic missiles.. But Russian analysts say they are not in the right place to do that. So why does the Pentagon put them there?

A.K.: I think that it's a little bit hypocritical. We know and Americans know that U.S. missiles are targeted mostly at Russia, so if you take the strategic equation between the two countries then unfortunately we have not changed this equation since the end of the Cold War. And this is something we should talk about to Americans.

RT: Russian officials say in the case that bases are deployed, Russia will find an "asymmetrical response". What's this likely to be?

A.K.: I remember when I was just a graduate student we discussed this "asymmetrical response" with Mr Andropov, who advanced this idea more that 20 years ago. And indeed if the United States wants to inflate the Russian offensive potential, definitely Russia has a number of traditional means to negate this option to the United States. Unfortunately, we might be back to the old Cold War logic.

RT: In light of yesterday's comments about ending the Jackson-Vanik amendment, some analysts say the Democrats are trying to improve relations with Russia ahead of the coming elections in the U.S. Do you think the countries will be able to resolve this missile defence issue if there is a Democratic administration?

A.K.: We might resolve these problems, but we will definitely have other problems. For example, Democrats are much more sensitive about human rights and they might raise a number of issues that Russians wouldn't like.

Earlier Andrey Kortunov shared with Russia Today his opinion on U.S. President George W. Bush’s annual State of the Union address to the American nation.

In his speech before both houses of Congress, the President  explained some points of his new policy in Iraq.

Talking about the reason for all the scepticism that Mr Bush is facing, Russia Today's guest said there are several reasons for this type of reaction:

“It is not only because they have a Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, but also because Americans are simply tired of the war in Iraq and they do not really see any light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe, the older generation still remembers Vietnam and this situation seems quite similar to what they saw in the late 60-s,” remarked Mr Kortunov.

Asked if it was fair to say that President Bush talked about domestic issues in order to shift the focus from the painful point of the war in Iraq, the expert agreed but had some reservations.

“I would say so, as I think that for Americans domestic issues are very important indeed, and even more important than any foreign issues. Therefore, during his speech the President had to address the domestic issues. However, domestic policy and foreign policy are clearly interconnected. For example, now we see the deficit of the U.S. budget which clearly affects the domestic agenda. On the other hand, Iraq is basically very high on the agenda, and the U.S. President cannot address many of the domestic issues unless he does something about Iraq,” stressed the analyst.

He also speculated about what Mr Bush has to do to redefine his legacy under the present circumstances.

“Unfortunately, it is not really too much that he can do right now, as his administration is a hostage to the decisions that have been already made. So, in a way, President Bush is already a lame duck, and there is only a marginal competition for his position in the USA. Therefore, it is very difficult, if possible at all, to shift gears and to do something that would somehow cure or change the image that the administration has today,” underscored Mr Kortunov.

Then, RT's  guest talked about how fair was the opinion that  not only President Bush is to be blamed for the whole situation.

“Of course, that’s right to say so, but, on the other hand, all of this blaming is something they [the Bush administration] should have predicted from the very outset when they planned to remove Saddam. When you intervene in a foreign country with your bare hands and disturb the delicate balance which exists there, you should think about the consequences. It is what the USSR faced in Afghanistan, and now the same situation is happening in Iraq,” emphasised the expert.

Talking about the possibility of the situation worsening, in particular, with the possibility of a new war in Iran, Mr Kortunov expressed his doubts.

“I hope it is not really in the immediate plans, and I think that now when Mr Cheney is not longer that important, under the present conditions, maybe  they are not going to push that hard for military action against Iran. As you probably know, it was primarily the former Secretary of Defense who insisted on tougher actions against Iran. In addition, much depends on the position taken by the Iranian leadership as well. I think it is in a way a chicken game, as both sides are trying to show that they are committed to a tough position and that they do not exclude any option. So, I believe it is not very likely, but at the same time, I would not exclude any kind of military action against Iran,” remarked the Vice-President of the Eurasia Foundation.

Talking about energy independence, which was one of the domestic issues President Bush mentioned in his speech, Mr Kortunov said it was a kind of ritual for the American President to mention these things in his address.

“It is a kind of a standing mantra – whenever oil prices go up, the U.S. President says that the country should really launch something to save energy or to look for other sources of energy or do something about domestic oil production, - and, basically, something is being done. There are some efforts to reduce the consumption of energy in the USA, which are partially successful, there are a lot of investments in alternative energy sources, and there are a lot of efforts, for example, to use renewable ones. However, it is a long, long road, and the USA is just at the beginning of this road. I do not think that energy dependence will de reduced dramatically over the next 10 or 15 years. So, we’ll have to see how it all turns out,” said the expert.

Finally, he was asked the question how he thinks history will ultimately judge George Bush.

“Unfortunately, it will be mostly about Iraq, as it has really cast a shadow on him. At the same time, to be fair to President Bush, we should mention that there are some positive things he has done for the USA, for example, some kind of progress that was made in the field of education and public health. Nevertheless, again, I bet that Americans will remember President Bush first of all as a person who got the USA into Iraq,” concluded Mr Kortunov.

Earlier, he addressed Russia Today on President Putin's visit to the Republic of South Africa.

"There were times when South Africa’s market was more open to entry, says Russia Today’s guest. These are lost, though opportunities remain for building relations, he believes, notably because many of the country’s leaders studied in Russia. Penetrating consumer markets, road construction, space and nuclear projects are examples but the volume of co-operation cannot be on levels attainable five to seven years ago", the expert says.