SHAKLEINA: I think it's a kind of -- my opinion is the truth is always somewhere in between extreme views.  So, I think that some people were spoiled by the system.  Some people were not spoiled. So, this is not the question.  And, I think that most of the people now rely on themselves much more than rely on the state.  It's not good, because the state should do something, too.  But, at least I think we are on the way to maybe to develop any civil society systems, social security and all kinds of support for the population. 

I think, too, that mostly, this attitude was typical for the older generations, maybe. Those who now may be sixty, seventy, close to, close to this age.  And, it's not their fault. But, still they have this mechanism working for them so they could rely on their pension, on their medical security, on their social security.  So, now, they lost everything and they cannot work anymore so they are old and not to continue working.  So, for them, the future seems hopeless.

But, the middle age, even for, like, me and younger generations, they already understand that we need something else.  We need both self-reliance, working hard, and some system of federal structure to deal with these issues. So, I think it's not quite true, though I can't deny that some facts, may be still attitudes. 

INTERVIEWER: So, there would not be an enormous amount of nostalgia for sort of returning to the Soviet period?  That's not a strong public motivation, you would say?

SHAKLEINA: I would say that it's not a strong public motivation. Every person sitting there at home, maybe she or he would think it was so good then.  We were just close to each other, we could travel, and we have go easily to anyplace.  But, it's just memories, good memories or bad memories. In general, I think nobody wants to go back.  If you ask anybody, do you want to go back to that life?  and, I think you will have the answer now.  From me, no.  From the younger generation, also no.  And, not because I don't like my history or my country, the memory of that time, but because I understand that we are too far already and so, in history, there's no way back, usually. We cannot go back to the same life.  We should go on.  I think so.

INTERVIEWER: When Americans visit Russia these days, of course, they're usually going to Moscow, what kinds of impressions do you think Americans form of Russia, based on what they might experience when they visit there?

SHAKLEINA: I think their impressions may be different.  It depends who comes to Russia.  First, and the second, the impression may be leading if you come to Moscow, for instance, or to any other big city, because Moscow seems to be a very prosperous city, beautiful, like Western type, and there's a lot of jobs in Moscow, so we get more money than in the rest of this, over the Russian Federation. So, you can have this misleading feeling that everything is fine in Russia. Though, if you stay for a longer time, even in Moscow, you could say that we have different people and we have a lot of problems for different groups of people.

But, still, I think -- maybe I'm emotional -- I think, still, if you want to see positive changes, you could easily see the positive changes in the society. So, we are in crisis.  We have a lot of problems. But, still, this evolution never stops. It goes on.  So, I don't know, actually. 

My friends, some of my friends, have a very kind of, not very, but moderately optimistic impression of Russia and what is going on in Russia.  So, in some, actually, I met some people in Washington, who view Russia very pessimistically, very negatively. That everything is bad, so Russia practically almost collapsed, so there's no use to do anything about it.  We can only expect worse things.  So, I think the impressions are different, but, as were mentioned, the truth is somewhere in between these extreme views.

INTERVIEWER: What are some of those positive trends that give people some sense of optimism?

SHAKLEINA: I think a positive thing is that we still go on, that we get experience in the Parliament, on the federal level, in the NGO's, we have a lot of NGO's now, with experience with education, and positive experience, I would say.  So, we have more freedom. Not only freedom of the press, but a kind of personal freedom. We have more initiative.  We can try different professions, different, maybe, businesses.  So, we can do whatever we want.  We may fail, we may succeed.  But, it's our decision.

And, what I really see as positive is that we have this better understanding, at different levels, at the elite level and the mass level, actually, what we want to get in our life concerning democracy, freedom, economy, political system.  This formation of new political culture, of new elite, new political elite and all levels of elite in the Russian society, is going on.  And, this is, I think it is positive.  It is very slow.  The process is very, very slow. So many people are not satisfied.  But, still, it cannot be quick.  It takes a lot of time for us.  But, for me, a positive thing is that people understand that we need changes.  Maybe we even need to suffer for some time, for instance, maybe for my generation this time will be lost. But, for the further generations of the society, the life will be better.  Closer to maybe democratic processes in the world. 

INTERVIEWER: What's your view of the Primakov government?  Is it making some positive steps?

SHAKLEINA: My feeling is that the opinion of the Primakov government, in the West, maybe in the United States, is not quite correct because it is always seen as a kind of a communist government.  I would say it is not quite correct, because these people came, actually, most, very many people in the government were communists in the past, so I think it's not the most important thing about them.  Primakov, himself, for me, is a great authority. He has a lot of experience in many fields.  So, for me, he is a very good man just, for that position. 

And, I think one of the most positive facts about the government, that they were not in a hurry to do anything.  They were rather slow. For me, it's a good sign, because, if you start very quickly, it means that you might fail very quickly.  So, for me, it is good that they are sitting, thinking over, planning, so, I consider it will be very hard for them to achieve positive results very quickly, maybe great results.  But, at least they are doing it. And, I think that maybe the United States and the international organizations might really help this government. Otherwise, it will be impossible, maybe, for them to fulfill the task or maybe it will be postponed for a very, very distant future, still.  So, maybe just like that.

INTERVIEWER: What are some ways that the United States could be helpful to this government and to Russia at this point. 

SHAKLEINA:  I think that the best help, I don't speak about the finance and these credits and everything, so -- the best help might be tolerance, in general, to Russia and its policy, and understanding. That Russia makes mistakes in its policy, in its decisions, but it is not the kind of evil policy, just negative, against any country, including the United States.  So, I think the best help is to continue dialogue, discussion, being together, cooperative, even if we have disagreements on certain points, not to make something really very bad out of these maybe disagreements.  But, to continue this dialogue and cooperation.

INTERVIEWER: Has the US been a friend to Russia in these recent years?

SHAKLEINA: I think it was rather a friend than any enemy. And, not, though, kind of opponent on some issues like NATO enlargement and we have different views on the security system, European security in the future, so we have disagreements.  But, in general, I think, the United States was viewed more or a friend than an enemy.  Actually, of course, the Russian people will think this way.  But, I would say that not so many of them. Rather few. And, they do not reflect the general opinion that is in the country. 

Though, that, I already mentioned in some conversations, there are some attitudes against the American policies, some aspects of policy.  And, I think, even among the younger generation. And, I think the reasons for them are several. There are several reasons for that, maybe.  Dis-satisfaction with the situation in the country.  Dis-satisfaction, maybe disappointments.  And, this very assertive American policy in getting money and in the settlement of the conflicts in the world with the use of military force.  So, it may be just because of that.  But, no, I would never say that the United States is viewed as an enemy to Russia.

INTERVIEWER: Do you have any things that you think we should drop in here, ___?  Today, as people inside the Beltway, in Washington, look at Russia, are they tending to just ignore Russia? Are they tending to think of it as kind of an unimportant country, a country that the United States shouldn't expend much time or money on.  What's your feeling of where Americans seem to be in terms of their view of Russia?

SHAKLEINA: I can not say for the whole of the United States, because I mainly stay in Washington. I have this feeling that there's less interest to Russia, to its policy, and, of course, there are people who say that there's no Russian foreign policy. And, that, in the nearest future, maybe, in the distant future, Russia will not be kind of priority number one even.  Five, or two or three in the American foreign policy.

But, still, I have this feeling that there are a lot of experts and politicians in the United States in Washington and in other states who consider Russia to be an important country.  Because, it has great potential and resources, market potential, and I would say it has a lot of influence in the region, in Eurasia.  And, in the future, Russia might be kind of a partner to European structures, to the United States, in ___ the stability in this huge region, as Eurasia is.  So, I think that, in the long distance, this view of having Russia with the United States and with other countries, then being without Russia.  So, I think we will -- though now, I would say, still, there are ____.

INTERVIEWER: There are reasons besides the nuclear weapons to be taking account of Russia.  You seem to be saying that.  Some people say the only reason to pay attention is because of the nuclear weapons. 

SHAKLEINA: I think, still, Russia is a powerful country, though it is weak now.  It is really not strong and we have a lot of disagreements within the CIS, even the _____ close neighbors, we have a lot of very hard problems with the Eastern European Congress. So, it's not easy.  It's a very complicated situation.  But, look at the map.  I always say, look at the map and you will see that Russia is still a huge country, very rich in resources, in intellectual potential, and military, of course.

So, if the Western countries - the United States - will turn back to Russia, Russia still has opportunities, I mean, in the economics sphere to trade, to have trade, and to have economic relations with other countries, like China, for instance.  For China, Russia is a huge market.  So, a lot of goods might be brought to Russia from China. So, Russia needs consumer goods.  So, I think Russia is still kind of visible, and it might be influential, very influential, in the continent. And, I think it is in the interest of the United States, it's my opinion, actually, speaking here and speaking for myself, it is in the interest of the United States to have Russia to be kind of, not alliance, but at least not an opponent, and to be together in the solution of many international problems.

INTERVIEWER: Does Russia have imperial attitudes towards its neighbors.  Sometimes, both some of those neighbors and some people sitting over here somehow think that Russia is kind of pursuing an imperial attitude towards its former components.  What's your view of this?

SHAKLEINA: I think that we could, you see, ___ kind of definition, this male imperial, imperial.  I would not rather use these definitions because they mostly belong to the old times when we had the Soviet Union and we had two great powers in the world and the, a lot of countries behind them.

So, now, I think, Russia, of course, is interested in having influence in the neighbor countries, and I think there's nothing bad about that, because any country, especially such huge country, wants to have influence and to participate, and even maybe, not to dominate, but in some spheres maybe to dominate, to have some advantages. Why not?  It's policy, it's politics.

So, any country is thinking about that.  Now, what I think is positive, well, it's positive, is positive in the foreign policy thinking in Russia that the view of, this imperial view does not prevail. So, the prevailing, maybe, attitude, is kind of selective and balanced approach.  To deal with those country who want good relations with Russia, who are ready to cooperate, to have relations, economic or security or political, any kind of -- and not maybe to impose any Russian view or any Russian policy or interest on those country who are not willing to participate.  So, we might wait, we have time.  So, we might wait and we have, so to say, low-scale democracy with some countries and very active relations with other countries.  So, it's like that. 

And, for me, it is kind of a positive trend that is going on, because in 1993, 1994, it was a little bit different.  We still were speaking and this mostly not imperial, but it's great Russia being the main country in the post-Soviet space.  Maybe it would be the main country some day, but at least we could achieve it being kind of this, not very pushing this issue in relations with other countries.