VENEDIKTOV: Mr. Ambassador, you are leaving for Washington because you were nominated recently to be Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. What do you think of the relationship between the U.S. and Russia over past three years ­ did the relationship improve or decline?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: We have a very complicated relationship today, the United States and Russia, which I think is a mixture of cooperation and competition. There is certainly no shortage of difficulties between us, but I think as President Bush and President Putin discussed in Sochi a month ago, there are also some very important areas of common ground. The one thing I am more convinced of today than when I arrived three years ago as Ambassador, is that our relationship matters enormously to both of us. And how well or how poorly we manage our relationship matters a lot to the rest of the world.

VENEDIKTOV: What legacy are you leaving your successor? Is it an easier or more difficult situation than that which you received from Ambassador Vershbow?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: What our two presidents agreed to in Sochi a month ago, when they met in their last summit as presidents, is a useful foundation for the relationship. It doesn't pretend that we don't have difficulties, because we do, but it highlights some specific areas ­ nuclear cooperation, economic cooperation ­ in which we really do have a lot in common. Despite our difficulties, it offers a constructive roadmap in the years ahead.

VENEDIKTOV: Do you think that this year, before President Bush leaves office, a post-START agreement will be signed?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I honestly don't know whether it will be signed this year. All I can say is that the United States is committed to reaching a legally binding post-START agreement with Russia. We want to make as much progress as we can this year. The START treaty expires at the end of 2009, so we should have a sense of urgency about this issue, because it is important not just in the interest of strategic stability between the United States and Russia, but also because of the signal it sends to the rest of the world at a time when one of the biggest challenges facing the international community is the spread of nuclear weapons. It is a sign of responsible leadership from the United States and Russia.

VENEDIKTOV: Has the U.S. actually agreed that this is going to be a legally binding document?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: Yes.

VENEDIKTOV: You are going to be the sixth Ambassador that I ask this same question and I am afraid I will get the same answer: what about Jackson-Vanik?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I'm sorry you have to keep asking that question, because the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia is long overdue. The original purpose behind Jackson-Vanik 30 years ago has long since disappeared. What I am convinced of is that as Russia moves towards full membership in the World Trade Organization ­ which I hope and believe will take place in 2008 and which the United States very actively supports ­ that Russian's accession to the WTO will create a compelling case in the American Congress to repeal Jackson-Vanik. Because then the reality will be that American businesses cannot take advantage of the new more favorable terms of trade if Jackson-Vanik is still in place.

VENEDIKTOV: We all know that one of the barriers to Russia's accession to the WTO is Russia's relationship with Georgia. We also know that the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament is in Washington now asking for help against Russia. What is your view, what is Washington's view, on the very difficult and historically complicated relations between Russia and Georgia, and of course I am referring to both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

AMBASSADOR BURNS: You are certainly right that it is a very complicated situation. The United States has made clear its support for the territorial integrity of Georgia. We have not been shy about expressing our concerns about some recent Russian steps which call into question, in our view, Georgia's territorial integrity. At the same time, the United States and our European partners have been very clear that there is no military solution to the problems of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That is a message that we have reinforced in all directions. We firmly believe that there needs to be a diplomatic resolution [to the conflict] which takes into account the concerns of all parties. We are going to do everything we can to work with the parties, the European Union, Russia and Georgia, to try to return to a diplomatic process and reduce tensions.

VENEDIKTOV: [Georgian] President Saakashvili expressed his opinion that Russian peacekeepers should be replaced by peacekeepers of another nationality because they are no longer an uninvolved third-party: Russia is now a party to the conflict. What does Washington think?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: Our view has been a very straightforward one. All the parties should do everything they can to reduce tensions. There are diplomatic mechanisms which exist to help resolve the problems in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That is what we think we should focus on.

VENEDIKTOV: You just reminded me of former Secretary of State General Colin Powell. When I had him in this very studio a number of years ago, when he was Secretary of State, I asked him not to give me a diplomat's answer, but a general's answer. He told me that "at this moment I can only give you a diplomat's answer.."

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I have a lot of respect for Colin Powell; I used to work for him.

VENEDIKTOV: Of course, you know how we journalists hate diplomatic evasiveness.

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I admire your journalistic skill.

VENEDIKTOV: I interviewed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Sochi right after the two presidents met. He made the statement that Russia will do everything possible to not allow Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. As a follow up question, the majority of the population of the Russian Federation where you now serve as Ambassador is basically [opposed] to what Lavrov described as the "pulling" of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Can you comment?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I have no doubt about the strength of views in Russia on the question of NATO enlargement. We have a clear difference over this issue. It is the position of the NATO alliance, not just Washington, there should be a pathway to membership in the future for Ukraine and Georgia. That's what the NATO summit in Bucharest decided. There was no decision made in Bucharest about the next practical step towards membership, the so-called Membership Action Plan. The process of membership can often be a long and complicated one; it depends on steps that the countries that want to become members take and the will of their people and a lot obviously depends on decisions made in the NATO alliance. But you're right, it's the decision of NATO that there should be a pathway to membership. And that is an area of difference between the United States and Russia, and NATO and Russia, today.

VENEDIKTOV: Do you think that at the April [2009] Anniversary Summit in Strasburg there will be an offer of MAP to Georgia and Ukraine?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I don't know. Certainly the United States has made clear its view that there should be [an invitation to Georgia and Ukraine on MAP], but I do not know what the NATO alliance is going to decide.

VENEDIKTOV: Today a U.S. delegation will be in Warsaw to discuss missile defense. This is another area of difference between us, however the Kremlin told us that there were some proposals made by the United States to alleviate some Russian concerns and to offer some transparency. Would you comment on the proposals that were made by the United States?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I would be glad to comment on this in general. We know that Russia continues to have objections to our plans with the Poles and the Czechs, but we have worked hard together ­ the United States and Russia ­ in recent months to try to address those concerns; both to try to provide reassurance about what those programs would involve and also to keep the door open to broader cooperation on missile defense between Russia, the United States, and Europe in the years ahead. The kinds of transparency and confidence building measures we proposed include the following: it would include the ongoing work of liaison officers at sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, it would include technical measures that would provide some reassurance about activities at those sites, it could include a discussion about when to actually deploy interceptors and to try to connect that to the actual emergence of long-range missile capabilities that might threaten us from Iran or from other states. Such steps obviously are subject to the agreement of the host countries ­ Poland and the Czech Republic. There are obviously a lot of details to be worked out and it is a complicated process. But I think it is possible to reach an understanding which would at least help ease some of Russia's concerns.

VENEDIKTOV: We know that President Putin put forward an initiative for a global missile defense that would include the Qabala radar station in Azerbaijan and also antennas in [unclear]. However, journalists don't know the U.S. response to that initiative. Can you comment?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: President Putin at the Kennebunkport Summit with President Bush last summer made some interesting proposals for broader cooperation on missile defense. In Sochi last month, our two presidents -- in their declaration -- made clear our continuing interest in broader cooperation involving Russia, the United States, and Europe on missile defense. So I hope very much in the future that we will be able to take advantage of capabilities that all of us have to help deal with common threats for long-range missiles. Even if the focus right now is on what measures might be taken to help address some of the concerns that Russia has raised about plans in Poland and the Czech Republic.

VENEDIKTOV: So I guess the answer is "No."

AMBASSADOR BURNS: No, the answer is that we hope very much to be able to take advantage of capabilities that all of us have ­ Russia, the United States, and Europe -- to deal with common threats.

VENEDIKTOV: How would you characterize the cooperation between Russia and the United States on the Iranian nuclear problem?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: The United States and Russia have worked constructively together on the Iranian nuclear problem, along with our European partners and China. The problem remains a very difficult one. We have had tactical differences from time to time about how to best approach the problem. But I think we share the same strategic goal, which is to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligations to the international community, that it addresses the concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that it meets its obligations to the UN Security Council. We have cooperated, the United States and Russia, on a two-track strategy. One track makes clear the consequences for Iran of not meeting its obligations to the international community. The other track makes clear the possibilities if Iran meets its obligations and demonstrates that all it is interested in is a peaceful nuclear program.

VENEDIKTOV: Is a war [with Iran] possible this year?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: The United States has made it very clear that our commitment is to a diplomatic resolution. We want to work with Russia, with our European partners, and with China to try to bring that about.

VENEDIKTOV: Mr. Ambassador, over the last 8 years do you think the relationship between Russia and the United States was based on shared interests or the good personal relations between our two presidents?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: As I said before, I think our relationship today is a mixture of cooperation and competition. There have been good relations between our two presidents despite obvious policy differences, and I think that is a good thing. But it seems to me there is a need for more structure in the relationship. You remember in the 1990's there existed the so-called Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, which dealt very systematically with a whole range of issues in our relationship: economic issues, security issues, and diplomatic issues. I am not suggesting that we resurrect something like the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, but I think one of the challenges for the new Russian administration ­ as well as for the new American administration ­ is going to be to try to revive systematic cooperation and structures.

VENEDIKTOV: So can you say that on the Russian side Commission will be chaired by Prime Minister Putin and on the U.S. side by Mr. Al Gore?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: I am not sure that we are going to revive that commission, but what we have tried to do over the last year is rebuild some of the structure. For example, the 2+2 mechanism between our Foreign and Defense Ministers, which has met twice in recent months in Moscow, and the new Economic Dialogue between our governments, which just met for the first time last week in Washington. Those are the types of mechanisms which help both of us.

VENEDIKTOV: Both the United States and Russia are Presidential Republics. What does Washington ­ the Congress and the Administration ­ think about newly- elected President Medvedev? What are your expectations of the new president?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: First, as President Putin made clear in Sochi, the Russian Constitution accords the president the responsibility for foreign policy and managing relations with other countries. President Bush looks forward to working with President Medvedev. As the Strategic Framework Declaration in Sochi outlined, we hope to work together on a number of important areas of common ground and we hope to work together to manage, as best we can, the differences between us. The issues between us are too important for there to be a pause in relations as both of us go through transitions.

VENEDIKTOV: The last question, Mr. Ambassador: journalists here in Russia follow the U.S. Presidential campaign very closely. We follow all of the candidates ­ Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain ­ and all of them are very sharp critics of Russia's foreign policy and of Russia in general. Should we expect the new U.S. President will be tougher on Russia?

AMBASSADOR BURNS: It is obvious that there are a lot concerns across Washington about our relationship today. I think the reality that any American administration ­ whomever is our next president ­ will acknowledge and deal with is that Russia matters in some very important ways and that our relationship matters. Russia is the only nuclear power in the world today comparable to the United States. It is the biggest producer of oil and gas in the world today. It is a permanent member of the Security Council. We don't have the luxury of ignoring one another. Ours is going to be a complicated relationship for some years to come, but it is a very important relationship and it is worth working hard on.

VENEDIKTOV: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.