[ Dr. Nikolai V. Zlobin, nzlobin@cdi.org ]

Anchor: It's 15:15 and our guest is Nikolai Zlobin, Director of Russian and Asian programs of the US Defense Information Center. Good afternoon.

Zlobin: Good afternoon.

Anchor: Thank you for braving the Moscow traffic jams and coming here.

Zlobin: Thank you for the invitation.

Anchor: So, we will talk for 15 minutes before the news program and after that the Rikoshet interactive program will go on the air. I might as well put the question to our listeners: What is your opinion of President Bush of the United States, favorable or unfavorable? And while you are thinking and phoning in with your answers, we will talk. And then Nikolai Vasilyevich will give his comments.

Why did we choose this question for today's interactive show? Because a similar poll was conducted in the United States to find out what the Americans think of President Putin. We will continue our talk until 15:50. So, a very interesting and important topic.

In what way the Putin-Bush meeting next September will differ from their previous meetings?

Zlobin: I think this is the first serious meeting after the situation with Iraq.

Anchor: The Petersburg meeting doesn't count?

Zlobin: The Petersburg meeting doesn't count because it was to a large extent ceremonial and symbolic. This time around the two leaders will have a chance to discuss certain things more or less seriously. But I constantly hear the question, what will actually be discussed and what impact will it have on Russian-American relations. I think here in Russia people tend to overestimate the importance of any meetings with the leader of the United States.

Anchor: You mean they expect too much from them?

Zlobin: They expect too much and they show excessive interest. And I don't think it is entirely justified because in former times, as you remember, all these meetings were historic turning points, and they led to some documents being signed.

Anchor: And wasn't it true?

Zlobin: I don't think it was true. Even if a meeting is expected to be a historic turning point, I don't think this is not right. The leaders of such countries as Russia, America, the European countries should meet frequently in order to discuss informally all the possible issues and, thank God, modern transportation provides much better opportunities for that today. I think that the more frequently the US and Russian leaders meet and the less importance we attach to these meetings as historic, the greater the chances of our relations becoming more or less normal, which is not what they are now. I mean the Russian-American relations.

There is a huge shortage of such relations. I would even say -- and that would answer your specific question as to how different this meeting will be -- in my view it could be said with only a slight exaggeration that Russian-American relations are in a state of bankruptcy, conceptual bankruptcy and political bankruptcy. And the problem is that we -- neither one nor the other side -- can understand what we should expect from these relations and what is the point of having them, what we want from each other, what we can get from each other and where these relations will be, for example, a quarter century from now?

They include a huge number of current issues, a huge number of minor conflicts, positive or negative solutions but a fundamental framework for these relations is lacking. And the most alarming thing today is the absence of a fundamental basis which turns comparatively insignificant tactical problems or conflicts into something larger than they actually should be.

And I would put it this way. After the collapse of the USSR I have constantly opposed a very popular thesis about the improvement of Russian-American relations. I argued that Russian-American relations could not be improved because the relations that we had were unimprovable by definition, they were designed for a different historical setting, for a different period, for different countries. We should try to create something fundamentally new, a new vision, a new philosophical attitude to these relations. These two countries have changed. The world has changed, the Cold War is over.

But my arguments were not taken very seriously at the time although now they recognized that I was right, but anyway we proceeded to try to improve the relations instead of fundamentally revising them. I think September 11, 2001 was the point when we realized that improvement wasn't getting us anywhere, it is like improving the steam engine. You can go on improving it, but its efficiency will not be great, and after a certain point any improvements will start being counterproductive. Eventually the time will come when the engine will simply have to be discarded and a new one invented, an electric motor, gas-powered or nuclear-powered and so on, rather than improving the previous type of engine.

And it seems to me that September 11 highlighted the need to adopt a new concept of Russian-American relations and some elements of that concept are being articulated. Anyway, after President Putin declared support for the United States and declared that Russia was on the side of the West in the fight against terrorism, a very short and stormy, but, to me, disappointing period of search of strategic partnership began.

Anchor: Why disappointing?

Zlobin: Because I think Iraq put an end to that attempt to look for a strategic partnership. The idea ran out of steam, and from the idea of improvement we passed on to the idea of a search for strategic partnership. Now, strategic partnership seems to have failed, at least it won't happen in the foreseeable future. That again produces a certain vacuum in our relations which, in my view, is extremely dangerous and alarming for several reasons, in particular because the vacuum in relations between such large nuclear powers, which carry such weight in the world as Russia and the US is bad not only for them, but for the whole world. Vacuum results in tactical differences and conflicts such as Olympic Games or chicken thighs and so on become blown up out of all proportion.

Anchor: In this country or in America, too?

Zlobin: Mainly in Russia, I would say. Yes, and the final result of the lack of a fundamental framework of Russian-American relations that makes it dangerous is the heavy reliance on improvisation in these relations. Improvisation in foreign policy is not a very welcome thing. Because another word for improvisation is unpredictability. Nobody likes unpredictability in foreign policy because as you understand a predictably enemy is better than an unpredictable friend in foreign policy.

So, one has the impression that the United States to some extent can afford not to be bothered with the problem of the future shape of Russian-American relations. But I think Moscow should be concerned. Why does the Russian leadership not propose a concept for Russian-American relations? Because for Russia it is very dangerous to ignore the world's sole superpower and to have no clear views on certain fundamental -- I repeat, not tactical but fundamental issues regarding the United States, the world order it is trying to build, the global security system they are trying to install, etc. Because such passivity may result in Russia being sidelined from world politics, strategically speaking. This is why I find the current situation alarming.

Anchor: As part of your job you frequently meet with American politicians and what do they want from Russian-American relations? What is their view?

Zlobin: In general, American politics is in time trouble, especially after September 11. There are few fundamental things.

Anchor: If I understand you correctly, they have no time to make decisions on really vital and important issues?

Zlobin: They have no time to sit down and think.

Anchor: Is that really so?

Zlobin: Yes. Because something has to be done every day. For all the blunders and mistakes and hasty acts of the White House and the present administration one has to admit that they are acting under pressure. Since September 11 they had no time to sit down and think, they had to do something practically every day.

And when there is no direct interest, in this particular case strategic interest, to think about the future of Russia and the future of Russian-American relations -- if you talked with an American politician, his answer to your question would be something like, Well it would be nice to be friends and not to fight each other. But on the whole I can tell you that the attitude toward Russia will be benevolently indifferent. You failed to be our strategic allies, but let's see what happens in the future. Right now we will somehow work things out.

Anchor: In other words those who drink vodka won't give it up unlike French wine...

Zlobin: No, no and no. I must tell you that on the whole the attitude toward the country, its people and culture is much more respective and serious, including toward President Putin and his administration, and even force agencies that we criticize so heavily today. Americans respect them as professionals. What is not clear to them strategically is where exactly Russia can help America.

Anchor: They are not the only ones who don't understand this.

Zlobin: You must understand that when there is a long queue of leaders of other countries who seek to get into the White House and see President Bush to try to explain to him where America's interest in their countries is and how they can help America, but Russia is not on this list and it's not clear what Russia can do, America won't think about this. I can tell you that Russia has fallen considerably, and unfairly so, in the rating of countries that interest the American political establishment today.

Anchor: Why is it unfair? Can we really help America?

Zlobin: I think there are very many things that Russia and America could do together. And Russia could help America solve many problems.

Anchor: Can you give us an example? Can they really adopt our energy system that some say is better than the American one?

Zlobin: You want an example? Just a couple of short ones. For example, Washington is extremely interested in Russia's continued influence in those parts of the world where it has always been traditionally strong and civilized and where America does not have such influence and is unlikely to have it there in the foreseeable future. It may take a generation to get the authority, political, cultural and human respect that Russia has in several regions.Americans would like to have that. But the question is whether Russia will be able to use this opportunity. However, that is a different story.

Or any serious American politician would tell you a lot of good things about Russia's role in attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian problem through this Quartet. Russia's played a very positive role there. The Road Map wouldn't have been worked out without Russia, and the very possibility of resolving the conflict would have been in question.

Take China. America wants Russia to be in a position where America and Russia could ensure each other's security against China's possible attempts to do something. And, which is even more dangerous, if internal problems explode in China, everybody will be in trouble.

Or take North Korea. It's hard to say now what exactly Russia could propose and how it could help, but if Moscow finds some unusual solution to the North Korean issue, I think--

Anchor: Like holding negotiations at some railway station because Kim Chong Il will hardly travel there by plane.

Zlobin: There were big expectations, especially after his famous trips to Russia, that Moscow had very big influence in there. However it turned out that it did not. And that caused certain disappointment. I think there are areas where -- let me say that America is very much interested in having a zone of strategic stability, control and transparency in Eurasia where local armies and police would fight terrorists, drugs and human trafficking.

America understands, with all of its ambitious attempts, that it can't embrace the whole world with its bases. Therefore it has to lean on local armies and local forces. I think for example that America would be happy to accept a plan to create, even jointly with Europe a zone of security and stability based on the same principles and stretching from the Far East to the English Channel.

Anchor: Our question is what you think about US President Bush. If you think he is a good president dial 995-81-21. If you think he is not a good president dial 995-81-22.

We selected this question because we found a similar Gallup poll. Respondents were invited to share their views about President Putin. Forty one percent of Americans said he was a good president, and 18 percent he was not. You may ask what happened to the remaining percentage points. The thing is that another 41 percent of Americans never heard about President Putin.

Nikolai Vasilyevich, what do you think, will the views of Russian people about President Bush look similarly?

Zlobin: I don't think you can find a person who hasn't heard about President Bush, especially among your listeners.

Anchor: Well, we are more politicized. That's a fact.

Zlobin: We are more politicized as far as international affairs are concerned. Americans are quite politicized at their local political level, and their local politics are based on knowledge, actually all their politics are based on the knowledge of local details and peculiarities.

Ask US Congressmen, and I am sure that 40 percent of them have never heard about Putin.

Anchor: Are you serious?

Zlobin: I am. But each of them will tell you the names of all teachers in his constituency.

Anchor: Almost 1,000 people have called in. I can tell you, Nikolai Vasilyevich, that so far we have been way off the mark.

Zlobin: You have not said yet what your forecast is.

Anchor: I will tell you later. One thousand people have called in. Let's talk to one of our listeners. You can put on the headset so that you could to talk to our listener. Hello, what is your name?

Listener: My name is Alexei.

Anchor: Alexei, what do you think about President Bush?

Listener: I don't think he is a good president.

Anchor: Why?

Listener: What else can I think of a war criminal?

Anchor: Nikolai Vasilyevich, would you comment?

Listener: He is a war criminal and that's it.

Zlobin: And that's it. But do you have any --

Listener: I will explain. If Hitler had won that war, he would also had his nose up today. But at the same time if Bush had lost, he would have ended up behind bars. That's all.

Anchor: Thank you, Alexei. Your point of view is very laconic and clear. Nikolai Vasilyevich, can you object?

Zlobin: Apparently Alexei meant the war in Iraq.

Anchor: Yes, most probably.

Zlobin: I don't know, but I think --

Anchor: Well, in principle one can lump together Afghanistan, Iraq and Liberia --

Zlobin: I think this question can be split into two parts. You can answer it in the narrow sense, to what extent did Bush act in compliance or contrary to the international standards and rules, the laws and practices of corresponding international organizations. My answer would be, no, they were not in conformity to these rules. There was a lot that ran counter to the universally accepted practices. But one has to bear in mind that practice and international legislation that existed a year, two, three or five years ago -- those were the laws that took shape in the years of the Cold War, a different historical era, and sooner or later one party or other had to break out of these limits. If not America, somebody else would have broken out of that framework. But because America is like a bull in a china shop, because it is large and brushes off everything around it when it turns, it happened to America.

But the second part of the answer to this question will be connected with the following. As a result of these actions, which still continue, the overall situation and stability in the world -- is it moving in the positive direction or is it deteriorating and is instability growing? Even in terms of Russian realities, I think one can't help admitting the fact that Russia's security has gained as a result of the American actions: there is no more Taliban, there is no more an unpredictable regime in Iraq. The Iran regime is in a difficult situation and the same is true of North Korea.

In general, Islamic terrorism which President Putin described as the main danger to the existence of a united Russia is under strong pressure from the United States and it is far less effective than it was 2-3 years ago. So, from that point of view, I think that if President Bush has broken some international rules and laws that we devised 60 years ago from the results of the Second World War, from the purely selfish point of view, from the Russian point of view, this is good.

Anchor: I repeat the question for our interactive voting. We have already had more than 2,000 calls and you still have a chance to ring us up and express your opinion of President Bush. But I must say that in percentage point the balance has not been changing for some time.

Hello, we have a call. You can ask your question.

Q: Hello, Michael. Looking from outside, Bush does not create an impression of an intelligent or competent man. It is not for nothing that they have, I think, published a collection of "Bushisms". But I think that the American system is so arranged that it is not obligatory though desirable. As distinct from our leaders, they are stubbornly committed to promoting the national interests of their country.

And if you look at it from that point of view, it doesn't matter whether the man at the top is a fool or a clever man, he will always have advisers who will stop him from committing patent blunders. So, they can be judged by how they feel about their own country. And with regard to us, of course, big powers are so arranged that they will always be in competition and our interests will always be at odds with theirs.

As to whether Bush is a war criminal, one might equally declare any leader a war criminal, because the whole point is to promote the national interests. If the American advisers led by their not-too-bright president have decided that it is necessary, then they are right in their own way and I don't think that from that point of view he is a war criminal.

Anchor: Could you give your brief comment?

Zlobin: Thank you. I think it is a very sound opinion actually. I often find that the attitude to the White House and the assessment of American politicians is based on the assumption that the US political machine operates on the same principle as the Kremlin, that the White House is America's Kremlin. That is not so. I have to go along with what has been said.

The task of the US President is not to parade his intellect or pose as a university professor with a gift of the gab. He is indeed a uncouth speaker. By the way, very many great American presidents were poor speakers. The task is to find a compromise among a number of political factors and forces that exist in the country, in the United States, among different power centers and forces. In that sense, he is doing a fairly good job.

The President himself is a figure of political compromise and the decisions and concepts, even though he endorses them, are developed and adopted in different places.

Anchor: Let us make a break and I will them announce the results. It is 15:45 in Moscow. We still have five minutes. Let us announce the results. So, we asked you the question, dear listeners, what is your opinion of US President Bush? 39 percent of those who called us have a favorable opinion of him and 61 percent have an unfavorable opinion. We had 2,344 calls.

What result did you predict, Nikolai Vasilyevich, and I then agreed with your forecast.

Zlobin: I predicted that 20 percent would approve and 80 percent would disapprove.

Anchor: So, two remarkable things. First, the approval rate is twice as high and secondly, it practically tallies with the figure 41 percent, that's the approval rating given by Americans to President Putin. But of course we don't have an answer "never heard about him", but it would be stupid to include it. In this country, of course, everybody knows Bush.

Why do you think our expectations proved to be wrong?

Zlobin: Actually it's a complex question. I thought the attitude towards President Bush would be based on the image that has been created by mass media, on these "Bushisms", these inanities he says because he once choked on a pretzel. All this does not play a big role of course but people tend to remember such things, and there is a discrepancy between the seriousness of his figure and the size and power of the United States.

Anchor: Maybe it had the opposite effect. People felt sorry for him that he had almost choked on a pretzel and that he had to deal with such problems --

Zlobin: I think our expectations -- I think the reason is that Ekho Moskvy listeners are well informed about what is happening in the United States and the world and they judge President Bush not only on what they see about him on television or the way he is portrayed in various funny stories, but in a much more professional way. I personally am quite skeptical about Bush, but our listeners made a much more professional evaluation of his performance as president of a great power and of what the US is trying to do today.

As for President Putin, I think the Americans give much more importance to purely PR qualities and possibilities that President Putin showed in the US. By the way, every time he visited the US or talked with Bush, he looked correctly, elegantly and nicely even in difficult periods in Russian history. For example, I remember how he explained the situation with the Kursk. Americans value such things, they value one's ability to resist blows and keep one's face. Putin showed this ability many times. This is why no matter what they think about Russia, the situation in Russia and what good or bad President Putin is doing, the attitude toward him personally is always positive.

Anchor: Thank you very much. I think we have entertained you a little bit.

Zlobin: Thank you for the invitation. I am leaving in a better mood and with a better opinion than when I came.

Anchor: I thank everybody who telephoned us and took part in our poll.