[The following is based on a discussion that aired on the Russian radio station "Ekho Moskvy" on July 31, 2003. Nikolai Zlobin is the director of Russian and Eurasian Programs at the Center for Defense Information in Washington D.C., and editor-in-chief of the Washington Profile News Agency.]

In your opinion, how do Americans feel about Russia , now that the military campaign in Iraq is almost over?

I would say they feel sympathy and indifference, although some things do bring out emotions. In part, the American public was not very pleased with the realization that Russia is not as much of a reliable ally as the US thought. An unreliable friend is worse than a reliable enemy. When you arrive in Russia , you get the impression that from Moscow 's point of view, the US is deeply concerned with figuring out ways to make life in Russia more difficult. There is a certain sense of paranoia. But when you come back to Washington , it's very rare to come across someone talking about Russia , or to get an official, like, say, Wolfowitz, to say something about Russia , because the issue is so insignificant to them. That's a fact of life, and whether you like it or not is a different issue. I wouldn't exaggerate the directions American policy takes as a manifestation of some anti-Russian policy. That's just not the case, and believe me, Russia today, unfortunately, occupies a very insignificant place on the political map of America .

And Iraq was the cause? But Russia was simply defending her economic interests. Isn't that only natural?

Regarding Russian policies in Iraq , I agree with those who say there was no coherent economic policy on Iraq whatsoever - just like there wasn't a coherent political stance. Everyone, Washington including, was caught off guard at the amount of improvisation, which changed every day and every week. Various politicians made various statements, but no one knew what the Kremlin wanted, or what Russia would do: some spoke about the impossibility of a veto in the Security Council, others said the veto was inevitable. For a nuclear power, for a country as large and respected as Russia , improvisation in foreign policy is unacceptable. Iraq showed that Russia has no strategic, economic, political, or even intellectual coherence in its foreign policy - only improvisation.

Yet Russia and the US are returning to the period of mutual understanding that began after September 11. Is that still an important tendency?

Two things, in my opinion, bring Russia and the US closer together, and Iraq has already showed this, in part. Russia and the US both see their foreign policy primarily from the viewpoint of their national security. The others, especially the Europeans, do not. Their foreign policy is based on socio-economic, ideological, educational, and cultural factors, and God knows what else. Russia and the US (and the latter especially after 9/11) are both two countries that have placed military security at the forefront of their foreign policy. Here we have an opportunity for maneuvering and discussion between Moscow and Washington . Secondly, I think that Russia is very close to the US in their understanding of international terrorism. We both view international terrorism as a sworn enemy, one that must be fought to the bitter end. This is in contrast to the Europeans, who see international terrorism as a criminal structure.

I would add, and they fight it with law enforcement measures.

Yes. That's why it's difficult for Americans to come to terms with Europeans. But Russians - remember "we'll wipe them out in the outhouse" - are easier to find a mutual language with. The issue is a wide-scale war against terrorism. Americans are for such a war, and in fact they are already conducting it, which annoys the Europeans. I wouldn't say that Russia and the US have common threats - just a similar approach to these threats.

It's not surprising that Moscow will repeat, every once in a while, that Russia is not interested in an American defeat. What is the response to that in the US ?

I would agree completely that the fate of the US , and support of the US , is extremely important to us. I would only make two comments on unipolarity. One often encounters, especially in Russia , the idea that a unipolar world is something to struggle against. But one cannot simply build a multipolar world if it's not there. You cannot build one by force - it's not a political decision. It is a reality. If it's not there, it's just not there, and it's pointless to fight that. And the second factor is the danger that America will overstretch its forces too thin. And that's where, by the way, arises the idea within the American political elite to build functional pro-American models like Japan in 1945-46. Iraq was chosen as such a model in the Middle East not only because of the economy.

Do you believe in the possibility of democratizing the Arab world in a Western image?

There is not a single Arab country in the region that has a democratic market-based government. And Americans dream about creating such a country. Iraq is the best choice in this plan. In case of success, it will be difficult for neighboring countries to uphold their current regimes. Look at what happened in Asia after the emergence of Japan . Hong Kong, Taiwan , Singapore , China - they all began changing. People used to say about that nothing could be changed in Japan , that it's a medieval country of samurais. And look - half a century later, it's the second largest economy in the world. That's what America is trying to do in Iraq .

Many in Moscow would disagree; they might say America is only furthering its own interests. What should Russia do to protect its economic interests in Iraq ?

Interests, including economic interests, are either immediate or strategic. The inability to protect strategic interests is a problem for Russia . If short-term political sympathies and antipathies prevail, there is a great danger of losing this economically profitable region completely. Russian interests in Iraq should not be intertwined with the figure of Saddam Hussein, which is what happened.

No one argues that Russia and the US should unite efforts in safeguarding national security. But how? Security is such a broad concept.

That's true, and I'll give you an example of how complex and contradictory the problem of providing national security truly is. Security is not just soldiers and missiles. Look at Bush's recent visit to fight AIDS in Africa . Why did he go? It's simple: AIDS in Africa is most common in the army and police forces, among young people in Africa . What would happen if Africa was left without armies and police forces? It would mean the appearance of terrorism, possible destabilization, and a national security threat to Russia and the US .

Many analysts in Moscow think that Russia has no reliable allies. What do you think?

This is true, Russia has practically no reliable friends on the international scene. No one will jump to defend her. Why is the US , after all, with all their drawbacks, with all the negative things Russians could say about her foreign policy, closer to Russia than many others? But who if not America - China , Europe ? Europe would not move a finger to help defend Russia , particularly on the southern border. China has even more of a sit-and-wait approach. Japan ? Of course not, Japan is too upset at the inability to resolve the islands issue.

And what do you think about this idea: Russia would close herself off, and in this Eurasian apostasy relinquish the North Caucasus, her influence in the Middle East, etc - in order to guarantee national security.