– Ian Kelly, Director of Russian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

– Mr. Kelly, were there any special circumstances in your personal life or education that led you to be interested in Russia?

– I started out as a student of Russian. In the mid-1970s, when I was in college, I read Dostoevsky. I decided that I wanted to read Dostoevsky in the original, not realizing that it would take me many years to learn Russian. That is how truly my interest in the Russian culture and language originated. In 1976, I went for two months to study in Leningrad, in Leningrad State University at the Philological Faculty. That is when I got interested in Russia in a much broader sense – not just in literature and culture, but also in society and the Russian politics. When I was a graduate student in 1983 and 1984, I went back to the Philological Department. I worked very closely with the American Consulate, the Consulate General in Leningrad. That was when I became interested in the foreign service. I was finishing up my dissertation at the time, and I thought that it would just be much more interesting to live in the Soviet Union, to live in Russia than to teach Russian literature at a small college somewhere.

I took the Foreign Service Exam and passed. I’ve been in the foreign service for over twenty years and about half that time I spent working on Russian affairs. I’ve lived for five years in the Soviet Union and parts of the Soviet Union. Then I spent three years here at the Russian desk in the mid-1990s.

I’ve lived about a year and a half in Russia as a student, and about five years as diplomat – three years in the Soviet Union and two years in the post-Soviet time.

I really felt a sense of mission to try and increase the understanding between our two countries. I was very much involved with the student programs in the late 1980s. When I just arrived at the Embassy, we had only around 15 students and professors going each way. By the time I left three years later, we had ten times that number.

I felt a real need to increase the understanding about America among the Russians. Of course, I also went the other way and tried to increase understanding about Russia among Americans – there are all kinds of myths about the Russian bear.

I think that there is a continuation of the Cold War mentality on both sides, in America, as well as in Russia. There is still a lot of work to be done.

– What sustains this mentality? The Cold War has been over for almost two decades. At the same time, the popular press often likes to talk of the return of the Cold War… Do such perceptions correspond to reality in any way?

– No, not at all. I think that the stereotypes persist because it helps to sell newspapers to talk about the Russian bear coming back, to talk about the Cold War. It is absolutely ludicrous. We do not have the same kind of ideological confrontation that we had before. We don’t have the kind of bipolar world that there once was – capitalism versus communism. It is just not there. There is no confrontation. There is no danger of any military conflict between America and Russia. We just have a much fuller relationship than we had before. When I was dealing in Soviet affairs, we only had a few areas of engagement, mostly having to do with issues related to military confrontation, strategic nuclear forces limitation talks. Now our relationship is much more characteristic of a modern relationship between two great powers in terms of economic integration. Our trade relationship is absolutely booming. The levels of trade increase by forty to fifty percent every year.

Our relationship is much more multifaceted. To try to categorize our relationship and to put it in that kind of box like a new Cold War is ridiculous.

This is not to say that we don’t have disagreements. We do talk about our differences. We try to talk about our differences in a very open and transparent way. Conflict sells much more newspapers than cooperation.

– The State Department has very many different responsibilities when it comes to addressing relations with a foreign country, especially a continental power like Russia. One needs to deal with everything from issuing tourist visas to facilitating space collaboration and helping with large-scale business projects. What fields of work would you think constitute priority areas of interest for U.S. government in working with Russia?

– I think that at this point what this Administration is focusing on is trying to leave a legacy for the next Administration. We are trying to put some of those areas of disagreement on a good track. Some of the areas that we have to work out are in political or strategic areas. We need to set up a successor agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Limitations Talks, the START agreement, that runs out at the end of next year. We have been talking to the Russian Federation about that. We are also trying to assuage some of Russia’s concerns about our plans to develop a missile defense system, which would cover our allies in Europe. We have frequent discussions with Russia about that.

There are very important regional issues that we have disagreements on, relating to NATO enlargement in particular. The governments of Ukraine and Georgia have applied to get on track toward membership. The Russian Federation has been very frank in its opposition to NATO membership for those countries. We have been talking on a multilateral level and also on bilateral level about these concerns.

There have been talks about what we call out-of-area operations for NATO. NATO is a collective security organization that has to address threats to the members of the alliance in regions far beyond the Euro-Atlantic area. Of course, NATO’s biggest operation is in Afghanistan. There are countries participating in Afghanistan that aren’t NATO members, including Australia, South Korea, and Japan. The alliance is multilateral and certainly extends beyond the European boundaries.

– What noticeable improvements in the relationship between the United States and Russia during the past five years would you be able to name?

– I think that we have wonderful cooperation in countering threats. It is in the national interests of both Russia and America. We recently had a meeting in Moscow of the Counterterrorism Working Group, which examines a number of terrorism threats that both of our countries would like to address in a cooperative way. We are helping the government of Afghanistan deal with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We are also dealing with transnational threats and working on addressing the financial factors driving international terrorism, like narcotics. Russia has excellent counter-narcotics training that we work cooperatively on in a bilateral way and through the NATO-Russia Council. Counterterrorism is one area.

We have good cooperation on the multilateral forum, including in countering nuclear proliferation. We have had the six-party talks with North Korea. Russia was a very active member of those talks and helped get North Korea to set aside its nuclear plans. We agree on the proposition that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. On a strategic level we are in agreement – we differ on some tactics. Russia is a member of the Security Council – the permanent five plus one. There has been good progress. A number of resolutions were crafted – on Iran, for example.

– This summer, the former Ambassador to Russia William Burns has been designated to lead negotiations with Iran…

– He is our best diplomat. He is a fantastic representative of the United States. He also brings the experience of working in Moscow for five years. Of course, he also has a big background in the Middle East. He has been working in Jordan and was the Secretary for Near East Affairs.

– What factors hold back the development of Russian-American relations in the field of commerce?

– Everything is growing very rapidly in terms of the development of trade between our countries. In the near term, things look very good. In the longer term, I think that Russians themselves are aware that there are some needs that must be addressed to put Russia on a really productive path economically. Some of those needs – this is something that President Medvedev has talked about – include the creation of a more diversified economy. Russia has benefited tremendously from its hydrocarbon resources. At the same time, I think that people in Russia understand that in order for the country to develop economically, diversification has to occur. The way to doing that is investing in the educational system and infrastructure. There is a need for improving the transportation infrastructure of the country. Healthcare is also an important area. The healthcare delivery system could be made better. There are some significant demographics problems. Environmental degradation is a big concern.

Another important part here is to encourage more innovation. Russia has tremendous human capital, and that is the true wealth of the country. Russia has a great tradition of creativity, of innovation. Just remember Sputnik… Russian culture and education have produced some of the greatest achievements in history. Russia is on a good path.

– Russian leadership has recently started to talk a great deal about the need for legal reform. At the same time, with respect to judicial relations with the U.S., Russia has some years ago unilaterally suspended the Hague Convention for the service of legal documents… It is very difficult for an American company that believes its contractual rights have been violated by a partner in Russia to seek relief. How do you look at the prospects for the reform of the Russian judiciary?

– The Russian leadership understands what has to be done. The leaders understand that in order for Russia to develop and grow, to develop a viable middle class, it is necessary to have a transparent, independent, predictable legal system, which is not really in place right now. It is a tremendous task, but, again, I think that the Russian leadership understands that this has to be done.

The leadership understands that for the country to prosper, it needs to have investment. Investment will flow into areas where there is some sense of security that due protection is provided by the legal system. This is something that Russia has to develop. Unfortunately, there is a perception in Russia that the system is not entirely transparent, not entirely predictable – that investments will not necessary enjoy full protection of the laws.

– What has been the extent of the positive influence that the convivial relationship of George Bush and Mr. Putin had on U.S.-Russia cooperation?

– It is always a good thing for the relationship between two nations when their leaders have a strong connection. I have seen that this kind of a personal relationship, where one can pick up the phone and try to move things forward, can be very advantageous. It can be very constructive when one person from the top can give directions – this is what happened with a number of initiatives in what we call the Strategic Framework Document. I think that the influence is very good.

Our relationship has suffered in the past during some rocky moments, particularly due to some of the strategic issues that I’ve mentioned before.

– Some politicians in the U.S. like to talk about the rollback of personal liberties in Russia – the limitations on the freedom of the press and the openness of elections. What is your assessment of the situation?

– We have been concerned about the re-centralization of power in Russia and the central control of some of the electoral processes. There has been selective implementation of election law not to allow certain candidates on the ballot. There were instances of constricting very tightly the access to media that candidates have. Other concerns include the limitations placed on outside election observers. These are all the things we have been very open about. We have not brushed aside any of these concerns. We have been very open about our criticism, as have our European allies.

I think that one thing that some Russians do not understand is that we do not express these criticisms because we want to weaken Russia somehow. We are concerned about the rollback of some of the democratic rights because we think that, in order for a country to be strong, it must have strong democratic institutions. It has to have free and unfettered media. It has to have an open and transparent elections process. This is all because we want a strong Russia. We do not want to have a weak Russia.

Having stated all that, I would not say that Russia is returning to the old Soviet model of complete control of the media. That is just not true. There is a great deal of debate that goes on in the Russia media, particularly on the Internet, radio, and in newspapers. I was disappointed by the lack of debate on television. I was in Russia before the Duma elections and before the presidential elections. It is quite a contrast between what is going on in this country with the candidates on television and the lack of that in Russia.

– The world is changing at a very quick pace. Just think of how far Russian-American relations have come in the early 1990s. Can we expect any revolutionary changes in our relationship under today’s circumstances?

– I don’t know if I like the word revolution. It has certain connotations. We will see… It is a time of transition here in the U.S. We will have a new Administration in January. I would like to see our relationship put on a very productive basis. I think that the world itself is going through a transition. There are a number of challenges that our countries face that we could much better face together than separately. I believe that Russia is a strategically-important country in terms of the space that it occupies and the strength of its people. I am optimistic about the future. We can accomplish much more working together.