Russia and Europe have found five threats to their security, now it's about only to agree on common actions.

Russian NATO resident representative, Dmitriy Rogozin, has been recently appointed to the post of president's special representative for interactions with the Alliance on missile defense issues. Why it was was necessary to create a new position and whether Russia and NATO have chances to come to an agreement on missile defense problems - these were the topics of his interview for "Profile".

What is your best-case goal as the missile defense special representative?

I would rather not talk about best-case goals. First, it is necessary to create an interdepartmental task force and achieve an efficient coordination of Russian ministeries and offices in this complicated area. After all, the US missile defense is not only a technical decision; it's about the new ideology of NATO in the 21st century. We have very little time since a forced creation of a US programme for strategic missile defense elements deployment on the European continent is on the way. The basis of this programme is the wish to achieve unique advantages towards other states. The USA want to secure themselves against all possible troubles, which is fairly natural. However, this leads to a distortion of the strategic balance, and we must respond to it.

Are the leaders of the Alliance willing to make concessions in negotiations with Russia in your opinion?

It is not about concessions, it is about the question, which future do European countries and the USA want for their children. Generally, the creation of a missile defense could be a unique chance to truly bring Russians, European citizens and Americans together. Last year, we have estimated the security threats to Russia in the Russia-NATO council. As a result, we could detail five directions: Afghanistan, war on international terrorism, war on naval piracy, the protection of critical infrastructure objects against natural and man-made disasters and the proliferation of mass-destruction weapons and delivery systems. The latter problem turned out to be the the crucial one.

The point is that due to technological developemt, the access to unique nuclear facilities is simplified today. And this applies not only to states but also to extremists and terrorists who could theoretically acquire such technologies or simply capture them. If at the same time, they would possess delivery systems for such weapons, such as missiles, it would become a real threat for the whole world. Having analyzed all five directions, we came to the conclusion that neither Russia is threatening the West, nor the West is threatening Russia. All threats - for us as well as for the Europeans - come from third states. That means that we have a chance to attempt neutralizing these threats together. Yet, if during our actions, we will fail to come to an agreement and even worse, if these external threats will turn out as mere claims for creating a missile defense system near our borders, there would be a risk of returning to the hard past. To new phobias and new disagreements. This would lead to an arms race on our and on their side. That means that what we are negotiating upon is not the question of concession but the question of good or bad future for Russia and for the West.

So, at which degree is NATO willing to compromise?

Today, our American colleagues do not demonstrate any willingness to come to agreements, but we are dealing not only with them, but with Europeans too. In Europe, there are different views towards the missile defense system, and there are different attitudes towards us. Thus, when we are talking about NATO we have to keep in mind that it is not a monster creeping out of Cold War caves, but a highly complex, internally contradictive conglomerate of different countries. Sure, the USA play a giant role, they are covering 75% of NATO budget. But still the US are building their missile defense on European soil, and European leaders also have their opinions on that. And the closer the European countries stand to us, the more are they willing to make concessions on this issue, and the further - the less. Europe's opinion on this question is ambivalent, and since the decision must be collective, it is constantly slugged. That's why we still have time it may be not enough to convince our partners of our rightness. And right now, we are working on our negotioation position.

What will be Russia's strategy, should NATO refuse concessions?

We must have guarantees too, regardless of who is going to enter the White House. To achieve this we must either be a part of this system, or agree with our partners that we will have two different systems which will still aim at where a potential threat would come from. We understand that if such a threat exists, it is located in the south. There is no country in the north could possibly launch an attack against Europe. Neither the Swedes, nor the Finns, nor Greenland would attack Europe.

That's why no matter how the negotiation process would run, we would in no case question Russia's rearming programme including the strengthening of our nuclear capability. Again, if the situation would develop in a dramatical way, we would have to deploy those rockets in a certain place instead of keeping them on stock.

Does Russia have systems which equal American ones?

We have everything. Our citizens can sleep tight. For the next ten years, at least.

We are now looking at the events in Libya. How probable is an intervention by US and NATO into these processes in your opinion?

I think that NATO won't participate in any such campaign. The war against Yugoslavia which was contrary to UN standards is being still regarded as a mistake here. On the other hand, I can well imagine the USA getting involved in the conflict in Libya together with their Anglo-Saxon friends. I strongly oppose this. I think that any military actions, any use of brute force, be it under the noblest pretexts but without UN sanctions, can be regarded as a violation of international law.

Moreover, I doubt that the involvement in an internal conflict would lead to a favorable outcome. Getting in is easy, getting out - impossible. The result of an intervention could be the unification of the combating parties against a common enemy.

You are most surely aware of the sociologists' data claiming that almost half of the Russians believes a repetition of Middle Eastern scenario in Russia to be possible. How realistic is this from you point of view?

I think that they are saying this out of spite but do not honestly believe this. This is kitchen talk of people who feel irritated by our leaders. The events of 1993 [violent resolution of a stand-off between Russian president Boris Yeltsin and the parlament resulting in 187 deaths] are still in mind, so we have to remember that such conflicts always end with a great bloodshed in our country.

Do you plan to take part in the upcoming Duma election? Alongside "Fair Russia", for example?

I haven't decided yet. It should be understood that there is a certain ethics of state service which aplies to ambassadors in the first part.

Every ambassador is the face of his country abroad. This is why I must coordinate all changes in my life with the president of Russia. This is not a question of subservience but of the ethics of relations to one's superior.

Of course, I should not loose any feeling of involvement into my county not only as a citizen, but also as a politician. But I can tell the following: my area of responsibility as a representative of the Russian Federation in NATO exceeds one year of work by far.

Did your views on intherethnic problems change since the last election clips of the "Rodina"?

No. I don't change and don't reconsider my principles. I think that in the clips of "Rodina" as of 2005, everyone has seen what was lurking inside him. A xenophobe saw a xenophobe, a man of social views saw social undertones.

Obviously, I saw only one thing in it - a passionate wish to drag attention to impudence between ethnicities. But everything has been interpreted differently. And now i feel concerned that not only in Russia, but in Europe in general, an abrupt radicalisation of the political life is occuring, the disrespect towards others is growing, the principles of interethnic dialogue are being reconsidered, the lack of abilities and wilingness to live side by side is becoming obvious.

In best case, this could lead to segregation and ghettoisation; in worst case, it could ruin existing state communities.

Background

Dmitry Rogozin was born on December 21st, 1963 in Moscow. In 1986, he graduated from the international sector of the Department of Journalism at the Moscow State University. He worked in the committee of youth organizations of USSR. In march 1993, he took charge of the patriotic movement "International congress of Russian communities". From 1997 to 2007, he was a deputy at the State Duma. From 2000 to 2003, he worked as the president of the Duma committee on international relations; from 2000 to 2003, he was appointed as the special representative of the president of Russia on the issues of the life support of Kaliningrad oblast in view of EU expansion. In September 2003, he was elected for the co-president of the Supreme council of the "Rodina" block and the head of its election bureau. Following the results of 2003 elections where "Rodina" got 9.1%, he has been elected for the vice-speaker of the Duma. Later, he became the leader of the fraction of "Rodina". In November 2005, shortly before the elections to Moscow City Duma, "Rodina" issued an election clip featuring Rogozin named "Let's clean the city from dirt" which has been acclaimed xenophobic and extremist. The politician has got an information boycott declared. In the spring of 2006, he retreated from his position as the party leader of "Rodina" and the leader of the eponymous fraction in the Duma. In January 2008, he was appointed as the permanent representative of Russia in NATO. On February 18th, 2011 he was appointed as the special representative of the president of Russian Federation on the cooperation with NATO on missile defense issue. He has the highest diplomatic rank being an ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. He has a PhD in philosophy. He is married and has a son and two grand-daughters.