- I am not anti-American or anti-western. The great powers have antagonistic interests. They are the powers that enjoy sufficient sovereignty and are able to decide their destiny independently. There are only a few of them. Europe is not among them, although some people would like it to be. Europe is a satellite of the USA. If it were not, and if entered into cooperation with Russia, then it could rise to become a global leader. However, as a satellite of the Americans, it cannot be a strategic partner of ours. You cannot make agreements with your neighbour’s dog. With Schröder and Chirac there was some convergence. But Europe did not take up our far-reaching offer of cooperation on energy security. Angela Merkel became hysterical.

- We were able to ascertain that we are not complete bunglers as far as football goes. Although one shouldn’t make judgements solely on the basis of this one event.

- Russia has begun to generate great international interest. Even by the time of perestroika, it had become fashionable to report about Russia in the western media. Afterwards it became en vogue to report about the ‘new Russia’ and its democracy, and then it was fashionable to report about crime, the oligarchs and the decline of democracy. Gradually, relations to the media have become normalised. At the present time, marketing strategists are asking themselves: how can we propagate a positive image of Russia, without really doing any research into what is actually positive. They just want to pocket fat budgets in return for something that signifies nothing, without substantially elaborating the real content. That is propaganda.

- Image is created by the media. Image does not exist objectively. It is a subjective product. The world and we ourselves are irritated. Russia’s image was originally that of a loser. The country had gone through a catastrophe, the people could no longer identify with the system. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union we had expected to be loved by the West and then we received three blows: first of all, the war in Yugoslavia, which was regarded as an affront to Russia. Secondly, the first war in Chechnya, when as a state we capitulated to criminal groups in Chechnya. Thirdly, the Rouble crash of 1998.
It was from these three upheavals that the figure of Putin emerged, who transformed this diffuse image into one of success.

- Yes. We have changed a great deal. The eastern European states have tried to find out with whom they should chumb with. It is understandable that they didn’t want to kiss Russia’s arse, but preferred that of the West. But now the dynamics are changing. Suddenly our arse is becoming fatter and offers better perspectives than eastern Europe had suspected. Unfortunately, our PR agencies are not working in Kiev and Moldova as they should be, in my opinion, but instead in Paris and New York.

- Picture to yourself the image of a woman who is very popular because it is extraordinarily easy to have her, and that of a woman who has a great deal of authority, because she is respectable and has a good reputation. I always get the impression that we want to be something in between these two images. What Europe wants from us is obvious: the first image, availability at a cheap price. But only when we have shed this aura can we build up a reputation for ourselves.

- Under Gorbachev. We were treated with a lot of respect then. In Russia people used to say “Gorbachev is the best German”. We still remember how that era eventually ended for our country. But that bitter end tended to enhance our good reputation. The world could see that Russia was capable of rising from the ashes again. Between 1991 and 1998 Russia was of only marginal interest within world politics. Our Foreign Ministry seemed to be far more part of the US State Department. Today we have regained our sovereignty, but we are constantly subjected to attacks – culturally, but also militarily and strategically, for example in the case of nuclear weapons.

- Of course. But why? The country is at a transition stage from the image of the prostitute to the image of the respectable lady. It is undergoing a process of transformation into a sovereign state. The world is asking itself why Russia is now suddenly leaning out so far, has become so capricious and rebellious. Now she is behaving like a respectable woman.” That results in frustration. President Dmitri Medvedjev is, to some extent, trying to sell himself cheaply, as before. I don’t like that.

- Liberal democracy is a term that has lost its meaning. Together, the two terms ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ form a tautology, they contradict each other. In its fundamental significance, democracy is rulership by the people. Yet liberalism is a system of rulership by an elite. Liberal democracy is a distorted system, which basically only ensures the rule of an elite by means of soft modern mechanisms. An illusion of democracy.

- I think that Russia doesn’t need to construct a system that is genetically based on imitation and simulation. No-one has the right to dictate to Russia what to do and what its political system should look like. You can spare us your intervention. We will not discuss our political structure with you. If we want to know something, then we will come and ask. We have also not asked for election monitoring to be carried out. After all, modern western civilisation is itself in the midst of a serious crisis. The system of values doesn’t work any more. In the USA, democratic processes have long been suspended. Take the coming presidential elections in the USA: is anyone discussing the incipient economic crisis, even though there is no more important topic for the USA. If a candidate would admit that blood, sweat and tears are awaiting the Americans in the future, then he would be put in a lunatic asylum. The system is not capable of analysing itself, of exercising self-criticism, of talking with the people. Yet it acts as if it is capable of doing so.

- No. We are more frank, as a result of our underdevelopment. In reality, we have no new political ideas at all. What I don’t like is the fact that Russia is copying these pseudo-democratic social structures. It is incapable of inventing anything new. Imagine someone who buys a ticket for the Titanic, after the telegram has already arrived that the Titanic is sinking. We are not more candid, we are more stupid.

- That is difficult to say. It is not just a banal question. It has to be thought about. The question arises of how an economic system can be constructed that is not based on financial parasitism. We are Christians: Christians regard usury as a mortal sin. The economies of modern capitalism are founded on usury. In Russia we are going along with that just like everywhere else in the world, although for us it does not represent the ultimate wisdom, as it does in the West, since, for historical reasons, we are at least still questioning it.

- Not at all. On the contrary, I am glad that Russia is at least not a cheap colonial servant of the West. Take, for example, Mikhail Khodorkovsky: he wanted to quietly sell his company, Yukos, which he had received for nothing, to the Americans – and so rob Russia of the chance of developing a potent energy strategy of its own. He did not believe in our state sovereignty, but solely in transnational corporations. That was his view of the world. As a citizen, he has a right to his opinion. But he was highly dangerous for Russia. He was in charge of over 50% of the capitalisation of the Russian market and gathered people around him who had a further 45% in their hands. He therefore had unlimited possibilities – financial, media and criminal – at his disposal for influencing the state.

- Because Russia cannot exist in any other way. Unfortunately. If Russia were to disintegrate, that would almost certainly result in a great catastrophe. Geo-politically and militarily. We are dependent on the resources of this territory and they guarantee us the status of a great power. It could be a civilised great power, a constitutional state, not one whose aim is expansion. But a great power all the same.