Question: Georgia's withdrawal from the CIS – is this the start of the end of the Commonwealth or self-clarification?

Answer: The withdrawal of Georgia from the CIS is, first of all, an irresponsible decision of the Georgian president, which causes a feeling of regret, and essentially means that for Mikhail Saakashvili the chief thing is a political show off and the struggle for his own political survival.

He has no ability to figure out the long-term interests of his own people, which the aggression unleashed against South Ossetia by his decision has shown with the utmost obviousness.

Question: How do you assess the words of Saakashvili that from now on the Russian peacekeepers are occupier troops? How in general does the Russian leadership treat the shocking statements of the Georgian leader? What do you think his political future may be? Is entry to Russia closed for him?

Answer: I shall begin with the last question. First of all, Saakashvili has by his actions against South Ossetia closed "entry" into politics for himself. I doubt that anyone in the world treats with respect his political clowning. Anyway, he does not deserve trust.

Regarding our peacekeepers – the tragedy that has occurred in South Ossetia has conclusively destroyed the remnants of trust of the South Ossetians and the Abkhaz concerning the intentions of the present Georgian leadership. Therefore, regardless of what abusive epithets Saakashvili uses against our peacekeepers, they remain the only force whom the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia trust and count on in terms of ensuring their own security.

That is why the Russian peacekeepers will stay there and will be protecting the life, honor and dignity of the multinational population of these republics.

Question: How will the aggression against South Ossetia reflect on the process of Georgia's entry into NATO? How will Russia react in case of an accelerated entry of Georgia into NATO?

Answer: The admission of Georgia to NATO is a question that concerns not just Georgia alone. It is also a test for the political maturity and seriousness of the approaches of the North Atlantic Alliance. In the Georgia-NATO link the alliance plays a far from passive role. In these conditions we will regard any decisions associated with Georgia's NATO membership perspective as a conscious choice not only by Tbilisi, but by Brussels as well.

I think that the bloody character of the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia and the ensuing humanitarian catastrophe require no additional explanations. Serious politicians in the NATO member states are quite capable of taking independent decisions on this basis. So it is up to them to make a choice.

Question: Will Moscow's refusal to recognize the territorial integrity of Georgia not lead to a confrontation with the West? What's your prognosis?

Answer: Russian President Medvedev has clearly declared that sovereignty and territorial integrity do not mean the right of a state to ruthlessly deal with the peoples living on its territory. Territorial integrity implies political leaders' ability to cope with the duties that are laid upon them by the will of voters.

Question: Tbilisi and then also the West are saying that now the Georgian-South Ossetian settlement process must be internationalized. Is Moscow ready to consider presence of an international peacekeeping contingent in the conflict zone? If so, then what kind of contingent would that be?

Answer: I can say only one thing. Under any scenario of development of the situation, the Russian peacekeepers will remain the chief guarantors of the security and calm life of the population of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The rest will have to be discussed and decided, but with the mandatory participation and consideration of the interests of the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians.

Question: How will the fact that Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko personally flew to Tbilisi to provide moral support to Mikhail Saakashvili reflect on Russian-Ukrainian relations? Does Moscow intend to respond to the demand from a number of Ukrainian politicians that the term and modalities of the Russian Black Sea Fleet's presence in the Crimea be revised?

Answer: We have bluntly told Kyiv what we think of Ukraine's stance in the context of the South Ossetia tragedy. As partners and close neighbors, we are entitled to expect Kyiv's behavior to bear a proper and balanced character. And those wishing under any pretext to win over the anti-Russian "international" and actively draw Ukraine in there are well known to us.

August 13, 2008