Editor’s Note: The following is an interview with Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international-affairs committee of the Russian State Duma. It was conducted by Paul J. Saunders, associate publisher of The National Interest, on September 23, 2013.

Paul Saunders: So this week is the beginning of the annual general debate at the UN General Assembly. The Obama administration has indicated that they would like to see a resolution on Syria by the end of the week. We of course don’t have that resolution yet. Are you concerned that the agreement between the United States and Russia may break down if there is no UN Security Council resolution soon and that the United States may press ahead with plans for a strike on Syria?

Alexey Pushkov: There has been disagreement between Moscow and Washington on this issue. Russia does not want to back a resolution that will give a green light for the use of force. If this disagreement is not overcome, then the prospects for a Geneva agreement become worse.

On the other hand, I don’t see that for the chemical disarmament of Syria there must be necessarily a resolution from the Security Council.

Russia suggests that the whole issue and process of chemical disarmament be performed by the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and therefore by the United Nations. This organization that will deal with the process of Syrian chemical disarmament. Therefore, a separate resolution may not be necessary.

We hear the United States, France, and some other countries maintain that without such a resolution President Assad may not comply. If he doesn’t comply, then there will be a case which can be considered by the Security Council. For the time being, he is complying.

Syria has filed an application to join the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the relevant international convention. Syria is supplying the necessary documentation. So to accept a resolution that will authorize the use of force under Chapter VII of the United Nations charter in advance, in conditions where we don’t see any breach of the Geneva agreement by the Syrian government is not considered necessary for the Russian government. In Moscow we consider it as an attempt to pass a resolution that can be interpreted as authorizing the use of force like it was in the case of Libya.

As you remember, the stated goal of Resolution 1973 on Libya was to defend the civilian population in Libya, specifically in Benghazi. But it was interpreted by Western nations in such terms that it gave way to missile strikes and bombings of Tripoli and other cities that recognized the government of Muammar Gadhafi. We have stated that we don’t agree with such a reading of this resolution. We will not agree to another resolution of this type in the Security Council.

I think that people are concentrating on the threat of the use of force. The powers that promote such an approach are moving the focus from the chemical disarmament of Syria – and also that has already started –to a possibility of strikes against Syria, which is exactly something the Russian initiative was designed to prevent. This is an unfortunate development, which could have been predicted though. The fundamental goals of Russia and the United States and France and Syria do not converge behind all the diplomatic talk that we have a common goal in Syria.

Unfortunately, the goals, which have been pursued by the United States and their closest allies, are basically regime change.

Russia does not recognize regime change as an appropriate means of reacting to such crises. We think that we should talk about some kind of Syrian national settlement between a number of parties of the opposition and the Syrian government. Russia is opposed to regime change.

Regime change in the majority of cases leads to chaos and ungovernability.

Look at what happened in Libya after the initial invasion. Somehow Libya disappeared almost completely from the pages of the Western newspapers because there is nothing positive to write.

It used to be a factor of stability-- whatever can be said about Muammar Gadhafi as a person. Libya used to be a factor of stability in northern Africa and now it is a factor of instability.

Armaments from Libya are pouring into other countries. Terrorist activities have grown. Al Qaeda has become much stronger than it used to be and it was recognized by the American government. Gadhafi was a secular leader who prohibited any activities of terrorists on his own soil, and prevented them from gaining influence.

When he was toppled, we saw that an immediate Islamist threat appeared in Mali and the French government had to send troops. So it shows that regime change is extremely dangerous.

Look at Iraq. Every month, one thousand people die from terrorist acts.

Look at Afghanistan. The regime change that the Soviet Union pushed in 1976 has led to a complete disaster. The regime change that was performed by the Taliban with the help of Saudi Arabia, the United States, and other countries has led to an ever worse situation.

Now the United States is fighting the same political forces that they helped come to power. Regime change is dangerous and Russia cannot agree with such a policy. Russia suggests to concentrate on the chemical disarmament of Syria and on the political solution on Syria, not on strikes which will weaken the Syrian government and help the fighters, the terrorists – groups such as Jabhat al Nusra and some other groups which are certainly influential inside the Syrian armed opposition because it will lead to an unknown result and Syria may become a feeding ground for a much larger terrorist force than we have seen until now. So we think that this concentration on the use of force has probably a lot to do with American domestic policies and with this issue of so-called U.S. credibility. But as some point-out, not to start a war, to refrain from a war that may be disastrous, may be much more positive for U.S. credibility than starting the wrong war-- a war which will lead to extremely negative consequences, like it was in the instance of Iraq. In this case, the decision not to start a war will be better for U.S. credibility than to start a war that will lead to a regional catastrophe.

Paul Saunders: Let me follow-up on that. You mentioned that Russia would want to pursue a Security Council resolution only if Syria isn’t complying with the OPCW process for getting rid of its chemical…

Alexey Pushkov: I want to be clear on this: if Syria does not comply, then measures should be considered by the Security Council. In what form those measures should be considered, remains to be seen.

That is a difficult issue and the decision on this will be taken in Moscow in the case, if it happens. But I do not think that such a resolution really should be taken in advance.

Paul Saunders: I understand. What would constitute not complying? Does that mean missing deadlines, submitting incomplete information, concealing the existence of weapons or cites? What would Syria have to do to be out of compliance, in your view?

Alexey Pushkov: I think that if there is an evident desire to conceal weapons and to drag-on indefinitely the requirements of such chemical disarmament, then it should be brought to the attention of the Security Council.

At the same time, we should be realistic about the timetable.

The United States has one of the biggest chemical weapons arsenals in the world. The United States has been destroying chemical weapons for the last 28 years. And they spent $35 billions dollars in the process.

Syrian specialists say that in a matter of weeks and months the process can start. Information can be received; the sites where chemical weapons are kept can be located. United Nations inspectors and specialists from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons can go to Syria to start the process of moving weapons to places where they will be destroyed. But this all takes time.

There are no destruction facilities in Syria. As far as I know there are no such destruction facilities in neighboring countries with the possible exception of Iraq. As far as I’ve heard, chemical weapons in Iraq were destroyed in a very unsafe manner, creating danger for the local population.

So I think that the whole process of destruction will take years. So we have to agree on a realistic timetable and what we want to achieve. We can realistically achieve the start of a verifiable and monitored process of the destruction of those chemical weapons with full compliance of the Syrian government and with the full engagement of the United Nations.

We can achieve such a start. Then I think we can consider this to be a success. But we cannot say that all weapons should be destroyed in a timespan of two to three months; this is just not realistic.

As you know, a number of sites with chemical weapons are situated on territories, which are not far from the combat areas, between the government and the rebels.

And we have already heard that when United Nations inspectors tried to investigate the August 21 attack they came under fire from snipers. And in the West, Assad’s government was blamed once again.

But in Russia, there is a very strong suspicion that the snipers that were firing at the United Nations inspectors had nothing to do with the government forces and that the trouble came from the rebels’ side. So this is yet another complication that has to be overcome.

I believe the United States should use their influence to have an impact on those rebels so that they don’t interfere with this process, and that they withdraw from areas where chemical weapons sites are located. And if certain parts of these weapons were seized by the rebels – which cannot be excluded – I think that the United States and Saudi Arabia, and all other countries that are politically – and not only politically – supporting the rebels should use their influence so that those weapons are being put under control as well.

I think that the talk about accomplishing all this in a matter of a month of two – I think it is, first, unprofessional, second, unrealistic, and third may be used in order to quickly come back to the idea of military strikes, which is basically regime change.

Paul Saunders: Perhaps we could shift topics and move to Iran. Now, in the weeks leading up the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit on September 13, there were reports in the Russian press that Russia might reach an agreement with Iran to ship, after all, the S-300 missiles to Iran that had been previously contracted and then the delivery was blocked by President Medvedev’s decree. Do you believe that the S-300 missile may be delivered to Iran and if that happens, how do you think the United States might react?

Alexey Pushkov: I don’t think I’m the one who should comment on a possible U.S. reaction. What I can say is that this issue was debated in the Russian parliament, in the state Duma, when the Duma adopted a statement on Syria, a statement that went strongly against the possibility of military strikes against Syria.

When the statement was debated, some MPs called for Russia to start the S-300 deal and to finish, to send to Iran, the defensive systems if the situation in Iran-Syria takes a negative turn.

Basically, a consensus was reached in the parliament that if Syria was attacked militarily, if there are strikes, then the parliament will recommend to the government to consider the possibility of sending S-300s to Iran. If there is no war in Syria, if the war could be prevented, then it was considered not something that should be on the table. So this is the only open and official debate that happened on this issue in Russia. Whatever the information that was published in the press at that point, it was either not confirmed by the Russian authorities or it was early versions that were not corroborated by further actions.

This debate in the Duma has shown the basic approach, which Russia can take in this situation. The Syrian issue will go along mostly diplomatic and political lines without involving the use of force. Then basically, there will be no spreading of this conflict to other countries. If, on the contrary, Syria is attacked, then there is of course the possibility of war being spread towards Iran. And in this case, the Russian decision to refrain from sending the S-300s to Iran could be reconsidered.

Paul Saunders: After we approached you last week about doing this interview, you made some comments on Twitter about the Navy Yard shootings in Washington, DC, and those comments provoked a considerable reaction in the United States. A number of Americans were offended by your remarks, or considered them very insensitive. How do you react to that response in the United States, and what was it that you were trying to say?

Alexey Pushkov: The United States is positioning itself, in the words of President Obama, as “an exceptional nation.” And this notion of American exceptionalism is the basis for the United States’ message all over the world. But most important for Russia is that we hear from basically all the administrations – whether they are Republican or Democrat – we hear certain sets of requests, and a constant volume of criticism.

Sometimes in our mind it goes beyond acceptable criticism.

Some rhetorical attacks on Russia that are based on the concept that the United States knows what is best for Russia, that the United States knows what is a better future for Russia, and how Russia should conduct its domestic policy and foreign affairs. Many examples should be cited on this score.

The American Congress accepted I think the first law in history, the so-called Magnitsky Act, which introduces certain sanctions, against Russian citizens, because the American side thinks that these persons are responsible for the death of Mr. Magnitsky in prison.

We cannot help but note that people die in prisons all over the world-- including in countries that are close allies of the United States. For some reason, this doesn’t draw any reaction from the American Congress. When this happened in Russia, it allowed the Congress to consider a law, which goes against all the international norms, a law that interferes in Russia’s domestic affairs, and punishes Russians for something they allegedly did, which was never proven.

In Russia there is a feeling that the concept of American exceptionalism allows the United States to teach lessons, to make lectures about how we should behave, and proclaims United States superiority over other nations. However, what we see when we follow the events in the United States is that America is riddled with many issues. America is a nation with a lot of domestic and internal problems. These problems are of such a nature and of such a magnitude that they in our minds – and I speak here for Russian public opinion – undermine whatever right the United States thinks they have to proclaim their moral superiority.

Such shootings, which happen at a regular pace in the United States in the last several years, are reported widely by the international media. And while they may be considered by some as unrelated episodes, others have a feeling that they point to some basic and serious social illnesses in American society.

Therefore, we think that as these problems exist and they manifest themselves and it has been seen recently in such an aggressive and tragic form, we don’t think that the United States is well positioned to insist on exceptionalism while dealing with Russia.

Unfortunately, when we had our own war against terror, Russia was criticized in the United States for the war in Chechnya, and there was little compassion for Russia when its citizens were dying from terrorist attacks. Too often in the American press, it was considered as being a result of the war Russia conducted in Chechnya.

What I wanted to say is that you should not throw stones at others when you yourself are living in a glass house. If you have problems of your own, it’s probably wise to concentrate on those problems and not to act as if you are an ideal nation that every other nation in the world should hold as such. That was the meaning of my Tweet, and that was exactly how it was taken by the Russian audience.

Paul Saunders: Well unfortunately, obviously it wasn’t interpreted that way in the United States. Do you think that Twitter is the right venue to try to explain views like that, and do you think that the immediate aftermath of a shooting is the best time to make that point?

Alexey Pushkov: As for the timing, it happened right after President Obama declared that the United States is an exceptional nation, so the timing was not of my choice.

As for Twitter, it cannot indeed be used to explain complicated issues.

It’s something which allows people in a short form to formulate their attitude toward things that are happening around us in the world, as in their countries.

I suppose that of course a dialogue with the American side would be much better than an exchange of tweets. For instance, on the eve of possible strikes against Syria we suggested that a delegation of the Russian parliament goes to Washington in order to have debates with our colleagues in the American Congress on Syria. Unfortunately, we received a negative response.

We also offered the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US Congress to have a meeting in Vienna, where Khrushchev and Kennedy once met during difficult times. We did not receive an answer to this suggestion, too.

The lack of a dialogue between Russia and the United States leads to situations when we have to speak unilaterally: people in the United States express their opinion of Russia, & vice versa. In the absence of such a dialogue we are forced to address mostly our domestic audiences, while our potential partners in such a dialogue are nowhere to be seen.

The absence of a dialogue leads to misunderstandings. If there was such a dialogue then maybe we would have received a reasonable explanation what American exceptionalism means and how we should take such a statement.

Does it mean that the United States thinks that it’s superior to Russia and other nations and that it has exceptional rights on the international scene?

Does exceptionalism mean that the United States is above international law as was suggested by some American critics during the times of the Bush administration?

So maybe we would have received answers that would have allowed a better understanding of such questions. In the absence of dialogue, there are risks that any statements will be considered in the negative way. They are being used on both sides in order to prove how much animosity there is from one country towards the other country, and it happens both in the United States and in Russia. And we have heard also some statements on the Russian position on Syria, for instance, which are not at all accurate. Russia was accused of helping massacres, having a “disgusting policy” etc. Thus some things we hear from the United States are sometimes quite tough and harsh. If at every point we react in a purely emotional way, I think it will lead us to a disaster. So I think that we should understand why it happens and we should try to prevent these negative readings of each other’s intentions and of each others’ meanings.

Image: Dmitry Rozhkov. CC BY-SA 3.0.