The second fact is that this government has come to power through an anti-constitutional coup d’etat. The way the former president, whatever one may think of him, was deposed, was absolutely illegitimate. Under any Ukrainian constitution, there is a procedure of the impeachment of the president, unless he himself certifies in a written form that he is wishing to leave. So first, a Commission on Investigation is created, so that the Commission can come to the conclusion that the president has broken the law [with] something that is justifying his impeachment. At the second stage, the Constitutional Court should be involved, and it should give its own decision, its own judgment. And only on the third stage, the Verkhovna Rada, which is the Ukrainian parliament, should vote. The first two stages of this process were completely bypassed.

Actually, the pretext that was used to depose the president was absolutely anecdotal. It was said that he could not be found, and that it means that he does not perform his national duties. In fact, this is a lie, because Mr. Yanukovych did leave Kiev on February 22nd, but he didn’t even leave the territory of Ukraine. He was in Kharkiv, a Ukrainian city. And I am saying this, because I was in Kharkiv this very day, and I know this for sure. And from Kharkiv, it took one hour to actually depose the legally elected president of Ukraine while he was on the territory of Ukraine. And at 4:00, being in Kharkiv, he gave an interview. And this is a material fact: that he was under Ukrainian territory, and in this interview, which was broadcasted on Ukrainian television, he said that a coup d’etat was performed in Ukraine. So in these conditions, while the United States and a number of European countries have recognized the Ukrainian government, the Russian government does not recognize the Ukrainian government, because it came to power through an evident break of law, and this is the reason for turmoil in Ukraine.

Saunders: But I thought that President Putin in his interview several days ago said that he considered the Ukrainian government to be partially legitimate and that—

Pushkov: No, no, he said the Verkhovna Rada, the parliament, is partially legitimate. By this he meant that the parliament of Ukraine was elected, and so there is some legitimacy to it. But he said “partially”. And the reason for this definition is that under threats to them, either personally or to their families, a number of members of the parliament had to vote. The parliament is partially elected, and so there is some legitimacy to it. The reason for this is that under threats to them personally or to their families a number of members of the parliament had to vote and they were forced to by the opposition who took Kiev.

Saunders: But I thought Mr. Putin said that they had instructed Russian government officials to work with Ukrainian government officials?

Pushkov: No actually he said that they have to study the possibilities of economic direction with Ukraine, but until today the Russian government had no meetings with the leaders of the Ukrainian government. While in Paris when he had the negotiations with Kerry they decided to see the acting foreign minister of Ukraine and the official position of the Russian government is they do not recognize the so called new government of Ukraine.

Saunders: Alright, well perhaps getting back to my original question there, do you see any way in the next few days there to come to some referendum? Some understanding that would allow Crimea to remain inside Ukraine as a part of Ukraine?

Pushkov: Well I do not think it is up to me to define the future of Crimea, the only thing I can say on this score is that I think the responsibility of this outcome relies mostly on the Ukrainian opposition when they signed the agreement of February 21 in Kiev, with president Yanukovych. They had taken certain obligations, some of those obligations were to create a coalition government which would represent all the regions of the country even the eastern regions including all political parties. They had an obligation to disarm immediately military formations, they took an obligation to start the constitutional reform. And as you may know this was guaranteed by signatures of three foreign ministers of France, Poland and Germany representing the European Union. This agreement was forgotten, actually the day it was signed.

Actually I think that this creates a very complicated situation when I do not see how the Europeans acting as intermediates between say the people of Crimea and the government in Kiev if there is no trust or guarantees in the European Union. So in my mind the situation is in a way a deadlock, because people in Crimea do not trust either the people in the government who came to power opposing the president in an unconstitutional way and they do not trust the European Union. So it leaves us with very few options to bridge the gap between Crimea and Kiev.

Saunders: Many people in the United States expect Crimeans will vote to join Russia and the Russian parliament and executive branch will act to make that happen, and I’ve heard your own statement that you are not prepared to predict the outcome. But that is what many people in the United States expect. If that happens; based on your experience in the US Russian relationship over the past couple of decades, how do you think the United States will respond to that?

Pushkov: Well it is up to the United States to decide how they will respond. I just think that the United States should have taken into account that Ukraine is a country bordering Russia. Ukraine is a country that is very important to Russia, not only because of linguistic and cultural ties but because of economic and security reasons. Ukraine has a joint border with Russia of 1450 kilometers and so when the United States was supporting in Ukraine anti-Russian forces, when the United States immediately recognized the government when there is a high, high doubt of its legitimacy, when the US did not pay attention to the signals coming from Moscow that Russia is extremely worried with the meddling and there was evident meddling from the United States from the European Union in the internal developments in Ukraine. So did the United States think that Russia would not object to this in any way?

So I think that we have to take into account that there are security dimensions in our relationship and there are still political games that are being played with this old idea that the Bush administration has been taken over by the Obama administration with taking the Ukraine into NATO. Let’s agree that this goal of bringing Ukraine into NATO was in important goal in American foreign policy. Every time Hillary Clinton came to Kiev she would remind Yanukovych of Ukraine’s entry into NATO. So I think that it was quite weird that the United States would think that Russia would just stay aside without reacting to those events and the United States will destabilize a country that is so close to Russia and will also support an anti-Russian government in Kiev. But as I say it is up to the US government to decide how they will react. Russian worries about the institutional relationship with Ukraine were only strengthened by the role the US played in all this. And I think a big part of the responsibility in this crisis relies on the United States which got carried away with regime change in yet another country. But his is a country that is historically, culturally, economically and in security important to Russia, and I think it was not taken into account.

Saunders: Let me ask a last question, you’ve been generous with your time. As you know the US government has a different perspective on the events that you’ve described. Many Americans have a different perspective, and if you look at the reaction in the United States to events so far there has been extensive discussion here of trying to punish Russia for Russia’s conduct for violation of international norms. There has been talk of trying to isolate Russia. The United States has not made a decision on how to react to what’s happened and of course we don’t know what’s going to happen in Ukraine but if the United States reacts to what happens by imposing large scale sanctions perhaps by working together with Europe and impose costs as President Obama has stated. What kind of reaction do you expect from the Russian people and the Russian government? Do you think Russia will accept that situation or will it retaliate against the West? Will the two governments be able to keep that situation under control, or will it escalate?

Pushkov: Well there are a number of question in which you have just asked. I would first like to stress that the United States is uniquely in a place to talk about international norms and international law. And I have to tell you I am now in Paris, and in France for instance there is a large skepticism about hearing US officials remind about international law after the United States was the country who was violating international law in so many cases over the past fifteen years starting with the war in Iraq. The fact is that the United States mentions international law when they think others violated it but do not actually follow international law when their interests are at stake and when they are taking foreign policy decision. I think this is something rather evident not only for Russians but also for Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians and many others.