(4 of 8)
On the whole, over the last couple of years there have been few encouraging moments, to be frank, in Soviet-American relations. Speaking quite candidly, I will tell you that very often we are hard put even to understand Washington's persistent desire to seek advantages for itself in the disadvantages of others. All this has, indeed, been tried—on more occasions than one—by American politicians in the cold war period. However, objective reality led the United States to conclude that it was necessary to cooperate with the Soviet Union, particularly in preventing nuclear war and in settling conflict situations in various parts of the world. Our reciprocal will to act precisely along these lines was then recorded in the relevant documents which we in the Soviet Union highly value and in which we continue to see a good basis for a durable and lasting turn for the better in relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.
Yet, if one looks at the other side only as an "adversary"—and this is something which is not infrequently discussed in Washington—it is, of course, difficult to work for systematically deepening and expanding areas of cooperation. Not only does such an approach make it agonizingly long and complicated for new agreements to be born, but the relations as a whole also mark time or reverse their course, as has, in fact, been the case in the past two years. Whereas, given an attitude of respect for each other's sovereign rights and interests, our two countries will not be worse but better off. Indeed, the world at large will gain if there is agreement between them.
Personally, I am convinced by my entire life experience that good-neighborliness—regardless of differences in political systems and views —is the best line in international relations. And I am deeply convinced that Soviet-American relations really can be not just normal, but truly good. This is not a Utopia. A while ago, a foundation for achieving this goal was laid, but then artificial obstacles were erected in its way, which can and must be removed.
Q. Many Americans, including many who favor improved relations with the Soviet Union, are concerned over the large number of forces maintained by the Warsaw Pact along its western borders. This is often referred to as "the Soviet threat." What do you think of such concerns and about the state of detente in Europe?
A. Fabrications about a "Soviet threat" are nothing new. There was much trumpeting about it in the West when, following October of 1917, Soviet Russia was invaded by some 15 countries, including the United States, in order to strangle the revolution and restore the old order. British Prime Minister Chamberlain expatiated about it when concluding a deal with Hitler in Munich aimed at directing his aggressive intentions against the Soviet Union. The Nazis covered up their rapacious attack on the U.S.S.R. with cries about a "Soviet threat." It was also invoked by those who set up the NATO miltary bloc spearheaded against the Soviet Union, which lost 20 million people in the struggle against the aggressor. The same pretext was used when Washington proclaimed a policy of "brinkmanship" directed against us.