(2 of 7)
The process now under way is getting us back on the track of creating a new union. We were moving along that track until the referendum in Ukraine created a new situation. I had argued that Ukraine, on the basis of its sovereignty, could find its own place in a new union. The leadership there had signed an economic-cooperation agreement. That was the right thing to do. ((President Leonid)) Kravchuk had also said several times that nuclear weapons should be under rigid control and a single command. Of course, all republics on whose territory nuclear weapons are located should have some say in how that control is implemented, but no one has challenged the idea that there should be a single authority. Those are two very important points, and they make it possible for us still to have some sort of political union.
I've worried all along that it would be dangerous for Ukraine to end up outside the process. My concern was that the Russian leadership would use what the Ukrainians were doing as a pretext ((to thwart Gorbachev's plan for a new union)).
The decision to separate ((the Slavic republics from the union)) was unconvincing, ill founded, badly formulated. I'm all in favor of profound reform and the redistribution of authority, but ((the Slavic leaders)) decided on separation, and that's a huge mistake. If we start tearing this country apart, it will just be more difficult for us to come to terms with one another. They think they have speeded up the process, but in reality we're in danger of getting bogged down in all sorts of wrangles.
My point is that while we've got to redistribute authority, there are dangers. It's important that we not wander off the best political course.
Q. You seem much more determined to continue in office than you did on television Thursday when you used the word resignation repeatedly.
A. If other republics come to a common understanding that they want to form a commonwealth, then I -- as someone dedicated to the principles of democracy and constitutional rule, and because of my convictions and my role as President -- will have to respect that choice.
But I want a stage-by-stage, step-by-step process that will not stimulate disintegration and chaos. That doesn't mean I've changed my position. I've given this a lot of thought and analyzed my own position quite critically. Perhaps I've overlooked something. I'm capable of self-analysis. I've always been that way. But so far I haven't heard any arguments that make me want to change my position. The political process should continue without interference and within the framework of the constitution.
It's critical that we not lose control of the situation. Therefore, I'll use my powers as President, first of all as commander in chief of the armed forces. That is why ((Russian President Boris)) Yeltsin and I have each met with the leaders of the armed forces. I told them that during this period of transition the army can be sure we'll deal with all these questions -- the creation of a new defense union, the control of strategic forces, and what to do about national armies. The armed forces should be assured that they'll be taken care of, that they constitute an important institution of the state and that they can't be the object of political manipulation.
Q. Do you still believe it's possible to save the Soviet Union as such?