Once he arrived, new U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul met with organizers of mass protests in Moscow last month. The meeting made him a target of vicious attacks from state-controlled TV networks and pro-Kremlin youth movements.

     Question: How did you like the reception organized by TV networks and pro-Kremlin youths?
     Michael McFaul: Well, I cannot say I disliked the reception organized by the Russian authorities. Everything was fine when Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and yours truly met with Sergei Lavrov and deputy foreign ministers.
     And as for the claims that the first thing I did in Moscow was meet with opposition leaders here... That's a misconstruction of facts, deliberate or not. Anyway, checking it will be easy. My first meeting here in Moscow was the required protocol function at the Foreign Ministry where I produced my credentials. I spent my first working day here meeting with high-ranking functionaries of the Russian state. It was on the morrow that I accompanied Burns to a meeting with representatives of civil society and opposition 
leaders. I was performing my duties as the ambassador.

     Question: The claims that you threw accepted diplomatic practices out the window are therefore false?
     Michael McFaul: We did nothing that had not been done yet within the framework of the reload policy. Russian ambassador [Sergei Kislyak - Kommersant] regularly meets with representatives of the opposition in the United States. Dmitry Rogozin met with political adversaries of the U.S. Administration on more than one occasion. In the event your ambassador expresses the wish to meet with people from Newt Gingrich's or Mitt Romney's offices, we will arrange a meeting without making a fuss.

     Question: Your repute of a specialist in "orange revolutions" is often referred to. There were even comments that you were posted to Moscow in order to apply your theoretic knowledge in practice.
     Michael McFaul: That's rubbish. To begin with, President Barack Obama sent me here to facilitate and promote the reload in the bilateral American-Russian relations. I did not want this posting, honestly. I told the president of my plans but he said, "Come on, you cannot walk away at this point. We have a major task that has to be accomplished. The reload ought to be facilitated."  The reload is not about revolutions. Revolutions are not what we are after.
     I'm an academician, political scientist and sociologist, not a professional revolutionary. I used to be a professor at Stanford University. One of the best universities in the world, it employs professors, not radicals.
     Third, I noticed that Russian media outlets elaborate on my works dealing with democracy and democratization. I did write a lot on the subject, no need to deny it. For some reason, however, people remain unaware that I wrote plenty of works on the subject of the relations between the United States and Russia.

     Question: Why then did you appearance here trigger such a reaction? Nearly hostile reaction.
     Michael McFaul: When I was meeting with the Russian foreign minister, he demonstrated nothing of the sort. Neither did other state functionaries for that matter. I can only surmise that there is certain discrepancy between the positions of Russian officials and some media outlets and organizations. Why this discrepancy exists in the first place is not for me to say. Perhaps, some people have certain political motives. I do not presume to know.

     Question: But TV networks that ran this commentary are state-controlled and -owned. It means that the matter concerns a certain   policy.
     Michael McFaul: I do not know how your system works. All I know is that the Cold War left its imprint on our relations and that some Russians remain in the grips of old cliches and stereotypes with regard to the Americans.
     I'd like to emphasize, however, that I have never associated myself with the Cold War period. I'm younger than that, you know. It was not my war, and neither was it a part of me. I'd like to persuade the Russians of that, to convince them that I'm not here to foment revolutions or anything. I will appreciate communications with them via Twitter (@McFaul), Facebook, and so on. I will welcome contacts with pro-Kremlin youth organizations, young Communists, and young Liberals. And with their elders, of  course. I'd like to explain what the United States is after these   days, what it hopes to accomplish and what it regards as a threat. I'm convinced that our countries face analogous threats and challenges.

      Question: These stereotypes are too deeply ingrained in mass  
conscience. Do you think that it is possible to alter it  
overnight?
     Michael McFaul: I live in Palo-Alto, in the Silicon Valley. There are upwards of 40,000 Russian-speaking specialists there. These people are not there to revive the Cold War or organize a revolution in California. They are employed by the businesses that change the world we all live in. What I want to be is a link, a bridge between this generation and the one that remembers the Cold War.

     Question: How did you like working with Vladislav Surkov within the bilateral presidential commission? Critics point out  that the working group you and he chaired did nothing at all to change civil society in Russia.
     Michael McFaul: The working group we are talking about never presumed to change civil society. Russian civil society needs no changes initiated by the United States. It exists and evolves without us. Being a formal structure, we only tried to develop mechanisms of interaction between Russian and American civil  
societies. That's what we were convinced was lacking. Yes, American trusts sponsor Russian non-governmental organizations. Why not? Russian trusts do sponsor some American ones.

     Question: They do?
     Michael McFaul: Think-tanks, the organizations dealing with cultural matters, for example. Vladimir Potanin recently gave a major grant to the Kennedy Center. Can you imagine it? A Russian national sponsored an American government organization.
     As for Surkov, I can say that each of us learned something from the other. I reckon that Surkov did have certain preconceived ideas on my account before we met. When we started working together, however, he got to know me better than that. Same thing applied to me and to my preconceived ideas with regard to Surkov. He is a prominent figure in Russian politics, after all. Well, I can say that I found direct regular contacts more rewarding and revealing than reading about him in newspapers.

     Question: You are known as the architect of the reload. What was reload initially supposed to accomplish?
     Michael McFaul: First: promotion of the dialogue with society so as to rid us all of the stereotypes left by the confrontation period. Second: expansion of the spectrum of the bilateral relations to beyond the realm of military-political cooperation. Agreement No 123, Russia's membership in the WTO were undeniably milestones that would inevitably boost economic cooperation between our countries. There was also the START treaty and our cooperation in the Middle East and Afghanistan. I'd say that quite a lot was accomplished over a fairly short period. Some people tend to take it for granted... but that's a wrong attitude to take. Few could imagine back in August and September 2008 that so much would be accomplished. But it was accomplished, mostly thanks to our presidents.

     Question: Dmitry Medvedev simply backed the idea formulate by the United States...
     Michael McFaul: Our president likes working and dealing with his Russian counterpart. Medvedev is always straightforward and pragmatic. All these throwbacks to the Cold War era and ideological confrontations are not for him. Whenever he promises to do something, he always keep his promise. If he doubts his ability to deliver, he never makes a promise in the first place... All of that could not help impressing Obama. And he always treated his Russian counterpart likewise.

     Question: There is a widespread opinion in Russia that reload  stalled. We reached lots of agreements but the one on ballistic missile defense systems defies all problems to find a compromise.
     Michael McFaul: Assuming that the reload is history is wrong. We are en route to finding solutions to problems much more complicated than anything tackled before. Problem of ballistic missile defense systems is a vivid example. It is not against Russia that we are of the mind to develop such a system. We do not mean to launch another arms race and drag Russia into it. That's one of the throwbacks to the Cold War era nobody wants. U.S. president is not a man to pour colossal sums into manufacture of  heaps of weapons that will never be used.
     I'm convinced that given time, we will convert the problem of missile shields from a liability into an asset... from the standpoint of the bilateral relations.

     Question: But why would experts in both countries speak of  the end of reload again and again?
     Michael McFaul: There are some issues that are best be left for after elections. In both our countries. You probably know how problematic my confirmation by the U.S. Senate turned out to be. Some Senators were convinced that I was going to Moscow to impart sensitive information to the Russians. All I can say is that since we are criticized from all sides at once, it is surely an indication that we are trying to accomplish something worthwhile.

     Question: We all know that Vladimir Putin will be the next president of Russia. Will the reload policy continue with Putin in the Kremlin?
     Michael McFaul: Well, I cannot say that I know any such thing. If you don't mind, I'll wait for after the presidential election in Russia before saying anything like that. Let's give the Russians time to choose their president.
     As for Putin, all I can say is that Obama met with Putin. They breakfasted together. Obama said afterwards that it had been  one of the most interesting conversations with foreign leaders he could remember.

     Question: There are always problematic issues... like reports on human rights. The Russian Foreign Ministry drew and published its own report on the situation with human rights in foreign countries. The report was quite critical of the United States. Will the United States take this criticism into account?
     Michael McFaul: To tell you the truth, I haven't seen the report yet. I do mean to read it though. When I have formulated my opinion, I will be able to speak on the subject. Anyway, that the Russian Foreign Ministry decided to analyze the state of affairs with human rights in foreign countries is absolutely fine by us. I'm not saying that we are going to accept all criticism. What I'm saying is that it is great that the government of Russia regards universal human rights as something to attach top priority to.

     Question: Are you saying that the discord over human rights is not supposed to halt the reload?
     Michael McFaul: It could be an impediment and was an impediment under previous U.S. Administration, but not under Obama's. On the other hand, we cannot put up with a penchant to link the affairs that have nothing to do with each other. What I mean is that we will never accept hearing from Russian leaders that they are not going to help us in Afghanistan because we've been helping Georgia. We are not playing games such as these. We are too mature for that. If you prefer, it is a test for maturity.

     Question: In Russia, popular opposition leaders are regularly accused of being on the Americans' payroll. Aleksei Navalny went to Yale so that pro-regime activists announced that he was here to put together groups of influence...
     Michael McFaul: I'm a professor, and my teaching career is much longer than diplomatic. If Navalny went to Yale, it's great. I personally dispatched my students by the hundred to Russian colleges and universities. When they came back, they did so with some new ideas and views. I myself studied in the Soviet Union in 1983. Most Americans then went to Europe (to France, Great Britain, and Germany) but I chose the Soviet Union. And that was during the Cold War!

     Question: Are you saying that you speak Russian?
     Michael McFaul: Sure! Will anyone say that I got converted here, embraced the Communist theory, and went home to organize a revolution there?

     Question: Let's get back to Navalny, if you don't mind.
     Michael McFaul: Whether or not Navalny is an American project? That's rubbish. Navalny is Navalny. We do not pay him. These insinuations are an insult to Russia itself. The Russians are one of the best educated, smart and creative people in the world.
     Time to rid ourselves of the ideas that we mean to see you done in. We'd better focus on finding the best talented people, yours and ours, and promoting them. I hope to contribute to it during my stay in Moscow.

"Kommersant"