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.