At a certain point, the atmosphere in the West could change. But I don't see determined political will [for that] at the moment.

Quite frankly, I have to admit that with regard to the enormous financial assets and funds of Russian leaders in Western banks and on stock markets, the chances for the West to exert influence on Russia are quite low. I doubt that Western leaders are willing to exert pressure. I would not exclude an intervention in case of a crisis.

Ratings are king and the money keeps flowing, and partisanship is so strong today that people rely on a few sources absolutely instead of thinking critically. So even being a cheerleader for a gameshow-host president with no respect for the rule of law or America's reputation in the world may not be a career-ending move.

The legend of the best player of chess has been destroyed.

Many Republicans who traditionally were for a positive role in the world, anti-Russian, now they want to defend their party and leader, and they don't care about real arguments. The paradox is the Democrats were so timid in criticising Vladimir Putin. Barack Obama appeased him and now they are criticising Putin's interference in American democracy. It is a strange reversal of the roles.

It is rather difficult to envisage a scenario that could change the domestic situation in the countries of the South Caucasus without solving the problems constantly hindering normal cooperation in the region.

The international repercussions were shattering to some extent - there is no intention to repeat operations of such kind in the future.[Viktor] Yanukovych's electoral victory clearly demonstrated that there are no pro-Russian politicians in the Ukraine, just Ukrainian politicians.