When you deny something your power is much more conspicuous than when you approve it.

The annexation of Crimea did undermine Ukraine to some extent, but less than it did Russia; this is a case in which the victim wins. Ukraine got rid of a region that requires massive subsidies and received international sympathy; meanwhile, Russia bit off this chunk it can't chew.

They say that generally, rulers - dictators - tend to be short, like me. It gives them an inferiority complex; when they were kids, they wanted to be big and to crush the small, but they were small themselves. Lenin was short, Stalin was short, Putin...

If Putin and those around him had been smart enough to go in a different direction... The country was ready. The conditions were extremely favorable - with oil prices as high as they were, it was possible to do anything. It was possible to solidify democracy. After the Yeltsin years people began to think that democracy is a disaster, that democracy equals misery. Putin got a lucky break - and he used it the KGB way. He turned out to be a wily KGB man, not a wise statesman.

Most people consume information passively-whatever they're being fed. They're being fed Russian television, which tells them that in the 90s there was a terrible catastrophe, that before that life had been all right, and then when Putin came many people say, "I've never lived as well as I'm living under Putin." That's true-there has never been such a level of affluence. But now, it looks like people will have to tighten their belts, and some are already having doubts.

A meeting is an occasion when people gather together, some to say what they do not think, and others not to say what they really do.

Russia may soon get another chance to move closer to the West, to make a step - I do believe the first step toward democracy was made in the 1990s, and perhaps the next step can happen now. If this happens, the West needs to see it in time and support it in an intelligent way.