Read the interview and Look up the underlined words and phrases in a dictionary.

Interviewer — Director of the Institute of the USA and Canada.

Interviewee — Analyst and expert on Russian-American relations.

QUESTION: US and Russian presidents are meeting on Friday. What «sharp angles», if any, now exist in relations between the two countries?

ANSWER: Russia and the US have some issues over which they disagree. We and the Americans do not exactly see eye to eye on the Iraqi issue, and on a number of other problems such as NATO's expansion, and some problems in the military and political field. But their existence does not alter the central feature — that today we are witnessing the consolidation of a new model of Russian-American relations, a partner-like model, one that emerged following September 11, with Russia and the US recognizing a common enemy — international terrorism — and acknowledging common interests in other fields as well.

QUESTION: Can we say that Russia and US relations are much closer than those between NATO allies?

ANSWER: Indeed, the Europeans and the Americans have very serious disagreements, not only in the economy, where the European Union and the United States have always been main rivals, but also in the political area. And here I can state that on some issues Russia and the US are closer to each other. This concerns many aspects of the struggle against international terrorism and some other issues of global security, where the Europeans hold a position different from the US, or do not show a particular interest in these problems at all.

But on other major problems, such as the role of the UN, or the UN Security Council in the modern world, and the Iraqi issue, Russia and Europe are closer than the US and Europe or the US and Russia. We now have a kind of triangle — Russia, the United States and Europe — where on most issues the sides are agreed and understand each other, but on some there are discrepancies. A distinctive feature of the present-day situation is that our disagreements with America and the European Union are not greater than those between the US and the EU, and in some instances the differences among western allies are much more serious.

QUESTION: What option in Iraq will suit the US — an obedient Baghdad or one resisting inspections? What does the US actually want from Iraq?

ANSWER: Different groups in Washington give different assessments of the situation. And if the inspections show that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) then the use of force will become very likely. If the inspections present convincing evidence that Iraq is violating the UN resolutions, then, as 10 years ago, the UN Security Council may mandate the use of force against Baghdad. But if the outcome of inspections is unclear and unpersuasive, then the Europeans, the Chinese and many others would not think that Iraq breached its commitments. And this is a case where the Americans may resort to unilateral action. That is, the party of war in Washington in the case of unclear reports from international inspectors would take an international forceful action without a new UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: Won't American foreign policy doctrine clash in time with the Russian foreign policy line?

ANSWER: The USA's foreign policy doctrine, proclaiming the role of the US as the only superpower, is in contradiction with the positions taken by all other countries. No one wishes to accept as a norm the situation when one state decides for all. Neither we, nor the Europeans, nor the Chinese agree with that. But any doctrine, I want to remind you, is a declarative document. Real politics never matches the doctrine, it is connected with circumstances or some or other factors associated both with domestic political issues and with an alignment of forces on the world stage.