Yanukovych’s trip to the US has been called a familiarization visit. What impression did his visit make on official Washington?

The prime minister had a good visit in Washington. He met the vice-president and addressed the public. His speech was consistent in both his private and public meetings. He laid out Ukraine’s foreign policy and domestic policy directions. We were very interested to hear the message from the president and the prime minister, which contained rather ambitious positions on domestic policies as well as those concerning membership in Euro-Atlantic institutions, e.g., the World Trade Organization and energy policies. Prime Minister Yanukovych also issued a few good declarations concerning openness and transparency. In the general sense, his comments, assumptions, and statements were very welcome, and now we would like to see how all these statements and declarations will be implemented. We’ll be working with him and the president.

How did the prime minister explain his conflict with the president? Was he trying to look for consensus or compromise?

We think that this visit will help forge some consensus between the president and the prime minister. Such consensus is very important for Ukraine. Ukraine will be much stronger in the world if the executive branch of Ukraine’s government, which consists of the president and the prime minister, is sending a unified, strong message to the rest of the world. The opposite is also true: if there are two different messages coming from the executive branch, the rest of the world is confused. What is Ukraine’s foreign policy if it is not a unified message? A unified message is important and this is what we want.

What was Washington’s reaction to the statements that Ukraine is in no hurry to enter NATO?

The NATO question came up in several meetings as well as public discussions with the prime minister. The president of the United States made it very clear in Riga that the American view is that when Ukraine is ready, the doors will be open. Prime Minister Yanukovych said: “We need some time to explain what NATO is to the Ukrainian people, what its commitments are, and what benefits derive from it.” Our response is that this is reasonable, that’s very reasonable. The Ukrainian people deserve to understand the essence, advantages, and responsibility that are attendant upon joining NATO. Naturally, the Ukrainian people still have a lot of questions. So, this is going in the right direction.

Is it possible to name the key stages or steps of the program aimed at fighting corruption in Ukraine?

The first and most important step in the struggle against corruption is political will, political will to fight corruption, to take difficult steps. The president has a package of legislation. The prime minister indicated in Washington that the struggle against corruption is a very high priority for his government. According to him, he has made a breakthrough in the fight against corruption. So, political will, concrete steps, and broad public support for fighting corruption — those, I think, are the keys.

How does official Washington view the fact that Yanukovych first visited Moscow and then came to Washington?

We asked questions about this, and he explained to several of his interlocutors in Washington that when he was in Minsk he had asked some questions, and his Russian colleagues were unable to answer these questions and invited him in order to give an answer to his questions at the higher level. So, we did ask and he did explain. We think it is important for Ukrainians to have good relations with Russia; this is important for neighbors. To have good relations with all of your neighbors is important for joining NATO; this is one of the requirements for joining. So, that’s just fine.

Do you predict that within five years, more or less, Ukraine will have a plan for entering NATO?

I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could be a year or two, it could be longer; it could be shorter. It depends on how intensive the information campaign will be, providing answers to Ukraine’s questions. People want information, they deserve information; they are ready. There may be a referendum, and that would be fine, we think, but we want it to be a well-prepared one.