With few interruptions since the 1960s, Musatov has dealt with Hungarian-Russian and Hungarian-Soviet issues ever since. Having taken on the ambassadorial posting in May of 2000, Musatov also spent periods in Moscow dealing with a wider circle of Eastern European, former-Socialist countries.

The people of Hungary have recently marked the anniversary of 1956. How do you, as Russian ambassador, regard those events today?

VALERIJ MUSATOV I would like to underline that I am in Budapest as the ambassador of democratic Russia. I do have a particular opinion about those regretful, tragic events. In my private life, I am a historian and I have written a book and several articles on this subject. Of course it is not very pleasant to recall those events. The Soviet Union at that time faced a difficult predicament. I would put it in the following way: the internal circumstances in Hungary created a situation in which the Soviet Union felt forced to intervene because of the wider context of the Cold War. And that intervention was rather unfortunate.

I can see that in Hungary, Hungarian society and the political elite are not of a single, consolidated view of the events and this is understandable. Different groups, factions and parties within the uprising also had different aims.

What happened was tragic for the Hungarian people, and tragic for the peoples of the then Soviet Union. Around 700 Soviet soldiers died and about 2,000 were injured. The casualties among the Hungarian population were also high.

But I believe that as the years pass, although there is still a feeling of pain and of mourning, these events should be evaluated in a calmer way. October 1956 was without doubt a struggle for freedom, a struggle for independence. At the same time, different ideologies and ideological positions were in conflict. But in the wider political context, what happened in Berlin in the Summer of 1953, what happened in Budapest in such a tragic form, the Prague Spring in 1968, and to a certain extent what happened in Poland when martial law was introduced – these were all efforts to show the political leadership that the ‘administrative Socialism’ of the time had to respond to, to take into account the wishes of the people. And those in power did not always find a fortunate response.

The Polish authorities proved themselves more flexible than the others in finding a solution. But in general I would say that in retrospect, all of these events, including those in Hungary, played an important part in the collapse of Socialism.

We, of course, recognize the importance of those events. We are sorry that they unfolded in the way they did. But it would be good if the anniversary could be viewed in a calmer and more objective way, free of all clichés.

Next May, Russia will mark a different anniversary – the 60th since the end of World War II. Will there be joint celebrations between Hungarians and Russians, and if so, in what form? Could this be another awkward anniversary?

VALERIJ MUSATOV It would be good if we could celebrate together. There will be a major, central celebration of the victory over Fascism on May 9th in Moscow. President Putin will welcome the leaders of 55 countries, among them President Ferenc Mádl of Hungary. We have already invited him and I know that he plans to come to Moscow.

Naturally we wanted to invite all those who took part in the struggles of that time, first of all of course those who fought in the ranks of the Red Army against Fascism. Unfortunately there are not so many left – time passes. But all those who played an active part in the struggle against Fascism will receive a medal.

Here in Hungary there are, from time-totime, debates about World War II and Hungary’s role in it. And whether the end of the war should be seen as a defeat, or a victory.

More than 200,000 Soviet soldiers fell in the tragic battles on Hungarian soil. With our Hungarian partners, we attended more than 900 memorials to them. In my opinion, these debates sometimes take place on too superficial a level, without taking into account the historical background.

Hungary has become a rather successful country. It has achieved its liberation. And the victory over Fascism was the first step toward today’s free Europe. One can differ over the weight which should be given to particular dates and events. But I do not share the view that from 1945 to 1991 Hungary was an occupied country. I would rather say that from the point of view of reforms, of the freedom to maneuver in foreign policy, Hungary was one of the best countries in Eastern Europe. So what kind of occupation was that? For instance, American troops are still in Germany, but nobody would consider it an occupation.

It is a fact that Soviet forces remained, but on the basis of the appropriate documents. This can be debated, of course, but any simple, un-nuanced interpretation is not justified.

I would like to add something about the war. It was of course a significant and tragic event, because the sacrifice on the side of the progressive forces in Europe was enormous. Hungary was unfortunately not on the right side in World War II. Accidentally or not accidentally Hungarian soldiers went to the Don [river] bend [in Russia]. Then when things were going badly for Hitler, the ruling group realized that they had made a mistake. And they tried to get out of the war, as the Romanians did, rather more cleverly, we might say. Various documents exist on this subject. For example, at a Russian exhibition, there is a letter from Horthy as head of state to Stalin, in which he explain that the Hungarian people didn’t want to go to war with the peoples of the Soviet Union. That it was a tragic mistake. He, as the head of state, did not have at his disposal full information about the situation. And thus, he asked Stalin to understand the position which the Hungarian people found themselves in, and he asked to speak in the forthcoming negotiations, in the spirit, with the Western allies as well.

So an interesting document, which shows that the rulers of the time were trying to find a way out of a bad situation.

It is crucial that we know the concrete, historical background of the past, in order that we can also understand the consequences of those facts.

Barely two months ago Russia suffered a series of attacks – the two planes which exploded in mid-air, the bomb on the Moscow metro and the Beslan school siege. How do you assess the sympathy which Russia was shown in the aftermath? And what do you think today of the criticism which certain measures proposed by President Putin has provoked?

VALERIJ MUSATOV Even before the events of New York on Sept. 11, 2001, we were engaged in the fight against terrorism, and we appealed to the Western partners to cooperate and fight against this enormous danger.

Beslan just strengthened our conviction that we will only make headway in the fight against this great danger if we stand resolute, side-by-side with one another.

It was an enormous tragedy, this series of inhumane attacks against small children, innocent children and against women. Of course it had a profound impact on the whole of Russia. And during those hard and tragic days we felt solidarity and sympathy from the whole world, from Europe and the United States. And we were very grateful for that.

That goes too for Hungarian public opinion, for Hungarian society, for various deputies in the Hungarian Parliament who contacted us at the embassy at that time. Official persons too – President Mádl, the prime minister, the ministers, party leaders and ordinary people.

And we were offered un-selfish help. Not simply that they were willing to invite injured people, the affected children and their parents, but concrete help as well, for example, shipments of medicines. I could summarize this by saying that, through the offices of some drug manufacturers, the government and charities, the volume of aid has reached USD 150-200,000. We have expressed our enormous gratitude for this.

As far as the common steps to be taken in the face of this great danger are concerned, we are satisfied with the cooperation with our Western partners, with the EU and with the NATO countries – among them Hungary. Concrete and operative cooperation is taking place. Which is good.

Only through our common efforts can we face this great danger. In Russia, we were forced to revise certain things in a self-critical way, as our president expressed it in one speech. We are changing our approach in several areas. First of all, to strengthen the unity of Russia. To improve the functioning and effectiveness of the state. And in the field of the further development of the political system as well.

These proposals have been made public. Our Parliament will debate these proposals and will no doubt accept them into law. Naturally, according to the Russian Constitution and basic laws.

Different countries have different experiences and different opinion exist. How to arrange voting – whether on the basis of party lists, of individual constituencies, or a mixture of the two. This is not so important, each country differs from the next. Or how the president is chosen here and there. For example, in the United States there are direct elections. This is a process which develops according to the unique experience of any given country.

If someone does not like it, they are free to express that opinion. We are trying to take into account the experience and needs of our own people and of the international community at the same time. Our main aim is the creation of a good, strong and prosperous country, with a higher standard of living for its inhabitants. And naturally we want to wipe out the terrorist-separatist danger as well.

So what is your reaction to Chris Patten’s comment – that he hopes Russia will not just react to the Beslan tragedy and terrorism by simply strengthening the Kremlin?

VALERIJ MUSATOV Well that is his opinion. We are continuing the building of democracy, of the democratic transition. Of course, since 1991, we have varied experiences. We have overcome both positive and negative crises. We would like to continue taking into account the lessons of our own experience. Russia would like to play its role as a member of the family of democratic nations, an active role on the international stage.