An interesting interview. Among other things he highlights that the whole situation with Iran is a catch-22. Crippling sanctions would lead to a humanitarian disaster which could plausibly radicalize the country and increase the brutality of its government, which in the past has shown itself willing to murder thousands of political dissidents in show trials. Economic destruction, aka sanctions, could simply make the government revert to being even more brutal and oppressive than it has been as of late. Even if such destruction brought down the regime, the humanitarian cost would be significant to catastrophic. And if North Korea, messed up as it is, can build nukes, maybe a crippled Iran could too. Military action could mess up the entire region. If the breeder reactors could be taken out or crippled without provoking full scale war that would be ideal, but a full scale war, which is what Iran is threatening, would probably result in Iran first having its most advanced equipment annihilated after it had managed to score some hits against us, and after that it would be treated like Lebanon in 2006, which would be a humanitarian disaster. Who knows what would rise from the ashes supposing the government fell in this scenario, but the regions history suggests it wouldn't be good. At the same time, it is very difficult to accept the notion that Iran, which has a history of supporting terrorists against Israel, be able to distribute nuclear weapons to its terrorist allies or be able to wield nukes as the ultimate regional leverage. Maybe it wouldn't do that; maybe it now only wants to come within striking distance of having nukes despite the fact we know it had an active weaponization program up until 2003. At the end of the day, the Iranian situation is fraught with big risks. Of course, everyone would like a diplomatic solution to the problem, but the Iranians don't seem open to one.

"Certainly, I know about it. This is terrible. It seems to me that this boy, Artem Saveliev, simply found himself in a very bad family. You know, I would not like to finish this interview talking about such a difficult theme, but I would like to say several things." I generally like Medvedev, and to be even more specific I trust him, but I think his summary of this case wasn't balanced. The family in question said the child was a psychopath who repeatedly threatened to kill them, threatened to burn down their house, and repeatedly violently attacked them. They claim that the Russian officials involved in the adoption had misinformed them about the boy by telling them he was healthy in spite of his psychological problems; they even say these officials deliberately lied to them just to get the troublesome boy off their hands. It would be naive to take all these claims without a grain of salt, but it would also be naive to suppose there was no real world basis to them. So yes, Medvedev is quite right in saying that American parents should, and indeed probably do, have legal obligations to their charges as a precondition of adoption. You shouldn't send an 8 year old you have agreed to treat as your own son all alone half way across the world with an "I give up note" on his person, and it was terrible that this happened. But it is also true that the adoption process should be transparent. Adoptive parents are more likely to fulfill their legal and moral obligations willingly if they have a better idea of what they are getting into before agreeing to it. Just as a deliberate parent will more often than not be better than an accidental one.

I agree the adoption process should be transparent. It should also follow rules agreed by both countries. USA has no formal agreement with Russia regarding adoptions, according to the FM Lavrov. Why no common rules for this process? Lavrov said it was due to foot-dragging by the USA. I don't know about that, but we should correct any problems quickly. This whole controversy is a huge embarrassment to America.

In this interview, President Medvedev acted with dignity and professionalism. He did even when he was asked most stupid questions such as who makes decisions for the Russian political state: he or Mr. Putin. The ABC reporter knows that U.S leaders take their orders from the U.S military/financial complex leaders. As for the adoption story of this sweet little boy- Arytem Saveleiv, you are compounding the categorical moral transgression done to him by his adopted U.S mother with your character assassination of this little boy. This little boy has been already adopted by a married couple- who are professional and with parental skills. They are reported to be diplomats. Which means this little boy may have access to social, cultural and intellectual capital he would never have had if he was to be raised by a single mother down in the American South. The real crime is how this little boy was given to this 27 years old single mother of a 10 years old boy. Which means she became a mother at the age of 17 years old. Why she felt the need to adopt a child from Russia and why the adoption agency did not do a thorough check in her background is for the Russian legal authority to find out. I wish little Arytem a happy life in homeland of Russia.

It was a good interview and, yes, I too like Medvedev. His free, happy and open attitude is a breath of fresh air which does engender confidence and trust in him. But when it comes to thsi unfortunate matter of the Russian adopted boy in the US as noted above Medvedev conveniently left out part of the problem: the Russian part. There are too many stories about Russian adoption agencies being anything but transparent and above-board in their communication with the prospective adoptive parents. Let's improve both ends of this equation or stop it. The children must not suffer because of unconscionable adults on both sides.

The sad story of the little Artyem Savelyev recalls the controversy of little Elian Gozalez. Both stories are shot through the geopolitics of the Cold War and the Myth of the American Dream. In this case, unspoken subtext that Russia is a dying country is at play here. George Stephanopoulos could not resist inquiring “the health status” of the Russian population despite 80 million Americans lack access to basic healthcare services! This is the unspoken subtext to this sad adoption controversy. Hence, despite 80M Americans live outside the “American Dream,” U/S families are coming to Russia to adopt Russian children. The U.S media want to rearticulate the notion that little Artyem would have had a better life in the United States than in Russia and the concomitant Myth of the American Dream. The Russian Federation must ban completely the practice of foreign adoption of Russian children. This is profoundly wrong and it brings shame to the people of Russia. As for the U.S families in search of new children to adopt, there are millions of abandoned American children inside the U.S. They should open their homes and hearts to abandoned children in the U.S before seeking kids in foreign countries. Cultural continuity and free access to adopted children should be part of adoption process between any two countries. At the most basic and symbolic level, little Artyem should have been allowed to keep his Russian name. Now he is back in Russia, he must never been allowed to be sent back to custodianship of that woman and her family.

Pr Medvedev is a great Russian leader and is gracious even in dealing with the simplest of stupid questions , but also remembering that this interview is aimed at a main stream American audience; Iran is simply doing what is in it's best interest , and above all what it knows best how to do, deal steel with steel , I find it interesting and a little amusing that everyone is so interested in Iran now, of course I understand in ample amounts that this is because of certain interested parties, but stop and think for a moment at how the 'traffic lights changed' on Iran and how they are now the 'World threat', if you think about it for a minute you may laugh. Iran has been around for a long time and I believe will be for a long time , Iran won't budge because they don't have to, and on the other side we have an equal steel resistance, so unfortunately it is up to other countries to try to resolve the matter simply because the game doesn’t just involve two players. But in saying that I can't help but feel that it is just that, a game. Although a very serious one, and one that can not, in a bad result, benefit any part of the USA or Russia. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a war in this case is in really no ones good interest, and no one for sure could be certain of any sort of victory. If war comes about we all know that people were very desperate, desperate people are weak and usually do stupid things, like blow themselves up. How to take desperation away, in both cases, appeal to the people. Ignorance (or lack of information) breeds fear, but the opposite is true also. it is the only way.

The whole interview deviated on that little boy sad story. Like for the little Liza, kidnapped by her father with the help of the French and Hungarian authorities, the Russian government made a fool of himself. A country complaining about being underpopulated; having her PM begging women for having more children should take care of all her born citizen; even when they are abandoned. Mr Medvedev looks more and more like a typical US politician. If he has a good reason to play that kind of game; he should explain ! Sincerely...JCM

Medvedev seems like a good guy. He is open about Russia's shortcomings and has good plans for the future, like investing in technology and adopting different strategies for dealing with terrorists in the south. I really think now is the time for the US and Russia to move closer together. Our interests are far closer than they are apart and we could really benefit from each other.