Q: What did you talk about during the tea ceremony?

A: David and I tried to understand our sibling connection. He took out a long roll of paper – a Miliband family tree, put it on the table, and we studied it for two hours. This genealogical tree was put together by his younger sister, but the entire family took part in it. We discovered that we descend from two Milibrand branches. Our great-grandparents - Osip and Samuel - were brothers, originally from Warsaw. But, it’s not yet clear if they were blood-related or not. And, while according to my age I should be Ed and David’s aunt, I am actually their third-cousin! Although, that’s not definite. David named nine brothers and sisters of my father, David Osipovich.

Q: What did he tell you about himself?

A: I asked him about his hobbies. He told me: “Sports and my children”. He has two sons: one is five-years-old and the other is two. His wife is a violinist. David promised to send me a recording from one of her concerts.

Q: Did he give you something as a memento?

A: Yes, he brought me tea and a porcelain plate with a frog – take a look. This is the famous Wedgwood porcelain. I asked a friend of mine (she is a famous ceramist) to make three small vases – for David, Ed and their mother. After all, I personally knew their father, Ralph Miliband. As I told you, he was a well-known public figure in Britain and a Marxist. We met by chance when he came to Moscow in the Soviet years to work on his book. This spring, when I was lying on the operating table, my entire life flashed before my eyes. At that time, I felt very sorry that I was not able to contact Ralph during the few times I had been in London on a business trip. I thought that I would never meet any of my British relatives. After all, I don’t have kids of my own. But now, I found my heirs. I told David jokingly that I could entrust my old furniture to him. But the main inheritance and wealth, the main gift – is that we found each other!

Q: Did David Miliband promise to visit you in the future?

A: He said that, from now on, he will visit Moscow more often, especially, if he becomes the minister of foreign affairs of the European Union. And, I hope that our newfound kinship will encourage warmer relations between Russia and Britain (laughs).

Read the article on the newspaper's website

“Companies that sell antiviral drugs, have met their two-month sales goal in just one month,” says David Melik-Guseynov, Pharmexpert’s research director. According to a study by the DSM Group, in October, sales of Arbidol (Pharmexpert) Ingavirin (Valenta) and TamiFlu (Roche) increased by 100-200%. In the last month, Russians have spent 420 million rubles on Arbidol, 90 million rubles on Ingavirin and 40 million rubles on TamiFlu.

At 10pm, a Vedomosti correspondent found 10 people in a drug store, standing in line for cold and flu medication. There were no more large Arbidol packs, which were requested by every other customer - they agreed to purchase the smaller ones. The pharmacy was also out of the Swiss TamiFlu. According to a pharmacist, it’s rarely supplied, and has been selling out in a matter of hours.

Compared to previous years, this is a record level of demand, drug vendors tell Vedomosti. The average seasonal consumption increase of cold and flu drugs is about 30%. This year, however, we can safely say it’s a 60% jump, says Druzhinin. October antiviral drug sales in the Doctor Stoletov pharmacies have exceeded last year’s sales by 70%, says Svetlana Kosheleva, general director of the pharmaceutical chain. According to Kosheleva, 16 times more TamiFlu was sold this September than in the same month last year, and sales of Oscillococcinum have increased by 65%. In the “36.6” pharmacies, this year’s antiviral drug sales rate was 40% higher than during the same period last year, says Irina Lavrova, a chain representative.

Demand has especially risen since October 24, says Gusev. And, in one week – October 24-30 – 39% more antiviral drugs were sold than in the previous week. Certain drugs have experienced a 300% sales growth. The senior manager of a Russian drug manufacturing company talks about the rapid growth in demand that took place from October 26:

“First, the Swine Flu fatality reports have caused a public stir,” explains Oleg Kiselev, director of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Influenza Institute. Besides, this year the flu virus has been spreading faster than usual, continues Kiselev. “We are actively encouraging patients to take antiviral medications even before seeing a doctor. They are probably trying to stockpile in case of an illness,” he added.

As stated on its website, the First Channel reported on the Swine Flu deaths for the first time in late October. On October 30, the Deputy Minister of Health and Social Development, Veronika Skvortsova, reported that almost 80% of influenza cases that have been registered in Russia were caused by the A/H1N1 virus (source: RIA Novosti). In the beginning of May, 3,122 Swine Flu cases had been officially registered in Russia, Minister Skvortsova said yesterday; currently there are 1,200 people infected, with 14 deaths.
The rapid growth in demand resulted in a drug deficit, especially in regional areas. “Distributors are already out of the TamiFlu and surgical masks,” complains Druzhinin. It’s often a struggle to obtain the medications from the suppliers. Elena Ulyanova, head of the Novosibirsk Municipal Pharmacy Number 4, is outraged: “Firstly, we are not getting sufficient supplies of Arbidol. The shipments that we receive are sold in a day, then we are left to wait for two more days for new shipments,” she says. Meanwhile, it has been very difficult to predict demand, adds a manager of the Samara Implosia chain. For example, in Orenburg, lines were forming prior to pharmacies’ opening, while in Samara, things were quiet. Federal pharmaceutical chains are experiencing fewer problems. “For the most part, suppliers have the necessary medicines to treat colds and flu,” says Lavrova. “Meanwhile, the situation with gauze masks is much worse; demand for them has increased 10 times.”

There truly is a problem with masks and Arbidol, says a representative of Protek, a distribution chain. Masks mainly come from China, while demand has increased throughout the entire world, an employee of the supplier explained to Vedomosti. Arbidol production has reached its maximum capacity, says a representative of Pharmstandard, which owns the rights to the drug. “We released Ingavirin on to the market in February. Since then, we have been continuously increasing production,” Laszlo Sugar, general director of Valenta told Vedomosti. “Even those packages that have not yet been produced have already been assigned to pharmacies and distributors.” It isn’t easy to instantly increase the production of drugs – says the senior manager of Russia's largest producer – at least a month or two are needed. As for Tamiflu, Roche has primarily been increasing supplies to countries where state orders have been made, a Roche representative told Vedomosti. Russia is receiving the drug in accordance with the usual terms, but compared to last year, imports have increased, he added.

Despite the increased demand, prices on antiviral drugs are not yet increasing, DSM Group notes in its report. “In September-October, a substantial retail price increase can be noted in Ingavirin – from 370 to 415 rubles. The cost of Arbidol is not increasing. The price of Tamiflu has increased by an average of 5%,” calculated analysts of the DSM Group. Representatives of Pharmstandard, Valenta and Roche said that the manufacturer’s price on the drugs has not been changed.

Mikhail Rudnev, Olga Morozova, Nadezhda Zaitseva, Elena Dombrova, Elena Mangileva, Ksenia Boletskaya participated in the preparation of this article.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

These events and their development were made possible by the changes that began to take place in the mid-1980s. We began these changes because it was time. They were demanded by the people, who no longer wanted to live in limiting conditions, isolated from the rest of the world.
Within just a few years – for history, this is a very short period of time – the basic structures of the totalitarian system had been dismantled; new conditions for democratic processes and economic reforms were created. Having done that in our country, we could not stand in the way of similar processes taking place in the neighboring countries.

We did not impose any changes on them. I have told leaders of the countries of the Warsaw Pact from the very beginning: we need Perestroika, and will be reforming our country. You decide what it is that you feel you need to do. You bare responsibility before your people. We will not intervene.

In essence, this was a rejection of the so-called “Brezhnev Doctrine”, the concept of “limited sovereignty”. Initially, these words were met with skepticism, as yet another formal statement of yet another Secretary General. But, we upheld this commitment. For this reason, the 1989-1990 events in Europe – including the complicated process of reunification of Germany –took place peacefully, and no blood was shed.

In the summer of 1989, during my visit to Germany, journalists asked me and Chancellor Kohl about the possibility of the reunification of Germany. I answered that this problem arose in the course of history and will be resolved with further historical developments. When? Probably in the 21st century, we both answered.

Some could say that we made lousy prophets. The reunification took place much earlier than predicted. It happened by the will of the German people, and not because Gorbachev or Kohl wanted it to happen. In America, President Reagan’s appeal is often remembered: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” But, how could one man do so? Besides, there had been another position: “Save this wall!”

When millions of people in the East and West Germany demanded unification, we had to act responsibly. And leaders of European countries and the U.S. took on this responsibility. As a result, we managed to overcome doubts and fears – there were many, that’s natural – as well as to avoid redrawing borders and maintain mutual trust. Thus, we drew the final line under the Cold War.

But, not everything was going as hoped after the reunification of Germany and the end of the Cold War, including in Germany. The division of Germany, which lasted forty years, led to gaps in spiritual and societal spheres, which are much harder to overcome than economic differences. Germans from the former East Germany realized that the Federal Republic of Germany is far from perfect, especially its welfare system. However, despite all of the “fusion”-related problems, Germans managed to make the unified Germany a dignified, strong and a peaceful member of the community of nations.

Those who shaped the world and, particularly European policies, managed the newly available opportunities much more poorly. As a result, in Europe the main issue remains unresolved – creation of a sound security system.

Immediately after the end of the Cold War we discussed new security mechanisms on our continent. We talked about a possible Security Council of Europe or a “branch” that has a real and wide authority.

These proposals were put forward by the USSR, Germany, and the United States.
Unfortunately, events headed along a different trajectory, which affected all European institutions and slowed down the process of the creation of a united Europe. In place of the old dividing lines, new ones appeared. Europe experienced war and bloodshed.

Lack of trust and outdated stereotypes remain. Russia is being suspected of evil and even aggressive imperial intentions. I was amazed at the June letter written by the politicians of Central and Eastern Europe, which was addressed to President Obama. It basically was a call to abandon the policy of cooperation with Russia. It's a shame that European politicians did not consider the disastrous consequences that may take place in the event of a new confrontation.
At the same time, discussions about the responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War, which equate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany, are imposed on Europe. Such attempts are historically and morally reprehensible, and they contradict the truth.

Those who want to build a new wall of mutual mistrust and hostility in Europe do a disfavor to their countries, and to Europe as a whole. After all, it can become a strong factor in world development, but only if it can become a home to all Europeans – from the East and the West Europe.

How this goal could be reached

The trajectory course that was taken in 1990 led to an accelerated expansion of the European Union. I am not questioning the achievements of this process. They are real. But, not everything had been carefully thought out. Expectations that all of the continent's problems will be solved by only building up Western Europe have been overstated.

Some additional time to develop a model for relations between Russia and other countries, which will not become EU members in the foreseeable future, would have provided a more balanced pace for the unification processes of Europe.

Clearly, the model of relations with other European countries, which had been based on their rapid “absorption” into the EU and left the relationship with Russia in a shaky, uncertain state – has exhausted itself.

However it seems that, in Europe, not everyone is ready to admit this. We have the right to pose the question: is this uncertainty in some way related to a reluctance to participate in Russia’s revival? What kind of Russia do you need – a strong and truly independent Russia, or simply a supplier of resources that “knows its place”?

In Europe, unfortunately, there are many politicians who would like to impose an unequal model of relations with Russia: a “teacher – student” or “prosecutor – defendant” type of a model, which Russia will not accept. It wants to be understood. We stand for equality and mutually advantageous cooperation.

We can cope with the hardships that history brings our way – such as security challenges, economic, environmental, and migration crises – only by transforming the world, and firstly European, politics and economy. I urge all Europeans to objectively, and in a constructive manner, consider the newly proposed European security treaty by the Russian president. Having solved this problem, Europe will be able to speak in full voice.

Read the article on the newspaper's site