Sergei Khrushchev, son of former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute, writes and lectures on Russian economic and political reforms. Against the backdrop of Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to Moscow, he talked with McClatchy-Tribune foreign-affairs columnist John C. Bersia.

Q: What has changed the most for Russia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

A: The Soviet Union was a superpower, a country that challenged the United States and had its own vision for leading the world. Now, the situation is very different. Russia does not oversee an empire, it is not a superpower, and it is not a real player in the world arena. Russia is not even a regional power. It is just one more big country with nuclear weapons and huge natural resources, which it uses to supply the European Union. It is also a very corrupt country.

Q: Biden echoed your words in noting that “Russians want to live in a country that fights corruption.” Why do you believe Russia is so corrupt?

A: This is a consequence of one of the mistakes of the transition from a centralized economy to a market-oriented one. Generally, people did not understand what was happening in the early 1990s. But those with insider knowledge, access to government officials and influence did. Through these corrupt connections, wealth was concentrated in the hands of a relatively few oligarchs and state officials. They are members of a new Russian business elite. Now, you have corruption everywhere.

Q: Is there any way to fight the problem?

A: Every system of government can be reformed. But how do you fix corruption that has spread all over the country like a cancer? You can address it when it is not too late. I hope that is true in the case of Russia. You have to take drastic measures, from the top to the bottom.

Q: Does Russia have the proper leadership to take on that challenge?

A: We have not yet identified the right leader. Both of the most recent Russian presidents have at least been trying to do something constructive. In general, they have made the country better than it was during the time of former President Boris Yeltsin. There is more freedom. You can go abroad. You can start your own business. But along with the positive aspects, there are many problems, and these are not limited to corruption. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin came from a KGB background. Although he has been trying to demonstrate that he is no longer linked to the intelligence community, he brought many people who have such connections into leading positions. Most of them are Stalinists, and that is very dangerous.

Q: Biden also cautioned against compromising on the basic elements of democracy. Where does Russia’s movement toward democracy now stand?

A: Russia is not a democracy. It is in the process of transition toward democracy. It made substantial leaps toward democracy during the period of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. But then everything stopped. Indeed, after the Yeltsin coup in October 1993, the country went the other way. This has happened many times in Russian history. With so many Stalinists exerting influence, it is even possible for the system to move back to a brutal dictatorship like the one that existed under former Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Q: Your father presided over a reformist moment in Russian history. What might have happened if his proposed reforms had been allowed to develop?

A: He followed in the footsteps of other Russian reformers, including former Czar Alexander II. Under my father, there was the beginning of a transition to a more democratic state. There was also a great improvement in the economy. During the last part of his time in power, Khrushchev was ready to move from a centralized to decentralized system, very similar to what happened in China 20 years later. Also, he had plans for greater democratization.

Q: But it didn’t happen.

A: Unfortunately, no. Former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, who succeeded my father, said nyet to reform, arguing that stability was more important – not for the country, but for the Soviet elite. What we had as a result was stagnation. If Khrushchev had stayed in power longer, or his successors had moved in the same direction, it is entirely possible that the Soviet Union would have become the first communist country to develop a market-oriented economy, long before China. Some estimates suggest that it could eventually have turned into a bigger power than even the United States. In a sense, the United States was lucky that Brezhnev took power and stopped reforms in the Soviet Union. I am quite certain that America prefers an authoritarian, weak Russia to a democratic, strong and competitive Soviet Union.

Sergei Khrushchev can be reached at sergei_khrushchev@brown.edu.