RUSSIA REACTS TO THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Russia's top government officials, politicians, analysts and media reacted yesterday to the photo finish in the U.S. presidential vote and the likelihood of a George W. Bush presidency. President Vladimir Putin said that he and his team know in detail the programs of both Bush and his opponent, Vice President Albert Gore. "We respect the choice of the American people, and will work with any administration, but as regards final results and a congratulatory address to the victors, I think we'd better wait for the decision of the official American authorities," Putin told reporters. He also joked that Aleksandr Veshnyakov, head of Russia's Central Election Commission, was in the United States and could "tell his American colleague how best to act"--an apparent reference to the controversy over the vote count in Florida (Reuters, November 8). Earlier this year, it should be noted, the Moscow Times published the results of a six-month investigation into the March 2000 presidential elections in Russia, which included charges of widespread vote fraud. Lilia Shevtsova, a political scientist with Carnegie Foundation's Moscow center, was quoted as saying that the as-yet unresolved dispute over the vote count in the U.S. presidential election could lead to "protracted crisis" in there, while Sergei Rogov, director of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for U.S.A. and Canada, said that the "strange situation" in the U.S. election was a result of the fact that the Republicans and Democrats had moved to the political center, "as a result of which the voters completely lost their bearings" (Nezavisimaya gazeta, November 9). On the other hand, Gennady Seleznev, speaker of the State Duma and a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, said the U.S. presidential elections were proof of "the stability of American politics." "For Amercians, it makes no fundamental difference who comes to power, Republicans or Democrats," Seleznev told the Gazeta.ru website (Russian agencies, November 8).

There was a considerable amount commentary on what a likely Bush presidency would mean for U.S.-Russian relations. Viktor Supyan, deputy director of Institute for the U.S.A. and Canada, said that the Bush and Gore programs were very close, but that the Republicans had played "the Russia card" during the campaign, criticizing the Clinton administration for having maintained relations with corrupt Russian officials and charging that U.S. taxpayers' money had been stolen in Russia. Supyan predicted that financial aid to Russia would be reduced and that any aid to Moscow would be given "under very strict conditions" and kept under constant observation (Vedomosti, November 9). On the other hand, a newspaper noted that Bush's team has "no small number of foreign policy specialists who are capable of assessing the consequences of the chief's toughness and talk him out of rash decisions." The paper quoted an unnamed official in the Kremlin administration as saying that Putin's team was split over who would be "preferable" as U.S. president, but that a number of officials preferred Bush to Gore, given that the former, like Putin, is a "pragmatist." The official was saying it remains unclear the degree to which Gore was responsible for formulating Russian policy in the Clinton team, and that many Kremlin officials think it will be easier to reach agreement with Bush (Vremya novostei, November 9). Saratov Governor Dmitri Ayatskov told Gazeta.ru that Bush's policy toward Russia would not be the same as Clinton's, which consisted of the United States "imposing democratic principles on Russia and a position of diktat on the whole world." "Bush Jr. will carry out the policy of his father, who, while U.S. president, did everything to make relations between Russian and the United States better," Ayatskov said. "During Bush Jr.'s presidency Russia will again gain the status pf superpower on a par with America." Boris Gryzlov, who heads the State Duma faction of the pro-Putin Unity party, told Gazeta.ru that he hoped a Bush presidency would mean that a "pragmatic" approach to U.S.-Russian relations would predominate over an "ideological" one. "The U.S. Republic Party made a great contribution to normalizing relations between the two superpowers," Gryzlov said. "It was precisely during the years of Republican rule that a pragmatic, as opposed to an ideological approach to relations with the Soviet Union, and later Russia, won out."

Likewise, Viktor Pokhmelkin, first deputy chairman of the Union of Right-Wing Forces faction in the State Duma, predicted that while a Bush administration would take a tougher line toward Moscow in areas where the two countries' interests diverge, its more "detached, cold and pragmatic" policy would also be more "open," and its diplomats easier to work with (Russian agencies, November 8).

Back to the Top


#2 gazeta.ru
November 9, 2000
Bush to Make Russia Super Power Again

Russian political elite have already welcomed the news of George Bush Jr.s victory in the US presidential race. And despite the fact that the name of the winner is still unknown, many of them speak highly of George Bush Jr., paying tribute to Republican traditions and, of course, to his father.

Russian politicians and observers shared their views concerning the prospects of development of the relations between the two states with Gazeta.Ru. Some of them assume that with Republicans back at power the International Monetary Fund may take a tougher stance on loans granted to Russia. Chances are the United States may hold on to their intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Others, on the contrary, believe that America may soften its stance concerning the loans and also lose its interest in NATO. But most of them agree that the Republicans return to power would most likely have a positive impact on the Russo-American relations.

Sergey Rogov, director of the Institute for the U.S.A and Canada, exclusively for Gazeta.Ru:

First of all, one should ponder over the reasons of Bushs victory in the present presidential race. During this election campaign the Republicans have done the same that the Democrats did eight years ago. Clintons victory in the course of two consequent terms became possible thanks to the Democrats repudiation of their leftist views and conversion to the centrist positions.

Republicans adopted that strategy of the Democratic Party. They relinquished the rightist views and also altered their position, moved closer to the centre. That is why the distinction between pre-election programs of Gore and Bush is so minimal. Gore speaks for raising state expenditures and preserving existing tax rates.

Bush speaks for decreasing tax rates however he does not call for drastic reduction of state expenses. National budget surplus allows promoting any of those programs without any significant damage.

As for external policy, there are more nuances. Gore has many times declared he would stick to Clintons foreign policy. As far as Bush is concerned the situation is more complicated. Republicans are skeptical in their estimate of the activity of such institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. So, one cannot rule out that the new situation would emerge as regards to the long-term rescheduling of Russian debt.

Besides, for Russia the pendulum may swing either in the direction of toughening, but also in the direction of softening the requirements we would have to comply with. But what would be Republicans choice of that we will know only after they will have their government fully formed.

Upon the arrival of Bush administration into the White House the issue of armament control, and, first of all, of deployment of national anti-missile defense will become especially acute in the Russo-American relations. For Republicans it is more of an ideological solution: the desire to turn America in an invulnerable fortress. Therefore, Bush administration may as well unilaterally withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty. Should this happen, Russo-American relationship may face an acute crisis.

However, that is not the only scheme under which our relations may develop. Bush team comprises pragmatic professionals. It will be them who will take key posts in the National Security Council, State Department and Pentagon. As soon as Bush completes formation of his administration (and, if he wins, this will most likely happen by the end of January next year), Republicans will put forward a number of initiatives concerning offensive and defensive armament. So, in this regard Russia is in for complicated and dramatic negotiations process. Russia should take the advantage of an almost two-months pause. One should not wait until Bush government is formed, but to work on the package of own initiatives.

Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Politika Fund, exclusively for Gazeta.Ru:

If Bush wins, Russia should not expect any surprises from the U.S. new administration. There will be more positive changes in Russo-American relations.

Firstly, Bushs team comprises mostly professionals who used to form a backbone of Bush Sr.s administration. They are chiefly concerned with the armament control.

Secondly, Republicans have no desire to speed up the NATO expansion eastwards.

Thirdly, the range of issues concerning the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) is extremely confined. In this connection, it is possible the Republicans may come up with daring solutions in the foreign policy, for nobody is likely to criticize them for failures: being conservatives and pragmatics, they enjoy immunity in the foreign policy sphere.

Speaking of the negative changes, from Bush administration one should await toughening of the position on the limited range of issues, such as the national ABM system, Russias nuclear cooperation with the Iran, rocket space cooperation with China.

But, in general, relations between Russia and America should enter a good stage. The only stumbling block is Americas deployment of anti-missile defense system. We should watch out to avoid stumbling over that.

A number of other famous politicians also shared their views concerning George Bushs possible victory.

Dmitry Ayatskov, Saratov Region Governor:

I was so sure George Bush would win the U.S. presidential elections that I made bets with some of Saratov administration staffers. Now, since they have lost, they will have to empty their pockets.

But, seriously, should Bush be elected president of the U.S., America will relinquish double standards in promoting its foreign policy.

New presidents policy will not be the same as that of the former U.S. leader Bill Clinton, whereby America obtruded its democratic principles on Russia, and dictated its will on the whole world.

Bush will promote his fathers policy who, during his stay on the U.S. presidential post, did everything to improve relations between Russia and the U.S.A. Under Bush Russia will be reinstated as a super power on par with America.

Boris Gryzlov, the State Dumas Unity Faction leader:

I hope that once George Bush is elected to the U.S. presidents post, pragmatism will prevail over an ideological approach towards the Russo-American relations.

The U.S. Republican party has made an important contribution to normalization of relationship between the two super powers. Namely in the years of Republicans rule the pragmatic approach and not the ideological one prevailed in the relations with the Soviet Union, and later on with Russia.

Ideological opposition gave way to the constructive search for opportunities of practical cooperation taking into account national interests of both counties. There are all grounds to assume that George Bush and his administration will stick to that tradition.

Gennady Seleznyov, the State Dumas Chairman:

The course of the U.S. presidential elections is the evidence of how stable American policy is. For Americans there is no fundamental difference who would come to power: a Republican or a Democrat. The Republican Partys positions are more distinct. They clearly indicate with what state and in what sphere they will cooperate.

As for Democrats, unfortunately, they declared of an attempt to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and the whole world condemned them for that. The new president of the U.S.A. will not make such precipitate declarations. And in case the Democrat Al Gore wins, we will work with Democrats too. No matter what would be the outcome of the U.S. presidential race, it would not be any worse for Russia.

Viktor Pokhmelkin, the First Deputy Head of the Union of the Right-winged Forces (SPS) in the State Duma:

It is unlikely any radical changes in the relations between the U.S.A. and Russia may emerge after the new president of the United States is elected. It will be even easier for Russian diplomats to build relationship with Bush administration than with that of the previous president of the U.S.

In the international relations sphere, wherein the interests of Russia and the U.S. do not coincide, Republicans position will be more rigid, but, at the same time, also more candid, and it will be easier for diplomats to work. Bush administrations policy will be more impartial, cold and pragmatic towards Russia. The new U.S. presidents administration will not allow meddling in the domestic affairs of Russia and of other countries. One of the reasons of Bushs victory (if he wins, of course, the final results have not been yet announced), is that Democrats fell prey to their own successful economic policy. Economy growth inevitably leads to shrinkage of the Democrats social base, for the number of poor decreases.

At the same time while both contenders have approximately equal chances, Bush proved to be closer to the electorate, whereas Albert Gore could have won a brilliant victory in Russia.

Back to the Top


#3
Excerpt
WPS Media Monitoring Agency
www.wps.ru
Politruk
Issue No. 15, 09 Nov 2000
THE RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE: A NEW U.S. PRESIDENT, AND "NEW STAGNATION" IN RUSSIA

The Russian media has been quite distracted from domestic problems by the question "Whom do we like better - Gore or Bush?" It's by no means an uncomfortable position to be in, if the election in question is taking place elsewhere. In recent weeks, there has been lively discussion in Russia about the merits of the two US front-runners, accompanied by the relative prospects for Russia.

"Al Gore has criticized Russian 'repression' in Chechnya, but hasn't threatened to deprive Russia of aid," reasons Arugmenty i Fakty weekly. "But George W. Bush has said that cooperation with Moscow is 'impossible' until it learns 'civilized restraint'." Both Bush and Gore are promising to go ahead with national missile defense. Still, it's possible that if Bush wins, he would - as a moderate Republican - allow himself to be persuaded by advisers not to take such a radical step. As for Gore, NMD is clearly not an issue he feels strongly about; but if Iraq or North Korea should launch an ICBM, this could change. (Argumenty i Fakty) reports that "many Russian analysts" believe Russia would benefit from a completely new start in its relations with the United States: "Putin would be more comfortable dealing with Bush, who is not 'tainted' by contacts with Russian politicians."

But it's also clear that a Bush victory would be unwelcome for many among the Russian elite, who have benefited from American loans: "The Republican candidate is tough and cold-blooded in his attitude to Russia, and he will keep his promise to deal with corruption." The traditional Russian expectation of a "strong hand" to restore "iron-clad order" - even a hand from abroad - was widely echoed in the print media in relation to the US election.

"Of course, the US presidential election isn't just the internal affair of the United States, even though it must be entrusted to the Yanks alone, alas," says Segodnya columnist Leonid Radzikhovsky. "It's also a major event in Russian politics, and for all members of the United Nations. This is because the most important person in the world is being elected." The title of this article is "President of the Globe".

Pro-Bush items started appearing on Gleb Pavlosky's Strana.ru website shortly before 7 November. The authors have no doubt that Bush's tough talk on Russia is purely campaign rhetoric, aimed at Gore. Still, the Republican candidate is much more favorably disposed toward the Russian middle class than toward Russia's wealthy oligarchs.

Expert magazine is also convinced that "despite their hard-line rhetoric" the Republicans, being more pragmatic, might turn out to be more favorable partners for Russia than the "soft" Democrats. What the Democrats stand for is undoubtedly appealing, says Expert "No one would argue that the environment, information technology, and human rights are great... The problem is that the Democrats use completely inappropriate means in pursuit of their goals." Relying on "militant minority groups" - at home and abroad; military intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations; Russia has had experience with all such Democrat "management techniques". That's why some concerns have been voiced in Russia that Al Gore might "out-globalize Clinton, and under a Gore presidency the USA and NATO would become entrenched as global teacher-cop". On the other hand, if Bush wins, we may hope that the US would focus on defending its actual national interests, rather than "going out of its way to to teach the rest of the world how to live". Therefore, "we can do business" with such people. Understandably, this approach would suit Russia's new president - who is convinced, says Novoye Vremya magazine, that "one sign of a strong nation is that it doesn't put up with being lectured by others."

Meanwhile, another anniversary has rolled around in Russia - unnoticed, as usual - or maybe not quite an anniversary: it's only ten months (believe it or not) since "Vladimir Putin became the de facto president of Russia". This description of the start of the "Putin era" in Russian history comes from Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.

What's really amazing, says Komsomolskaya Pravda, is that voters and political analysts still "have no complete and precise picture of the new head of state's policies or intentions - so they don't have a picture of likely future developments either." Well, this might even be good - at least for the president himself. He now has a chance of going down in history as "the most honest politician of the 20th century."

It's true: Putin didn't promise voters anything specific, other than to establish a dictatorship of the law. "But no right-minded individual," says (Komsomolskaya Pravda), "would take Putin to task for not keeping this promise. God save us from a dictatorship of the kind of laws we have at present..." The newspaper considers that the president has succeeded in one task: "retaining the essence of the state built by his predecessor, while reshaping it to some extent." This is because the new president has been extremely lucky. Oil prices are rising, there are no social upheavals on the horizon, and "Berezovsky's constructive opposition" has clearly not got off the ground. An attempt by Governor Rossel of the Sverdlovsk region and President Rakhimov of Bashkortostan to motivate their colleagues to defend the rights of regional leaders fell flat, because the others were more concerned about saving their own skins.

In short, "developments to date have made things easy for the head of state", and Komsomolskaya Pravda even predicts a "new era of stagnation", as a result of which "future generations will come to associate Vladimir Putin with Leonid Brezhnev."

It should be added that although this prediction is an intentional exaggeration, similar opinions have been recorded in a range of other leading publications....

Back to the Top


#4
Irish Times
November 9, 2000
Tougher relations between Russia, Washington likely

Moscow is certain be faced with changes in its relationship with Washington, whichever of the candidate becomes the next president of the United States, Seamus Martin reports

Russia stands to gain and lose regardless of who becomes president of the United States. In the most likely scenario of a victory for Governor George Bush, Moscow will be faced with the introduction of a US National Missile Defence system which the Kremlin regards as a virtual return to Cold War attitudes.

A Democratic administration under Mr Al Gore would mean a stronger move towards NATO expansion right up to Russia's borders in the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; something which Moscow has vigorously opposed in recent years and which would rekindle anti-American attitudes which have been smouldering since the NATO action in Kosovo last year. In the words of the former Russian foreign minister, Mr Andrei Kozyrev, Russian-American relations are now about to start from scratch.

The period in which incentives from Western countries were offered in an effort to improve relations has come to an end and an era of pragmatism is about to begin.

"We sought equality in relations and we'll now get it," Mr Kozyrev told the Ekho Moskvy radio station, which is part of the media chain owned by the antiPutin oligarch, Mr Vladimir Guzinsky.

Relations would now become quite tough. There would be no preferential loans and no humanitarian aid; Russia and a new US administration would "talk tough" on all issues from trade to terms of credit.

Official Russia has reacted with diplomatic caution. President Putin's foreign policy adviser, Mr Sergei Prikhodko, said in a statement that the Kremlin was "determined to pursue an active dialogue with the new US administration". He did not hazard a guess on whether that administration would be under the stewardship of Mr Bush or Mr Gore.

The former Soviet president, Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, echoed the views of the majority of Russian politicians by suggesting that relations between the two countries would be more difficult in the more likely event of a Republican administration taking office.

"I don't think there will be any radical change in our relations, but I think they will become more clear-cut. They will be pragmatic and more clearly defined, and therefore more difficult," he said.

Mr Gennady Seleznyov, the speaker of the State Duma who is a moderate Communist, pointed out that in the past Republican occupants of the White House had often achieved "breakthroughs" in relation to Russia.

Under Richard Nixon, the two rival superpowers signed the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, and later Ronald Reagan's presidency "significantly strengthened and deepened" US-Soviet ties, he told the Interfax news agency.

Back to the Top


#5
Voice of America
November 8, 2000
Russian Reaction to U.S. Election
Eve Conant
Moscow

Russians, along with the rest of the world, are waiting to hear who will be the next United States president. But many Russians say they see little difference between the two candidates and expect that the same problems and issues between Russia and the United States will remain regardless of who wins.

Russia's Itar-Tass news agency quoted Kremlin officials as saying Moscow is determined to continue what it calls "equal and mutually advantageous dialogue" with the United States in all areas of concern. President Putin's deputy chief of staff, Sergey Prikhodko, said Russia wanted progress in trade and economic cooperation with the United States and a continuation of what he described as "positive potential" developed under the Clinton administration over the past several years. But despite the positive potential, such as the joint signing of nuclear reduction agreements, there are key issues which remain in the spotlight and will continue to shape Russia-U.S. relations for the coming years.

Those top issues include NATO eastward expansion, financial assistance to Russia, and nuclear cooperation or non-cooperation. Moscow opposes Washington's plan to possibly build a limited nuclear defense shield, a move that would undermine a 1972 arms treaty that Russia views as the cornerstone of deterrence and arms reduction talks over the past three decades.

George W. Bush has said he would pursue ambitious programs to protect the United States from missiles from so-called rogue nations even if it meant withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. Al Gore says more testing is necessary before a decision can be made.

The deputy head of Russia's US-Canada Institute, Viktor Kremenyuk, says that he views George W. Bush as a man who does not mix ideology and politics and therefore is a more straight forward negotiator that Al Gore. "Gore, he's much less pragmatic and tends to present all these moves in ideological terms, which his position much more inflexible, more rigid, and less prone to finding a solution," Mr. Kremenyuk said. Political analyst Kremenyuk points out that regardless of the U.S. election results, relations between Russia and the United States are strained. "We still face a very hot time in our relations because we have to identify 'who are we? Are we still partners, already enemies, what?' And I think this will inevitably be the biggest questions," Mr. Kremenyuk said.

The head of the Moscow Center for Strategic Studies, Andrei Piontkovsky, said he expects the Republicans to push forward plans for developing a nuclear missile defense shield. However, on another contentious issue, NATO expansion, he does not expect much conflict, as there is still time before the Baltic republics are examined for NATO candidacy. Absorbing those countries, which were formerly under Soviet influence, would infuriate Moscow.

Like many Russians, political analyst Mr. Piontkovsky said he would not expect significant change with either Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush, but that he feels Russia-U.S. relations need some new players. "I think it would be beneficial for Russian-American relations to make a new start. So in this case, I think that from the Russian perspective the Bush presidency would be beneficial. Traditionally, during Soviet times, Moscow somehow managed to have better relations with the Republican administration, not the Democrats," Mr. Piontkovsky said.

Although Russian media is providing moment-to-moment coverage of the elections, most average Russians say there is little difference between the two candidates, and that little will change no matter who is in the White House. A correspondent for Russia's NTV television network, reporting from the United States said, "the U.S. does not need a president, in fact, they need a star for their soap-opera style news."

But 44-year-old housewife Irena Ustinova said if she could have voted, she would have supported George W. Bush. She said, "I don't think it will make a difference. If Bush seems more military-oriented, well then so is our President Putin. I think they would balance each other out."

27-year-old Anna Dimitrieva says she likes Al Gore -- that he has more experience with Russia and would take a softer stance on Russia than Mr. Bush would. She said, "Gore is my choice because Bush was already starting to promote a harsh policy towards Russia, which would be bad for us."

22-year-old student Vladimir said the United States wants Russia to be weak, no matter who is in the White House. He said, "Clinton strengthened American power over the world. If the next leader can't do that, then that might actually be good for Russia." He added, "The United States does not want us to advance because then there would be a second power in the world that could dictate its political will, tell the whole world what to do."

The new leadership in the U.S. White House will need to negotiate with a fairly new Russian leader as well. Russian President Vladimir Putin was elected to office only earlier this year. The previous relationship between former Russian leader Boris Yeltsin and President Bill Clinton slowly deteriorated during NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia in 1999. Another sticking point between Russia and the United States is the case of Edmond Pope, a U.S. citizen facing trial in Russia on espionage charges. The U.S. government has called for his immediate release.

Improving this strained relationship will be a tough task for both President Putin and the new U.S. administration, but Russians say no matter what the results, they are ready for change and the beginning of what they hope will be a new era of relations.

Back to the Top


#6
IMF notes Russia's "impressive" economic performance, calls for reform

WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (AFP) -
The IMF on Thursday commended Russian authorities for their "impressive" economic performance but warned that structural reform had to be stepped up for recovery to be maintained.

International Monetary Fund executive directors, according to a summary of their recent assessment of the Russian economy, also praised authorities for budgetary restraint and improved tax collection procedures.

The directors noted that Russia's "impressive recent macroeconomic performance" had come with "a strong output recovery and the achievement of a considerable measure of financial stability."

But the IMF report made it clear that generally favorable prospects for the country were under threat from the lackluster implementation to date of institutional reform.

IMF directors found that since undergoing an acute financial crisis in 1998, "overall progress in advancing market-oriented structural reforms had been disappointing to date."

That failure, according to the IMF, made the recovery "more vulnerable to be a major deterioration in the environment."

Directors welcomed a long-term reform program recently adopted by the government, aimed at market liberalization, enterprise restructuring and rooting out corruption.

But they also recalled that most of the policies in the program had been part of past World Bank and IMF assistance packages that were not implemented "because of fierce resistance from vested interests."

"Any new program that could be supported by the Fund would have to include strong up-front measures in those areas of structural reform that would be key to macroeconomic stability, notably tax reform, bank restructuring, ... measures to reduce the incidence of barter and arrears accumulation and steps to strengthen governance and transparency in policymaking institutions," the IMF stressed.

After contracting 4.9 percent in 1998, Russian output grew by 3.2 percent in 1999 and is on course to expand by about seven percent this year, according to the IMF.

It attributed the turnaround to import substitution in response to a depreciation in the ruble, the national currency, as well as to stronger domestic consumption and investment.

Inflation, which came to 85.9 percent in 1999, is projected to be limited to 16.6 percent this year.

The IMF said the government's target of a zero budget deficit in 2001 was "broadly appropriate" but cautioned that an expected increase in federal expenditure should target reform-related initiatives or the clearance of arrears.

Given a large current account surplus, there was now scope for an appreciation in the ruble, according to the IMF.

While fiscal policy had been conducted "in a very responsible manner," Russian authorities should now consider the possible recapitalization of the central bank, the IMF said.

But such an initiative should be accompanied by increased transparency and accountability at the bank -- including an end to functions not traditionally performed by a central bank, such as ownership of affiliates engaged in commercial banking and precious metals trading.

Back to the Top



#7
Interfax
Russian Security Council makes decisions on armed forces cuts

Moscow, 9th November: The number of servicemen in various power-wielding federal departments will have been reduced by 600,000 by 2005, Vladimir Potapov, Russian Security Council Deputy Secretary told Interfax on Thursday.

He explained that 365,000 Russian Defence Ministry servicemen are included in the number. In all there will be reductions of 470,000 servicemen and approximately 130,000 civilian personnel.

V. Potapov said that this will make it possible by the end of 2005 to at least double the spending on each remaining serviceman still in service. In keeping with plans, this spending ought to at least treble by 2010.

The increases in spending on individual servicemen will vary according to where they serve, he explained.

V. Potapov also stressed that the "a firm financial groundwork underpins this plan".

This programme, preliminarily costed by [Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Aleksey] Kudrin's and [Economic Development and Trade Minister German] Gref's departments will undergo annual revisions, account having been taken of the real situation in the country's economy, he explained. The programme assumes an annual 5 to 5.5 per cent growth in GDP.

The reductions in the numbers of servicemen and civilian personnel in the power-wielding departments will not be "in proportion to their actual size", V. Potapov said.

He noted that in arriving at the specific reduction figures "the entire gamut of threats" to the country is taken account of and decisions on "what forces ought to ward off these threats" are consequent on that.

The representative of the Russian Security Council recalled that the country's leadership was proceeding from the fact that Russia was unable to wage a large-scale conventional war until 2010.

Back to the Top



#8
The Moscow Times
November 9, 2000
DEFENSE DOSSIER: Time to Let Go of the Past
By Pavel Felgenhauer

The mission by Russian and Norwegian divers to recover the bodies of the 118 seamen from the nuclear submarine Kursk has been suddenly aborted after just 12 bodies were retrieved. Russian navy authorities have announced that the remaining bodies will have to wait until next summer when the Kursk itself may be salvaged from the seabed.

The divers who have been working on the wreck of the Kursk for the last couple of weeks should be fully commended for a job well done: They managed to penetrate the hull and work inside without any accidents or injuries. The outstanding courage and professionalism of the Russian divers should be noted especially: They have successfully used foreign-made equipment and diving suits in a very dangerous environment of twisted metal inside a sunken submarine after only a few days of pre-mission training.

But what was the true reason for this endeavor? Were the divers risking their lives just to collect a dozen bodies?

It seems increasingly obvious that the "body-recovery" mission was intended to be aborted early, since the Norwegian rig Regalia was contracted by the Russians for only 18 days f a time too short to search the entire submarine. Looking for bodies was not the main task of this mission. The divers were searching for evidence that could prove the Kursk was sunk after colliding with a NATO submarine.

Today Russian navy officials say that incriminating evidence has been discovered. Western naval powers have continuously denied that their submarines collided with anyone last August in the Barents Sea. But the accusations coming from Moscow are becoming ever stronger and more insistent.

From a Western point of view, the reaction of the Russian military and civilian bureaucracy to the Kursk tragedy seems paranoid. Instead of taking advantage of the genuine wave of sympathy that the Kursk tragedy evoked to build closer relations with the West, the Russian authorities are throwing around wild, Cold War-style accusations, pretending not to know that in the United States or Britain it would be virtually impossible to conceal a major collision involving navy ships, especially if loss of life was involved.

It is hardly surprising that Russian military and defense-industry chiefs are doing their best to pass the blame for the Kursk disaster and are pointing an accusing finger at the West. The entire stockpile of torpedoes exploded inside the Kursk with a force equivalent to 7 tons of TNT. Such a disaster has never before been recorded in any navy in peacetime. The Russian defense industry designed and built an unsafe submarine, while the navy command sent it on a mission that turned out to be fatal.

But if NATO is the culprit, then Russia's chiefs are vindicated. Also, for the Russian military and defense industry increased tension with the West is a good pretext to clamor for still more defense spending and procurement.

Today one part of the Russian government is charming Western investors, while the other is using the Kursk affair to promote anti-Western nationalistic fever among the public and the military. Different factions inside the government are rowing in different directions, and this feat will most likely sink Russia instead of reforming it.

The ruling elite in Russia today is split between those who want to recreate the "good old Soviet Union" and so-called reformers who want a new, remodeled Soviet Union (or Imperial Russia) with a thriving economy and a newly armed, professional military imposing itself on its neighbors and the world.

Factions within the Russian elite, both "reformist" and "conservative", still dwell amid delusions of past imperial glory. Russian admirals and diplomats are still fighting rear-guard Cold War battles as if present-day Russia were a surrogate Soviet Union.

Russia requested Western aid and technology to get into the Kursk, and it will need more of both if it ever hopes to modernize itself. Faking evidence of a "collision that sank the Kursk" is completely counter to Russia's true national interests, but our rulers do not seem to understand this.

Centuries ago the Byzantine elite executed foreign and internal policies as if it were still in charge of a "Roman empire," when it was, in fact, ruling a failed state. Things became worse and worse as the gap grew between imperial ambitions and Byzantium's true capabilities. Today Russia, which traditionally is very Byzantine in nature, appears to be heading down the same drain.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst based in Moscow.

Back to the Top



#9
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
November 9, 2000
Kursk crew knew its fate
By Geoffrey York

MOSCOW -- The final agonies of the crew of the Kursk have been revealed in a desperate message that describes how the survivors grew weaker from carbon monoxide and rising pressure.

The message, the second to be found in the wreck of the doomed submarine, gives a gut-wrenching glimpse of the dying hours of the 23 crew members who huddled in the last compartment of the submarine after surviving the first explosions.

While the crew members could sense death approaching as their oxygen ran out, they also knew it was futile to try to escape from the submarine that had crashed to the floor of the Barents Sea.

"We are all feeling bad," said the message by an unidentified crew member. "We are getting weaker from the effects of carbon monoxide following the fire. Pressure is rising. If we get out, we won't stand the decompression. . . . We won't hold out for more than 24 hours."

The message was written at about 1 p.m. on Aug. 12, about 90 minutes after two mysterious explosions devastated the nuclear submarine.

Carbon monoxide poisoning, apparently caused by fires burning after the explosions, has already been listed as the official cause of some of the deaths.

The entire crew of 118 were killed in the disaster, but some may have survived for a day or even longer, the latest evidence suggests.

The note was disclosed yesterday by Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, head of a government commission investigating the disaster. The message was found by an international team of divers that was able to recover 12 bodies.

The divers had earlier found another note, written by Lieutenant Dmitry Kolesnikov, which described how the 23 surviving crew members had moved to the ninth compartment at the rear of the submarine. "None of us can get to the surface," he wrote to his wife.

The earlier message triggered fresh charges that the navy had lied to Russians by insisting that the crew members had died almost instantly and could not have been saved even if the rescue efforts had not been so slow and ineffective.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin is promoting the theory that the Kursk was the victim of a collision with a British or American spy submarine. Yesterday it claimed to have video-taped evidence of scratch marks on the Kursk, which it said was proof of damaged by a foreign sub. Britain and the Unirtd States have denied the charge.

Critics say the Russian divers who entered the Kursk were under orders to seek evidence that could be used against the West and absolve the Russian navy of responsibility.

"They were looking for evidence that they could doctor," said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based military analyst.

Nuclear submarines of the same category as the Kursk had been confined to their ports while the Russian navy was investigating the cause of the disaster, but now they are being allowed to go to sea again, since the navy is ready to blame the West and exonerate its own submarines, he said.

This is putting the sailors at risk again, Mr. Felgenhauer said.

"It's a bloody crime, in my opinion. Obviously there are serious flaws in the design of the submarine or the torpedo -- probably both," he said.

Back to the Top



#10
Sino-Russian Military Cooperation Booms, Amid Distrust
ZHUHAI, China, Nov 9, 2000 -- (Agence France Presse) Russian arms sales to China are booming, but defence links between the two countries are still tainted by a hefty dose of mistrust.

The Russians are the biggest foreign exhibitors at the China airshow, held every two years in the special economic zone of Zhuhai, next to the former Portuguese colony of Macao.

"Russia supports one of its biggest and best arms buyers," said the show's official publication, Show News.

Russian President Vladimir Putin sent around 20 planes to Zhuhai. The Ka-50 helicopter, the rival of the American Apache, and the supply plane Illyushin-76 were used in the show's air demonstration. The Sukhoi 30 fighter jet -- 45 models of which were sold to China in December last year -- also made a remarkable hedge-hopping display.

"We've had excellent contacts with China's air force, which allowed us to make huge progress in Zhuhai, even though we have not signed any contracts," said Vitali Zelenkov, an official from Irkout, one of the principal Sukhoi manufacturers.

According to Zelenkov, Russia could sell China a license to make the Sukhoi 30, similar to a deal it has struck with India. But he added that no progress had been made yet, despite the many contacts between the two armies.

Faced with a Western embargo on arms sales, the Chinese are now finding it difficult to procure foreign technology for modernizing their own arsenal.

Russian officials said last week in Beijing that during a visit to the Chinese capital Deputy Premier Ilya Klebanov discussed the sale of the A-50, an advanced Russian airborne radar system, with General Zhang Wannian, vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission.

The A-50, a Russian Advance Warning and Control System (AWACS), was seen as replacing a deal between Israel and China for a similar radar that was scrapped after intense pressure from the United States.

According to other Russian sources interviewed in Zhuhai, negotiations were held on the sale of four A-50 Beriev advance radar systems, where the radar can detect up to 300 kilometers (180 miles) compared to 1,000 kilometers for the Israeli AWACS.

Their prices are half those being sold by Israel, USD 300 million compared to 600 million.

But a Western military expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said he doubted whether Russia would cede its technology to China for fear that one day it might be used against it.

"China and Russia have a huge border in common. They are both aware of the need to develop their bilateral cooperation, but they still detest each other's guts," said the expert, referring to the brief but deadly frontier battles between the two countries in 1969.

China has a long tradition of dismantling foreign technology and then using it to put the finishing touches to its own weapons, said the expert.

Following the breakdown of relations with Russia in 1960, the expert said it took China 12 years to build the F-7 fighter plane from parts of MIG-21 planes.

The fallout, which lasted almost 30 years, still sours diplomatic relations between the countries, even if links have recently warmed as both Russia and China seek to repel United States domination.

Back to the Top



#11
strana.ru
November 9, 2000
Vladimir Putin: Russia is peculiar integrative hub linking Asia, Europe and America
By George Watts

President Vladimir Putin regards Russia's full-fledged participation in economic cooperation with countries of the Asian-Pacific region (APR) as "natural and inevitable." In his article carried by a number of media outlets in APR countries, Putin points out that Russia is a peculiar integrative hub that links Asia, Europe and America, ITAR-TASS reports.

A wide range of possibilities stands open before Russia today. These include cooperation in the sphere of power engineering, ecology, developing the sea shelf, as well as making full use of transportation arteries, and implementing specific economic and investment projects, Putin writes. For instance, there are many reasons explaining why APR countries could opt for using Russian delivery routes. They are much shorter and no less reliable than circumventing sea routes.

For shipping containers dispatched via the Trans-Siberian Railway, the distance to Europe could be reduced by more than one-half. The President writes that he is aware of the condition of marine terminals in Russia's Far East, as well as the bottlenecks in St. Petersburg. "We are actively reconstructing them, but so far, we are doing this alone. But we are prepared to carry out these projects together with foreign investors," Putin explains.

Perhaps the rail route across Siberia will prompt many to remember about the rich natural resources of our country. The region is known to be one of the richest for its natural deposits. And Russia is only beginning to tap all this wealth on a large scale. The President invites Russia's APR neighbors to cooperative actively towards this end. Already, Russian manufacturers are thinking about new sales markets, while producing companies have their sights set on raising efficiency at the deposits they are developing.

Three years ago Russia became a member of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. This gave fresh impetus to our cooperation, Putin points out. This region (APR) will always need Russia - both in questions of ensuring stability and security, and in ensuring a balance of interests of all the sides. We are prepared to cooperate with both big and small countries in the region, with economically developed states and with those that are so far striving to reach that level, Vladimir Putin writes in his article.

Theoretically speaking, Vladimir Putin should experience complicated feelings in respect to the coming APEC summit that is to be held in Brunei on November 14-15, Nezavisimaya Gazeta writes in its commentary. A little over a year ago, the APEC session in New Zealand was the first major international forum that the current Russian President attended soon after he was appointed Prime Minister. And Putin passed that test in Auckland with flying colors since he was able, without any special effort, to fit in with the leaders of that regional community - a kind of crystallizing Pacific EU.

In the interim since the Auckland forum, today's Putin has accumulated more than enough international experience both in Asia and in Europe. It turns out that the Russian President will be flying to that "Asian EU" in Brunei almost right after "the real EU-Russia summit" in Paris. Therefore, it will be not too difficult for him to draw parallels and make comparisons.

The APEC is a special organization, and for many, one that is difficult to comprehend. The G-8 is trying to make it look as if it is responsible for shaping the destinies, the future of the world. However, the APEC forum deals only with purely economic problems of that part of the world. In fact, in that larger part of the world, that organization is slowly but surely creating a Pacific common market. In the APEC Russia is an equitable partner.

In Brunei this year, Russia will be represented by an unusually strong delegation. At this year's APEC forum, the Russian President can play a prominent role. Vladimir Putin is to be one of the key figures at the discussion of globalization problems at a special business summit. Other key speakers at that session will be Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori, President Bill Clinton, and China's Jiang Zemin.

Clinton will be on hand to say "goodbye," Mori will be present as Brunei's chief importer, Zemin as the host of the next APEC summit in Shanghai, and Putin as the most promising newcomer to the Pacific family of peoples. been less evident.

Back to the Top



#12
Moscow Times
November 10, 2000
Russia Gleefully Offers Election Tips
By Yevgenia Borisova
Staff Writer

Russians gleefully watched the turmoil over the U.S. presidential election Thursday after a decade of being lectured that the United States is the model of democracy.

Fresh from a trip to Chicago to observe the vote, Central Elections Commission head Alexander Veshnyakov declared that the American system is confusing and undemocratic.

Veshnyakov, who himself came under fire for his handling of Russia's presidential vote in March, said Washington could learn a lesson from Moscow.

"In Russia, presidential elections are conducted in a more democratic way and are more easily understood by the voters," he told Kommersant.

A Russian presidential hopeful needs to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote or a runoff between the two top candidates to claim victory. The United States elects a president through the Electoral College and not popular votes.

"This is simply quite stupid," liberal lawmaker and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov told Reuters. "The American electoral system needs modernizing."

Even President Vladimir Putin poked fun at the United States, saying, "If necessary he [Veshnyakov] can tell his American colleague how best to act."

But despite disbelief in some circles that the United States could not choose a president within two days, a group of lawmakers said that the chaotic election is far from a sign that Russia has an upper hand in democracy.

"He [Veshnyakov] either does not know what was going on here, or he does not want to know, or someone is not letting him know," Sergei Reshulsky, a State Duma deputy from Dagestan, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Alexander Saly, head of a State Duma commission examining possible fraud in the March election, agreed, saying Putin himself probably won because of extensive fraud.

"I think what Veshnyakov must do is not to go to America to observe their laws, but to concentrate on fulfillment of the laws here," Saly said. "But here, Alexander Albertovich is talking like a naive guy."

In 14 of Dagestan's 59 districts alone, Putin may have walked away with 254,000 falsified ballots, Saly said, citing a complaint filed by the Communist Party with the Prosecutor General's Office.

Putin, who swept into the Kremlin in the first round of voting, took 81 percent of the vote in Dagestan.

A six-month investigation by The Moscow Times found that fraudulent votes accounted for up to 550,000 of the 877,853 ballots cast for Putin in Dagestan.

Dagestan was one of many regions where The Moscow Times documented fraud. But Saly said he did not think that fraud was playing a role in the outcome of the U.S. vote.

"In the United States, every precinct commission head knows that if any fraud is discovered at his precinct, he will be imprisoned for several years," Saly said. "Here the law means nothing and no one is being punished for committing fraud."

While local media hardly mentioned fraud after Putin's election, many Russians have wondered whether their government had played above board. Such doubts were mirrored in a joke about the U.S. vote that was posted on a popular web site Thursday.

"With the outcome uncertain, the Americans have sought technical help from the Russian Central Elections Commission. Veshnyakov has flown to the United States," read the joke on www.anekdote.ru. "Latest reports show Vladimir Putin is in the lead."

Back to the Top