CDI Russia Weekly-#177
26 October 2001
Edited by David Johnson
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036
phone: 202-332-0600; fax:202-462-4559
djohnson@cdi.org

The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and
analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, 
economic, social, military, and foreign policy issues. With support
from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation,
CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based Center for Defense 
Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education organization. 

CDI Russia Weekly Home Page (with archive): http://www.cdi.org/russia/

CDI Home Page: http://www.cdi.org

Contents:
1. AFP: US calls off missile defense tests to avoid possible ABM treaty 
trouble: Rumsfeld.
2. Itar-Tass: Russia's nuclear ammunition depots well protected - official.
3. RFE/RL: Jeffrey Donovan, U.S.: Analysts Ponder Post-September Changes To 
Foreign Policy.
4. The Russia Journal editorial: A pressing reform. (re military)
5. The Independent (UK): Anne Penketh, Russians pull bodies from the raised 
'Kursk'
6. gazeta.ru: Natalya Gevorkian, The Growing Divide between the Two Putins.
7. Ekspert: Yevgeny Verlin, INTERNATIONAL PANORAMA. The US will lose this
war unless it takes other interests into account.
8. Asia Times: Sergei Blagov, Putin rejects Taliban - and that's not final.
9. Trud: Sergey Karaganov on Russian Prospects in Antiterrorist Coalition, NATO.
10. Moscow Times: Alexander Bratersky, A Physicist With Stars in His Eyes.
(Interview with Roald Sagdeyev) 

*******

#1
US calls off missile defense tests to avoid possible ABM treaty trouble:
Rumsfeld
WASHINGTON, Oct 25 (AFP) 
 
The Pentagon has called off two missile defense tests ahead of talks next 
month between President George W. Bush and Russia's President Vladimir Putin 
to avoid accusations it was violating the 1972 ABM treaty, US Defense 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced.

Asked whether the action was taken to reward Russia for its support of the US 
air campaign in Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said: "It's not a bone to anybody."

Rumsfeld reaffirmed the longstanding US position that the treaty should be 
set aside by the United States and Russia to allow unrestricted testing and 
development of defenses against ballistic missiles.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks he said, the ABM treaty was "even 
less relevant today."

But Rumsfeld said talks next month between Bush and Putin in New York, 
Washington and at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas would take up the 
question of what to do about the treaty, which bars the deployment of a 
national missile defense system.

"For some time now, we've advised the Congress and the government of the 
Russian Federation that the planned missile defense testing program that we 
had was going to bump up against the ABM Treaty," he said. "That has now 
happened."

"This reality, it seems to me, provides an impetus for the discussions that 
President Bush has been having with President Putin, and which will continue 
here in Washington early next month," he said.

In the first test, which had been scheduled for Wednesday, an Aegis radar on 
a surface ship was to be used to track an interceptor missile in test 
interception of a strategic ballistic missile target, he said.

The target missile was to have been tracked by a multiple target tracking 
radar at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

In the second test, scheduled for November 14, and Aegis radar was to have 
been used to track the launch of a Titan II space launch vehicle, he said.

Rumsfeld said all options -- modifying the treaty, setting it aside, or 
withdrawing from it unilaterally -- could be on the table.

Asked whether a deal could be worked out to modify the treaty to accommodate 
the US missile defense program and forestall a US withdrawal, Rumsfeld said, 
"I just don't know. We'll have to see what happens. But certainly those 
discussions are going forward."

In the meantime, he said, the Pentagon had decided to refrain voluntarily 
from carrying out the two scheduled tests that lawyers could construe as 
violations of the treaty.

The use of the Aegis radar on a surface ship would ostensibly run afoul of 
the treaty's ban on testing and development of sea-based components of a 
national missile defense system.

"We are continuing with many aspects of the very robust test development 
program," Rumsfeld said.

"But as I've indicated, there are some things that some people could raise, I 
do not want to put the United States in a position of having someone raise a 
question about whether or not something is a violation of a treaty. I don't 
think that's the position the United States wants to be in," he said. 

*******

#2
Russia's nuclear ammunition depots well protected - official 
ITAR-TASS 

Moscow, 25 October: A Russian Defence Ministry official stated on Thursday 
[25 October] that the country's nuclear ammunition depots are well protected, 
and can even hold a nuclear strike. 

"We do not fear direct attack, such as the one that took place in the United 
States on 11 September," head of the ministry's 12th Main Department Col-Gen 
Igor Valynkin told reporters. 

"As for terrorists operating on the ground, their attacks are possible," 
Valynkin said, emphasizing however that "additional security measures have 
been taken at the nuclear facilities". 

"We put more guard units on security staff, which are better equipped and 
trained," according to the general. 

Such units are capable of confronting terrorists groups, for example those 
that operate in Chechnya, Valynkin said. 

"We have coordinated plans with the Interior Ministry and the Federal 
Security Service to help us in case of terrorist attack. Tougher security 
measures and physical protection of the facilities makes the penetration by 
terrorists impossible," he said. 

According to the general, terrorists carried out reconnaissance of nuclear 
facilities, but no attempts have been made to penetrate into them. 

The Defence Ministry recently took measures to improve the technical 
protection of nuclear depots. The United States helped a lot, by providing 
modern technical assets, Valynkin said. 

The General noted that the military command attaches great significance to 
this issue. The Russian facilities are constantly checked for vulnerability. 
The condition of each facility is evaluated separately, he added. 

*******

#3
U.S.: Analysts Ponder Post-September Changes To Foreign Policy
By Jeffrey Donovan

For weeks, Americans have been repeating the mantra that "everything has 
changed" since the 11 September terrorist attacks on Washington and New York. 
But with the international community likely to face a massive post-war effort 
to rebuild Afghanistan, the verdict is still out on whether everything has 
changed in the foreign policy of the administration of President George W. 
Bush. 

Washington, 24 October 2001 (RFE/RL) -- As the United States-led military 
campaign gathers speed in Afghanistan, global leaders are scrambling to 
prevent a dangerous power vacuum from enveloping the chaotic country once its 
ruling Taliban militia is ousted.

U.S. and British warplanes have recently started to attack the Taliban's 
front-line positions in a bid to help the opposition Northern Alliance 
advance toward key cities, including the capital Kabul.

But as the Taliban's fall appears increasingly imminent, according to 
analysts, the question of what to do once it's gone is becoming all the more 
urgent.

The analysts say that by all accounts, "winning the peace" in the Central 
Asian nation will be a long and expensive task -- precisely the kind of 
"messy commitment" that the Republican administration of President George W. 
Bush sought to disengage the U.S. from upon taking office in January 2001.

Back then, the Bush team spoke openly about the need to pull U.S. 
peacekeeping troops out of the Balkans and avoid engaging in costly 
"humanitarian interventions."

But if it's true that "everything has changed" since 11 September, analysts 
say it is far from clear to what extent the Bush team will change its own 
policy stance with regard to "nation-building" and foreign assistance in the 
wake of the terrorist attacks that cost more than 5,000 lives.

Sarah Mendelson, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, a Washington think-tank, says the attacks proved that big foreign 
assistance commitments must be considered vital means for protecting against 
future terrorism. Mendelson made this observation: "The point is that 
fundamental to U.S. national-security interests has to be the developments 
inside other countries. You know, poverty is ultimately a security issue."

Charles H. Fairbanks, a Central Asia expert with Johns Hopkins University in 
Washington, agrees. The recent terrorist attacks, Fairbanks says, were partly 
the result of the U.S. having ignored Afghanistan over the past decade: "I 
think that, probably, the World Trade Center would still be standing if we 
had not made that mistake in the early 90s -- that we allowed a power vacuum 
and chaos in Afghanistan, and the Taliban emerged to fill that power vacuum; 
and they, in turn, were receptive to our most extreme enemies and acted as 
hosts for them. That could have been prevented."

Most analysts, to be sure, say the Bush administration will strongly back the 
effort to rebuild Afghanistan, especially with economic assistance -- perhaps 
in return for an ethnically broad-based government that shuns any ties to 
terrorism and is acceptable to neighboring nations.

For its part, the administration has not said much on the matter. But at a 
news conference in Washington in early October, President Bush underscored 
the role the United Nations should eventually play in Afghanistan: "One of 
the things we've got to make sure of is that all parties, all interested 
parties, have an opportunity to be a part of a new [Afghan] government, that 
we shouldn't play favorites between one group or another within Afghanistan. 
Secondly, we've got to work for a stable Afghanistan so that her neighbors 
don't fear terrorist activity again coming out of that country. Third, it'd 
be helpful, of course, to eradicate narco-trafficking out of Afghanistan as 
well. I believe that the United Nations could provide the framework necessary 
to help meet those conditions."

Despite Bush's comments, however, analysts say some in his administration 
still argue that the U.S. should keep out of any such entanglement. Ted Galen 
Carpenter of the Cato Institute, another Washington think-tank, espouses that 
view. He made this observation: "The goal of the United States ought to be 
fairly limited -- that is to say, we want a situation in place in Afghanistan 
where terrorists do not have safe harbor and do not have assistance from an 
Afghan government. Whether a post-Taliban government is democratic, tolerant, 
pro-Western, or anything else would be a nice bonus. But it is not really an 
important goal, or should not be an important goal, of the United States."

In recent days, Western and Eurasian countries as well as the UN have made a 
push to build a global consensus on rebuilding Afghanistan. Their efforts 
have focused on encouraging the creation of a transitional government led by 
exiled King Zahir Shah. Like the Taliban, Zahir hails from the Pashtun ethnic 
majority, and analysts say he could enjoy strong backing among them. Yet he 
also appears to have support from the mostly Uzbek and Tajik Northern 
Alliance.

While Bush would like to see the former king succeed in forming a 
broad-based, democratic government, Mendelson says a long-term commitment to 
stamping out terrorism would require his administration to fundamentally 
alter its foreign policy approach: "Hopefully a part, a large part, of the 
counterterrorist strategy is going to be to completely rethink how we assist 
other countries in political, social, and economic growth and transition."

And if Bush ends up embracing such a view -- rather than resorting to his 
original unilateralism -- everything indeed will have changed after 11 
September.

*******

#4
The Russia Journal
October 19-25, 2001
Editorial
A pressing reform
 
Why, considering the Communist world collapsed more than a decade ago and the 
country's puny budget, does Russia still operate a radar station in Cuba and 
a naval base in Vietnam?

It is a good question -- and one that President Vladimir Putin finally asked 
Wednesday.

In what was apparently a heated meeting between Putin and his top brass, it 
was agreed that Russia would dismantle its radar station in Lourdes, Cuba, 
and its naval technical support base in Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam. 

According to Gen. Anatoly Kvashnin, chief of Russia's General Staff, the 
closure of the Cuba station alone will save around $200 million a year in 
rent. In any country that is a lot of money, but in Russia it is a small 
fortune. 

What was perhaps more interesting coming out of the meeting was Putin's 
voicing of concern, possibly even anger, at the slow progress of military 
reform. 

For nearly two years, the president has kowtowed to the top military brass 
and given it a free hand in Chechnya. From his climb-down in 1999 when Gen. 
Vladimir Shamanov threatened to tear off his stripes if Putin did not allow 
him to continue the advance into Chechnya, to his stubborn refusal to 
apportion blame over the Kursk tragedy, the pattern has been clear. Putin has 
been wary of pointing the finger at his generals for obvious incompetence, 
corruption and Cold War-era hysterics.

It is commendable, then, that Putin has finally taken a firm line on some key 
issues, including bases in close proximity to the United States and a refusal 
to bow to the hardliners on joining the U.S.-led coalition against global 
terrorism.

It is easy to understand why Putin has previously dodged confrontation with 
the top brass -- it is an extremely corrupt and dangerous group – while 
remaining firm on the need for reform, which is now taking on an air of 
urgency.

Putin seems to understand very well that Russia's officer corps is rotten to 
the core; he understands that any overhaul is, by extension, going to involve 
an attack on the top brass's financial schemes. Such a move by the Kremlin is 
likely to draw a powerful counterblow, one that could even destabilize 
Putin's presidency.

However, Putin deserves credit for beginning to address this issue, perhaps 
the most dangerous and important challenge to Russia's democratic and 
economic future. In order for Russia to revive its economy, the armed forces 
and military industrial complex must undergo root and branch reform. 

Putin has yet to address the single most important issue of military reform, 
one that could earn him the support of the Russian population -- the military 
draft. This should be addressed as a social, military and economic priority. 
It is estimated that only 14 percent of eligible draftees reach the Army; the 
remainder buy their way out, find an exemption or simply run away.

And it is not as if Russians are cowards -- in Soviet times the vast majority 
of eligible men did their service. Yet today, in most cases, it is the very 
people that did this service, now parents, who want to extricate their sons 
from the Army. 

That, to put it bluntly, is the population's vote of confidence in the armed 
forces. Putin must force his generals to expedite a move away from the draft 
toward the creation of a professional, well-paid army.

Putin's decision Wednesday to close the bases in Cuba and Vietnam was a 
sensible one, but in reality, not a particularly difficult choice. The real 
test will be whether he can use this move as a springboard for further 
military reform -- turning words and programs into real deeds.

Carrying out military reform to the end is likely to be the defining moment 
of Putin's presidency. 
 
*******

#5
The Independent (UK)
26 October 2001
Russians pull bodies from the raised 'Kursk'
By Anne Penketh

Russian investigators opened another chapter in the grisly history of the
Kursk when they entered the submarine wreck for the first time and began
pulling bodies from the stricken vessel.

"It is a very, very, very remarkable sight," said the prosecutor-general,
Vladimir Ustinov, leading the team of investigators who boarded the nuclear
submarine whose forward section was brought into dry dock near Murmansk at
the weekend.

The bow section, containing the vessel's torpedoes which may have caused
the disaster, is due to be raised next year.

All 118 crew members on board the Kursk perished when powerful explosions
sank the submarine in August last year during naval exercises in the
Barents Sea.

Twelve bodies were recovered by divers last year. A note found in the
pocket of one of them said that 23 had survived the crash for hours in the
stern compartments.

Mr Ustinov told Russian television that the view inside the submarine
defied description. "The clearest example of the massive destruction ...
can be seen in the first three compartments where there is a pile of
twisted metal," he said.

Three bodies were removed from the submarine's rear section after the water
was pumped out from inside.

The naval teams, working round the clock, plan to recover the remaining
bodies as quickly as possible to avoid them being damaged by contact with
the air. But many of the crew members may have been vaporised by the
explosions.

The team of forensic experts that went on board included chemical,
biological and radiation experts from Russia's Northern Fleet.

Once the sailors' bodies have been brought out of the wreck, the team's
next task will be to investigate and secure the Kursk's two nuclear
reactors and its 22 Granit cruise missiles.

There has been concern about the state of the missiles, which have been
lying on the seabed for more than a year, but a Northern Fleet spokesman,
Vladimir Navrotsky, said the silos containing the missiles apparently had
not been damaged, allowing navy experts to remove the weapons safely in a
normal fashion.

Experts were hoping to enter the reactor compartment last night to check
its condition and make sure that it was properly heated to keep it from
freezing overnight.

Water samples taken from inside the reactor compartment confirmed that
there had been no radiation leak.

Mr Ustinov said that the bodies may provide some clues as to what happened
when the submarine went down, although the investigation would take time to
reach a conclusion.

The disaster has still not been fully explained, although possible theories
include an explosion caused by a faulty torpedo. Some Russian naval
commanders are still clinging to the belief that the submarine went down
after colliding with a foreign submarine.

"We will unravel this mystery. We will not conceal it from society," Mr
Ustinov said.

The Kursk was raised from the seabed on 8 October in a three-month, £45m
salvage operation carried out by the Dutch Mammoet-Smit International
consortium, which also involved many British and Russian expert divers.

Sceptics say that if any clue to the cause of the disaster could be found,
it would be located in the submarine's mangled first compartment, which was
left behind.

Relatives are being kept away from the dry dock for fear of rekindling
passions. Many fear that they may never be told the true story of what
happened to their loved ones, given the official lies and misinformation
that has marked the tragedy since the outset.

For two days after the sinking, the Russian navy said nothing before
announcing that the submarine had sunk.

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, was criticised for deciding against
cutting short his Black Sea vacation. Crucially, offers of outside help
were refused for a week.

A Scottish-Norwegian diving team finally gained access to the submarine,
but too late to save any of the crew.

Mr Putin has promised to return the sailors' bodies to their relatives for
proper burial. 

*******

#6
gazeta.ru
October 20, 2001
The Growing Divide between the Two Putins
By Natalya Gevorkian, Gazeta.Ru Columnist   

In my eyes Putin's personality has gradually began to split. If I know 
something about myself for sure, it is that I do no drink and I have sensed 
this ailment in Putin (or in myself?) after September 11. 

One Putin is concluding what was started by Gorbachev and Yeltsin closing 
down Russian military bases in Cuba and in Vietnam, while the another Putin 
continues to rearrange influence over the mass media to his own advantage, 
and has unexpectedly come up with a final solution for the national question, 
for some reason by leaving the cops act in that sphere. 

Along with Putin, his closest entourage is also beginning to split. And it is 
of no importance where that entourage is formally seated, in the Kremlin, in 
the White House (the seat of the government) or in the Defence Ministry. 

The first sign that the hitherto-absolute conformity of opinions that was fed 
to the country to the point of nausea after the victorious election of the 
new president is faltering was not even the languid dispute on restoring the 
Soviet-era national anthem. And not even the episode with the Kursk 
submarine. 

The symptom emerged against the background of the necessity to make a choice: 
Who are you with, Mr.Putin, after the New-York nightmare? 

The first cautious "We'll see" of the Kremlin was very much in the spirit 
of the 70 per cent of electors, who hitherto perceived Putin as their 
president. Further, impetuous rapprochement with the West with all ensuing 
concessions threatens Putin with, at the minimum, a realignment of sympathies 
at home, which means an imminent decrease in the number of his fans. He must 
understand that. 

And hence his habitual initial hesitation. Russian participation within the 
parameters of the anti-terror operation, initially declared as being limited 
and being of a humanitarian nature, will later be transformed into more 
active participation involving the military. And everybody understands that 
with every new American warplane landing on the territory of the former USSR, 
Putin is losing traditional allies, including those with tarnished 
reputations, but with whom not so long ago he sat at the same table. 

In the same way he is losing part of his voters who made multi-million 
businesses with those traditional allies. 

Among those "businessmen" are also our military. And, obviously this is why 
the comments of Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov increasingly vary from the 
presidential statements. 

One can feel the split when the president makes yet another decision 
addressed to the West, Sergei Ivanov comes out with a reaction addressed to 
the domestic consumer. 

For instance, when Sergei Yastrzhembsky explained that Putin had not 
presented an ultimatum to the Chechens to lay down arms within 72 hours, but 
in truth offered to launch talks, Sergei Ivanov stated that now the West has 
grown to understand better Russia's use of force in Chechnya. 

Those two statements conflicted with each other, but neither conflicted with 
the text of Putin's statement that could be interpreted both as seeking a 
peace settlement and, at the same time a threat to do away with Chechnya on 
the sly, while the world combats terrorism. That is why the image of Putin 
has started to split. In the same way, the contrast between the discreet 
statements on Georgia from Putin's lips, and the absolutely unrestrained 
comments of the military on the same issue. 

But there are some things that are absolutely understandable. Firstly, 
Putin's extraordinary international activity of late is yet more proof that 
the former intelligence office has always been more concerned with foreign 
policy than with boring state building at home. 

Secondly, Putin has realized that Russia is too weak to become an influential 
country merely through its own aggressiveness, independence and opposition to 
the civilized world. 

Putin has seen an alternative way to boost Russia's international influence, 
(which is his dream!) via integration into that very civilized world. That 
way bodes well, but demands payment. That payment, as well as the prospect of 
rapprochement with the West and America, above all, makes many people 
allergic and evokes an even more negative response with the military. 

Kommersant Daily quoted an officer's reaction after the Defence Ministry 
sitting where Putin announced our withdrawal from Vietnam and Cuba: "Chewing 
our last Soviet-era crumbs." 

And those were bitter words. 

And what do the military, for which America to this very day remains enemy 
number one, feel now? And what do they think of the prospect of talks with 
Maskhadov's representatives in Chechnya? And what motions do they feel 
hearing the words Afghanistan, NATO, ABM? 

It is a very intriguing situation. Now Putin is walking a very thin line 
between his own past and his possible future. 

Standing on that line, it is dangerous to lie to oneself and it is not worth 
trying to deceive others, both in and outside the country. If it is decided 
that Russia has made its choice not in favour of its own special historical 
way, but in favour of adopting rules whereby the civilized world lives, then 
that decision cannot apply to foreign policy only. 

Otherwise, what happened to Gorbachev will recur - the whole scenario, 
including Foros. 

If those rules are extended to all spheres of life inside the country (and 
they cannot apply only to economics), Putin will have to seriously amend 
himself and his attitude, including towards the mass media. Hope that the 
West will turn a blind eye to the authoritarian manners of the Russian 
president at home in gratitude for compliance and understanding on the 
foreign level is hardly justifiable. 

After he has made his choice concerning Russia's position in the world, the 
president is to decide whom he is with inside his country. This choice is far 
more complicated and risky, since those who supported him yesterday do not 
like his rapprochement with America, and those who may support him tomorrow, 
do not like the Soviet anthem and his selective approach to democracy. 
 
*******

#7
Ekspert
No. 39
October 2001
INTERNATIONAL PANORAMA
The US will lose this war unless it takes other interests into account
Author: Yevgeny Verlin
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
THE MILITARY CAMPAIGN IN AFGHANISTAN IS FORCING WASHINGTON TO START 
LOOKING FOR A NEW BASIS FOR A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH MOSCOW. THE 
BRAVE NEW WORLD WILL NEVER BE STABLE UNLESS THE INTERESTS OF ALL 
NATIONS ARE CONSIDERED.
The world needs spheres of influence defined and some dividing lines drawn

     When the Americans launched their operation in Afghanistan, an 
acquaintance of mine close to upper echelons of the Foreign Ministry 
met with me for a private chat. "We support the Americans, of course - 
but only to the extent that will not anger their enemies," he said off 
the record. "We hold many others responsible for various events; but 
we ourselves are to blame for almost nothing. We talk unity with the 
civilized world against terrorism; but we are always ready to change 
our statements if the Americans go too far. In short, we have 
considerable room for maneuver, and somewhere to fall back."
     Another acquaintance, a senior officer in one of the Russian 
secret services, told me in a private conversation that he's glad the 
Americans have invaded Afghanistan. "They will take up where we left 
off. What they will achieve will benefit Russia and strengthen 
Russia's positions there," he said.
     On October 18, The Financial Times said that what the United 
States and Britain are doing in Afghanistan is:
     - the implementation of President Vladimir Putin's threats to 
order air strikes on Afghanistan if the Taliban continues to support 
Chechen terrorists; and
     - confirms Putin's numerous statements to the effect that the 
international community in this region has been threatened by the 
existence of Muslim extremists.
     Not everyone in Moscow thinks that the arrival of the Americans 
on the southern borders of Russia and the CIS is in Russia's national 
interests. Putin's latest gift to President George W. Bush - namely 
the decision to close down Russian military bases in Vietnam and Cuba 
- sparked another wave of dissatisfaction in the Kremlin. Certain Duma 
deputies began talking about "restricting the zone of Russia's 
strategic influence to the borders of the Moscow region", and so on.
     The Russian Foreign Ministry did its best to calm down the 
rumbles of discontent. According to its spokesman, the Kremlin is now 
waiting a gesture from Washington too (suspension of the NATO radar 
project in Norway, for example). The public is also being told that 
the Kremlin's decision with regard to bases abroad, made on the eve of 
the Shanghai summit, was also a "gift" to China, Russia's strategic 
partner. Indeed, the Russian naval base at Kam Ranh annoyed Beijing no 
less than the ELINT center annoyed Washington.
     Chechnya, progress made on missile defense and NATO expansion, 
reforming international security structures and Russia's active 
involvement in them, some progress on membership of the WTO and 
European Union, easing up on Russia's financial obligations... The 
United States in particular, and the West in general, are already 
considering this unusual wish-list from Russia. Something is already 
happening: the US stance on the issue of Chechnya is more flexible and 
subtle than it was only recently; neither have the Americans shown 
anger over Russia's latest arms sales contacts and contracts with 
Iran. The military campaign in Afghanistan is forcing Washington to 
start looking for a new basis for a long-term relationship with 
Moscow.
     Paul Sanders, Director of the Nixon Center, ascribes Washington's 
milder stand on Moscow's behavior with regard to Chechnya and Iran to 
the simple fact that it has finally dawned on Bush and his 
Administration that the war on terrorism will demand a great deal more 
from them by way of concessions and compromises.
     Analysis of the first days of the hostilities shows plainly that 
the Americans and British understand all too well they will never 
accomplish their objectives in Afghanistan without others' support. 
They will have to deal with the forces that are not necessarily pro-
American.
     From this point of view, the agreement and mutual understanding 
Moscow and Washington finally reached on no representatives of the 
Taliban on the future Afghani government is significant indeed. 
Needless to say, the matter does not concern the Pushtu, the largest 
ethnic group in Afghanistan. They must be represented in the 
government and represented properly. Igor Ivanov and Colin Powell 
agreed that the UN should and would play an instrumental part in the 
post-conflict resolution in Afghanistan. Along with everything else, 
it should mean an international peacekeeping contingent in 
Afghanistan, Powell said. Moscow accepted it even though the matter 
has to be brought up to the attention of other UN Security Council 
members yet.
     The Americans understand that they need Europeans. Certain 
unequivocal signals were sent to Europe on the necessity of more 
effective forms of political and other assistance. Foreign Minister of 
Germany Joschka Fischer set out for the region following in British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair's steps. After stopovers in Pakistan and 
Tajikistan, Fischer will visit Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestinian 
territories, and Iran.
     The events of September 11 made it clear to the West that the 
"battle for the minds and hearts" of the Muslim part of the world 
should be backed up with real money and not to be restricted to 
sermons on incompatibility of extremism and the civilized world. These 
are direct investments in future security.
     Importance of the "limited alliance" with Russia is growing at 
the rate it dawns on them finally that there are not so many countries 
in the world (save for NATO members and some other loyal satellites) 
ready to join the international counter-terrorism front under the 
American aegis.
     The ATEC summit in Shanghai began with the statement of Malaysian 
Minister of Commerce Rafida Aziz who condemned the military operation. 
"You will kill one generation of terrorists only to find it replaced 
with another," she said. "Literally everybody can become a terrorist 
whenever that person has reasons to be ready for forsake his or her 
own life promoting his or her objectives."
     There is the widespread opinion in Asia that there exist certain 
objective circumstances breeding terrorism. Chinese political 
scientists are of the opinion that in the conditions of globalization, 
cultural and ideological expansion of the West, in the conditions when 
strange political standards are forced on them, weaker cultures have 
found themselves in the position of defense. In some cases, their 
self-defense takes radical forms.
     All these moods prevailing in Shanghai resulted in the following. 
The draft communique on terrorism did not even mention bin Laden or 
the military operation in Afghanistan. The document became a kind of 
general document urging the international community to fight terrorism 
without any specific targets or addresses.
     Leaving for Shanghai, Bush said the war might last over two years 
and spread to countries other than Afghanistan. Political elites of 
the Islamic word would give much to find answer to the question of who 
will be next.
     Supporting the war on terrorism in words and "in principle", 
Muslim leaders disagree with the West on specifics. They do not think 
the problem may ever be solved by military means alone, be they 
precise strikes or not. They think roots of terrorism have to be 
analyzed, and an international conference under the UN aegis (a 
conference on terrorism that is) will do for starters. Besides, the 
Palestinian problem has to be solved.
     It seems that Washington is perfectly aware of the delicate 
nature of the situation. That is why it is ever so careful not to 
utter so much as a single word on the possible future "recipients" of 
counter-terrorism actions.
     Eager to broaden the international counter-terrorism front, the 
United States would not want at the same time its participants to 
operate against their own targets and enemies, the ones not approved 
by official Washington. When New Delhi began talking about how nice it 
would be to organize a large scale offensive and finally drive 
extremists from Kashmere, Powell responded with a definite no-go. 
Subtly threatening with the prospect of returning to the sanctions 
regime recently lifted from India and Pakistan, he did his best at 
negotiations to extinguish the mutual aversion.
     Sorting out the ranks of their own allies will be particularly 
difficult for the Americans. Official beau monde in the United States 
has never yet identified Saudi Arabia as the major source of Islamic 
radicalism or organizers of the September 11 terrorist acts. "One 
might think the terrorist acts were planned in the caves in 
Afghanistan," one American expert acidly commented.
     Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told Federation Council 
members that "we bring up the matter of Saudi Arabia in negotiations 
with our Western partners, and do so in no uncertain terms." 
Apparently, Moscow has found a chink in Washington's armor which it 
can use whenever necessary: accusing the Americans of double 
standards, lack of determination, and so on - depending on specific 
circumstances.
     It is clear that unless the new zones of natural interests and 
spheres of influence are legitimized at some sort of modern Yalta 
Conference, discord and friction will appear every now and then, 
jeopardizing the fragile counter-terrorism alliance.
     The world needs spheres of influence defined and some dividing 
lines drawn, and the process appears to be unfolding already. Russia 
is leaving Cuba - over Castro's loud protests. The Americans, in their 
turn, are careful to discuss with Russia all their moves in Central 
Asia and may even start having similar discussions with China with 
regard to Taiwan. The UN is useful whenever anyone's sole dominance is 
impossible for some reason. Political settlement in Afghanistan is 
possible only under the auspices of the UN.
     It follows that the so-called multipolar world is taking shape 
all by itself, on the ruins of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. A 
world as unstable as a monopolar world would have been.
     The problem is that nobody can be sure that the leading world 
powers - primarily the United States - will ever learn to adjust their 
national interests with the interests of countries which were only 
recently considered enemies.

********

#8
Asia Times
October 24, 2001
Putin rejects Taliban - and that's not final 
By Sergei Blagov 

MOSCOW - The Kremlin has once again endeavored to play a more important role 
in a future Afghan settlement by urging that the Taliban be jettisoned as 
tainted criminals. 

"We believe that the Taliban movement has tainted itself by cooperation with 
international terrorism," Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted by RIA 
official news agency as saying. "We consider the position of the Islamic 
State of Afghanistan that excludes the Taliban movement from a future Afghan 
government to be justified," Putin said, using the name of the Afghan 
government of President Burhanuddin Rabbani that is recognized 
internationally as the legitimate administration of Afghanistan, rather than 
the Taliban regime. 

Putin made his statements during a Monday meeting in Dushanbe, the capital of 
Tajikistan, with Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov and Rabbani, whose 
government was unseated by the Taliban five years ago and whose Northern 
Alliance forces control less than 10 percent of the country. 

Putin made a brief stopover in Tajikistan on his return to Moscow from the 
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Shanghai. However, it was 
in no way an impromptu meeting. Before Putin arrived in Dushanbe, Defense 
Minister Sergei Ivanov and Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal 
Security Service, the KGB's chief successor agency, were dispatched to 
Tajikistan. 

In fact, during the meeting with Rakhmonov and Rabbani, Putin was accompanied 
by most of his key security officials. Therefore, his meeting indicated that 
the Kremlin wants more of a say in determining the future of post-Taliban 
Afghanistan. 

Putin once again confirmed that Russia recognized Rabbani's government as 
legitimate. Russia has long opposed the Taliban, whom the Kremlin has 
repeatedly accused of supporting Chechen separatists. Tajikistan also opposes 
the Taliban and supports the Northern Alliance, which is led by Rabbani, an 
ethnic Tajik. 

The aim of Russian foreign policy is "to create such a situation in 
Afghanistan so as the Afghan people can determine their future 
independently", he said. In the meantime, a future Afghan government "should 
be friendly towards its neighbors, including the Russian Federation", Putin 
was quoted by RIA as saying. 

Putin also pledged to continue support of Rabbani's government in its fight 
against terrorism, including "military-technical assistance". The future 
Afghan government "should reflect interests of all the country's ethnic and 
political groups", he said. 

Rakhmonov reportedly also said that Tajikistan has opposed including the 
Taliban into a coalition government. Rabbani described the meeting as "very 
important and timely" and acknowledged Russian and Tajik support "to a just 
liberation struggle of the Afghan people". Afghan people must determine their 
own fate, Rabbani was quoted as saying by RIA. 

Washington has reluctantly expressed a willingness to include some Taliban 
activists, at Pakistan's insistence, but Moscow opposes letting even the 
so-called Taliban "moderates" into a coalition government. 

However, despite Putin's hardline anti-Taliban public statements, there have 
been some hints that the Kremlin might consider a measure of flexibility with 
regard to the inclusion of moderates. 

After Putin's return from Dushanbe, RIA quoted some anonymous "military and 
diplomatic sources in Moscow" as indicating that Afghanistan's future 
government may include "Taliban moderates who had not tainted themselves by 
crimes". According to these sources, the government of Afghanistan is due to 
be formed in two to three weeks and function during a transition period in 
order to prepare for general elections. The formation of this interim 
government is to be carried out "under control of the anti-terrorist 
coalition and with support of the Northern Alliance and former king Zahir 
Shah", although this cabinet will not be headed by Shah, who is due to become 
"a symbol of the national unity", the sources said 

Russian politicians note some remaining differences between Moscow and 
Washington relative to the Afghan settlement. On Monday, Dmitry Rogozin, 
chairman of the international relations committee of the Russian State Duma, 
the lower chamber of parliament, said that Russia and the US disagree over 
the composition of Afghanistan's future government due to different 
geopolitical perspectives. 

"Russia understands Afghanistan much better because we were there," Rogozin 
said, in reference to the 10 years that ended in 1989 with the withdrawal of 
Soviet occupying forces from the country. In the meantime, Washington has 
"simplistic ideas" about Afghanistan, including the belief in the possibility 
of building a democratic regime there, he said. 

On Monday, Putin, Rakhmonov and Rabbani issued a joint statement pledging to 
stabilize the situation in Afghanistan and Central Asia as well as to help 
Afghan refugees. Moscow has repeatedly pledged to provide humanitarian aid to 
Afghanistan. 

Notably, Russia's emergency situation ministry has announced that it has 
prepared a shipment, which includes seven power generators, 1,200 heaters, as 
well as food and medical aid. The shipment is to be forwarded by rail freight 
by the end of this week to "serve Afghan refugees", according to the 
ministry. In the meantime, since the beginning of October, Russia has sent 
some 75 tons of food aid and 10 tons of medicine to Afghanistan by cargo 
planes, the ministry said. 

However, apart from the future of Afghanistan and Central Asia, the Kremlin 
arguably bears some material interests in mind. In the wake of the September 
11 attacks on the United States, the world economy has experienced a downturn 
and oil prices have fallen correspondingly. 

When meeting his cabinet members this week, Putin said that the world economy 
was to "experience negative trends". Moreover, "these trends may have 
repercussions relative to the situation in Russia", including the state 
budget for 2002, Putin was quoted as saying by RIA. 

Furthermore, fresh from the APEC summit and the Tajik stopover, Putin met his 
Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez in the Kremlin. It has been understood 
that Chavez, on his second visit to Moscow in six months, was trying to 
convince the Kremlin to cut oil production in order to maintain the price 
range of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). 

OPEC has cut production to keep prices between an average of US$22 and $28 a 
barrel. However, many non-OPEC so-called "independent producers" such as 
Russia and Mexico refuse to follow suit. Russia's oil production this year is 
expected to rise by nearly 9 percent to roughly 390 million tons. 

Oil is Russia's key hard-currency earner. It has been understood that 
Russia's financial meltdown in 1998 and the financial collapse of the former 
USSR in the late 1980s were both caused by low oil prices. 

Although Putin guaranteed Chavez that Russia was going to cooperate with 
OPEC, Russian officials refrained from any pledges of reducing the country's 
oil output. 

Therefore, Russia urgently needs a return of some semblance of international 
stability in order to ensure global economic recovery and higher commodity 
prices. Otherwise, Moscow will find itself between a rock of falling oil 
prices and a hard place of a need to cut oil production 

********

#9
Sergey Karaganov on Russian Prospects in Antiterrorist Coalition, NATO 

Trud
October 20, 2001
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with Sergey Aleksandrovich Karaganov, deputy director of 
Europe Institute and chairman of Foreign and Defense Policy Council 
Presidium, by Marina Chernukha, personal correspondent; place and date 
not given:  "Coinciding Interests" 

     According to this man, Russia eventually would 
have had to do what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan anyway. 
    The events of 11 September were a tragic shock for the Americans and 
represented the start of the countdown for the U.S. "crusade" against 
international terrorism.   Prominent Russian politician, Deputy Director 
of the Europe Institute, and Chairman of the Foreign and Defense Policy 
Council Presidium Sergey Karaganov shared his thoughts about Russia's 
role and place in the international antiterrorist coalition with Trud 
correspondent Marina Chernukha. 

    [Chernukha]   Sergey Aleksandrovich, can you say unequivocally that 
Russia supports the U.S. stance in the fight against international 
terrorism?   Do the interests of our countries coincide completely? 

    [Karaganov]   At this time the interests of the Russia and the United 
States certainly do coincide, and that is why we are giving it all types 
of support, with the exception of direct military support.   We may 
differ in some of our judgments, but in principle there is a sound basis 
for our presently coinciding interests.   This is a unique situation, in 
which the Americans are fighting for Russia's interests as well as their 
own.   The Taliban have posed a genuine threat to us in recent years by 
supporting Chechnya and constantly instigating armed conflicts on the 
border with Tajikistan.   It is highly probable, therefore, that in about 
two years Russian soldiers would have had to do what the Americans are 
doing for us now.   We still have to guard our own geopolitical interests 
closely in Central Asia in the present situation, of course, realizing 
that there are no "good" options in the fight against terrorism and 
stability, because war is war.   Our current ability to transfer much of 
the burden of this war from our shoulders to someone else's, however, is 
extremely important to Russia. 
    Obviously, we have no intention of "sitting back and doing nothing."  
 Russia is providing the international coalition with extremely important 
intelligence, which could even be described as invaluable intelligence 
because no one else has it.   We have also provided it with information, 
based on our own experience, on the most effective and ineffective 
methods of warfare in Afghanistan.   We are supplying the Northern 
Alliance with weapons and giving it other types of support.   Russia does 
not, however, want to participate directly in a ground operation under 
any circumstances.   That is something I can say unequivocally. 

    [Chernukha]   If the interests of our countries coincide at this 
time, can the present relationship between Russia and the United States 
be described as what some people call a "tactical partnership"? 

    [Karaganov]   Not only tactical, but also strategic, because our 
interests now coincide in such a broad range of areas.   These include 
the non-expansion of the "nuclear club," the non-proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction, the exercise of stricter control over international 
processes threatening to become uncontrollable, the deterrence of the 
regional arms races that are currently under way....   Russia is ready to 
solve these problems and others in conjunction with civilized countries.  
 Furthermore, our country now theoretically has a chance of joining NATO. 
  Members of the North Atlantic alliance are discussing this prospect 
now.   It is still somewhat frightening to the NATO generals because it 
would bring about qualitative changes in the whole philosophy of the 
bloc.   It would turn NATO into a military-political organization of an 
international nature, and its actions would no longer be aimed against 
Russia.   On the contrary, our country could make a contribution to the 
reinforcement of world stability.   This is still, I repeat, only a 
theoretical possibility, but it cannot be discounted, because the 
advantages of NATO membership for Russia would outweigh the 
disadvantages. 

    [Chernukha]   Could this really happen after we fought so hard 
against the expansion of NATO? 

    [Karaganov]   The situation has changed radically.   After 10 years 
of euphoria, we have entered a new and extremely dangerous world.   The 
end of the "cold war" and the elimination of the threat of nuclear 
annihilation--which never really existed, because the system of mutual 
deterrence was so strong--created a false sense of security.   We were 
fighting with NATO, the West was accusing Russia of restricting the 
rights and liberties of the Chechens, and no one realized that the world 
had become much less stable and much more dangerous, and that almost all 
of the main threats were not where we had assumed they were.   All of 
this could have a sobering effect, because the whole geopolitical picture 
of the world is changing, and terrorism is only one of the new danger 
signs.   I hope that Russia and the West will reach a consensus and form 
a lasting alliance as a result of this situation. 

    [Chernukha]   Will the West, and America in particular, stop accusing 
Russia of excessive brutality toward the Chechen "freedom fighters"? 

    [Karaganov]   The West was "pressuring" Russia over Chechnya for two 
reasons.   First of all, it was simply a fine source of political 
leverage.   Second, we were criticized for using methods of warfare in 
Chechnya that had been obsolete in Europe, for example, for 50-100 years. 
  History repeats itself, however.   Now, after the bombing raids on 
Afghanistan, the Americans and the English have lost the moral right to 
criticize Russia.   Furthermore, Vladimir Putin's decision to "link" the 
problem of Chechnya with the problem of international terrorism was 
logical and correct, because Chechnya is a country of pre-existent 
terrorism.   The fact that the world still does not have a precise 
definition of the term "terrorism" is a different matter, and people have 
not learned that terrorists essentially are committing crimes against the 
interests of all mankind by setting up so many nonviable states, which 
are devoid of law and order and which have become a source of constant 
danger by inciting wars. 
    Both Russia and the United States must realize that terrorism has 
extremely deep roots, stemming from social, economic, and political 
circumstances.   That is why it must be combated not only and not so much 
by military actions, as by better social policy and interaction on the 
level of crime-fighting agencies, customs services, intelligence 
agencies, and police forces.   In short, we need a new security system, 
completely different from anything we had before.   Actually, this is 
something we can do in the future.   At this time, it is important for 
Russia to make use of this unique opportunity to reclaim its rightful 
position in the international coalition of developed countries against 
the challenges of the 21st century.   The fact that the leader in this 
process will be the United States instead of Russia is not important.   
The United States has greater resources.   Although Russia will not play 
a leading role, it nevertheless can, by virtue of historical factors and 
the distinctive features of its geographic location, play a much more 
significant role in this process than its own capabilities would allow. 

********

#10
Moscow Times
October 26, 2001
A Physicist With Stars in His Eyes
By Alexander Bratersky   

During the Soviet era, Dr. Roald Sagdeyev made a brilliant career as a
physicist. From 1961-70, he headed a laboratory at the Soviet Academy of
Sciences' Institute of Nuclear Physics, then moved on to the Institute of
High Temperature Physics. In 1973 Sagdeyev became director of the Institute
of Space Research. In this role he led the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project,
the first U.S.-Soviet joint space mission, and the international mission to
study Halley's Comet in 1985-86.

During perestroika, Sagdeyev emerged as a liberal democrat in the Sakharov
vein. He served as an advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev at three U.S.-Soviet
summits, and was elected a people's deputy. In 1990, Sagdeyev emigrated to
America, where he is now a professor of physics and director of the
East-West Center for Space Science at the University of Maryland, College
Park. Sagdeyev, 69, also serves as a senior associate at the Center for
Political and Strategic Studies, founded by his wife, Susan Eisenhower,
granddaughter of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Sagdeyev recently
spoke with The Moscow Times at his office at the University of Maryland.

Q:Do you agree with those who see Russia's decision to retire the Mir space
station as symbolic of the country's declining power and prestige?
A:It would have been absurd to keep the station in orbit. Many people don't
know, for instance, that the scientific equipment aboard the station was
terribly outdated. Mir had become one big maintenance project. The decision
to de-orbit Mir was the correct one. If some Russian provincial grannies
think that this indicates that Russia has lost its superpower status, then
someone has failed to explain the situation to them. I consider the real
symbol of Russia's lost status to be the Kursk submarine tragedy.

Q:How do you evaluate Russian-American cooperation on the international
space station? Is Russia viewed as an equal partner by the Americans?
A:The Americans never speak with one voice. If you talk to the engineers
and astronauts at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, they
acknowledge that Russia has made an enormous contribution to space
exploration. But if you talk to the congressmen who approve funding for the
international space station, you will hear a lot of criticism of Russia's
role. This criticism is mostly political, because the decision to invite
Russia to take part in the project was made by former President Bill
Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Now some Republicans are trying to use
this fact in staging a counterattack.

There are, however, some objective reasons for disgruntlement in Washington
with Russia's participation in the space station project. Moscow agreed to
work jointly on building the station, but there was a huge gap between the
promises made by [former Prime Minister Viktor] Chernomyrdin in his
agreement with Gore, and what Russia actually invested in construction.
That generated a lot of negative feeling in the United States. I have
explained to my American colleagues that Russia has no nefarious motives
here. It's simply that Chernomyrdin never took the agreements on the space
station as seriously as he did the contracts he signed as head of Gazprom.
For him, the summits with Gore were more like social occasions, and he
never really thought about the bill coming due.

Q:Are you a believer in space tourism?
A:I don't think we will be able to develop space tourism in any serious
way. The Americans are right when they object that the small change
collected from space tourists like Dennis Tito is a drop in the bucket
compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars already invested in the
space station. The station will never pay for itself this way in the United
States. In Russia, where the cost of building space vehicles is
significantly lower, revenue from tourism might have more of an impact. But
once the station is fully built, Russia could make much more efficient use
of it for serious research -- on the condition, of course, that the Russian
space program is ever funded adequately.

Q:Young Russians these days seem to have much less interest in space than
their predecessors. Do you find this to be true among your American
students as well?
A:For this generation of Americans, who grew up after the end of the Cold
War, the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, or
between capitalism and communism, no longer has any meaning. They do not
perceive the threat of nuclear war. Americans have generally lost interest
in manned space flight. They take for granted that advances in technology
allow for the regular performance of miracles. For the average American it
is hard to distinguish between television coverage of a NASA shuttle launch
and Star Trek-type television series. And once people get used to seeing
shuttle launches and space walks, their curiosity in space diminishes.

Q:Do you talk about Russia with your students?
A:Russia comes up infrequently in class discussions. A number of polls have
shown that interest in Russia, before the Sept. 11 events, was minimal and
shrinking. To me, it seems that in the 10 years since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, Americans have tried to follow the news from Russia, but most
of the news was about corruption, capital flight and poverty. In America,
respect is based on a simple judgment: winner or loser. To put it simply,
Russia is considered a loser. And that makes it less interesting.

Q:How do you assess the State Duma's recent vote to approve the importation
and storage of nuclear waste from abroad?
A:I have thought a lot about this topic, taking into account such factors
as the American practice of importing spent nuclear fuel. I think that the
State Duma did the right thing. Russia always brought back the fuel from
reactors that it built in other countries. America did the same. The logic
of the Duma's initiative was to allow some of the countries that produce
nuclear fuel to spare themselves the burden of recycling or storing the
spent fuel by sending it to Russia. American support for this initiative is
crucial, however, and to this point that support has been slow in coming.

Q:What is your stance on the 1973 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the
U.S. has made clear it plans to abandon?
A:On one hand, we need to understand the Americans' motivation. The current
administration supports the development of a national anti-missile defense.
For some in Washington, this has become an article of faith. For others it
has been equated with the second amendment of the American Constitution,
which ensures the right to keep and bear arms. These people are angered by
Russian and Chinese opposition to what they perceive as their right to
defend themselves. 

As for the ABM Treaty itself, some provisions are outdated. The treaty was
signed at the height of the stand-off between two superpowers. Today that
situation has changed fundamentally; one superpower has ceased to exist.
But this doesn't mean we should junk the treaty altogether. The extreme
position taken by certain of President Bush's advisors is not productive.
Perhaps they just want to scare Russia a little. 

Q:It is said that a relationship between two strong personalities often
results in conflict. How do you get on with your wife, Susan Eisenhower?
A:As a rule we have a very similar take on things, and we very rarely
quarrel. There are, of course, issues that my wife understands better than
I, and some that I have a better grasp of, such as Islam.

Q:Do you remember your first conversation with Ms. Eisenhower?
A:When we first met we had a long and quite serious conversation about the
military-industrial complex, and how her grandfather [President Dwight D.
Eisenhower] viewed it as a source of great danger. We then began to talk
about the roots of the Cold War and found that we had much in common.

Q:Do you plan to return to Russia?
A:When Susan and I got married, we dreamed that we would have two homes,
one in Russia and one in America. But reality intervened, and there was
soon nothing for scientists to do in Russia anymore. When Russia achieves
economic stability, and dedicates more time to science and culture, we will
revert to our original plan.

*******