CDI Russia Weekly-#182
30 November 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/

Visit CDI's web site: http://www.cdi.org

Contents:

1. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, Russia debates a military of the 
future. The defense minister unveiled a blueprint for professionalizing a 
sagging Army.
2. Moscow Times: Pavel Felgenhauer, Putin Serious About NATO.
3. Interfax: Putin reaches new heights of popularity among Russians.
4. Interfax: U.S. president's rating rises in U.S., Russia.
5. RFE/RL: Francesca Mereu, Russia: CIS Collective Security Treaty Members
Meet Over Afghanistan, Terrorism.
6. RIA Novosti: WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS: FIRST ROUND, FIRST SENSATIONS.
7. BBC: Child poverty grips ex-Soviet bloc.
8. Novye Izvestia:  Vyacheslav Shiryaev, INDEPENDENCE IN DEPENDENCE.
Reorientation of Russian oil exports to the US could create serious problems 
for Moscow.
9. US Department of State: U.S. Ambassador Vershbow on the New U.S.-Russian
Relationship. (Speech at Moscow State International Institute for Int. 
Relations)
10. eurasianet.org: Igor Torbakov, RUSSIAN PLANNERS REEXAMINING "GREAT 
GAME" CONCEPTS FOR CLUES ON FUTURE POLICY.
11. Rossiyskaya Gazeta: NATO Secretary General Interviewed on Russian-NATO 
Relations.
12. Moscow Times: Robin Munro, Politicians Urged to Address AIDS.
  
*******

#1
Christian Science Monitor
November 30, 2001
Russia debates a military of the future
The defense minister unveiled a blueprint for professionalizing a sagging
Army.
By Fred Weir
Special to The Christian Science Monitor 

MOSCOW - Two disastrous wars in Chechnya failed to convince Kremlin leaders
to abolish Russia's archaic conscription system and move toward a
professional military, but the harsh lessons of Sept. 11 and its aftermath
may have finally forced a solution. 
Last week, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, a close ally of President
Vladimir Putin, announced a sweeping blueprint for change, with a
completely redesigned, highly trained, and well-paid volunteer Russian Army
by 2010. That is a promise Russian leaders have been making - and breaking
- for more than a decade, as the country's dysfunctional Soviet-era
military continued inducting a quarter-million young men annually into a
life marked by misery, malnutrition, violence, and brutal hazing.

"As it stands, our Army is a monster that swallows up boys and destroys
their lives," says Valentina Melnikova, head of the Committee of Soldiers'
Mothers. "An Army like this is incapable of defending the country. It
poisons our society by taking young men and subjecting them to humiliation,
corruption, violence, and crime."

Running for reelection five years ago, former President Boris Yeltsin
pledged to end the draft by 2000. Upon regaining the Kremlin, he forgot his
promise. But experts believe that Mr. Putin, who projects the image of an
aggressive modernizer, is far more serious about forcing change. In any
case, they say, Russia can no longer afford to keep pleasing an aging corps
of conservative generals by exploiting the country's dwindling supply of
youthful manpower.

"Reform of the Army cannot be neglected any longer," says Valentin Rudenko,
an expert with the independent AVN-Interfax military news agency. "Russia's
present armed forces are little more than an expensive bluff. They are
incapable of seriously defending the country."

But reforming Russia's armed forces won't be easy. While a leaner and
meaner professional force might be more effective and less costly in the
long run, the plan is a political and financial nightmare in the short haul.

A Russian conscript currently earns just one ruble (about 3 cents) a day. A
volunteer kontraktnik soldier - of which the 1.2-million strong Russian
Army has 150,000 - costs 5,000 rubles ($167) per month, plus an 800-ruble
($27) daily bonus when serving in combat operations. Yet experts say the
Russian Army has been disappointed with the quality and discipline of its
present kontraktniki, whom it deploys mainly in Chechnya, and that the
Kremlin understands that wages, housing, benefits, and training will have
to be substantially improved if the military is ever to attract serious,
career-minded youth.

"To bring the Army and Navy up to strength in a professional form, you need
a large amount of money, which we don't have," Mr. Ivanov said. "But the
present state of the military also suits no one."

A growing number of Russian youths are evading the draft by feigning
illness, buying phony educational deferments, bribes, or going on the lam.

According to the Defense Ministry, just 12 percent of young men eligible
for service last spring were actually inducted, down from 25 percent in
2000. Russia's plunging birth rate over the past 20 years has shrunk the
pool of available manpower, while military conscription committees say 40
percent of those who do report for service are rejected for serious health
problems.

"Our Army is just corroding, like a junked automobile," says Andrei
Rodionov, an activist with the Anti-Militarist League, which counsels young
men to evade the draft.

Experts say the Kremlin is serious this time, if only because the US-led
war in Afghanistan has exposed the crushing deficiencies of Russia's
military. "Our military brass were saying ... that the American bombing
campaign in Afghanistan would produce no results. The sudden unraveling of
the Taliban shocked them," says Alexander Goltz, a military expert with the
weekly magazine Ezhenedelny Journal. "The ability of the US to wage
remote-control warfare, to destroy its enemies without the costly effort of
occupying territory, has been very eye-opening for our military leaders."

Ivan Saffranchuk, a military expert with the independent PIR Center for
Policy Studies in Moscow, says the Army spends 80 percent of its budget on
items unrelated to national defense. "The world is changing swiftly,
becoming more dangerous, and our country can't live much longer with an
Army that is incapable of performing the simplest military tasks."

Top military leaders have indicated opposition to the plan. In a
professional military, "the Army will be filled with people who see it only
as a source of income," retired General Leonid Ivashov told the state-run
ORT TV. "This is a very lighthearted, temporary approach that seems to
follow some political wind shifts, and it does not work."

But a poll conducted by the independent Center for Public Opinion Research
last month found that 66 percent of Russians favor abolition of
conscription. "There is the political will to do this now, the Kremlin
wants it, and most parliamentary forces support the idea," says Mr.
Rudenko. The plan's chief political weakness, critics say, is that it is
slated be finalized only in 2004, following Mr. Putin's reelection.

"Our generals deceived the president and slipped him a scheme that won't be
submitted for years," said Boris Nemtsov, leader of the Union of Right
Forces. "A program that runs until 2010, like this one, won't be
implemented because Putin won't be president by that time."

But even some of the military's toughest opponents are optimistic. "In the
past decade, our country has acquired new businesses, new banks, new laws
on private property, and so it's obvious that we need a new military," says
Ms. Melnikova. "This plan is realistic, and absolutely necessary."

*******

#2
Moscow Times
November 29, 2001
Putin Serious About NATO
By Pavel Felgenhauer  
 
When President Vladimir Putin visited the United States this month, he
announced that "Russia will have as close a relationship with NATO, as the
alliance is ready to have with us." Russian diplomatic sources say that
during the summit with U.S. President George W. Bush, Putin not only made
this far- reaching statement, but also complained that NATO Secretary
General George Robertson is meeting Moscow's overtures with entirely empty
declarations.

As Moscow moves closer to the West, there is a growing desire in some NATO
capitals to reward Putin and support his pro-Western policies. Therefore,
Moscow's complaints about NATO's intransigence were taken very seriously.

Officials in Washington and London suddenly understood that the Joint
Permanent Russia-NATO Council known as "19+1" is in fact "19 against 1."
NATO nations first establish a consolidated position on all issues and then
collide with Russia, which is not allowed to take part in preliminary
consultations.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair sent Robertson and all NATO nations a
letter spelling out a proposal to create a new Russia-North Atlantic
Council that would meet every two weeks or even more frequently. On a
number of issues (yet to be defined), Russia would be invited to take part
in NATO consensus-building discussions before a final decision is made.
This would make Russia a NATO member nation in all but name and give it an
effective veto on some issues.

If Blair's formula of engaging Russia with NATO is approved, and the bond
between Moscow and the West continues to strengthen, the number of NATO
issues Moscow is allowed to decide may also grow. In the not-too-distant
future, Russian accession to the alliance may become no more than a formality.

Last week, as Robertson visited Moscow to clarify the details of closer
cooperation, Putin announced that "Russia is not standing in line to join
NATO." This was interpreted as postponing for the time being the immediate
prospect of NATO expanding to Kamchatka. A great sigh of relief could be
heard in many NATO capitals, above all in Warsaw. Military and
nationalistic circles in Moscow that are against closer relations with the
West were also somewhat relieved.

However, Kremlin and Russian diplomatic sources involved in negotiations
with NATO interpret Putin's words differently: Russia wants to be in NATO
as quickly as possible, but does not want to stand in line together with
smaller former Communist nations. As a nuclear power occupying a large part
of Eurasia, Russia believes it is a special case and should be treated
differently from, say, Estonia. Moscow also wants to receive a special
invitation from NATO before it makes a formal request to join so as not to
be embarrassed by a rebuff.

Putin recently said, "it's also in our best interest to integrate Russia
into the contemporary international community in every sense of the word,
in defense, politically, and in security." Kremlin sources insist that
Putin is serious, while diplomats believe they can take Moscow into NATO
and also get full Article 5 guarantees that other members will help protect
Russia's long, vulnerable Siberian borders against Chinese or Islamic
threats from the east and south.

The current war against terrorism gave Moscow an opportunity to forge
closer ties with the West despite Russia's weakness, its brutal and
unsuccessful war in Chechnya, its undemocratic practices and its unreformed
military. In Moscow many believe that in the coming years relations between
China and the United States may reach boiling point over Taiwan, giving
Russia another excellent opportunity to integrate fully with the West and
enter NATO.

Last week, I visited Warsaw and NATO's Brussels headquarters. Polish
officials who believed they had built a permanent firewall separating them
from Russia by joining NATO are furious and are openly challenging Blair's
initiative. 

Russian diplomats in NATO, for their part, confirmed that Admiral Valentin
Kuznetsov has been selected to become the new head of the Russian military
mission to NATO. Kuznetsov is one of Russia's best military diplomats, has
a good command of English and has made a career in arms control talks with
Washington. Before Kuznetsov, Moscow appointed to NATO army generals who
did not speak much English and were trained to lead tank assaults over the
Rhine. Today, the time to negotiate in earnest has finally come and Moscow
seems to be ready.

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.

*******

#3
Putin reaches new heights of popularity among Russians 
Interfax

Moscow, 29 November: The rating of President Vladimir Putin is 
unprecedentedly high. Eighty per cent of Russians approve of his activities. 
Putin's rating has gone up 5 per cent within the past month. It was 75 per 
cent in October.

18 per cent do not approve of Putin's activities. The index was 19 per cent a 
month ago.

Putin now has the highest rating of his entire presidency, the All-Russia 
Public Opinion Research Centre told Interfax on Thursday [29 November] with 
reference to two polls of 1,600 Russians in late October and on 23-28 
November. Information about people who did not give a coherent answer is not 
cited. Their number is the difference between 100 per cent and the number of 
coherent answers.

Fifty-three per cent of the respondents approve of the activities of Prime 
Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, while 34 per cent think the opposite (the indices 
were 48 per cent and 33 per cent a month ago).

The correlation is 46 per cent and 45 per cent for the government (42 per 
cent and 45 per cent a month ago).

The confidence rating in Putin is also high. Fifty-two per cent of the 
respondents named Putin when asked to name five to six politicians they 
trust. The index was 47 per cent in October. (Only the names of the top ten 
politicians are cited.)

Putin is followed by Sergey Shoygu (17 per cent in November and 19 per cent 
in October), Communist Party leader Gennadiy Zyuganov (16 per cent and 16 per 
cent), Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov (12 per cent and 12 per cent), 
ex-Prime Minister and Duma deputy Yevgeniy Primakov (9 per cent and 5 per 
cent), Deputy Prime Minister Valentina Matviyenko (8 per cent and 8 per 
cent), Duma Vice-Speaker Vladimir Zhirinovskiy (7 per cent and 8 per cent), 
Kemerovo governor Aman Tuleyev (7 per cent and 7 per cent), Yabloko leader 
Grigoriy Yavlinskiy (6 per cent and 7 per cent) and Moscow Mayor Yuriy 
Luzhkov (6 per cent and 9 per cent).

Seventeen per cent of the polled said that no Russian politician could be 
trusted (the index was 19 per cent in October).

*******

#4
U.S. president's rating rises in U.S., Russia

MOSCOW. Nov 29 (Interfax) - Many Russian citizens who did not really like 
U.S. President George W. Bush only recently are changing their opinions. Over 
the past two months, the number of those who sympathize with Bush has 
increased by 10% (from 22% in September to 32% in November.) And the number 
of those who dislike the U.S. president has decreased from 43% in September 
to the current 37%, the Public Opinion Fund announced following polls among 
1,500 urban and rural respondents on September 22 and November 24. 

 Eighty-nine percent of the respondents know about President Vladimir 
Putin's recent visit to the U.S. Forty-one percent of those polled think that 
the latest meeting between the Russian and American presidents produced 
important results. Only 19% of the respondents polled in June expressed the 
same opinion about the Russian-American summit held in June. Twenty-six 
percent of those polled do not consider the latest Putin-Bush meeting 
important. In June such an opinion was shared by 34% of respondents. 

*******

#5
Russia: CIS Collective Security Treaty Members Meet Over Afghanistan, 
Terrorism
By Francesca Mereu

The foreign ministers of the six former Soviet member-states of the 
Collective Security Treaty met yesterday in Moscow. The officials -- from 
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan -- discussed 
possible solutions to the situation in Afghanistan and the fight against 
international terrorism.

Moscow, 29 November 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The situation in Afghanistan dominated 
yesterday's talks in Moscow between foreign ministers from the six 
member-states of the Collective Security Treaty (CST). 

Speaking at a press conference following the meeting, the officials said the 
CST had pledged to improve cooperation between its member-states. Russian 
Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also said the group would focus on contributing 
to a workable solution for Afghanistan's political future: "All the members 
of the [Collective Security] Treaty agreed on the necessity of improving the 
mechanism of our cooperation. We spoke about it today during our meeting as 
well. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, all the Collective Security Treaty 
countries are taking part in the antiterrorist coalition. We will continue 
our coordinated international effort not only in finishing the military 
operation, but also in the political arrangement in Afghanistan." 

Established in 1992, the CST has in the past focused largely on joint 
security concerns in Central Asia, which was seen as a breeding ground for 
Islamic extremist groups. The current conflict in Afghanistan has heightened 
interest in the area even further, particularly as Uzbekistan -- and to a 
lesser degree CST members Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan -- have 
offered support to U.S.-led efforts there.

Yesterday's meeting took place as Afghan delegates met in Bonn, Germany, for 
a second day of talks on forming a broad-based interim government to replace 
the Taliban militia. Ivanov said Afghanistan's new government must include 
all the country's ethnic groups if it is to be successful. He said it should 
also contribute to an ongoing international fight against terrorism: "We 
thing that Afghanistan should have a broad-based leadership that would 
represent all the main ethnic groups, a government that would carry out its 
responsibilities before the international community in eliminating terrorist 
camps, centers of organized crime and drug business threatening the 
international community from the territory of Afghanistan." 

Collective Security Treaty Secretary-General Valery Nikolayenko said the 
ministers also discussed how to better coordinate their foreign policy 
decisions and military and technical cooperation. Saying the treaty is key to 
"guaranteeing security and stability in the post-Soviet world," Nikolayenko 
said the member-states will also proceed on improving the legal provisions of 
the CST in order to facilitate better coordination. 

Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Askanyan praised the meeting, saying that 
fighting international terrorism has always been a primary goal of the CST 
countries: "Our meeting was really useful today. It was our first meeting 
after 11 September. But I'd also like to remind you that even before 11 
September the main goal of the member-states of the Security Treaty was to 
fight against international terrorism. As our general secretary, Mr. 
Nikolayenko, pointed out, the fight against international terrorism was one 
of the main topics of our meeting today. I believe that after today's meeting 
we will work much better in that direction." 

Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov today asked the entire Commonwealth of 
Independent States (CIS) to play an essential part in global security and the 
fight against terrorism. Interfax quotes Ivanov as saying at a meeting of CIS 
foreign ministers in Moscow that it is "extremely important" for CIS states 
to play a leading role in global security. The CIS, which will have its 
10-year anniversary summit tomorrow in Moscow, is a loose 12-member 
organization uniting the former Soviet republics, minus the three Baltic 
states.

******

#6
WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS: FIRST ROUND, FIRST SENSATIONS 

MOSCOW, November 29, 2001. /RIA Novosti correspondent/--On Thursday 
second-round competitions of the FIDE Chess Championships started in Moscow. 
They will last till tomorrow. 

Twelve Russian chess-players will be competing for the world cup. Among them 
are Alexander Morozevich, Yevgeny Bareyev, Petr Svidler, Alexei Dreyev and 
Alexander Grishchuk, all rating in the FIDE top twenty. 

The main sensation of the first round was the victory of Chinese little-known 
chess player Zhang Pengxiang over ex-world champion Anatoly Karpov. 

The world women's chess championships are running in Moscow simultaneously 
with the men's world championships. Only four out of seven female chess 
players will be competing in the second round, namely Alisa Gallyamova, 
Tatyana Grabuzova, Yekaterina Kovalevskaya and Alexandra Kostenyuk. 

Veteran chess player Nona Gaprindashvili from Georgia, a many-time world 
champion, was among those who dropped out of the first round. 

******

#7
BBC
29 November 2001
Child poverty grips ex-Soviet bloc
By the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Switzerland 

The United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) says child poverty is widespread 
in eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union. 

A new report - looking at the situation in these regions in the 10 years 
since the end of the Cold War - found that almost 18 million children were 
living in conditions of extreme poverty, existing on less than $2.15 a day. 

A further cause for concern was the increasing numbers of children living in 
institutions or being put up for adoption. 
 
Unicef says the report - called Decade of Transition, and published in Geneva 
- is the first comprehensive review of the social effects brought about by 10 
years of change. 

It points to the growing number of families across the region who have been 
pushed into poverty as the value of their wages falls. 

Unicef also found a growing gap in health conditions among the 27 countries 
examined. 

In Russia and Ukraine, for example, one child in seven is malnourished, while 
in Albania, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan the figure rises to one in three. 

Lack of education 

An area of particular concern is the increased number of children now living 
in institutions or being put up for adoption. 
 
Although the birth rate is falling right across the region, 1.5 million 
children are living in out-of-home care - that is 150,000 more than 10 years 
ago. 

The report also reveals falling educational standards. 

In Central Asian countries less than half of 15- to 18-year olds now attend 
secondary school. Ten years ago more than two-thirds did attend. 

One positive finding from the report though is that levels of child mortality 
are beginning to fall in some of the countries assessed. 

Publishing the report, Unicef calls for a sustained attack on child poverty, 
including making the issue central to national policy. 

The report also calls for regular and independent inspection of institutional 
childcare facilities and a greater commitment to family support services. 

*******

#8
Novye Izvestia
November 29, 2001
INDEPENDENCE IN DEPENDENCE
Reorientation of Russian oil exports to the US could create serious 
problems for Moscow
Author Vyacheslav Shiryaev
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
RUSSIAN OIL COMPANIES DO NOT DEAL WITH THE UNITED STATES NOWADAYS. 
THEY MOSTLY OPERATE IN EUROPE. IT MEANS THAT REORIENTATION TOWARD THE 
UNITED STATES WILL COST THEM THEIR TRADITIONAL MARKETS, AS HAS ALREADY 
HAPPENED WHEN THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED.
Russia should think twice before becoming an oil supplier to America 

     The United States desperately needs stability of the global oil 
market and, naturally, low oil prices. Paradoxical as it may sound, it 
is the United States itself that is the major factor of 
destabilization in the market nowadays.

     American users are number one global oil importer. The United 
States uses 27.8% all oil extracted worldwide. It follows therefore 
that any sneeze coming from America (be it a reduction or increase of 
oil reserves, be it a warm or too cold winter, to say nothing of the 
state of economy) has an immediate global effect. Absolutely all oil 
exporters feel it - from OPEC members to Mexico, Norway, and Russia. 
this is, however, a problem Washington prefers not to notice much less 
discuss.

     The United States is worried much more about another problem, 
namely its dependence on oil from the Middle East. OPEC countries and 
Canada with Mexico (these latter two are not OPEC members) account for 
74% all oil the United States imports. It is inevitable therefore that 
any military-political conflict in the region immediately affects 
prices and threatens with suspension of oil deliveries. Can Russia 
play the role of a kind of oil guarantor official Washington has been 
talking about? Unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future. Besides, 
this is not something that falls in line with Russia's national 
interests.

     Russian oil companies do not deal with the United States 
nowadays. They mostly operate in Europe. It means that reorientation 
toward the United States will cost them their traditional markets, as 
has already happened when the Soviet Union collapsed. The federal 
program Energy Strategy of Russia until 2010 states that twenty years 
from now Russia will be extracting 27 million tons more than it did in 
2000.

     There is another problem here as well. Relations of political 
partnership never persuade the United States to slacken its harsh 
position with regard to what it considers its national interests and 
the need to defend them. Every OPEC decision to increase or cut 
production is made under pressure from Washington. As soon as Russia 
takes the place of OPEC and starts selling oil to America, it will 
immediately feel this pressure. Only time will tell who will 
eventually become dependent on whom.

*******

#9
US Department of State
28 November 2001 
Text: U.S. Ambassador Vershbow on the New U.S.-Russian Relationship 
(Nov. 23: Moscow State International Institute for Int. Relations)

The United States and Russia can look forward to "a close and mutually
beneficial partnership -- and perhaps, an alliance ... that provides
lasting security and well-being for both countries," said U.S.
Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow November 23.

Speaking at the Moscow State International Institute for International
Relations, Vershbow acknowledged continuing differences despite "the
spirit of warmth and trust that now exists."

"But disagreements between partners do not alter the common values and
beliefs that unite them," he said. "Indeed, the unprecedented nature
of the new threats, and the mutual interest we share in defeating
those who seek to destroy our civilization, allow us to view other
issues in the broader perspective of our new partnership."

In Vershbow's view, the most significant accomplishment of the recent
summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush was
the agreement to reduce dramatically each country's arsenal of nuclear
warheads.

Differing points of view on the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
and the urgency of developing missile defenses matter less than the
determination of both presidents to develop a new strategic framework
for the long term, he said, adding, "The new framework should enable
our two countries to meet future threats together, including through
collaboration on missile defense."

Regarding Russia's relationship with NATO, Vershbow noted that Bush
and Putin "declared that Russia and NATO are increasingly acting as
allies against terrorism and other new threats, and that the
NATO-Russia relationship should reflect this alliance.

"Our common task is to devise new mechanisms for cooperation,
coordinated action, and joint decisions that can integrate Russia more
closely in NATO's work."

He said he believes that the NATO Allies will be "increasingly
prepared to engage Russia as a full and equal partner" as a result of
cooperation in the war against terrorism. Such engagement would mean
"working with Russia from the earliest stage -- that is, before NATO
members have taken their own decision. The goal should be
implementation of a common strategy that NATO and Russia have
developed together, just as the NATO Allies do now. For this to be
effective, Russia needs to develop the ability to work toward and
achieve consensus."

Vershbow also cautioned that recent battlefield successes in
Afghanistan do not mean that the war against terrorism is over.

"We will not rest until we have defeated al Qaida and other terrorist
networks -- and our highest priority will be to keep terrorists from
acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

"This will be a long, difficult struggle; but it is one that unites
Russia and the United States and one which we are determined to win."

Following is the text of Vershbow's speech as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

Moscow State International Institute for International Relations
(MGIMO)
November 23, 2001
The New U.S.-Russian Relationship
Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation
(as prepared for delivery)

I last spoke at MGIMO two years ago when I was the U.S. Ambassador to
NATO. This was just after the Kosovo campaign, and our relations were
still somewhat tense. It's a great pleasure to return here today, just
one week after our two presidents held their historic summit in the
United States, with U.S.-Russian relations on the upswing.

I studied Russian and Soviet Affairs in the early 1970s and first
served here as a diplomat from 1979 to 1981, during the height of the
Cold War. As I look around this audience today, I think that I can
safely say that for most of you, the Cold War is only a dim memory.
You are less encumbered than my generation by the prejudices and
habits of the past. You are more open to new ideas in international
affairs and innovative approaches to our diplomatic relations. Your
work as diplomats and experts in international relations will help
shape Russia's future during the coming century.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts about our two countries, and,
for my part, I would like to share with you some observations about
U.S.-Russian relations, having returned a few days ago from last
week's summit.

The meetings between Presidents Bush and Putin last week marked a
dramatic redefinition of the relationship between our two countries as
we begin the 21st century. By their words and actions, the two leaders
made clear that Russia and the United States now share a determination
to enter this new century on the basis of common interests and a
shared commitment to the values of democracy, the free market and the
rule of law.

They stated unequivocally that the Cold War is behind us. In its place
we can look forward to a close and mutually beneficial partnership --
and perhaps, an alliance -- between Russia and the United States that
provides lasting security and well-being for both countries.

There is no question that the terrorist attacks of September 11 lent
urgency to both sides' efforts to build a stronger, more solid
partnership between the United States and Russia. After missed
opportunities and false starts, our two countries have finally taken
the necessary steps to overcome the legacy of the past and to
understand each other as partners, and not as rivals.

The terrible events of September 11 were an attack on the entire
civilized world, and helped bring our two nations closer. President
Putin was the first foreign leader to speak with President Bush after
the attacks and to express his sympathy and solidarity. And he backed
that up with an unprecedented offer of political, military and
intelligence support. Moreover, the Russian government and ordinary
citizens of this great country extended the hand of friendship to the
United States after one of its darkest days. We now realize more than
ever before that the new challenges of the 21st century demand that
the United States and Russia stand together, not apart.

This does not mean that there are no differences between us. Our
national interests will not always coincide and our viewpoints will
diverge on significant international issues. But disagreements between
partners do not alter the common values and beliefs that unite them.
Indeed, the unprecedented nature of the new threats, and the mutual
interest we share in defeating those who seek to destroy our
civilization, allow us to view other issues in the broader perspective
of our new partnership.

The meetings last week between our two presidents in Washington and
Crawford confirmed that our two countries have embarked on a truly new
relationship. I participated in many of the meetings that took place
and I can testify to the spirit of warmth and trust that now exists.

Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the Summit was the
agreement to reduce dramatically our arsenals of strategic nuclear
warheads -- and to do so without the years of negotiations that used
to precede such decisions during the Cold War. President Bush declared
that the United States will reduce to a level between 1700 and 2200
warheads over the next decade (down from over 7000 today). President
Putin announced that Russia will make comparable reductions. In the
coming months, we will codify these reductions, to include measures
for verification.

The Summit also highlighted our cooperation to prevent or counter the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This includes continued
efforts to improve the physical security and accounting of nuclear
materials so that terrorists and those who support them can never
acquire such weapons. Of special importance was a joint statement on
"bioterrorism" -- very timely after the recent anthrax incidents in
the United States. Russian and American officials and experts will
work together to prevent terrorists from acquiring biological weapons
and on related health measures to protect our populations.

We continue to have different points of view about the ABM Treaty and
the urgency of developing ballistic missile defenses. But we have
agreed to keep working on the issue. The Treaty prohibits the testing
that the United States must conduct in order to develop effective, but
limited missile defenses against rogue-state threats who are acquiring
the technology for long-range ballistic missiles. Whether or not we
find a solution to the short-term question of the ABM Treaty, both
Presidents made clear their determination to develop a new strategic
framework for the long term. The new framework should be more in
keeping with our new relationship and take account of the changes in
the strategic situation since the ABM Treaty was signed 29 years ago.
The new framework should enable our two countries to meet future
threats together, including through collaboration on missile defense.

The two Presidents devoted considerable time to Russia's relationship
with NATO. They declared that Russia and NATO are increasingly acting
as allies against terrorism and other new threats, and that the
NATO-Russia relationship should reflect this alliance. Our common task
is to devise new mechanisms for cooperation, coordinated action and
joint decisions that can integrate Russia more closely in NATO's work.
We both are determined that Russia -- as a democracy -- should be part
of a Europe that includes all democratic nations and that respects the
sovereignty and independence of all nations. As a former U.S.
Ambassador to NATO, I can assure you that the United States is
committed to improving and strengthening the NATO-Russia relationship.
Today's talks by the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, with
President Putin have advanced that goal.

I believe that the NATO Allies, as they tackle new threats such as
terrorism, will be increasingly prepared to engage Russia as a full
and equal partner. This would mean working with Russia from the
earliest stage -- that is, before NATO members have taken their own
decision. The goal should be implementation of a common strategy that
NATO and Russia have developed together, just as the NATO Allies do
now. For this to be effective, Russia needs to develop the ability to
work toward and achieve consensus.

The new partnership between the United States and Russia goes beyond
agreements on nuclear weapons and stronger relations with NATO. It
encompasses trade, assistance, space cooperation, law enforcement and
a whole range of matters affecting the well-being of the citizens of
the Russian Federation and the United States. At our Embassy, I
coordinate the work of 28 different U.S. Government agencies, all
working on some aspect of the bilateral relationship.

Presidents Putin and Bush have pledged to improve contacts and
exchanges between our people, to increase prosperity through trade and
investment, and to strengthen further the integration of Russia into
the world economy. An important element of our efforts to forge closer
economic ties is our support for Russia's membership in the World
Trade Organization. The United States is committed to working with
Russia to accelerate its accession to the WTO, based on the conditions
that other member countries have had to meet. Most important, in this
regard, is that Russia improve market access for other countries'
firms and products, and provide a level playing field for all firms,
Russian and non-Russian. President Putin's government has committed
itself to an impressive legislative agenda of structural reforms,
including those to bring Russia's laws into conformity with WTO
standards, and we urge this process to continue.

The successful trade mission led by Secretary of Commerce Don Evans
last month demonstrated the renewed interest on the part of U.S.
companies in doing business in Russia. And the new strength of our
economic relations was reinforced by the recent completion of the
Caspian Pipeline, the largest U.S.-Russian joint investment to date,
which delivers oil from the Caspian Sea region to international
markets. We look forward to other U.S.-Russian projects, including the
Sakhalin I oil and gas project, and joint ventures in the
high-technology area. To support Sakhalin I -- which could represent
$12 billion in capital investment and 10,000 new jobs -- and other Far
East projects, the United States intends to request permission to open
a branch office of our Vladivostok Consulate in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

To further develop our economic relationship, a private-sector
Russian-American Business Dialogue, established last July, will
present recommendations to our governments early next year concerning
ways to eliminate obstacles to future trade and investment, strengthen
the rule of law, and increase commerce between our two countries.

At the Washington Summit we agreed on an additional initiative to help
an area of Russia's reform program that is lagging behind the rest,
namely, banking. The Russian-American Banking Dialogue will begin
meeting this winter in order to support efforts to reform the banking
sector in Russia, to sustain economic growth, and to give more Russian
individuals and businesses -- especially small and medium-sized
businesses -- access to private capital.

The United States and Russia speak with a common voice today not only
about political issues and the need for economic progress but also
about the principles and values that form the basis of our societies:
human rights, religious freedom, free speech and independent media,
and the rule of law.

In this context, we welcome the launch of a Russian-American Media
Entrepreneurship Dialogue. This new initiative will help build a
competitive media sector in Russia and improve the conditions
necessary for media to flourish in Russia as a business. This dialogue
will bring together information executives, journalists and NGO
representatives who will work together to develop ways to put
independent media on a solid financial basis while upholding the
highest journalistic standards.

The gravest threat today to our national existence, to our economic
prosperity and to our freedom is, of course, from terrorists who have
declared war on the civilized world. The heartless attacks in New York
and Washington on September 11 that took the lives of so many innocent
people -- not only Americans but also hundreds of citizens of other
countries, including Russia -- have no justification. These terrorist
attacks had nothing to do with a clash of civilizations or religions
-- in fact, they were attacks against civilization and religion.

The United States and Russia now stand shoulder-to-shoulder in a
united front against all forms of international terrorism, including
the use of biological agents. And we agree on the need to undertake
joint efforts against nuclear proliferation, organized crime and drug
trafficking. Together we will defeat all those who would undermine the
foundations of civil society that all of us now cherish.

Both our countries are committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan
when hostilities cease and the Taliban has been completely defeated.
We support efforts by the United Nations to make possible a
multi-ethnic post-Taliban government that respects human rights and
exports neither terror nor drugs.

Recent dramatic gains on the battlefield do not mean that the war
against terrorism is over. And indeed, that war will not end in
Afghanistan. This is a long-term struggle to eradicate global
terrorism wherever it exists. In President Putin's words: "We have to
fight the war against terrorism do kontsa (to the very end)." We will
not rest until we have defeated al Qaida and other terrorist networks
-- and our highest priority will be to keep terrorists from acquiring
weapons of mass destruction.

This will be a long, difficult struggle; but it is one that unites
Russia and the United States and one which we are determined to win.
Russia and the United States -- working together as close partners
with other freedom-loving nations of the world -- have the opportunity
to make the decades ahead an era of peace and progress.

This is the challenge for all of you here today -- a new generation of
Russians growing up in a new era of freedom and democracy. It is up to
you to work together with your counterparts in America, Europe and in
other countries to build a world safe, free and prosperous for the
generations that will come after you.

*******

#10
eurasianet.org
November 28, 2001
RUSSIAN PLANNERS REEXAMINING "GREAT GAME" CONCEPTS FOR CLUES ON FUTURE POLICY 
By Igor Torbakov

The attempt to stabilize Afghanistan is sure to spawn new geopolitical 
challenges for countries in the region. With Russian diplomats and military 
"advisors" now returning to Kabul for the first time since 1992, strategic 
planners in Moscow are looking to the past for guidance on current policy 
making. Many are coming to the conclusion that, based on historical patterns, 
a large Russian presence in Afghanistan is needed to defend Moscow's national 
security interests.

One influential Russian strategist being rediscovered is General Andrei 
Evgenievich Snesarev. Snesarev, whose life spanned the reigns of Alexander II 
to Joseph Stalin, was an outstanding Russian military geographer and traveler 
in Central Asia. Endowed with fantastic linguistic skills, Snesarev served at 
the headquarters of the Turkestan military district, where he became a 
leading figure in the Great Game in Afghanistan and Northern India, played 
out between the Russian and British Empires during the late 19th and early 
20th centuries.

Snesarev in the early 1900s, in the words of his contemporary biographer, 
"was not only a specialist in geopolitics, but had himself become a 
geopolitical factor. His reconnoitering and visits to Khans and Rajas were a 
serious headache of the Anglo-Indian government." He summed up his vast 
experience in the region in two geopolitical treatises: "India as the Key 
Factor in the Central Asian Question" and "Afghanistan."

Recently, Russkii Geopoliticheskii Sbornik, a publication close to the 
Russian military, reprinted a portion of Snesarev's book on Afghanistan, 
which was first published in Moscow in 1921. The book was developed out of a 
lecture course he delivered in 1919 to Russian troops on high alert and 
waiting orders to invade British India via Afghanistan. The invasion didn't 
happen, but Snesarev nevertheless was instrumental in organizing the 
rebellions of the Pashtun tribes in the rear of the British army, and in 
helping to defeat the British near Merv, now in Turkmenistan.

As the anti-terrorism campaign continues and efforts to forge a broad-based 
provisional government in Afghanistan commence, Russian analysts are finding 
some of Snesarev's ideas very pertinent. 

First, the recent events in Afghanistan demonstrate the high level of 
interdependence of the larger region surrounding this country. This wouldn't 
be a novelty for Snesarev. Focusing on the southern part of what Halford 
Mackinder termed the "Heartland," Snesarev introduced the notion of the 
"Greater Central Asia." It comprises, he wrote, "our [Russian] Turkestan, 
Khiva, Bukhara, Tibet, Kashgaria, Pamir, Afghanistan, Eastern Persia, 
Baluchistan, [northern] India." This "heart of Asia," he believed, is a "key 
to world politics."

Snesarev may well prove to be right. "Even the Great Oil Game of the 21st 
century is far less significant than the global geopolitical role of the 
'Greater Central Asia,'" Oleg Zotov, a scholar at the Moscow Institute of 
Oriental Studies, wrote in the most recent issue of the journal Vostok.

Snesarev's vision of Afghanistan's significance seems to be quite topical as 
well. He never regarded this poor land as a valuable asset per se. Yet in his 
opinion, Afghanistan was a very important transit territory, an ideal 
bridgehead for an attack against British India. 

Present-day Moscow regional analysts have somewhat transformed Snesarev's 
idea. For example, an analytical article in the Moskovskie Novosti weekly 
recently explored possible reasons for all the geopolitical jockeying in 
Afghanistan during the past decade. "There can be only one answer," the 
newspaper said. "Afghanistan is not important in itself but as a transit 
country for shipping the landlocked energy resources of Central Asia." 

The Russian general can also be considered a precursor of Zbigniew 
Brzezinski, who once labeled the region of Central Asia "Eurasian Balkans." 
In the early 1900s, Snesarev argued that, historically, Central Asia is an 
extremely unstable and volatile region. Politically, he noted, the region was 
often located on the periphery of great empires, including those established 
by Alexander the Great and the Mongols. The lone major exception to this rule 
came in the 14th century, when Timur established is his empire with Central 
Asia at its center.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Snesarev contended, the Russian Empire and 
the Soviet Union acted as the de facto legitimate successors of Gengiz Khan 
and Timur. As one contemporary Russian scholar notes, Russian imperial and 
Soviet dominance together amount to 120 years - a "world record of control 
over such a turbulent region." 

Drawing on Snesarev's geopolitical teaching, Russian analysts assert that 
outside control over the Greater Central Asia is needed to fight the 
"historic forces of anarchy." Otherwise, argues the historian A.I. Fursov, a 
lack of foreign involvement enables the type of turmoil that has recently 
plagued Afghanistan. Under such circumstances, Fursov contends in Russkii 
Istoricheskii Zhurnal, "the developments and changes within the region may 
negatively affect the neighboring countries, for example Russia or China." 

If left to its own devices, Greater Central Asia will turn into a 
"self-perpetuating fluctuation," a "gray area" that "will destabilize its 
neighbors and the world as a whole," Fursov contends. In its present state, 
points out the Oriental Studies scholar Zotov, "the region of [Greater] 
Central Asia is under a constant risk of turning into a semblance of the Wild 
Steppe of the past." This scenario, says Zotov, is fraught with grave danger 
for Russia's security interests. 

The total length of Russia's borders with the Central Asian region is about 
6,500 kilometers, or over 4,000 miles. As the Colonel S.V. Vostrikov lamented 
in his recent book, The Crises in the Post-Soviet Asia, "the newly formed 
borders of the Russian Federation are so 'transparent,' if not to say 
'chimerical,' that they simply cannot play their basic defensive role."

Seeking to bolster Russia's sense of security, Moscow analysts are embracing 
Snesarev's idea of two types of frontier -- namely a state border and a 
so-called strategic border. "It is already a hundred years ago that General 
Snesarev pointed out that Russia's security frontier - whether some one likes 
it or not - runs not along the Aral or Amu-Darya, but along the Hindu-Kush 
[mountain range]," wrote the influential web publication Russkii Zhurnal. 

Editor's Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist who specializes in CIS 
political affairs. He holds an MA in History from Moscow State University and 
a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He was a Regional Exchange 
Scholar at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for 
Scholars, Washington DC, 1995; Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian 
History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; and Kiev 
correspondent for the Paris-based weekly Russkaya mysl, 1998-2000. 

******

#11
NATO Secretary General Interviewed on Russian-NATO Relations  

Rossiyskaya Gazeta 
24 November 2001
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with George Robertson by Vladimir Bogdanov: "Does a Plant 
Have to Be Ripped Out to Examine Its Roots? -- NATO Secretary General 
George Robertson Answers Questions From Our Correspondent" 

    [Bogdanov] Mr. Robertson, do you think Russia 
is seeking to join NATO, or is that the wish of the leadership of the 
North Atlantic bloc? 

    [Robertson] We aren't talking at all today about Russia's joining 
NATO. President Putin made it unequivocally clear to me at the meeting in 
Brussels that Russia does not intend to wait in line and submit an 
application to NATO. 

    There is only one way to join. An application must be submitted and 
NATO's military and civil standards must be adopted in one's own country. 
But this question is not on the agenda right now. Both President Putin 
and the leadership of the NATO countries agree that we are now living in 
an era of unprecedented cooperation between Russia and the West since the 
time of the joint battle against fascism 60 years ago. 

    In the past we were divided by fences, walls, ideologies and weapons. 
Today the threat to the Russian people is similar to the threats that the 
peoples of the NATO countries are dealing with. International terrorism 
has been transformed into global terrorism. Why should we solve these 
problems separately? International criminals have turned into global 
criminals. So there is no point in pretending that borders serve as a 
kind of insurance policy and can protect against international terrorism. 
So tanks and infantry units today no longer provide an absolute guarantee 
to any country against the infiltration of terrorists. 

    [Bogdanov] In this connection, perhaps, it makes sense to develop a 
new security system in the world that would replace NATO? 

    [Robertson] We are quite pleased with the existing security system. I 
have never believed that it was necessary to rip out some plant in order 
to periodically examine its roots. 

    I think we need to work in order to refine the existing mechanism by 
making it more valuable. We must recognize that we will either live and 
work together or we will perish separately. 

    At the press conference that G. Robertson held in Moscow on Thursday, 
he touched on other topics as well. 

    Answering a question about NATO's attitude toward the events in 
Chechnya, the secretary general declared that since the events of 11 
September NATO has understood that Russia's warnings about the danger of 
terrorism were not unfounded, and now "looks with different eyes" at what 
is happening in Chechnya. "Russia's long-term objective is a peaceful, 
stable Chechen Republic as part of the Russian Federation, where citizens 
are under the protection of the Russian Constitution and which does not 
serve as a base for international terrorism. This objective is fully 
shared and supported by us," he noted. 

    The secretary general expressed confidence that Russia and NATO would 
triumph together in the struggle against global terrorism. "In the 
mountains of southern Afghanistan, in the alleys of Kandahar, Usama Bin 
Ladin will have to save himself by running. Throughout the world, from 
Chechnya to Iraq, from the Philippines to the Balkans, terrorists must 
know that no political or religious motives can justify murder of 
completely innocent civilians," he declared. 

    What would be in keeping with the new level of cooperation would 
Russia's participation "periodically and on specific issues" in meetings 
of the NATO Council, the secretary general believes. Such a forum could 
be called the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Assessing the work of 
the RF-NATO Permanent Joint Council, he declared that "this structure has 
had a certain amount of success in the past," although "some problems 
were never settled." 

    In his opinion, it is imperative to create a partnership formula 
"that would contain guarantees both from Russia and from the alliance." 
This new relationship "will not come by itself" and "will require a lot 
of effort." "The main thing is that we have a desire to listen and move 
forward," the secretary general noted. 

*******

#12
Moscow Times
November 30, 2001
Politicians Urged to Address AIDS
By Robin Munro 
Staff Writer 

Foreign and local AIDS experts are urging Russian politicians to do more
about AIDS in the runup to World AIDS Day on Saturday.

"The public is really worried about HIV/AIDS, but for some reason the
politicians are busy with other things," Vadim Pokrovsky, chief of the
Russia AIDS Center, said at a news conference Thursday. 

By the end of this year Russia, which has one of the world's
fastest-growing HIV infection rates, is predicted to have 200,000
registered cases of HIV. According to a United Nations report released
Wednesday, HIV is spreading faster in the former Soviet bloc than anywhere
else in the world, with the numbers in Russia doubling annually since 1998.

Although as yet few in Russia are sick from AIDS, 99 percent of those
infected are expected to die in the next 20 years. The loss, mainly of
young men, would lower the nation's average life expectancy and the birth
rate in a population that is already declining, Pokrovsky said. The economy
is also likely to suffer. 

Although politicians have often justified the scant resources to fight
HIV/AIDS -- 120 million rubles ($4 million) in this year's budget -- by
saying there was not enough money, funds always seemed available for other
unexpected events, Pokrovsky said.

"There are many dubious expenditures by our government. In many cases money
spent on HIV/AIDS could be more effective," he said.

"I spoke to Prime Minister [Mikhail] Kasyanov about it and he said, 'Yes,
yes. We understand. It's a very important problem.' But there was no change
in the HIV/AIDS budget.

"I doubt the president is even aware of it," he added.

The presidential press service had no comment on President Vladimir Putin's
stance on the issue.

Pokrovsky said that money was not the answer to all the problems posed by
the epidemic, and that attitudes could be changed relatively cheaply. 

Peter Piot, executive director of the Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS, agreed. 

"We are not asking for the moon. These are things that don't cost a lot,"
he said as he outlined an anti-AIDS program for Russia.

AIDS should be addressed as a national security issue by the top political
leadership, he said. "Human resource limitations are one of the obstacles
to economic growth," Piot said.

In addition, every regional administration should have a program and a
budget to fight HIV/AIDS. Special programs, probably best run by
nongovernmental organizations, should address at-risk groups such as young
people and drug users.

Russians are conservative when it comes to talking about sex, but the high
rate of transmission of sexual disease shows that they are not inhibited in
their sexual behavior, Piot said. "There should be a major effort in terms
of openness about AIDS and everything else to do with it, including sex and
drugs," he said.

While the breakdown of social support in Russia since the fall of the
Soviet Union had undoubtedly contributed to the rise of drug abuse and the
spread of HIV, the media had evolved to a point where it could have a
powerful positive effect. "That also means influencing the opinions and
attitudes of politicians. With AIDS, journalism can save more lives than
doctors," Piot said. 

"What I would like to see, and it's happening in some countries, is
compulsory free television time for AIDS advertisements with these messages
in prime time, not after midnight," he added. "That's how they started in
Thailand 10 years ago and it made a big difference."

While no country has succeeded in stamping out addiction to heroin, which
is the main drug injected in Russia, treatment programs using methadone, a
synthetic analog of heroin, have been found to be the most effective in
assisting drug users to get off heroin when used as part of a comprehensive
treatment and prevention program, experts said this week.

Such programs cannot be launched in Russia because methadone use is illegal.

Stan Read, a member of the Canada AIDS team, said methadone is a syrup that
can only be taken orally. People on the programs complain that it gives
them no high; even if they find the cash to buy heroin it suppresses the
heroin high, he added.

Addicts need no heroin, do not have to commit crimes to raise the money for
their habit, and cannot receive HIV, hepatitis B or C, or tuberculosis by
injecting, said William Flanagan, spokesman for the Canada AIDS Russia
Project.

Like heroin, methadone is addictive, but it allows addicts to lead a
relatively normal life, including going to work, Pokrovsky said. And while
it is not a panacea, methadone is being considered as a treatment for
HIV-positive drug users in order to stop them spreading their infection
through sharing syringes. 

Drug users are widely stigmatized in Russia, and needle-exchange programs,
which offer users sterile equipment, have faced resistance from those who
see them as aiding addicts.

The highlight of Saturday's World AIDS Day events in Russia is to be an
anti-AIDS concert at Luzhniki, broadcast live on TV6.

*******