CDI Russia Weekly-#208 31 May 2002 Edited by David Johnson Center for Defense Information 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20036 phone: 202-797-5277; 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 web page (with archive): http://www.cdi.org/russia/ Visit CDI's web site: http://www.cdi.org Contents: 1. RIA Novosti: MISS UNIVERSE-2002 WILL HARDLY ABANDON CAREER OF POLICE OFFICER. 2. Moscow Times editorial: EU-Russia: Are They Up to the Job? 3. Moscow News: Stanislav Kondrashov, Triumph Still a Long Way Off. What lies behind the new stage of Russian-U.S. cooperation. 4. Le Monde: Paris Daily Views Bush-Putin Meeting in Saint Petersburg. 5. RFE/RL: Jeremy Bransten, NATO: Russia Signs Accord With Alliance -- Is Membership Next? 6. Christian Science Monitor: John Diedrich, US faces tough training mission in the Caucasus. This week Green Berets began trying to turn Georgia's soldiers into professionals. 7. Kompania: Gulietto Queso, NO CARNIVAL. Will Russia and the United States become equal partners? 8. Asia Times: Sergei Blagov, Beijing eyes closer partnership with post-Soviet states. 9. ITAR-TASS: China Major Buyer of Russian Arms. 10. AP: Kvashnin: military in critical condition. 11. Moskovsky Komsomolets: HUNTING THE LIEUTENANT. 12. WPS Media Monitoring Agency: POLITICAL FORECASTS [press review] The results of the summit and the fate of Russian democracy: George Bush's preferences and expectations.] ******** #1 MISS UNIVERSE-2002 WILL HARDLY ABANDON CAREER OF POLICE OFFICER St. PETERSBURG, May 30, 2002. /from RIA Novosti correspondent Anna Novak/--St. Petersburg Police University believes that post graduate student Oksana Fyodorova who was voted Miss Universe-2002 in Puerto Rico will hardly give up a police officer's career, rector of St. Petersburg Police University Viktor Salnikov said as much on Thursday. "The most beautiful girl of the Universe" is a senior police lieutenant and is a post-graduate student of this university. Oksana Fyodorova was born and grew up in Pskov and resolved to be a police officer back in childhood. According to people who know her well, she is a very sensitive nature and has an acute sense of justice. "These very features of her character made Oksana opt for this particular profession," Salnikov believes. In Pskov Oksana Fyodorova finished a special comprehensive school of police and then moved to Petersburg. There in the northern capital she worked as an investigator at the Pulkovo Transport Police and was a student of St. Petersburg Police University. She graduated from it with a gold medal and then entered the post graduate course of the same university. In 2003 senior lieutenant Fyodorova is to present a candidate's thesis in civil law. Teachers of the talented post-graduate student don't think Oksana will give up her scientific career and will surely become a Doctor of Law. "Oksana dreams of teaching in our university," the university's rector said. According to him, the title of the world's most beautiful girl will hardly make her change the profession she had once chosen. He added that the beauty's colleagues call her "a very kind person with an open heart." Earlier Fyodorova won the Miss Petersburg and Miss Russia contests, and yet she remains a very modest girl. Just like any other girl, the first Miss Universe of the new millennium is fond of dancing and listening to music. Oksana also spares some time for sports - athletics and gymnastics. Salnikov said that Oksana's mother has always accompanied her to all contests. This year Oksana's parents could not accompany the daughter to the Puerto Rico pageant and rejoiced at her success from Russia, he concluded. ******** #2 Moscow Times May 30, 2002 Editorial EU-Russia: Are They Up to the Job? It was hard to know what to expect from the EU-Russia summit this week, particularly given Brussels' hypertrophied bureaucracy (which would give Russia's administrative machine a run for its money in the bloatedness stakes) and its legendary lack of organization. And it's not hard to understand Russia's decade-long frustration at trying to come to more equitable economic terms with its largest trading partner. Indeed, EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy joked that the mere fact he had managed to show up in Moscow at the same time as three other senior EU officials was a victory for Russia. "It is quite rare that the four of us are together in Brussels at the same time. And now we have all come to Moscow," he said. "This is a big achievement for Russia." This probably wasn't quite the "big achievement" Russia was hoping for, but it is illustrative of why expectations were low. Furthermore, travel freedom for residents of Kaliningrad, post-eastward expansion, continues to be a major thorn in the side of EU-Russia relations. So it must have come as a pleasant surprise when Commission President Romano Prodi (who also made it to Moscow on Wednesday) told President Vladimir Putin that the EU had finally decided to recognize Russia as having a market economy -- particularly as just the day before commissioners had been pretty downbeat on the issue. However, it should be noted that this decision comes nine years after the EU gave Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia market status -- a point that highlights the political nature of such decisions and irks Russia to this day. It should also be noted that Prodi added a very EU-esque qualifier to his announcement, saying that it should be finalized by September or October. By that time, the United States will most likely have officially upgraded Russia's status to market economy, as the U.S. Commerce Department is obliged to make a ruling before June 14. Nonetheless, it is great news for Russia. Not only will it give the country a more level playing field in Europe and offer protection from punitive anti-dumping tariffs -- especially on steel -- it will also give a boost to the government's drive to integrate into the world economy as an equal. And with bilateral trade booming -- new figures show it rose 27 percent to 82.1 billion euros last year -- the EU now imports more than a third of Russia's exports. With that figure set to rise to more than 50 percent as EU expansion encompasses former Soviet states and satellites, there is no time for foot-dragging on either side. Moscow seems up to the task. Is Brussels? ******** #3 Moscow News May 29-June 4, 2002 Triumph Still a Long Way Off What lies behind the new stage of Russian-U.S. cooperation By Stanislav Kondrashov Not so long ago, but in a totally different historical era, I had occasion to witness, in November 1985, the first meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, at the Fleur dEau villa in Geneva. Thirty selected reporters from the two countries saw them shake hands, closely watched by their bodyguards, in the piercing wind blowing from the cheerless lake. That was the first gleam of the dawn of a new era, seen close to, just three yards away. Politicians have since been holding one round of meetings after another, some of them fairly dramatic, until, sixteen and a half years later, George W. Bush, the upholder of the cause of Reagan, and of his own father, George Bush Sr., came to Moscow last week. Gorbachev and Yeltsin have already dropped out of big-time politics. Putin is, rather, a victim of historical inertia. It is easier to pursue a political course in Washington even though September 11 marked the beginning of a rough patch for George W. Because of his Alzheimers disease, Ronnie, 90, does not remember what he has achieved. As for Bush Sr., in the summer of 1991, in Moscow, he and Gorbachev signed the START-I Treaty while in January 1993, two weeks before he was due to leave the White House, he signed the START-II Treaty - also in Moscow, but with Yeltsin, the next Kremlin occupant. In his trademark manner, Yeltsin told the world loud and clear that, unlike their predecessors, it had taken him and Bush not years, but days to prepare the treaty. Thus Bush Jr. carried on the cause of his father, signing with Putin a more radical strategic offensive weapons reduction treaty. While proclaiming Russia a friend, Bush Jr. and his team reserve for the United States the right to store rather than dismantle its nuclear warheads although the verification system is to be dismantled: Do real friends distrust each other? Bush talks about Russian-American friendship forcefully and assertively whereas Putin shows a measure of implicit reservation. Emerging as very much the worse off from its friendship with the IMF under Clinton, Russia is not getting any obvious economic dividends under Bush, either. Given our condition, these would seem paramount. Incidentally, in a display of touching concern about freedom for chicken meat nicknamed "Bush legs" in Russia, the Democrats - Bush opponents in the U.S. Senate - once again blocked the elimination of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Meanwhile, American dividends from a changing relationship with Russia are substantial: as sistance in the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan and access for the Pentagon machine to the post-Soviet area in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. Bush Jr. does not have the makings of a great strategist, but he had a rare if tragic piece of luck fall into his hands together with the New York twin towers that collapsed on September 11. Shaken (and encouraged), the Americans acquired more than just an enemy while their president acquired something more impressive than the role of the leader of an international antiterrorist coalition. Now the United States positions itself as not simply the sole superpower but as a world empire. Bush Jr. as a world emperor - this title that he got from multinational mass media is suggestive not only of ridicule but also of concern. Bin Laden has yet to be caught; al-Qaeda is underground; the Pentagon and the FBI declare the Statue of Liberty and the New York bridges the next likely targets for international terrorists. Before the U.S. presidents six-day European tour all of that worked toward the overriding political/psychological objective - to present the world order Americana as a fait accompli. That much was evident even from the vigorous protest demonstrations in Berlin on the eve of the Bush visit, and even from the tongue-in-cheek comments in the West European press. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on this count in Russia. Judging by opinion polls, America in general and the Bush administration in particular are not exactly in favor, which is to a very large degree a product of the liberal/amateurish imitation of American models in the Yeltsin-Clinton era. Yet the entire sensible Russian public recognizes that America must be reckoned with, although there is a certain measure of extremism and even lobbyism here. Here is what one of our well-known America watchers writes, for instance: "A great deal in the evolution of a new world order will hinge not on the leader (i.e., the United States. - S.K.), but on countries like Russia: If they find a way to bring about a rapprochement with the leader, becoming part of its system of interests, then the entire world order will become more stable; if not, it will be dominated by instability and unpredictability." The method? "Abandonment of outdated national traditions, narrow-minded stereotypes, and dubious values, and transition to other, more forward-looking traditions, stereotypes, and values." Its as easy as that: To fit into the superpowers "system of interests," Russia should become an America - a nation of immigrants with its ability to easily discard all things old - from sofas and vacuum cleaners to friends and traditions. Traditions are but a show of top models on the catwalk, strutting their stuff. Russia's first essays in "self-negation," which extended for nearly a decade, have disappointed both sides. Now Washington, under the pressure of circumstances, would like to make Russia a different kind of friend than what Moscow offered under Clinton. The American dividend from this new friendship is thus far more obvious than the Russian one. ******* #4 Paris Daily Views Bush-Putin Meeting in Saint Petersburg Paris' Le Monde 28 May 2002 [translation for personal use only] Article by special Saint Petersburg correspondent Patrick Jarreau: "In Saint Petersburg, the President of the United States Examined Mr. Putin's Family 'Values'" Saint Petersburg, from our special correspondent-Personal relations, that is "W"'s personal mark. A conviction. They are more: they are a method. Meeting Vladimir Putin in Ljubljana for the first time, in June 2001, George W. Bush said that he had had confidence in the Russian president because he had "seen his soul." He came back to the subject twice on Saturday, 25 May, during his visit to Saint Petersburg, Vladimir Putin's home town. Speaking to reporters following a visit to the Hermitage Museum, Mr. Bush spoke of the evening he and his wife had spent the night before with Mr. and Mrs. Putin in the presidential dacha in Moscow. "That gave us the chance to see the Putins live and get a sense of their values," the American president said. "The thing that struck me the most was the way in which they had raised their daughters. It is clear that their mom and dad love them very much, and that made a strong impression on Laura and me." A bit later, at the University of Saint Petersburg, the two presidents were awaited by about 100 students selected for the occasion. "I suppose it's the most sophisticated international relations seminar you could have," Mr. Bush said before explaining: "The best international relations start when people like each other, when each one tries to imagine what the other is thinking, and what makes them move ahead in life." And, there too, he insisted on the Putins' affection for their daughters, who are about the same age-20-as the American presidential couple's twins. The Russian president joined in in the personal diplomacy game, Bush-style, with a small ironic distance. In Moscow on Friday [24 May], he had gently "made fun" of his guest, saying that Mr. Bush had started by telling him: "Of course, it's not at our level," before launching into long arguments on behalf of American companies trying to export to Russia (Le Monde, 26-27 May). On Saturday he pushed the mischievousness further by reporting, speaking to journalists and in front of Russian television's cameras, the little joke he had played the night before on the American president. With some caviar having been served at the dinner, Mr. Putin had tried to make his guests believe that once they had been relieved of their eggs, the sturgeon were "sewn up again and put back into the river." "That's how we take care of the environment!" Mr. Putin had added, which made everyone around the table laugh, he said, except Mr. Bush. "I believe you, Mr. President," he said. The Russian's wit was further put to use, at the American's expense, when he told the students about their visit to the Hermitage Museum. With the director of the museum having insisted on showing his visitors a portrait of Empress Catherine II, in "tit for tat fashion" Mr. Bush "had asked: 'Actually, where is the portrait of Potemkin?'" the most famous of the empress's numerous lovers. "I would ask you to save your easiest questions for me and address the hard ones to Mr. Bush," the former Saint Petersburg law student concluded with a straight face. With Mr. Bush having said that the first condition for Russia's being admitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) was that its president so wish, and that he himself was in favor of it. Mr. Putin replied: "If that's what it takes, then I do!" More seriously, with one student having asked when the day would come when Russia would export not just "petroleum and wood" but hi-tech products as well, the Russian president launched into a plea for the disappearance of all restrictions, inherited from the cold war, that posed an obstacle to "the entry of hi-tech into Russia." "We do not need preferences, subsidies, or special favors," he insisted. "We just want normal, simple, ordinary trade relations." Mr. Bush said he agreed that the controls Mr. Putin was alluding to "were problematic," but he also asked Russian leaders to make additional efforts to "create an environment favorable to businesses." After having attended a modern staging of the ballet "The Nutcracker," Mr. and Mrs. Bush dined on the Neva with their hosts and discovered the white nights, with the sun not disappearing at all from the horizon at this time of the year. On Sunday [27 May] morning, they went alone to the Our Lady of Kazan Orthodox cathedral and the synagogue of Saint Petersburg. They met up with the Putin couple only for a visit of the Russian Museum, devoted to the history of Russia. As a veteran of the KGB, the main Soviet-era domestic and foreign espionnage agency, Mr. Putin has kept a strict conception of separation of church and state. ******* #5 NATO: Russia Signs Accord With Alliance -- Is Membership Next? By Jeremy Bransten NATO and Russia embarked on a new chapter in their relationship this week with the creation of a Russia-NATO Council that will give Moscow a voice -- though not a veto -- in formulating alliance policy on key issues. Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a signing ceremony this week in Rome, said the rapprochement of the former foes was "just the beginning." But the question remains, if Russia is deserving of a special relationship with NATO, why not full membership? Prague, 30 May 2002 (RFE/RL) -- The new NATO-Russia Council, agreed this week at a ceremony in Rome, will for the first time give Moscow a seat at the alliance's decision-making table when issues of terrorism, weapons proliferation, and peacekeeping are discussed. NATO Secretary-General George Robertson called the council "historic." Some observers say this is an exaggeration, while others worry that Russia's participation will weaken the alliance. Stephen Blank, of America's U.S. Army War College, has closely followed the developing relationship between NATO and Moscow. He sees the establishment of the council as a step forward but adds that a couple of facts must be borne in mind. "Russia's not a member of NATO. What this agreement does is set up a council to discuss certain issues where Russia will have an equal voice with everybody else. Obviously, this is going to have some impact on NATO's organization but it does not affect the integrity of NATO decision making," Blank said. Russia will have no veto and no decision-making power on the alliance's expansion decisions. Russia will not be a party to the alliance's Article 5, which provides for collective defense in case of outside attack. Nevertheless, analysts note, NATO is a work in progress. The organization bears little resemblance to what it was 15 years ago: a highly armed defensive alliance ready for war with the Warsaw Pact, and it may change even further 15 years hence. "It's moving toward becoming a collective-security organization and crisis-management and conflict-prevention institution that embraces all of Europe and will eventually embrace much of Eurasia. Now, NATO has an opportunity to get into the Caucasus and Central Asia and work with those states to take steps to reduce conflicts and so on. I mean, this is a tremendous opportunity for NATO," Blank said. Dana Allin, a security expert at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, told RFE/RL that by accepting Russia as an equal partner in issues of conflict prevention and crisis management, NATO buys itself a new lease on life ahead of a second planned wave of enlargement. "NATO gets out of it a sense that it's squaring the circle on the dilemma that it created with NATO enlargement: To the extent that it excludes Russia, it can very objectively be seen as not ending the division of Europe but just perpetuating the division of Europe farther East. I think any mechanism that brings Russia into NATO deliberations and makes Russia a true partner of NATO obviously resolves that problem. But again, the question is whether the institutional framework of this new relationship will be accompanied by a real growing together. And that is a little early to tell," Allin said. Russian President Putin, for his part, expressed full optimism this week that the two sides would bond quickly as allies. He predicted the new council would be "just the beginning" in the Russia-NATO relationship. Putin, in past months, has even suggested Moscow might want to join the alliance as a full member, although at this point, no application has been put forward. But Ukraine's sudden announcement last week that it would seek to join NATO, after years of remaining on the sidelines, indicates Moscow someday could be inspired to follow suit. What would it take for Russia to be seriously considered for NATO membership? "What really has to happen in Russian national-security policy, for Russia to achieve true security and integration with Europe -- which is what Putin wants -- is that there has to be a thorough-going reform of the national-security system, [from] top to bottom," Blank said. Blank said that such reform would entail: "civilian democratic control and transparency of the armed forces, a transparent defense budget, legislative and legal accountability of the chief executive and the entire military apparatus. There are multiple militaries: It's not just the armed forces, but it's also the FSB and FAPSI and MVD forces. [They would have to] devise some means of interoperability with NATO, so that their forces could actually cooperate beyond merely sharing intelligence -- real practical cooperation -- which is difficult to achieve, but vital." There would be other, exterior challenges to overcome if Moscow wanted to be in NATO's third wave of expansion. Ironically, as Dana Allin pointed out, the alliance's planned second enlargement is likely to take in many countries that still see their membership in NATO as a buffer against any possibility of Russian aggression, despite the fact that many Western leaders may condemn this view as outdated. Their voices will carry significant weight in the new NATO and will continue to present the alliance with a potential identity crisis. In Allin's view, Russia would face many barriers to membership. "The obstacles to it are, first of all, the fundamental question of the extent to which it still is an anti-Russian club. And I think that's the wrong way to put it. Let's say [it is] an alliance of reinsurance against the possibility of a new Russian threat in the future. I don't think anybody considers that likely but it's still part of the rationale, particularly for some members and particularly for some new members. And so I suppose the most practical obstacle you could see is some of the new members, former members of the Warsaw Pact or even former Soviet republics, who simply exercise a veto over that idea." The other major impediment that could prove insurmountable to Russia's joining NATO is the alliance's collective-defense clause, which pledges that an attack against any NATO member will be regarded as an attack against the entire alliance. Would other NATO members be prepared to extend defense guarantees to Russia if it were to get into a conflict with China, for example? Clearly not, Allin said. But he did stress that if NATO's primary goal is to be peacekeeping and regional crisis management, Russia's geography means it should be a major player. "The idea of NATO as an Article 5 institution extending Article 5 guarantees to the Russian border with China, for example, strikes many people as preposterous. On the other hand, if NATO is really going to become, or try to become, more of a central and relevant institution to the war against terrorism, part of the front line of that war is arguably in places not too far from Russia's southern border," Allin said. The dynamics of NATO are set for major changes over the next several years. Whether Russia will succeed in shaping that change and whether the alliance that emerges will be suited to the military and political challenges of the future remains unanswered. But with this week's agreement, the way has been cleared for an ambitious trajectory. ******** #6 Christian Science Monitor May 30, 2002 US faces tough training mission in the Caucasus This week Green Berets began trying to turn Georgia's soldiers into professionals. By John Diedrich | Special to The Christian Science Monitor TBILISI, GEORGIA -- Soldiers in this former Soviet republic are about to get a crash course in Western military tactics, as the US expands its partnership against terror -- and its sphere of influence -- to the Caucasus. For the American trainers, bringing the Georgian military up to professional muster is a tall order. By any measure, Georgia's Army is underfunded, poorly disciplined, and disorganized -- and Georgians themselves complain of low morale and little respect for higher-ranking officers. "There is no such discipline because [Georgian soldiers] don't respect each other," says Beka Ambroladze, a cadet at the Georgia's military academy. "This [US training] is very important to us." Under the Georgia "Train and Equip" program, which got under way this week, US special forces will instruct every level of the Georgian military, from its top leaders -- equivalent to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of the Army -- to officers and enlisted soldiers in line units. The graduates will in turn train other Georgian soldiers. Although US special forces have previously trained troops around the world, the ambitious program is the most comprehensive of its kind, officials say. The 20-month, $64-million plan, involving a maximum of 150 US soldiers, is expected to be duplicated in 20 other countries as President George Bush looks to develop partner countries in the war on terrorism. The US wants this mission to be public, in part, to dispel fears in Russia that the US is setting up covert operations in Russia's backyard or otherwise threatening its former cold-war foe. US officials have said repeatedly they have no plans to conduct combat in the Pankisi Gorge -- a lawless area of Georgia where terrorists are suspected to be hiding -- or anywhere else in the country. The mission furthers a NATO foothold in a country historically plagued by ethnic separatism and now poised to become an important corridor for trade and energy from Central Asia to Europe. Careful not to embarrass their Georgian colleagues, the first team of about 70 US soldiers, most of whom arrived May 19, talk of "enhancing" the Georgian military, whose own commanders admit that they don't know how many soldiers are in their units, or how to plan, train troops, or track supplies. Many soldiers don't have more than one uniform or one pair of boots, if they have one at all. They aren't paid regularly and are sent home in winter because there is no money to feed them or heat barracks. At a base in Vaziani, 20 miles northeast of Tbilisi, the barracks were stripped of electric outlets, windows shattered, and water pipes broken or clogged up by the Russian military as it pulled out a year ago. The Americans will renovate part of the barracks to house US soldiers for a few months and then turn it over to the Georgians. Meanwhile, the Americans are billeted in Tbilisi's Sheraton Hotel, which, with its marble plaza, glass elevators, and phalanx of private and government security guards, forms an incongruously luxurious, secure spot in this unstable, struggling country. The US Army is spending roughly $700,000 to house its soldiers here until early August, when they will move to the renovated Georgian bases. "To the outsider, it looks like we are living high on the hog," says Lt. Col. Robert Waltemeyer, commander of the US mission here. "In the security and money analysis, this turns out to be one of the best options in town." As part of the training program, the US plans to supply small arms, ammunition, uniforms, communication equipment, and other gear. But Lt. Col. Waltemeyer is worried that, in this impoverished and corrupt corner of the former USSR, the handouts will be stolen or sold on the black market. "I am adamant that I will not hand equipment to anyone but the individual users," says Waltemeyer. He also has concerns about some trainees. All Georgian security forces will receive some instruction, including the Ministry of Interior Defense, which occupies former KGB compounds and does internal policing in Georgia. Waltemeyer says he has raised this issue with Washington officials about who should be involved in the next phase -- combat training. No decision has been made. "I am concerned about the perception it would send to the Georgian and American people if we trained an internal force," Waltemeyer says. He says he wants the training to lead to changes in the Georgian military. There will be follow-up after the US soldiers leave to make sure the lessons are being applied. "There will be accountability," he says. In his opening session Monday with the first group of trainees, about 200 Georgian officers, Waltemeyer told them to be ready for an intense program. The US trainers plan to teach in 70 days what American officers usually study for a year. Many of the US soldiers speak Russian, but not Georgian, so interpreters will be used. The Americans are working to avoid any linguistic land mines. For instance, the word "sniper" in Georgian means "assassin" or "hit man," so the term "long-range precision marksmanship" will be used. Some of the concepts they will teach sound simple, such as how to hold a staff meeting, but that actually could require some cultural adjustments. In a previous training program, in Croatia, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Sissons recalled, staff meetings went on for hours as officers talked about totally unrelated matters. Here, they will teach the Georgians to stick to a time limit and make it as short as possible, to only cover matters outlined and to prepare questions ahead of time. One of the biggest challenges Warrant Officer Sissons has encountered while training soldiers in former Soviet countries is a reliance on getting all direction from the top brass. Lower-ranking officers and enlisted soldiers are not allowed to innovate or make decisions on their own. In the US system, every soldier down to the buck private is expected to know what the commander's intent is and to be able to carry it out on his own. "Sometimes it takes a whole day to explain initiative.... In their system, you didn't go anywhere if you aren't told," says Sissons, a veteran of the cold war who will be teaching in classrooms that still feature diagrams of Soviet weapons and marching styles. "We can't just make these guys just like the US. We are fighting more than two generations of that [Soviet] indoctrination here." ******* #7 Kompania May 27, 2002 NO CARNIVAL Will Russia and the United States become equal partners? Author: Gulietto Queso From WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES ARE BOTH CUTTING THEIR ARSENALS, BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS, WHICH MAKES THEM UNEQUAL PARTNERS. RUSSIA IS FORMING CLOSER CONTACTS WITH NATO, BUT IT'S UNLIKELY TO BE INCLUDED IN DECISION-MAKING ON IMPORTANT ISSUES. THAT'S WHY RUSSIA IS LOOKING AT CHINA AS A POTENTIAL ALLY. Do not judge by appearances. Russia and the United States have agreed to reduce their arsenals, and quite considerably, at that. Yet this has not become a step toward disarmament. Moreover, the agreement alarms us slightly. Russia under Vladimir Putin continues to disarm, reducing its arsenals to 1,700 warheads. However, Russia would have to do this anyway, since it can't afford to maintain all its warheads. The United States also seems to be cutting its arsenals, but in a different way - the Americans do not destroy their weapons, they only place them in storage. Who knows, maybe one day they might still be useful. But Russia will not have its weapons that day. Putin decided to sign an agreement, but - let us be frank - this agreement is not very good. This is an agreement between unequal partners. After the United States drew out of the ABM Treaty of 1972, it started building their national anti-aircraft system. And after it has been built, we will have to forget about equality for a long time. Thinking that Moscow is glad about that would run contrary to common sense. Yet, who knows, someone in the Kremlin may be grinning happily. During the Yeltsin era we became accustomed to the idea that the Russian authorities can not only betray national interests, but also trample national pride. We cannot rule out the possibility that someone would like to move in the same direction now. Bush will speak in Moscow about the agreement between Russia and NATO. This is a fine gesture on the part of the West; which, at first sight, indicates that Russia is respected. But let us not forget the fact that this November, in Prague, NATO will admit new members - countries of the former Warsaw Pact, and thus NATO will approach the borders of the former USSR. Of course, gradually NATO will turn into a political rather than military organization, which corresponds to the interests of Moscow. But even with its expanded composition the alliance will preserve its military structure. Questions, which will be settled within the framework of the new agreement Russia-NATO, will be of minor importance. The general representing Russia in Brussels may not oppose to that, but it will hardly help secure safety of the country. Moscow tries to pass the question of NATO expansion over in silence, but nobody intends to let off fireworks on this occasion. It is natural that the latest statements of the US State Department have been full of optimism. And the Americans are right, in their way. Yet they should not celebrate prematurely over Russia becoming "one of us". The Western media says that Vladimir Putin is "one of us". Meaning that he does as "we" tell him. But is it really so? Frankly, I do not know how to reply. I consider Putin to be a fighter, who maintains self-control under a battering from the United States accompanied with encouraging words. He cannot do more than he does - he remains watchful, so as not to miss a knock-out blow. His friend George pats him on the shoulder at his Texas ranch, meanwhile continuing to deliver strong blows. Not long ago, Putin suddenly suggested that the former Soviet republics establish a unified military command of the armed forces which were left over after the "Evil Empire": Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. These five republics remain on "brotherly" terms, while Bush has managed to win the rest over to his side: Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan. Setting up a new military alliance, initiated by Russia, cannot be regarded as a friendly gesture toward the West. Even if we take into consideration the fact that Kyrgyzstan wants to join this new alliance, while the United States is going to establish a military base there. Obviously, the Kremlin has its own leverage there. Treating China as a potential ally, Putin is trying to win back at least a part of what has been lost. Moscow does not like the activity of the United States in Afghanistan. And Beijing may not like it either. (Translated by Daria Brunova) ******* #8 Asia Times May 30, 2002 Beijing eyes closer partnership with post-Soviet states By Sergei Blagov MOSCOW - On the eve of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit and a pan-Asian summit on confidence-building next week, Beijing has seemingly put in motion a flurry of diplomatic activities throughout the post-Soviet states. China appears to be working toward boosting exchanges with its former Soviet counterparts, notably in security and military areas. Both summits are to be held in former Soviet republics. Leaders of some 30 Asian nations are due to gather at the first summit of the CICA, an acronym for the "Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia", to be held in Almaty on Tuesday and Wednesday. Not surprisingly, the agenda will include measures to combat international terrorism. The SCO, which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as well as China and Russia, is due to hold its summit on June 7 in St Petersburg. The summit is expected to approve the SCO's 30-page-long charter, a joint declaration and an agreement for an anti-terrorist center in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Against the backdrop of the upcoming SCO summit's anti-terrorist agenda, it's no big wonder, then, that China dispatched a high-ranking security mission to travel throughout some post-Soviet states - most notably, Public Security Minister Jia Chunwang, who met Russian Interior Minister Boris Gryzlov on Wednesday in Moscow. They reportedly discussed a joint crusade against terrorism and transnational crime such as the drug trade and illegal migration, the Russian Information Agency (RIA) reported. Last November Gryzlov and Jia signed a formal bilateral cooperation accord between the two security agencies. Central Asia also appears to be on the list of China's security priorities. On Monday, Jia Chunwang traveled to Tajikistan to meet President Emomali Rakhmonov and discuss the mutual fight against terrorism, separatism and the drug trade. Tajik Interior Minister Humidin Sharipov was quoted by RIA as saying that China agreed to grant Tajik law-enforcement agencies "special assistance", which would not, however, include arms supplies. Moreover, on Thursday Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov started a trip to China. According to a statement issued by his ministry, Ivanov is due to meet Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji to brief them on the strategic arms reduction treaty that Russia signed with the United States last week. The Russian minister is also to confirm Moscow's readiness "to develop military and political cooperation" with China. Beijing is also mulling the development of military ties with some non-SCO post-Soviet states. Belarus intends to develop a military cooperation with China, Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko told visiting Fu Quanyou, chief of the general staff of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), on Tuesday. Typically, buyers of Russian-made military hardware tend to go to other former Soviet states to seek better deals in procuring spare parts. Belarus now supplies China with spare parts for Sukhoi-27 jet fighters and trains Chinese officers at its military academies. Furthermore, Lukashenko, who has become notorious for his anti-Western stance, made some noteworthy remarks. "Belarus and China have no differences whatsoever in regard to international relations," Lukashenko was quoted by RIA as saying. After Russia's agreement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization this week, it might be worth mentioning that the Belarussian president has been critical of NATO's eastward expansion, while Beijing has tended to support this point of view. Therefore, Lukashenko's remarks could indicate that China might try playing differences between Belarus and Russia, the two nations that technically still form a "union state". Despite Beijing's proactive diplomacy, some potentially divisive issues remain. The influx of Chinese migrant workers has become a topical issue in some Central Asian states as well as in Russia's Siberia, underpopulated but rich in natural resources. According to Russia's Interior Ministry, every year more than 500,000 Chinese "tourists" come to Russia, but not all of them return to China, staying on illegally. Russian officials and politicians have long voiced concern over the alleged influx of illegal aliens from "far abroad", mainly China. There are more than a million Chinese illegal migrants in Russia, according to Russia's Interior Ministry. Last April, Russia and China signed a consular agreement aimed at regulating migration. The Russian government has also approved the concept of a program for developing resource-rich Siberia through 2020, presumably in order to dismiss fears of alleged "Chinese quiet colonization". The program provides for the modernization of the Siberian economy, the development of its infrastructure and the improvement of its demographical situation. Although the issue of illegal migration has become a matter for formal discussions between Russia's Interior Ministry and China's Public Security Ministry, any meaningful solution is understood to be some time off. In the meantime, China also aims to boost trade ties with its SCO counterparts, notably on a multilateral basis. On Tuesday, China held a meeting of SCO foreign trade ministers in Beijing. According to RIA, Foreign Trade Minister Shi Guangsheng told the gathering that China would support the respective World Trade Organization bids of its SCO counterparts. After Russia's recent important agreements with the US, NATO and the European Union, triangular relations among Russia, China and the United States are arguably set for undergoing some important changes from what it was in the 1990s. Notably, Russia is seemingly abandoning the foreign-policy concept of a "multipolar world", which once used to be an important mantra in joint rhetoric with China. However, it is probably too early to say that the traditional tripartite game of playing on contradictions between the parties is becoming a thing of the past. ******* #9 China Major Buyer of Russian Arms MOSCOW, May 29 (Itar-Tass) - Russia attaches exceptional importance to its military-technological cooperation with China. Its annual profits from the sale weapons to China tops one billion U.S. dollars, which is almost one-fifth of the total trade turnover between the two countries. China is a major buyer of Russian armaments and its share in the Russian export of weapons adds up to forty per cent. Deliveries of Russian Su-27 and Su-30 planes are estimated at 5.8 billion U.S. dollars, 956e-type destroyers - 2.4 billion dollars, and anti-aircraft defense systems - at no less than 1.5 billion dollars. Military-technological cooperation between the two countries was resumed in 1990 after a lengthy interval. China bought fifty Su-27 fighters, including thirty-eight single-seater Su-27SK and twelve double-seater Su-27UB planes, worth about 1.7 billion U.S. dollars, in the period from 1991 to 1997. In 1996, China bought a license to produce two hundred Su-27SK aircraft in the course of the next five years, without the right tore-export them. The cost of the deal is estimated at 2.5 billion U.S. dollars. In the indicated period, China also got S-300PMU1 and Tor-M1 anti-aircraft complexes, four multipurpose diesel-electric submarines of the 877EKM class and two submarines of the 636 class. Contracts were signed in 1995 on the delivery to China of "Smerch" multiple missile launchers, "Metis" and "Konkurs" anti-tank missile complexes, as well as rapid-firing shipboard artillery systems of the AK-630 class and "Kashtan" naval gun-and-missile complexes. According to some reports, China also got one hundred self-propelled "Nona-SVK" mortar systems. China concluded in November 1997 a contract on the delivery of two 956E class destroyers of the "Sovremenny" type armed with "Moskit" supersonic anti-ship missiles. The total cost of the contract equals to about one billion U.S. dollars. Six Ka-28 deck anti-submarine helicopters were also delivered for those destroyers. A contract, worth 1.5 billion U.S. dollars, was signed in 1999 for the delivery to China of forty multipurpose Su-30MKK double-seater fighters in the period from 2000 to 2001. Moreover, China got in 2001 ten double-seater Su-27UBK training fighters in keeping with the 1999 agreement on the delivery of twenty-eight Su-27UBK fighters on account of Russia's state debt. Eight of those machines were delivered in December 2000, and the remaining ten are to be handed over to China in 2002. The Rosoboronexport Company, which is the principal exporter of Russian armaments, concluded a contract on May 3, 2002, for the delivery to the Chinese navy of eight diesel submarines of the 636 class (Kilo) armed with a "Club" missile complex. The contract is to be filled within the next five years. In expert opinion, eight submarines of this class, armed with "Club" complexes, may cost up to 1.5 billion U.S. dollars. Therefore, this deal will be the third or fourth largest Russian contract to export military hardware. China is now gradually giving up the practice of buying ready-made combat systems and is beginning to purchase only their components. Contracts were concluded in the period from 2001 to 2002 on deliveries of aircraft engines, including some for fighters designed in China. Expansion of Russo-Chinese cooperation in the field of military technology will envisage a gradual transition from simple export trade to joint scientific research and development of new types of armaments and military hardware. Moreover, Russia and China may jointly compete for military contracts in third countries, especially on the African continent. ******** #10 Kvashnin: military in critical condition May 30, 2002 AP MOSCOW - The chief of General Staff of the Russian armed forces warned Thursday that the military was in a "worse than critical" condition, plagued by poverty and rampant theft. The statement from Gen. Anatoly Kvashnin was one of the most dramatic official acknowledgments of the desperate condition of the once-mighty military, which has fallen into decay since the 1991 Soviet collapse. Kvashnin warned that miserly military salaries were prompting an increasing number of officers to quit the ranks. "If we fail to more than double wages, we will have no officers left," Kvashnin said at a military conference, according to the Interfax-Military News Agency. "Those in service since the Soviet times will leave, and there will be no one to replace them." President Vladimir Putin has ordered the Cabinet to more than double military wages this year, but net incomes of officers have barely increased because the government simultaneously stripped the military of tax exemptions and other privileges. Officers' wages now hover around the equivalent of dlrs 100 a month. Bad conditions in the military have encouraged widespread embezzlement and theft of military equipment. In one example, thieves stole 21 metric tons (23 tons) from a store of 170 metric tons (187 tons) of silver the military received for making and maintaining weapons and other equipment last year, Kvashnin said. Scavenging of weapons for precious metals has become so prolific in the military that it has prompted enterprising anonymous publishers to print special scavenging instruction manuals complete with colorful pictures of missile components and other weapons parts that can be sold for scrap, Kvashnin said. Senior military officers are often involved in thefts, said Alexander Savenkov, the first deputy chief Russian military prosecutor. He said that a general in charge of food procurement for interior troops in the Siberian Military District was currently under criminal investigation on charges of embezzling government funds. A similar investigation has been launched against a top officer holding a similar position in the Moscow Military District, Savenkov said, according to the Interfax-Military News Agency. The number of military crimes in the first quarter of this year reached 5,600, Savenkov said. Every fifth crime was committed by servicemen who were drunk, he said. Putin's plan to abandon the unpopular draft and launch a swift transfer to a smaller professional army has met stiff resistance of the top brass, who say it would require a significant increase in the defense budget. ******** #11 Moskovsky Komsomolets May 30, 2002 HUNTING THE LIEUTENANT [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] Army people in charge of recruitment are in despair: over 15,000 young officers under 30 have resigned within the last two-and-a-half years. Within the same period, a third of lieutenants and about 30% cadets also left the military. The General Staff is working on the option of doubling the period of the primary officer contract - at present, a graduate cadet signs up for five years of service; in the near future his time as an officer may be prolonged to at least ten years. "Such a decision will not be made in haste," recruiters from the Defense Ministry say. The possible rise in the period of the primary officer contract has been considered before. But even a year ago it seemed unrealistic - salaries of lieutenants were too low. After military wages are raised, there will be extra incentives to serve. "Sooner or later, we would come to this all the same," says General Valery Astanin from the main organization-mobilization administration of the General Staff. "Look what a mess there is in the armed forces - a dozen lieutenants stay on, out of a hundred graduates. There is no one to command platoons and companies in units. Let people at least repay what the state spent on their training. By the way, as far back as 1998, when the law on military service was passed, we suggested that those who quit military service ought to pay the state compensation for their training costs. Duma deputies did not listen to our arguments then..." Be as it may, the outflux of career military will not be solved instantly. Therefore, the General Staff is considering another idea: it is not ruled out that the service time for graduates from military faculties of civilian higher education institutions will rise from two to five years. ******** #12 WPS Media Monitoring Agency www.wps.ru May 29, 2002 POLITICAL FORECASTS [press review] The results of the summit and the fate of Russian democracy: George Bush's preferences and expectations According to a poll done by the National Public Opinion Research Center, on the eve of the presidential summit in Moscow most respondents (39%) expected the summits would have no substantial results at all. Slightly fewer respondents, 36%, hoped that the summit would be useful for Russia. Eight percent of respondents were convinced of this. And 17% of respondents were unsure. According to the [Vek] weekly, which published the results of the poll, the opinions of analysts showed very similar divisions. Before the summit, [Profil] magazine decided to find out what regional leaders thought about Russia-US relations. The topic turned out to be very sensitive. Answering the question, "What would you talk to President George Bush about?" President of the Bashkortostan Republic Murtaza Rakhimov said, "At such a meeting I think I would say: Mr. President, do not try to rule the whole world and stop considering the whole planet as a zone of US interests. That will lead to no good, neither for the US nor for humanity as a whole." Chelyabinsk Governor Petr Sumin responded, "How should this be understood? Since September 11, Russia has supported the United Stated in fighting international terrorism, both morally and politically. You should appreciate it. However, as soon as we have a problem and the US might support us, it turns out that Russia 'does not have a market economy' and should be 'running errands' for the US." Governor of the Ulyanovsk region Vladimir Shamanov said, "Half-measures are not enough to stop terrorism.... It is a great mistake to underestimate the role and position of Russia in these terms. Moreover, it is becoming dangerous for both the US and its European allies.... Russia is full with Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's friendship with American and European leaders. That only deteriorated the situation. We live in a world of mutual compromises but not of unlimited concessions." The opinion of Nizhny Novgorod Governor Gennady Khodyrev is, "I would start with the most important, to my mind, issue: what is to be with dollar? Is it to remain same stable or to fall? I would also talk about the anti-missile defense. Can we trust the Americans? Their unilateral withdrawal from the treaty says a lot...." Finally, Krasnodar region Governor Alexander Tkachev said, "I would suggest that dear US President George Bush started buying Kuban chicken legs for the Americans. In fact, they are tastier and better than "Bush's legs". At the next [Profil]'s page Director of the Russian and Asian programs of the US Center for Defense Information Nikolai Zlobin published one his his lately numerous articles, which is a direct rebuff to Russian politicians with their sore self-confidence. He writes, "Actually, Russia has no alternatives to choosing cooperation with the West. No matter what part of the elite I talked to, no one can definitely formulate what an alternative to this way could be." This is the difference between the two countries, stresses Nikolai Zlobin, "America can afford carrying out the present politics for the sake of its own interests only. While Russia's foreign policy is taking into account multiple factors, including the US, no matter if you like it or not." George Bush was more aphoristic speaking of the US present foreign policy (as is known it raises objections not in Russia only), "One day we may find ourselves lonely. I do not object to this. We are America." (cited from the [Gazeta] periodical.) In his interview with the [Vremya Novostei] paper Nikolai Zlobin was very regretful about inability of the Russian elite to understand a simple thing, "It would benefit much greater from cooperation with the US elite than from objecting to it." According to Zlobin, the agenda of the summit - signing an agreement on arms reduction - is "Russian agenda of yesterday, or even the day before yesterday". He states, "The US is not interested in it." That is why, Nikolai Zlobin believes, having agreed to sign the agreement, President Bush made a "symbolic and very respectful gesture in relation to Moscow". Political scientists Andrei Pionkovsky also noted that the US elite was completely uninterested in the topic of negotiations. He cited in the [Novaya Gazeta] a statement of his American friend, "I will tell you why we do not want to conclude any agreements with you - you don't matter." At the same time, Russia and the US are friends now: so, Piontkovsky reflects, "It is necessary to be US enemy to 'matter' something." In fact, the author notes, objective geopolitical interests of the two countries push them to a strategic partnership. The main obstacle is superstitions and complexes of the Russian elite. The main obstacle from the US is "messages 'You don't matter' that are sent from time to time from Washington not to Russia only, but also to the US closest allies." As a leading Russian expert on strategic armaments, head of the Center for Strategic nuclear forces issues, Vladimir Dvorkin said in his interview with the [Kommersant] paper, it would be strange to expect the US to make any concessions. Russia had no levers to exert pressure on the US, "As any agreement is always a barter transaction. I give you, you give me. Now Russia has nothing to give away, just because Russia had announced beforehand that it would reduce its nuclear forces down to 1,500 nuclear warheads." Dvorkin thinks the only advantage of the new agreement is that it "fixes almost equal nuclear status of Russia and the US." According to the author, this document does not have other good sides. Moreover, it actually "fixed unilateral plans for development of nuclear forces in the US and Russia." Famous political scientist and analyst of the Carnegie Center Lilia Shevtsova has a similar viewpoint at the situation. She does not doubt that despite all hopes and concluded agreements the "Cold War is far from its end - now it is just the beginning of its another phase." In fact, Shevtsova notes, if Russia and the US are not opponents any longer, why do they need the notorious 1,700 - 2,200 nuclear warheads. Actually, not much has changed, "Both countries still aim their missiles at each other's objects that are said to be potentially dangerous for them." And of the presidents want to really "stop the inertia of the Cold War and to start a "new chapter of relations", they will have to do a real breakthrough. Moreover, they will have to speak of not nuclear warheads only, but also discuss a new partnership philosophy." So far, the latest summit was just "a maximum of what both president can squeeze from their teams and the heritage they received." At the same time, both Shevtsova and Zlobin think that Bush's three-day visit and signing the agreement was a real gift from Bush to Vladimir Putin. "The Americans were benevolent and decided not to cause troubles for the Russian president and not to give his critics a reason to accuse him of "Gorbachevism" and "selling Russia out." So, the really positive thing about the summit is not signing the agreement, but that Washington really cares about the fate of Putin's new pro-western course." Especially, if take into account that there are more than enough Putin's critics in Russia. "We should not be afraid of the words "not ally", we should not be eager to become an ally of the country, which in all strategic direction, beside several exceptions, has completely different from Russia's interests and disastrous for our country ambitions," writes Mikhail Leontiev in the [Ogonek] magazine. Even under Gorbachev's presidency, Russia constantly made open concessions to the West, "We always made reductions to the areas where we had obvious advantages." Agreements, concluded at that time weakened Russia, though "formally they preserved our status of a nuclear superpower, the second superpower of the world," as they preserved the concept of parity. Approximately the same is happening at present, "Formally the parity is preserved. Formally we are again equal, we are again the two courtiers, which used to decide the fate of the whole world. In fact, it is profanation." Russia again accepted disarmament "a la Gorbachev", "In fact, we reduce all, while they only withdraw their missiles from duty and stock warheads." Russia cannot stock anything, its warheads "die themselves" and there are no resources for their renewal. Mikhail Leontiev thinks signing of the new agreement is a mistake, which is made for the sake of "fears". The fears have grounds, as Russia is weak, "We need to carry out modernization, we need to define and consolidate our new doctrine, we need to restore the state, the restore political and economic role of Russia in the world." According to the author, receding from these positions will mean disappearance of Russia as a state, "The country will simply break up." From this standpoint, the motives of current actions of the Russian authorities are quite clear. However, "real free game politics is politics of complicated efficient modern diplomacy which is absent in Russia." It is impossible to "sleep on old Soviet assets - both diplomatic and political - any longer: they are rotting and decaying," writes Leontiev. It is no winder recently the president reproached the state apparatus if inability to make strategic economic decisions - it turned out that there are no strategic decisions in the Russian foreign policy either. Geidar Jemal has an even more radical viewpoint on Russia-US relations. As he said in his interview with the [Profil] magazine, "There is an internal paradox in them: Russian political class, starting with Putin, declare a new ear of partnership between Russia and the US." Simultaneously, cooperation in terms of anti-terrorist campaign is especially stressed after September 11 events. On the other hand, US politicians "many times, more or less sincerely" pointed out that from now on the US "does not need the consensus of the world society, neither any support from its allies in order to justify its actions." Moreover, Jemal continues, such documents, as for instance researches of the US National intelligence council "Global trends of 2015" say that "Russia cannot be US ally as it is doomed as a state." It is logical to suppose that in such a situation Russia is rather "the only source of really serious military threat, which is to be removed" for the US. From this standpoint, the main direction of Russia's development is "its breakup and leaving the world arena with simultaneous gaining control of what remains from its present nuclear forces and high techs that may be applied for military purposes." It is undoubted, Geidar Jemal states, that the whole US strategy is currently intending to finally destroy Russia. The author reminds that in particular, Zbignev Bzhezinsky, who visited Moscow in February this year to meet with Russian military analysts also said about it. Bzhezinsky is convinced that at present Russia does not have any internal resources for breaking "the descending trends in its political fate." Alexei Biyer, chief economist of The Globalist analytica center wrote in his article in the [Vedomosti] paper that the present friendship between Bush and Putin is extremely dangerous, first of all for Russia. The current objective for the US policy concerning Russia is to "neatly bring to null 'special relations' between the hyper power of today and the superpower of yesterday." Washington intends to "strengthen its position as the master of the world. That is why humiliating for Russia US demarches after September 11 had a concrete goal - to show Moscow its new position in this world." However, according to Alexei Biyer, the main danger for Russia is cultivation of vain illusions in the Russian society. Many-year hopes that "Russia and the US will finally be able to share the world and to jointly dictate their conditions to it" will make "inevitable humiliations which in any case follow Bush's visit" especially painful for the Russians. Besides, they are highly likely to weaken Putin's positions inside the country. So, the question is: why does Bush acts this way? Alexei Biyer warns that the answer is likely to be a great surprise for many, "In the simplicity of this heart. " George Bush-junior does not have enough experience in international communications. During his European tour he visited European capitals for the first time. He is very naive in diplomacy, "And he does not realize how dangerous it is to send false signals to the opposite side." However, despite all "simplicity of his heart" that has been largely advertised by the world media - or perhaps, due to it - the US president many times to give an extremely brief definition of an issue, while experienced and cunning people devote whole volumes of the size of the Bible. This happened during his visit to Moscow, at a joint press conference with Vladimir Putin. An American journalist asked a childish question, "Why isn't it possible to annihilate all missiles, if they are such good friends?" Bush horrified his surrounding with a sincere answer, "Well, who knows what will be in ten years? Who knows what intentions the next Russian president will have?" As the [Vremya Novostei] paper states, Vladimir Putin did not even turn a hair at this. The paper decided it all was due to his intelligence training. Overall, as editor-in-chief of the [Moskovskie Novosti] weekly Viktor Loshak noted, for all who met the US president for the first time had a chance to understand the phenomenon of his victory in the United States. The main component of it is a very successfully found image, "Simple, charming, cool, very energetic, moderately sentimental..." Moderately! Plus, the stress on a "religious citizen" and "faithful husband" - unlike Bill Clinton. Bush started all his unofficial meetings with journalists in Moscow and politicians in Spaso-House with dithyrambs for his wife. Viktor Loshak thinks it is wise, "Though he was elected, voters expect the wife to be sage statewise as well." On the other hand, for Russia the "two-in-one" version - as they called Bill and Hillary Clinton in the US - is hardly acceptable. However, so far no one doubts - at least now - who will win the 2004 presidential elections in Russia. Moreover, this time successes and failures of image makers will not matter. So, now interested people are concerned about who will be organizers and masters of the ceremony at the next elections. Of course, the president has enough time to make a decision. Journalists notice some political calmness on the threshold of both elections campaigns. Still, the forces are already being laid out for the elections. Recently, the [Obshchaya Gazeta] reported that two elections headquarters had already been formed, like in 1996. The headquarters are staffed on a "mutual hatred" principle: one is formed of "remnants of the Old Family team", the other is "St. Petersburg security officers". It is due to St. Petersburgers that the pre-scheduled election "all hands on deck" started, "they too energetically began to trample down the United Russia party and deprived Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the Kremlin administration of control over it." In response, Alexander Voloshin urgently formed an election headquarter and appointed his deputy Dmitry Medvedev as its leader. It was considered to be a successful tactical move: Medvedev origins from St. Petersburg and his appearance must cause turmoil among the opponents. As [Moskovsky Komsomolets] commented on the situation, "Well-bred Medvedev has always felt comfortable in Voloshin's team, not among his compatriots working for security services." The headquarters is in Voloshin's office, Surkov is in charge of work in the regions; Abramovich and Mamut are main treasurers. According to the paper, the St. Petersburgers gather at a secret ABC object, which belongs to the Federal Security Service, to be farther from the Kremlin. Another Voloshin's deputy Igor Sechin is their leader. Sechin as a leader of the personal presidential secretariat along with Dmitry Medvedev is responsible for the schedule of visits to the president. As [Moskovsky Komsomolets] noted, this is to inevitably cause conflicts between the two officials. Security officer Viktor Ivanov is in charge of work with regions, Mezhprombank President Sergei Mamut is the treasurer. The first battle between the two headquarters was the fight between Pugachev and Abramovich for Slavneft oil company - the media is watching the course of the fight very attentively. [Obshchaya Gazeta] states that from now on all fights for attractive properties are to be explained with election interests, "until one of the headquarters catches another one at some blunder and forces the president to make a choice". Politicians have also started preparing for elections. As the [Vremya Novostei] paper informed, Boris Nemtsov suggested promoting a single candidate from all democratic parties by results of parliamentary elections. The leader of the Union of Right Forces offered to Yabloko and Berezovsky's Liberal Russia to conclude respective agreements. None of the parties is very enthusiastic about the aforementioned suggestion, the Liberal Russia said directly that it is Nemtsov's political game for his own sake. Yabloko evasively noted that it is necessary to make decisions basing on the real situation closer to the elections. If Yavlinsky does not participate in the forthcoming presidential race, millions of his electors are highly likely not to vote at all, thinks observer of the [Moskovskie Novosti] paper Ludmila Telen. On the other hand, his participation in the elections is not a guarantee either: the Russians are growing more tired with every elections. The growing amount of voters "against all", which increases from elections to elections, proves it. Nonetheless, Grigory Yavlinsky was rather optimistic about the possibility of opening the European doors for Russia in his interview with [Moskovskie Novosti]. According to him, "new energy" may come from there. If this happens, "The agreement between Putin and Bush on strategic partnership will come true." On the other hand, Yavlinsky stresses, opponents of Putin's foreign policy course may perceive practical steps towards the West as "another Novo-Ogarevo process". The Yabloko leader warns, that a really "reactionary flank" is currently forming in the country, and these forces may try to either "win the president over to their side" or to "push him aside". "Their objective is to use mistakes and failures in the foreign policy, including the economic politics, for a frontal attack," states Yavlinsky. As [Moskovskie Novosti] observer Ludmila Telen noted, it sounds like a warning for Putin about a possible plot - like Shevardnadze warned Gorbachev in his time. So, the answer to the question on the results of forthcoming elections may turn to be less defined as it may see at a first glance. Mavra Kosichkina (Translated by Arina Yevtikhova) *******