Communist chief Gennady Zyuganov, flanked by a former defense minister and six other members of his party, angrily told the media Thursday that the treaty would throw Russia into "slavery".

"Today a crime is being prepared," Zyuganov said, arguing that Russia would not be able to defend itself against foreign enemies should the treaty be passed.

"We are about to lose what are the most dangerous weapons to the United States," said his Communist ally and one-time defense minister, Igor Rodionov. The Communists and their supporters held up the treaty for years in defiance of then-president Boris Yeltsin, arguing the pact put Russia at a distinct military disadvantage.

The treaty would force Russia to scrap its multiple warhead nuclear missiles and replace them with more expensive single warhead rockets which Russia can little afford.

Yet the Communists and nationalists are for the first time in modern Russian history outnumbered by Kremlin supporters in parliament.

And the Kremlin put on a strong offensive on the eve of Friday's State Duma lower house vote, one of the first tests of President-elect Vladimir Putin's leadership.

The presidency is pushing heavily for the treaty's safe passage. Both the Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov arrived at the chamber to argue for approval.

"The reality is such that we must ratify START II," said Sergeyev. "Many understand that it must be voted through. The Communists will most likely vote against. But on the other hand, there is no reason to think that the majority will not be in favor," he added.

"We must go in favor of strategic (arms) disarmament for economic reasons." Ivanov also came to the Duma to help push though a pact approved by the US Congress in 1996.

He briefly left the building for the Kremlin without speaking to the press. Ivanov returned several hours later to describe his talks with parliament deputies as "constructive.

"The most important thing is that we must defend Russia's national interests." Signed by former leaders Yeltsin and George Bush, then US president, START II foresees cutting Russia's nuclear arsenal to 3,000 warheads, compared to 3,500 for the United States.

The bill now before the Duma however comes with an amendment: Russia reserves the right to pull out of the treaty should the United States breach a missile defence treaty signed almost 30 years ago.

The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Treaty (ABM) bans both countries from building nation-wide nuclear defense shields, instead allowing them to defend one specific site.

Russia has built one around Moscow, and the United States outside a strategic nuclear military base.

Approval of START II will pave the way for a fresh round of arms reduction talks. The Interfax news agency cited Russian diplomatic sources as saying that Moscow is prepared for even deeper cuts to its nuclear arms should the United States reciprocate.

A new START III treaty proposed in the report would cut both sides' nuclear arsenal to 1,500 warheads.

Passage of START II, with the coda on respecting the ABM treaty, would give Moscow ammunition in its row with Washington over US plans to forge ahead with national missile defense.

"We think that the painful concern for Russia, its future and security will prevail and that deputies will approve the document," Sergeyev told reporters after the hearings over ratification which the Duma held behind closed doors on Thursday.

"We don't have much room for maneuver here," he added. In his view, "the real situation is such that it is necessary to ratify the START-2 treaty and begin the START-3 treaty."

Taking part in the Thursday hearings were officials from the Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry and Security Council.

Duma is due to vote on START-2 on Friday. According to Sergeyev, deputies take the treaty very seriously, with many realizing the necessity of its ratification.

At the same time, the minister noted that the Communists and Leftists will vote against it.

"We have to continue slashing strategic offensive armaments while keeping in mind our economic resources, including security, and preserve the balance of nuclear forces," he said.

Economic reasoning for it is very simple: Russia needed 350 billion roubles until December 31, 2003, to decommission the missiles ahead of expiration of their service life, but the problem disappeared once the term was extended to 2007, the minister said.

Instead of the missiles which will be destroyed by 2007, nuclear deterrence will be ensured by sea missiles Bulava-30, Topol-M (silo-based and mobile ones) and a new Air Force's strategic cruise missile.

Russia's Navy currently has 19 combat-ready missile-carrying submarines, four of which are on combat duty. "In real time, when subs are on combat duty, neither Americans are tracking us, nor we -- their submarines," he added. Also on Thursday, Lyubov Slizka, first deputy speaker from the Yedinstvo (Unity) faction, said the faction intends to back the proposal by the president-elect to ratify START-2.

"We think Foreign and Defense Ministries' officials at the special parliamentary hearings today cited very convincing arguments supportive of this initiatives by the head of state," Slizka told Itar-Tass.

The situation on the eve of the voting shows significant changes in the Duma. For six years, the Leftist majority brandished populist slogans, forcing the budget into unacceptable expenses to maintain the obsolete weapons instead of diverting these means to perfect the nuclear forces or systems of conventional armaments, she emphasized.

At last, this will end the dictate of non-professionals who do not wish to take into account the realities of strategic parity, the lawmaker added. In her view, the supporters of ratification have outnumbered the opponents lately.

"I cannot make predictions but the specialists in the START-2 treaty offered very convincing arguments today," she said.

Many became convinced that one should not spend money from Russia's meager budget on rusty weapons. It is better to develop new technologies and missile systems such as Topol-M, according to Slizka.

"I wouldn't like to see the Communist faction accuse the whole country of treason," Slizka said, "Russia has always been a peacekeeper, and if we fail to ratify START-2 on Friday, it will be -- let's say -- an obstacle to further implementation of the ABM agreements, and we will start a Cold War era again."

The 17th paragraph. That such news gets treated in so offhand a manner says something unflattering about journalists. That it is met by the public with equally laconic boredom is also an unflattering commentary.

But to turn away in distaste is human. If your indignation is futile, it is even a form of sanity. It is something else again to cover for a crime, to try to blunt or confuse public debate over it; doing so, whatever one's motivation, creates space and time for new crimes.

Witness the Clinton administration as it mocks those who worry about where Russia is headed. Madeleine Albright announced last week that "we have to stop the psychobabble about the KGB thing." In the same language, her lieutenant for political affairs, former U.S. ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering, dismissed "Putinology" as a waste of time that tells "more about the analyst than it does about the patient on the couch."

Translation: Don't ask about how we and our Kremlin allies are handling things; you'll look shrill; you'll embarrass yourself.

We expected as much from a Clinton-Gore administration running for re-election and deeply complicit in Russia's economic and political failures. But who would have guessed that the new Tony Blair team would be so fawningly eager to taint itself as well? In Germany, the new government looks with contempt upon corrupt Helmut Kohl "personal friendships;" in France, there is real anger about the war.

In Britain, by contrast, Blair has embraced his status as Putin's pet foreigner. Putin has airily waved aside reports of atrocities against civilians, and the war grinds grimly on while he skies and frolics. But none of this gives pause to Blair, who gushes about Putin more freely and favorably than does even Sergei Yastrzhembsky.

Russian presidential aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky at the end of March caused a sensation when he said that Aslan Maskhadov had been told through Ingush President Ruslan Aushev under which conditions would Moscow enter into a dialogue with "the former Ichkeria regime." These conditions are the "unconditional dissolution of all gangs, the removal of mercenaries from Chechnya and the extradition of terrorists and gangsters such as Basayev and Khattab, who have the blood of Russian servicemen and civilians on their hands," Yastrzhembsky said.

Dialogue did not take place because no response in writing as demanded by Russia had been forthcoming, he said. "Maskhadov is not prepared for serious negotiations," Yastrzhembsky charged.

Maskhadov showed signs of life two weeks later. In a Deutsche Welle interview this week he for the first time denounced Basayev for having attacked Dagestan, thus provoking Russia into a military campaign against Chechnya, and said that he is prepared for a dialogue without preconditions.

Moscow gave him the cold shoulder. "Maskhadov may set no preconditions but we do," Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Ivanov said.

Maskhadov only pretends his preparedness for talks, Interfax sources at the Russian Defense Ministry think. "He is trying to buy time for the rebels to regroup, lick their wounds and redouble their resistance," a ministry official said.

The forests in Chechnya are turning green with the coming of spring, enabling the rebels to hide and launch sudden assaults on Russian checkpoints, experts say. "The situation will further deteriorate when snow melts in the mountains and the mountain passes open. Rebels will be able to obtain ammunition, food and medicines from Georgia and from Azerbaijan through Dagestan and this will delay the end of the anti-terrorist operation," Defense Ministry officials say.

Furthermore, Moscow seems not to trust Maskhadov, who has repeatedly changed his position as the political situation varied. "The Russian leaders see no good reason to believe the man or his statements," Yastrzhembsky said.

Russian leaders also suspect that Maskhadov has dissociated himself from Basayev and said he is prepared for talks because Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Chairman Lord Russel- Johnston threatened recently to break off all kinds of relations with Maskhadov if he did not denounce terrorism.

Even though Maskhadov has backtracked from his earlier stance that the hostilities should end and Russian troops withdraw from Chechnya prior to talks, his new position still does not suit Moscow, so the talks cannot begin.

Before starting talks, at least two questions must be answered, with whom and about what. While dialogue with Maskhadov cannot be ruled out, there is nothing to talk about with him yet because the gap between the two sides is too wide.

Washington, 13 April 2000 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. experts on Central Asia say the region has made little progress toward democracy and the development of a civil society since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The experts made the assessment Wednesday before the U.S. House of Representatives panel examining trends in Central Asia. They told the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that the leaders in the country have become more autocratic. They said the latest recent round of elections, which have been widely criticized by the international community, demonstrate the downward trend.

Congressman Doug Bereuter, who chaired the hearing, said that Central Asia has long been sidelined by U.S. foreign policy. But he said that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's upcoming trip to the region and other developments show that that the United States is giving the region new priority.

"The Central Asian states are at a critical junction in their political and economic development, balance between democracy and authoritarianism, between free market economy and systemic corruption, between cooperation with or resistance to the West."

Bereuter said that each Central Asian state faces three fundamental challenges. First, he said they must forge a shared national identity that accommodates their diverse ethnic and religious groups. Second, he said the states must develop political and legal structures that are compatible with democracy. And third, he said, they must create an open economic and political system.

Donald Pressley, assistant administrator for the Bureau for Europe and Eurasia at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) offered a mixed analysis.

"While civil society and non-governmental sectors are growing, there are still no guarantees of freedom of speech and association, there are still insufficient transparent and democratic processes to support the rights of citizens as opposed to suppressing the rights of citizens."

Pressley said that the goal of U.S. foreign in the region is to promote stable, democratic, market-oriented development so that these independent states can prevent conflict, resist global threats, such as drugs and terrorism, and exploit their abundant natural resources.

He recommended that Congress continue to target development initiatives at the local level. He said that this would be the most cost-effective way to target U.S. funding in the region.

"I believe that we do have the best opportunity in the grass roots approach in the civil society work. If I could emphasize the role that non-governmental organizations play in that part of the world." Martha Brill Olcott, a policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a private think tank, says that the governments justify their continued rule -- and increasing oppressions -- by saying that their populations are not ready for democracy. Moreover, she said the leaders contend that their people respect strong leaders, in the Central Asian tradition, and are ill disposed to democracy.

But most importantly she says they argue that the region is too dangerous to allow them the risk of empowering the people. In her analysis, the leaders themselves have stifled democratic trends.

"The main reason why democracies have not developed in Central Asia is because the region's leaders don't want them to."

“My friend bought [the limonka hand grenade] for 50 rubles ($1.80),” said university student Timur Magomedov. “I was astonished to know that it costs so cheap. He said that you just need to know the right places and the right people to buy one.”

Magomedov is from Dagestan, a secular Muslim republic east of Chechnya on the Caspian Sea. Mired in poverty, Dagestan relies on Moscow for 90 percent of its budget. But that may be about to change.

Last September, Dagestan became the only Russian region to adopt a law giving its citizens the right to possess weapons, as long as they are registered. Many believe that the new law is setting up the republic to become an international arms market.

“You may carry whatever you wish — pistols, assault rifles, grenade-launchers, even a tank. But come to us and register it,” Adilgirey Magomedtagirov, Dagestan’s Minister of the Interior, said in an address to his countrymen last year — in the days after Chechen separatists led an Islamic incursion into Dagestan.

ARMING THE POPULATION

By the end of the next day, the ministry had handed out more than 6,000 assault rifles to Dagestani “volunteers” — sent out to help the Russian military beat back the Chechen fighters led by the notorious Shamil Basayev, the Chechen rebel leader who is currently Russia’s most-wanted man. The plan succeeded. Since those hot August days in 1999, the Russian military has gone much further than beating a few hundred rebels back into Chechnya — it has rolled over almost the entire republic, pushing the few thousand Chechen fighters left after months of bombing into the desolate mountains to the south.

But with the Chechen rebels now far away, Dagestan is still feeling the effects of their invasion last year. Just look at youth fashion in the streets of the capital, Makhachkala, where a pistol tucked into blue jeans is all the rage.

And as Russian troops start to withdraw from Chechnya through Dagestan, they are leaving a trail of trophies — guns confiscated from Chechen rebels. Lacking cash after months of war, many exchange these weapons for pocket money from Dagestanis eager to make a purchase. Local news reports recently carried a tale of two Russian soldiers who paid a Makhachkala prostitute with assault rifles.

Forty-three-year-old Rustam, a trader in Buinaksk, a Dagestani town where the Russian troops are permanently based, said he does brisk business with the Russian troops.

“Soldiers buying vodka offer grenades and shells more often than money. I know that the official price of one 5.45 shell is 8 rubles (25 cents). Here I can get them 10 times cheaper.”

Do the authorities actually want to recall all the guns now that the immediate threat of Chechen insurgents has past? Not likely. When the National Assembly of Dagestan adopted the law on weapons in September 1999, Russia’s acting procurator Vladimir Ustinov hurried to Makhachkala to discuss the issue with the local authorities. As far as the Kremlin’s chief law enforcer could determine, the Russian Constitution does not forbid “volunteers” from carrying guns. And since the measure was so popular among the population, nobody is broaching the subject of a weapons recall.

DAGESTAN’S PRIVATE ARMIES

Dagestan is made up of more than 30 competing clans and ethnic groups, and most of its most prominent citizens — village and tribal leaders — keep their own private armies. For these small militias, the government’s decision to create “volunteer” brigades has been a boon, virtually legalizing their own paramilitaries and allowing for wider distribution of deadly weapons. “We were fighting Basayev’s incursion with our old hunting rifles,” recalls Magomed Saigidov, a former volunteer during the August 1999 rebel invasion. “Some guys came from Levashi and brought us sniper rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers. All of them wore the armored vests and many had walkie-talkies.” Levashi is the hometown of Magomedali Magomedov, the head of the republic’s State Council, and Sayid Amirov, Makhachkala’s mayor. The leaders took care to distribute the best weaponry in and around their own villages.

The pervasiveness of weapons in the Caucasus is not likely to end anytime soon — at least as long as they litter the fields of Russia’s southern republics.

“The last time I was in Chechnya with the Russian military, I found a disposable grenade launcher in a field,” said Sergei Lapshin, a Dagestani journalist. “I picked it up, put it in my rucksack and took the military helicopter back to Makhachkala. “I could have kept it without and problems, but I opted to hand it over to police at the airport.”

WEAPONS-BASED ECONOMY

While deadly, the disposable grenade launcher Lapshin harvested from a field in Chechnya is one of the regions only viable cash-producing products. >From the Russian soldiers selling arms on their way home to Chechen rebels who regularly trade guns to feed their families, the sale of weapons in the Caucasus provides not only security but survival for impoverished residents. For now, police have little incentive to take weapons from a people grown used to packing guns and a government that encourages it. And as long as the laws remain loose, law enforcement will lag behind eye-for-an-eye clan disputes — and just plain old crime.

Just ask Khalitbek Makhachev, head of the Caspian Regional Fish Inspection and charged with reigning in Dagestan’s rampant poaching of sturgeon, the Caspian Sea fish prized for its black caviar.

We need a strategy to lead Russia out of the ranks of 'marginals' and into the key directions of scientific and technological progress. As I see it, this can happen, if Russia becomes the bridge between the two largest regional markets--the European Union and the Asia-Pacific region. Russia is the only country in the world which has vital interests in both Europe and Asia. Economically, we are still staying aloof of the integration processes in both sections of Eurasia.

Moreover, there were two summit meetings between the EU and East Asian leaders in 1996 and 1998 who discussed intensified and deepened economic relations between the two continents. Russia was not even invited.

Seoul will be the venue for a third summit meeting this year. I believe that Russia must be represented there--not as a beggar, but as the country which can radically help intensify the economic, scientific and technological exchange between the two regional blocs.

Apart from everything else, this global strategy will help define priorities of Russia's domestic development and reinforce Russia's unity at home.

Lastly, one of the two worst problems of Russia--bad roads--can be dealt with. There may come the time when the other one--that of morons--will also be tackled.

Question: Why roads? Even Napoleon drowned in Russian mud in his time. And now, Russia's global designs do not tally with the state of its economy, or do they?

Answer: What I am suggesting is not a 'Napoleonic plan'. For the first time ever, the matter at issue is not Russia's security upheld through a military balance: we will not have military supremacy over our neighbours in both the West and the East in the foreseeable future.

But geography will still be there in the 21st century. Thanks to its geographic location, Russia is the only country which can double and triple the speed with which commodities are delivered from one end of the world to the other. Besides, Russia's route is much cheaper. The currently actively debated plans to revive and develop the Great Silk Road in circumvention of Russia prove that the marine route via the Indian Ocean has exhausted its potentialities. This country can offer a much more beneficial route by force of its geographic location and political circumstances. This is a trump card even though Russia is very weak now. Question: The West seems to be more concerned about the state of Russia's nuclear arsenals rather than the state of its transport arteries. The talk is of returning to the cold-war times. Do you think Russia may be feared but not respected again, in the 21st century?

Answer: Do not take me for a cynic, but even this formula will not work. Nobody is afraid of Russia as far as its conventional forces are concerned: remember the experience of the two Chechen wars. American experts say Russia cannot invade even its own territory. And nothing will remain of our nuclear potentialities in ten years without restoring the economy, industry and science. We may be another Upper Volta with an arsenal of nuclear missiles, but I don't recall it being feared. It is a fact that military might still matters, but it is not the main or the only factor of security in the world of today. Global economic ties are becoming crucial. The volume of trade between Europe and East Asia doubles every five years, which means millions of new jobs. Until recently, the global economy has been focused on the US. Building a new axis of global economy is a must now for Europe and East Asia. Russia may become pivotal.

Question: The West is very unwilling to include Russia in all sorts of European structures. We have been standing on the APEC doorsteps for a long time before they admitted us. To date, Russia is not a member of the WTO. Do you think it will overcome the 'inertia of rejection'?

Answer: To be honest, in a number of economic indices we are tailing the East European states, and even they are falling short of the EU criteria. But this past December, the EU, while announcing its plans of admitting new members, said that Turkey was 'doomed' to be a member. Russia was not even mentioned in this context--it was talked about in connection with Chechnya only. Although I think Turkey is no better than Russia in the levels of development of the democratic institutes and market infrastructure. But it has been a loyal NATO member for fifty years. Our relations with NATO are different: the sides are sitting on the fence.

Still, it is better not to criticise the West (though, there is something to reproach it of), but rather ponder what we can offer that nobody else can. The Eurasian strategy may become this idea.

As to the WTO, Russia must become a member, of course. But even China has been negotiating its membership in the WTO for 14 years, fighting for every letter in the agreement, and has 'capitulated' on very beneficial terms.

Question: It looks as if Russia will have to 'capitulate' to NATO sooner or later. President Putin has said his famous 'Why not?' while answering a question on Russia's potential membership in the alliance. It looks as if other forms of coexistence of the 'potential adversaries' have been exhausted. Do you think that the Standing Russia-NATO Council, the idea of which you suggested several years ago, is yet another un-viable project?

Answer: I regret to say that we have failed at building a wholesome strategy of relations with NATO. In the early '90s and even in the mid-'90s we could have concluded an agreement with NATO which would have been much more beneficial than the 1997 Founding Act.

When we lost such levers as the continued presence of Russian troops in Germany and some East European countries, we could only appeal to the wisdom and good will of the West. The West was naturally reluctant to meet us half-way. But can you remember a single serious initiative of Russia's?

Putin's statement in the BBC interview in which he talked of the possibility of Russia joining NATO, I think, reflects another initiative strategy. It is not that of Russia becoming a NATO member tomorrow or next week. Russia's objective is its equal participation in the decision making on the European security matters. As I see it, the Standing Council should be the mechanism.

Question: While deciding to withdraw from the ABM treaty, the US has not asked Russia's opinion or respected Russia. How serious is the ABM problem? How instrumental are the considerations of political opportunism?

Answer: ABM jeopardises the current system of strategic stability. The set of Soviet-American accords in the sphere of strategic offensive and defensive weapons is well-nigh the only and certainly the main index of Russia's status in global affairs.

But since America and Russia have no parity in the economic, political or any other sphere, the US will not stand by the formal military strategic parity with us forever. But it has to be noted that America has no ABM system in reality--in 1975, they deployed the ABM treaty-okayed 100 missiles only to shortly mothball and dismantle them. It would take the US a great many years to build a working system of ABM defense of its territory.

But there is a more serious problem. All American plans of deploying ABM entail the placement of several echelons of space sensors in orbit, something which will make the old limitations senseless. Even if the ABM treaty is slightly modified, if it embraces the combat command system, we would have a maximum of ten years of American predictability and limited nature of the American ABM system, and then the situation may change beyond recognition.

All options have to be carefully pondered if we do not want confrontation to be the only way out. Question: But it calls for new approaches and new personnel.

The Soviet-American relations have always been largely dependent on the political line and the role of personality in history--the epochs of Gromyko, Kozyrev, etc. Do you think the times are changing?

Answer: The opinion that relations between superpowers can be pivotal on personal likes and dislikes is illusory. There have been cultural shifts, a change of generations, and transformations in the expert communities. The traditional approaches and simplified judgements are often not working. Of course, there is the need to train specialists of a new type--on all levels. Incidentally, the US and Canada Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences is building a new educational establishment--the World Politics Faculty. The aim is to train broad-minded experts and analysts plus practical specialists on diplomacy, international relations, international security, domestic and international policies, global economy and international law.

The demand for such people is enormous. The main feature of theirs should be broad and free thinking. Thus far, this will be the only faculty of this type in Russia.

Characteristically, it is a state-owned and free educational establishment, which bespeaks of the great interest in it on the highest state level.

But the strategy the country's leadership will pick is the main thing, of course. As I see it, the very first moves of the acting president, and now the president-elect, indicate that he is ready to normalise relations with the West and to seek agreement with the US and its allies. The question is whether the West is ready to meet Russia half-way.

Highlights follow:

PACE DECISION ASSESSED: In contrast to Russian officials, who assailed the PACE for reverting to "Cold War" tactics, several leading reformist papers in Moscow reserved their harshest censure for their own politicians and worried about possible damage to Russia's relations with Europe. According to Izvestiya, "We may holler...scolding Europe for...interference in our internal affairs...but we would do better to blame ourselves.... We have offered Europe nothing in the way of how we are going to end the war." A significant number of others, however, mirrored the government's reaction, grousing about the Strasbourg assembly's "counterproductive, if not outrageous" decision and its unfair "pillorying" of Moscow. "Russia can deal with its war criminals on its own, without advice from Strasbourg," scoffed one, while another dismissed the move as "having no effect on Russia." Outside Russia, European media generally welcomed the PACE's action. "After months of protests...an international organization has finally taken measures against Russia," said a Rome daily. A few, nevertheless, stressed potential risks, namely that Russia's suspension might "benefit the forces of nationalism" and further "isolate" Russia from a democratic Europe. 'CHALLENGING U.S. HEGEMONY'?: Writers in Europe, Asia and the Mideast considered whether Mr. Putin's vow to restore Russia's global prestige would "challenge U.S. hegemony." While judging that Moscow's "emerging from its lethargy...is not negative, per se," an Italian writer held, "This possibility makes the [U.S.] leadership role...even more necessary." A few pundits predicted "security realignments" in Asia, as Moscow seeks to "counterbalance the U.S." Countering a Seoul writer's concern about renewed "confrontation" between Moscow and Washington, a New Delhi editorial intoned, "Today's is an age of cooperation and competition," not confrontation, while a Beijing paper foresaw "compromise amid frictions" in U.S.-Russo ties.

EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr....

RUSSIA: "PACE Too Emotional"

Yevgeny Umerenkov pointed out in reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (4/11): "The PACE certainly went too far, overwhelmed by emotions. But this is not to say that we should not cooperate with this august organization. But then of course, it is a two-way street. Now we should wait for the CE's Council of Ministers to react. If it refuses to join the PACE in upbraiding Russia, the dialogue may well be renewed."

"Decision Benefits Rebels"

Yuri Bogomolov asserted in reformist Izvestiya (4/10): "All the minuses of the PACE's decision in the final analysis combine to make a big plus for the rebels. Europe's sternly reprimanding Russia is a great moral boost for them, stimulating the guerrilla warfare and extending the suffering of the peaceful population. The war is increasingly becoming a way for them to communicate with the outside world, waged mostly in front of TV and video cameras."

"When In Europe, Do As The Europeans Do"

Aleksei Portansky judged on page one of reformist Vremya MN (4/8): "The PACE's being tough on Russia certainly offends, and rightly so, any Russian with concern for his country's reputation. But whether we like it or not, the opinion which was expressed in Strasbourg is that of the European public, not of a group of parliamentarians. Nobody in the West is going to defend terrorists. But what is the sense of killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people to destroy terrorists? The Council of Europe is largely meant to protect human rights and pluralistic democracy. Adherence to these principles unites 41 European states in this organization.... Countries want to join, just as people like to live in a well-kept house where nobody litters the floor or stages drunken brawls. But to live in the house, you have at least to follow its rules."

"Hypocrites"

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (4/8) front-paged a commentary by Vladimir Lapsky: "The decision by the majority of PACE deputies to start a procedure to suspend Russia is counterproductive, if not outrageous.... The PACE clearly dissembles as it censures Moscow for violating civil rights and demands an immediate end to the antiterrorist operation.... The current session in Strasbourg is openly anti-Russian. In fact, the PACE has denied us a right to territorial integrity and defense from international terrorism. Its decision affects our national dignity. The session has revealed no realistic or constructive approach or a genuine, not ostentatious, concern for human rights. We should draw a lesson from that and review our participation in the PACE's work."

"What Do We Gain By Being In The CE?"

Vladimir Katin pointed out in a report from Strasbourg for centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (4/8): "Russia, as the Council of Europe's biggest country, is a major contributor to its budget, paying $25 million annually. "Now what do we get in return? Slaps in the face, as we undeservedly come under fire, now being subjected to open discrimination and virtual suspension from the organization we finance."

"PACE Defends Bandits"

Centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (4/8) ran this piece by Vadim Markushin: "It is either that the European parliamentarians are unaware of what is really going on in Chechnya, hypnotized by demagogues, or that they, while being well informed, believe that hypocrisy and a double standard are a thoroughly civilized stand, an established norm of behavior in the West.... The PACE has become an advocate of those who forced the Chechen people to live in an atmosphere of total criminality. But it would be wrong for us to pretend that Russia is blameless. We may have to rethink much in order for the process of rehabilitation [in the region] to get under way. But how can enlightened Europe help rehabilitation? Or perhaps it cannot, only able to add fuel to the fire? Can Russia do without the Council of Europe? It probably can, just as the Council of Europe can do without Russia. But where would we all end up then? Back in the Cold War?"

"Russia Suffers Defeat"

Reformist Izvestiya (4/7) front-paged a comment by Elmar Guseinov in Strasbourg and Semyon Novoprudsky: "Diplomatese aside, we have missed, or nearly missed, Europe. While our elated new president was touring the country and our Duma envoys were censuring their thoughtless European colleagues, assuring the world that everything would be fine, Europe actually gave us the boot. Our isolation from the Old World and the West in general has never been more palpable in modern Russian history. When we started the war in Chechnya, we gave up foreign policy, hiding behind idioms like a counter-revolutionary operation, proving helpless in the face of Europe's political onslaught. We may holler our heads off, scolding Europe for double standards, interference in our internal affairs, and attempts to push us into self-isolation, but we would do better to blame ourselves. We have done nothing to let Europe know that we want good relations with it, no less than we want an end to the Chechnya campaign. We have offered Europe nothing in the way of how we are going to end the war. Russia may not be expelled from the Council of Europe. But we are no longer considered a European nation. It would be naive to deny that this is our fault."

"Russia Deserves Sanctions"

Aleksei Portansky said on page one of reformist Vremya MN (4/7): "Our politicians are not telling the truth when they claim that Russia is being driven into a corner and dictated to. In fact, on the strength of all evidence, the Council of Europe or the EU might have used sanctions against Russia long ago for violating human rights in the North Caucasus.... Of the two warring factions committing those crimes, Moscow bears a far greater responsibility insofar as it has committed to observe humanitarian norms per international legal documents on human rights."

"Disgrace"

Svetlana Sukhova in Strasbourg reported on page one of reformist Segodnya (4/7): "Standing trial in an international court is a disgrace. There is no other word for it. But this is only the beginning. The PACE's resolution is as tough as can be.... Russia, most likely, will retaliate, say, by barring international observers from Chechnya or possibly by refusing to ratify a protocol to the Convention on Human Rights to ban capital punishment.... Europe, for its part, would lose the opportunity to influence the situation in the North Caucasus. It is essential, though, that the whole thing does not end with an iron curtain."

"It's Not The End Of The World Yet"

Reformist youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (4/7) published this by Yelena Ovcharenko and Maksim Chikin: "Yesterday's debate in Strasbourg shows that Russia and the West are still far apart. As we are attempting to get closer together, Europe will not budge an inch on its principles. The PACE's decision does not spell a crisis or a break with the rest of the world. Agreements are rarely reached in the first round. It is not the end of the world, but a time-out."

"Decision To Have No Effect On Russia"

Kseniya Fokina opined on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (4/7): "The result of expelling Russia from the Council...will be the direct opposite of what the advocates of human rights in Europe are trying to achieve. Not even refusing to confirm the credentials of the Russian delegation would have affected Russia, with the operation in Chechnya virtually over and Moscow more aware of its errors than the European parliamentarians."

"Europe: Back To 19th Century"

He said that 1.5 billion roubles (£22 million) would be found to support the ageing space station.

But it is a reflection of the current state of Mir that the announcement of more money for orbital platform should add to the confusion that envelops the project. The announcement left space analysts uncertain about how Mir will be operated in the future.

Following that earlier refusal to give Mir any more money, RKK Energia, the company that owns the space station, signed an agreement with Netherlands-based MirCorp to provide a cash injection to keep the platform aloft.

Hotel in space?

MirCorp found $20 million (£14 million) to fund the latest manned mission to Mir and intends to exploit the station commercially, though it has not revealed its plans to do this. One idea it has floated is to use Mir as a space hotel but no customers have yet signed up.

Mr Putin was speaking on the 39th anniversary of the Soviet Union launching the first man into space. He said that the Russian government will find money for Mir and maintain its commitment to the International Space Station (ISS), a project being led by the United States.

Mr Putin's decision to keep Mir working has added to scepticism that Russia will be able to meet its obligations to the ISS, a project that is already months late because of Russia's failure to build key components on time. Space analysts have said it is not clear where Russia will find the money. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia drastically scaled back its space programme, and so far the government has only earmarked about $120 million (£80 million) to the programme this year.

Mr Putin said the Russian Security Council would meet soon to discuss financing the space programme.

Yuri Koptev, director of the Russian Aerospace Agency said: "We shall have clarity by the end of the month on funding Mir after August."

Regarding Russia's contribution to the ISS, Mr Koptev confirmed that Russia will launch on 12 July the Zvezda service module, which was originally expected to be sent to the ISS in April 1998.

Microcrack

Meanwhile the crew aboard Mir has been working to transfer it from automatic to manual controls. Cosmonauts Sergei Zalyotin and Alexander Kaleri have been on Mir for just over a week and report that it seems in reasonable shape after its many months unoccupied.

Russian space officials have said that Mir's fate depends on whether the cosmonauts can find an annoying leak.

According to the deputy chief of the Cosmonauts' Training Centre, Vasily Tsibliyev, the crew's main task is to detect what he calls a "microcrack", which is upsetting the pressurisation of the station.