#1
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
29 April 1999

RUSSIA REACHES AN AGREEMENT WITH THE IMF... Moscow and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) have reached an agreement on new Fund credits. The
Fund's managing director, Michel Camdessus, who met in Washington with the
Russian delegation, headed by First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov,
said that the Russian side had agreed to series of measures in the banking,
financial and structural spheres. These reportedly include five items.
First, requiring the cabinet of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov to push
measures on restructuring the banking system--including bankrupting some
major banks--through the State Duma. Second, instituting a three-fold
increase the excise tax on gasoline. Third, increasing excise taxes on
vodka. Fourth, halting the Russian Central Bank's restrictions on the sale
of hard currency. And, fifth, rescinding a reduction in the value-added tax.
Camdessus was quoted as saying that as soon as these measures are realized,
he will ask the IMF's board of directors to approve US$4.5 billion in new
IMF credits to Russia (Russian agencies, April 29).

The US$4.5 billion package is the absolute minimum which Russia had hoped
for, and will, in essence, amount to a restructuring of Russia's debt to the
Fund, which will help keep Russia from a default. According to reports
today, the credit will be disbursed in tranches of US$1.5 billion every six
months for the next eighteen months (Russian agencies, April 29). Russia
will also receive US$1.25 billion this year from the World Bank--and a
combined total of US$3.3 billion over two years from the World Bank and
Japan. All in all, however, it means that Russia will likely have to dip
into its hard currency reserves to pay off all its foreign debts this year.

...AVERAGE RUSSIAN MAY SUFFER AS A RESULT. While the news that Moscow and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had come to an agreement came too late
to make today's newspapers, some of them already knew of the IMF conditions
for the credit, and reacted quite negatively. One paper headlined its main
article today: "The government raises the rates: IMF recommendations will be
fulfilled Soviet-style--vodka and gasoline will rise in price several
times." The paper reported that the average Russian will now have to pay for
seven months of "inactivity" on the part of the Primakov government in the
economic sphere (Segodnya, April 29).

Indeed, should the increases in taxes on vodka and gasoline--plus the
cancellation of lowering VAT--pass the Duma, they will primarily affect the
average Russian. Meanwhile, the country's Central Bank has, over the past
seven months, given the equivalent of US$700 million in "stabilization
credits" to fifteen large commercial banks. Earlier this year the World Bank
conducted a study of eighteen large Russian banks, and reportedly found that
fifteen of them had "negative equity" and should be liquidated or
restructured (Moscow Times, April 29).

Among these banks, undoubtedly, are institutions controlled by leading
"oligarchs," such as SBS-Agro bank (which was not long ago renamed "Soyuz").
The bank, which received Central Bank stabilization credits, has developed
close ties with Agrarian Party, which is represented in the Primakov cabinet
by Deputy Prime Minister Gennady Kulik. Kulik's son sits on SBS-Agro's board
of directors. The bank's founder, Aleksandr Smolensky, is wanted in
connection with a criminal case involving embezzlement, and reportedly
remains outside Russia.

Whether the Primakov cabinet will be able to fulfill the IMF conditions for
the new credit remains to be seen. According to one report, the fund's
demand that gasoline taxes be raised three times was characterized during
yesterday's cabinet meeting as political "suicidal." The cabinet apparently
believes it can do no more than double gas excises (Kommersant, April 29).
Whether the cabinet has the will or even the desire to bankrupt insolvent
banks--or at least stop bailing them out--also remains to be seen.

#4
Caspian Sea: Gloomy Picture Overshadows Development
By Michael Lelyveld

Boston, 29 April 1999 (RFE/RL) -- The latest issue of National Geographic
magazine paints a dark picture of Caspian Sea development at a time when
governments are predicting a brighter future for the region if their plans
proceed. 

Author Robert Cullen has drawn an intimate portrait of the problems on
every shore of the Caspian, touching on issues of poverty, pollution and
corruption in the midst of oil exploration and wealth for the privileged few. 

As Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliyev signed three new oil deals in
Washington on Tuesday, there was reason to worry that the wealth will not
be shared. As Cullen makes clear, the vast majority of the region's people
are still struggling with privation, inadequate services and a ruined
environment. So far, their lives have not been improved by the oil boom.
The concern is that more development may only make matters worse. 

As the center of the earliest oil discoveries of the last century,
Azerbaijan is still saddled with the legacy of oil exploitation from the
Soviet and pre-Soviet periods. The residue of past damage remains. The
search for new riches brings only the hope of needed income rather than the
promise that the Caspian can ever be restored. 

The most poignant picture from the National Geographic article is that of a
refugee who has tried without success to farm a patch of oil-soaked land
near Baku. "Nothing here grows," she says. She is unlikely to reap the
benefits of either big business or the political power plays over which way
the Caspian's oil should flow. 

As in other parts of the world, opportunity comes first and the environment
finishes last. Big western oil companies have invested heavily in offshore
projects, bringing a greater measure of safety to their operations than
those of the careless Soviet past. 

But even the latest contracts, valued at $10 billion, have followed a
familiar pattern. As in earlier deals, the big companies like Exxon and
Mobil are pursuing offshore projects while leaving onshore wells to smaller
firms like Texas-based Moncrief Oil International. 

Industry sources say the larger companies have steered clear of onshore
development for two reasons. First, their huge capital resources are better
targeted at the big offshore investments that need them. But secondly,
there is concern that the deep pockets of the big companies could become a
target for lawsuits if they take over the onshore wells with their
potential liability for the environmental damage of the past. 

As a result, the big companies have left onshore projects  to smaller
firms, which have fewer resources to target, in case things go wrong. It is
a good defensive strategy for investment, but not one that is likely to
leave the hapless farmer better off. 

The environmental risk of trans-Caspian pipelines has been  largely
overridden as an issue because of the economic and political benefits of
building them. Part of the problem is that Russia first raised questions
about the danger of running underwater lines through an earthquake-prone
region. Because of Russia's dismal environmental record, it was assumed
that the objections were political rather than a sincere cause for concern. 

Residents also bear blame for environmental damage caused through
over-fishing of Caspian waters, threatening the precious sturgeon on which
many must survive. Again, the emphasis is on daily survival rather than the
consequences for the future. 

A third problem highlighted by National Geographic is systemic corruption
in Azerbaijan and the prevalence of bribery. The magazine reports
shakedowns by customs officials who victimize the poor. The implication is
far different from that drawn last month by the Economist Intelligence
Unit's publication Business Eastern Europe, which called Azerbaijan's
corruption problem "reliable." That magazine concluded that because the
country is tightly controlled, "there is just one person to pay off, and a
single payment generally ensures good treatment." 

The problems of pollution, poverty and corruption are all failings of
governance, as the multilateral lending agencies are fond of calling such
issues. Institutions in the region are simply inadequate when it comes to
providing fair or protective treatment to their citizens, in either good
times or bad. 

U.S. officials have spoken of institution-building in the Caspian
countries, a process which is expected to take place gradually, along with
oil development. But there has been little question as to which comes
first, both in point of time and importance. 

Business demands that the Caspian must first become a paying proposition
before there are revenues to distribute. But there is little confidence
that revenues will be used to solve the problems that these countries face. 

If investment dries up, the region and its environment may be no better off
than before. But there is also no assurance that simply pumping money in
and pumping oil out will improve it, either.                     

	(Michael Lelyveld is national correspondent for the Journal of Commerce.
This analysis was written for RFE/RL.)

#5
Russia To Fight for Place in Nuclear Waste Market  

MOSCOW, April 23 (Itar-Tass) - Russian Nuclear 
Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov said on Friday that Russia must fight for 
its place on the world market for nuclear waste or it will be pushed out 
by other countries. 

Speaking to lower house lawmakers, Adamov said, "Russia must fight for its 
place on this market and capture it, or it will be forced out from it by 
France, Britain and China." 

Adamov meant that Russia must import and process nuclear waste from other 
countries. 

Adamov was invited to parliament for the so-called Government Hour during 
which Russian ministers report to the legislature on the requested 
problems. Adamov reported on the budget financing of Russian federal 
nuclear centres. 

He estimated the size of the world nuclear waste market at about 

150,000 tons and 150 billion dollars. 

Adamov believes that revenue from nuclear waste import and processing will 
be an important source of funds necessary to bail out the Russian 
economy. 

The minister said the U.S.-Russian agreement on high-grade uranium taken 
from nuclear warheads is also crucial. 

Revenues coming in accordance with this contract are a main source of 
financing the Russian nuclear missile production, the provision of safety 
of nuclear facilities, military conversion projects and research in the 
sphere of nuclear energy, Adamov said.

#6
Russian Greenpeace Protests Draft Law on Nuclear Waste 

MOSCOW, April 26 (Interfax) - Members of the 
Russian branch of the international environmental group Greenpeace on 
Monday [26 April] picketed the building of the lower house of parliament 
in Moscow, protesting against draft legislation threatening to turn 
Russia into a "nuclear dump." Russia's Greenpeace is protesting against 
supposed attempts by the Atomic Energy Ministry "to push through the 
State Duma a series of addenda and amendments to legislation that would 
make it possible to begin mass importation into Russia of nuclear waste 
accumulated in foreign countries," the group said in a release made 
available to Interfax. Russia's Greenpeace said that parliamentary 
approval of the proposed legislation would set a "critical precedent" and 
that nuclear substances brought into Russia "would inevitably cause 
irreparable damage to the environment and people's health." Russia has 
already accumulated an amount of nuclear waste "with a total activity of 
billions of curies," said the coordinator of the campaign against the 
draft legislation, Igor Forofontov. "Besides, their storage conditions 
can in no way be called safe." 

#7
Expert: No Russian Balkan Mediation on Poor Terms  

MOSCOW, April 28 (Interfax) -- Russia must not be 
drawn into the negotiating process on Yugoslav settlement "on extremely 
unconvincing and unacceptable terms," Chairman of the Presidium of the 
Council for Foreign and Defense Policies Sergei Karaganov said at a press 
conference in Moscow Wednesday. The Council for Foreign and Defense 
Policies is an influential and nongovernmental Russian organization 
established by a number of prominent political scientists and 
politicians. Karaganov said that Russia "is already playing the role of 
mediator without having set any terms." "In fact, Moscow is acting to 
NATO's benefit, suffering morale and political losses," he said. Moscow 
must state in clear terms, he said, that "it is ready to play mediator 
role if the alliance pledges to stop its airstrikes for a number of weeks 
or months." "Otherwise, we will very soon lose all our trump cards," he 
said. 

Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee Alexei Arbatov of the 
Yabloko faction, who took part in the press conference, said that "the 
mediator's role is not the role of a postman." Before making foreign 
trips, one should "work out a clear plan based on certain terms, and then 
present it to the other sides," he said. He also said that a NATO ground 
operation in Kosovo would mean that "Russia will be directly drawn into 
the war on the side of Serbia." If NATO launches such an operation, 
pressure inside Russia in favor of sending volunteers and military aid to 
Yugoslavia "will become so strong that the government will be unable to 
resist it," said Arbatov. 

#8
Primakov: NATO Has Strengthened Milosevic  

Milan's Corriere della Sera in Italian 
28 April 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Report by Marek Halter on interview with Russian Prime Minister 
Yevgeniy Primakov; place and date of interview not given: "Primakov: 
'NATO Is Wrong; It Does Not Know How To Play Chess'" 

I first met Primakov in Cairo in 1969. He was 
Pravda's Middle East correspondent. Clara Halter and I were seeking Arab 
interlocutors for our Israeli pacifist friends. It was as we were leaving 
the office of Egyptian President al-Nasir, to whom we had conveyed a 
message from Golda Meir, that we bumped into Primakov. At the time he was 
writing a book, "Al-Nasir's Egypt," and he seemed very interested in our 
efforts. He would ask us about Israel, which he did not know and which 
his mother, Anna Yakovlevna, a Jewish woman from Kiev who worked as a 
gynecologist, wanted to visit. We were attracted by his joviality -- "a 
characteristic of people who grew up in Tbilisi," he said nostalgically. 

And it is there, in Georgia, where he lived, that his mother and his son, 
Sasha, died, both of heart attacks. Primakov does not remember much about 
his father, who disappeared during the Stalinist purges of the thirties. 
At the time, I was surprised by his perfect knowledge of the Arabic 
language, which he learned in Moscow, at the Oriental Languages 
Institute. I asked him why he had chosen Arabic. "Because of the movie, 
'The Thief of Baghdad,'" he told me. 

"NATO's military intervention in Yugoslavia is a serious error," Primakov 
told me first, "a tragic mistake. I do not point to anyone in particular. 
But I do notice that there are no good chess players among the NATO 
leaders." Then, with half-closed eyes, as is his habit, he added: "by the 
way, do you play chess?" I said I do. 

"So you must know that before moving a pawn you have to predict all your 
adversary's possible strategies. Well, NATO never predicted Serbia's 
resistance or, above all, the hundreds of thousands of refugees thrown 
onto the streets following the bombardments." Primakov made another 
grimace: "Slobodan Milosevic is pursuing his own policy, which is not 
mine. I do not approve of it, but I do not know that he will not yield. I 
can tell you that he will not surrender. NATO would have to send in 
200,000 troops on the ground. It would be a tough war, the first real one 
in Europe since World War II. And many, many lives would be lost, and 
there would be even more refugees. Not to mention the destabilization of 
the Balkans and, ultimately, the failure of Europe." 

I asked the Prime Minister why, before the NATO attacks, Russia did 
not approach Milosevic in support of the populations of Kosovo. "Who said 
that we did not do so? Perhaps we could have done more. For instance, 
some joint attempts with NATO. This kind of action was envisaged by the 
agreement that I personally signed with NATO Secretary General Javier 
Solana. It is just that we were excluded from the Rambouillet conference 
and that, afterward, nobody consulted us. By attacking an independent 
state, NATO has defied the law. Indeed, only the United Nations is 
authorized to launch a military action against one of its members that 
does not abide by the UN Charter or the Human Rights Charter. It was our 
fault that the war in Korea in 1950, which was decided on by the Security 
Council, took place. It was because of the stupidity of the Soviet Union, 
which decided to boycott the Council meeting. You cannot impose justice 
by means of war." 

At this stage, Russia, which considers itself the heir to Byzantium, 
and therefore the leader of the Orthodox world, could still have 
intervened to salvage the situation by convening a conference on the 
Balkans in Moscow. I would say that it is virtually its duty, I told him. 
Primakov smiled: "It is easy for you to propose a conference in Moscow. If I, 
as Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, wanted to take up your idea, 
I would first have to know whether the NATO countries and those bordering 
Yugoslavia would be willing to accept it. The West has already humiliated 
Russia enough for me to risk its being humiliated still further. There 
are isolationist forces in our country that say: 'Enough, let us return 
to what we once were.' And there are even those who say: 'If we cannot 
respond directly to NATO, let us launch a symmetrical action elsewhere.'" 

What is your advice? I asked. 

"I am trying to democratize Russia's institutions, to combat 
corruption, to guarantee freedom of expression and opinion, to bring 
Russia closer to Europe. In our country now the conflict in the Balkans 
is bringing back to the surface old political and religious divisions, 
ethnic hostilities, and above all the hatred of the West. If Russia were 
to become an Asian power again, the world's balance would be 
jeopardized." 

Primakov stared at me hard, as though wanting to be sure that I had 
understood him properly. Then he went on: "We have lost the Soviet Union; 
we will not now permit anyone to destroy Russia." 

Primakov looked up slightly and continued: "Yes, together with the European 
leaders, we could find an alternative solution to the Yugoslav crisis. 

This, as long as we conduct consultations with a view to an 
understanding. Instead, the US diplomats who come to visit me propose 
that I put myself in their shows. I can try. But even from their own 
viewpoint, on the basis of their own objectives, I think that they are 
mistaken. Indeed, if it is a matter of getting rid of the Milosevic 
regime, they are in fact strengthening it. They have actually succeeded 
where Milosevic failed: that is, they have succeeded in eliminating any 
form of political opposition in Serbia. If it is a matter of protecting 
the population and granting the Kosovars the opportunity to return to 
their homes, we are willing to help -- militarily, too, but within the UN 
context. After checking all the information, I can assure you that 
although at the outset NATO confined itself to bombing military 
objectives, now its attacks are ruining the economy of what is a rather 
poor country. When Western troops cross the Yugoslav border they will 
find tombs and hatred. For what benefit? For what purpose? I am unable to 
discover the rationale behind this attack." 

#9
PRC, Russia Map Out Border After 3 Centuries  

Beijing, April 28 (AFP) -- China and Russia have 
reached a breakthrough in talks to map out their common border, ending a 
three-century old dispute, a Russian diplomat here said Wednesday. 
"The task of marking out the border is complete after seven years of 
work," he told AFP, about the 4,250-kilometre (2,635-mile) border 
stretching between the vast neighbours. 

"The documents are ready to be signed. It will be done at the next summit 
between the heads of state or government this year, either in Moscow or 
in Beijing," he added. 

The two countries have resolved the issue of who has sovereignty over 
2,444 uninhabited islands along the Amur River and other waterways which 
separate their two vast territories to the east. 

"The islands have been divided half and half in number and in size, with 
1,281 islands going to China and 1,163 to Russia," he added. 

Three islands, two in Ussuri close to the eastern city of Khabarovsk and 
one in Argun, whose fate has not yet been decided, will for the time 
being remain under Russian jurisdiction "but discussions are continuing 
to reach a definitive settlement," the diplomat added. 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry had no immediate comment. 

While the two countries have disputed their border since the 17th century, 
the last fighting erupted in March 1969. 

China and the then Soviet Union clashed over the island of Damansky, known 
as Zhenbao in Chinese, in Ussuri, leaving hundreds dead. 

Further clashes happened in June that year close to Yumin in China's 
northwestern Xinjiang province, on what is now the border between China 
and the Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan. 

Sino-Soviet ties were only normalised in 1989, and in 1991 the two giant 
neighbours finally began to demarcate their border. 

10
Izvestia
29 April 1999
Alliance Tries To Strangle Yugoslavia With Oil Noose 
By Taras Lariokhin 

  Since the bombings of Yugoslavia have proven to be not very effective,
NATO has decided to put the final squeeze on President Slobodan Milosevic
by cutting off oil supplies, IZVESTIA writes in its commentary.
 

  Already at the end of this week, the Alliance intends to set into motion
a sea operation to prevent any deliveries of oil and oil products to
Belgrade. Such an operation is based on the oil embargo decision on the
part of the EU, and the agreement of Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria to
support such measures.
 
  Incidentally, the author points out, Belgrade hardly has anymore need for
crude since NATO aircraft have knocked out approximately 70 percent of the
country's oil refining facilities. This means that the matter, in the main,
concerns gasoline and oil products that can be delivered by sea or up the
Danube. In the latter case, the route passes through territories of
countries which support the oil embargo. Therefore, the author explains,
NATO intends to concentrate its efforts precisely in blocking Yugoslavia's
seaports.
 
  Up till now, Russia piped crude to Belgrade via the Friendship trunk
line, and according to available information, it did no use the sea route.
A spokesman of Russia's Foreign Ministry has made it clear that the
introduction of sanctions against any country is the prerogative of the
U.N. Security Council, and because of that, the decision of NATO and the EU
to impose an embargo against Yugoslavia is valid only for the member-states
of those two organizations. In the given circumstances, the spokesman
remarked, Russia will act correspondingly.
 
  A source in Russia's Defense Ministry has informed IZVESTIA that "...in
case of an emergency situation, there are plans for protecting Russia's
interests in the Balkans." At the same time, he did not specify what kind
of plans. 

  What will the Alliance do if a Russian oil tanker steams towards the
shores of Yugoslavia? the author queries. The Chairman of NATO's Military
Committee, German General Klaus Naumann, has explained that NATO naval
ships will not employ force to detain [merchant] vessels heading towards
Yugoslavia, however the military will board and search such vessels. 

  Incidentally, the author points out, any vessel is regarded as the
territory of the country that it represents, and only its Captain has the
power to allow anyone to come on board. And what if such permission is not
given? 

  In any case, NATO's oil embargo against Yugoslavia only complicates the
international situation around the Kosovo conflict. More than that, the
United Nations has warned that a fuel crunch in Yugoslavia will, first of
all, hit hard upon the civilian population, rather than upon the Serbian
armed forces, since all the fuel reserves will go to satisfy the army's
requirements, the author concludes. 

  The blockade of Yugoslavia from the Adriatic Sea could spread the armed
conflict to the entire territory of Europe, writes another newspaper,
NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA [04/29/99, pp. 1, 6] in its commentary. 

  NATO's Supreme Commander in Europe, General Wesley Clark, has said he
would not recommend Russian naval ships to enter the Mediterranean. Today
that Sea is dominated by the U.S. 6th Fleet. In the Adriatic, the United
States, Great Britain and France have mustered a group of up to 50 fighting
ships.
 
  Doubtlessly, the author notes, such a naval force could impose a sea
blockade not only of the coast and seaports of Yugoslavia, but of the
entire Adriatic. However, proceeding from the norms of international marine
law, such actions would constitute an act of aggression, grossly flouting
the generally recognized principles and norms of international law.
 
  The author recalls America's sea blockade of Vietnam in 1965, and
Britain's blockade of the Falklands in 1982 when 300 Argentinian seamen
were killed as their flagship was sent to the bottom. But that was when
wars were officially declared.
 
  Therefore, the transportation of fuel by Russian tankers in the
Mediterranean and the Adriatic is possible because war has not been
formally declared, and the waters of the high seas are open to all vessels,
the author explains.
 
  The author goes on to examine the possibility of using naval ships from
Russia's Black Sea and North Sea Fleets to escort Russian oil tankers. 

  If NATO's leaders are really striving for peace in the Balkans, then they
will not permit any unlawful actions against Russian tankers and merchant
vessels in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic. However, the author sums up,
if they stubbornly persist in "Vietnamizing" the conflict in Yugoslavia,
then the flames of the undeclared war will engulf large areas directly in
Europe and around it.

#11
The Guardian (UK)
30 April 30, 1999
[for personal use only]
Yeltsin ups nuclear ante 			
Russia plans to develop new tactical missiles amid anger at Nato bombing
campaign

By Tom Whitehouse in Moscow

Boris Yeltsin flexed Russia's ageing but formidable nuclear muscles
yesterday and ordered the development of new tactical nuclear missiles to
counter a perceived increased threat from Nato. 

'Our nuclear forces were and remain a key element in the country's strategy
for ensuring national security and military power,' the Russian president
said. 


At a meeting with the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, at the
Kremlin yesterday he also denounced the 'lawlessness and unlimited force'
of the United States.
 

According to the secretary of his security council, Vladimir Putin, Mr
Yeltsin later signed three decrees covering 'the development of the nuclear
weapons complex and a concept for developing and using non-strategic
nuclear weapons'.
 

Mr Putin said that new weapons would be tested using computers to avoid
Russia breaking its commitment not to conduct nuclear tests. 

Shortly before Mr Putin announced the new defence initiative, Mr Yeltsin
stressed its secrecy. 'Everyone, including the president, risks his head if
something leaks,' he said. 


Yesterday's meeting of the advisory security council was a public effort by
Mr Yeltsin to show his anger at the Nato campaign in Kosovo and to deflect
domestic criticism of the apparent failure of his pro-western foreign policy. 

Russian defence specialists now see Nato as an aggressive alliance posing a
direct threat to Russian interests, which must be countered by enhancing
the nuclear deterrent. 



'All the military elite and all the political elite now see the west as the
main threat,' said Pavel Felgenhauer, a defence writer for Segodnya
newspaper.
 

'Nato has decided Russia's future: efforts will be intensified to create a
new generation of nuclear weapons, there will be no drastic cut in existing
strategic missiles. The Start II disarmament treaty is dead.' 

The ministry of defence has already decided to postpone the retirement of
some Delta nuclear attack submarines and extend the life of SS18 'Satan'
intercontinental missiles. 

But the proposed development of smaller tactical missiles is significant
because it signals a radical shift in Russian defence strategy - toward a
nuclear first-strike capability. 

Under this doctrine, instead of deploying strategic (intercontinental)
missiles, to be used in retaliation for a western nuclear attack, shorter
range tactical nuclear missiles could be used against attacks from
conventional weapons. 

Even at the height of the cold war, Russian policy was to strike only in
response to a first use of nuclear force by Nato. Ironically, the new
Russian defence strategy is almost identical to Nato's 'flexible response'
policy which envis aged Nato using tactical nuclear weapons first, in
response to a Soviet invasion using conventional weapons. 

'We must definitely include a provision in our defence doctrine to the
effect that Russia reserves the right to deliver a first or pre-emptive
nuclear strike, but not necessarily with strategic missiles,' said General
Roman Popkovitch, the chairman of the Russian parliament's defence committee. 

The sound of defence industrialists smacking their lips at the tasty
prospect of new orders has been growing louder since the bombing of
Yugoslavia began. 

But even if all political forces, including liberal parties such as
Yabloko, favour this dramatic shift in defence strategy, its implementation
could be blocked by simple lack of money. 

Russia's military budget is fifty times smaller than that of the US and
there is no simple way of raising more cash, given the state of the economy. 

'Russia can only stop being naive and start being stronger economically and
thus militarily, even though this is not easy,' said Vladimir Lukin, the
foreign affairs spokesman for Yabloko. 

Since Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to decommission the Oka tactical nuclear
missile and all facilities used to produce it in 1987, Russia has had only
a few tactical missiles with too short a range to meet European targets. 

Plans to deploy Oka's successor, the Iskander, which could reach Europe if
fired from Russia's Kaliningrad outpost, are ready for implementation but
will cost hundreds of millions of pounds.  		  
 

#12
Chubays on West's 'Greatest Mistake' Over Kosovo
  
LONDON, April 24 (Itar-Tass) -- Board chairman of 
the United Energy System of Russia, Anatoliy Chubays, said "what is 
happening in Kosovo is the West's greatest mistake since World War II." 
Chubays has held a series of private meetings with high- ranking U.S. and 
British politicians and diplomats. 

Speaking at a press conference on Saturday [24 April], Chubays said "I told 
them that such a strategy cannot yield results in principle, because it 
is erroneous." 

"The most dangerous thing now is that by trying to avoid responsibility 
for its mistakes, the West will start making new ones leading directly to 
a catastrophe," he warned. 

Chubays believes that his Western interlocutors "agreed inside that a 
horrible mistake is being made in Kosovo." 

They are trying to find a solution, he added. 

Chubays also said reports on the results of his meetings and talks in London 
will "go to the U.S. president, the British prime minister and Western 
leaders." 

"This is one of my goals," he said. 

#13
Russian Strategic Missile Complex 'Invaluable' 
 
Moscow, 27th April, ITAR-TASS correspondents 
Vladislav Kuznetsov and Nadezhda Maslova: The results of the first year 
of operation of the Topol-M missile complex have been summed up at a 
conference at the main headquarters of the Strategic Rocket Troops (SRT). 
ITAR-TASS was told this at the SRT press service. 

According to the press service, the commander-in-chief of the SRT, Col-Gen 
Vladimir Yakovlev, speaking at the conference, noted that "for the first 
time in the history of the SRT, a missile complex was put on combat duty 
against a background of joint state flight tests", adding that "this 
decision was a timely one and fully justified". 

The first missile regiment to be equipped with Topol-M missiles was put 
on combat duty with the SRT in 1998. Today, invaluable results of the 
operation of this missile complex have been obtained. It was pointed out 
at the conference that the experience of this regiment makes it possible 
to build up the Topol-M group in a systematic way. That is precisely why 
putting subsequent Topol-M missile regiments on combat duty has been 
planned. This is one of the main tasks of the strategic rocket troops as 
defined by Russian Defence Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev. 
  

#14
New World Order' Makes NATO International Gendarme  

Rossiyskaya Gazeta
27 April 1999
[translation for personal use only]
"Commentary" by Candidate of Historical Sciences Nikolay Paklin: 
"NATO Approves Mayhem" 

Anniversaries are usually occasions for 
reminiscence. There was no reminiscence at the NATO anniversary in 
Washington. The heads of the 19 NATO states approved a new "strategic 
concept" for the North Atlantic alliance. The concept is aimed at 
asserting a "new world order." 

What does this represent in the light of the new NATO strategic concept? 

It is a NATO world order. NATO, which was set up 50 years ago as a 
defensive alliance, will henceforth assume the role of an international 
gendarme. Now the alliance is meant not to protect its members from 
aggression, but to watch over their interests. Whereas aggression is a 
specific concept, interests are an extremely vague concept. They can mean 
anything you like. It is no accident that the strategic concept names 
among the chief threats ethnic conflicts, terrorism, and the spread of 
nuclear weapons and means of delivering them. Such "threats" often do not 
extend beyond one country. Nonetheless the alliance arrogates to itself 
the right to decide whether to "execute or pardon." Moreover, state 
sovereignty is no longer of any real significance. 

The geographical area is not significant either. Although the strategic 
concept talks about "strengthening security and stability throughout the 
European region," the alliance is also prepared to use force outside this 
region, which is only very vaguely delineated. Indeed, the interests of 
the NATO states, above all the United States, are global in nature. 

The postwar world order was based on a universal international 
organization -- the United Nations. It alone has the right to decide to 
use force for the purpose of collective defense. Now NATO, a purely 
military organization with a small number of members, has assumed that 
right. When journalists asked NATO Secretary General Javier Solana at a 
press conference whether the alliance needed the UN Security Council's 
go-ahead to use force, his reply was brief and to the point: "No." What 
prevails in the world is not international law, but the idea that might 
is right, in essence, tyranny. The events in Yugoslavia are a graphic 
confirmation of this. This country has never been in the "NATO area of 
responsibility." It has not threatened anyone. 

The North Atlantic bloc acknowledges and will acknowledge only force. 
The Russian president's warning that in certain circumstances the Kosovo 
conflict might become a European or even a world war had the effect on a 
bucket of cold water on the Natoites. Immediately they began counting the 
number of Russian nuclear warheads. They counted more than 6,000. This 
made an impression. The NATO strategists started talking about Russia's 
"role as mediator" in the settlement of the Yugoslav conflict. 

Having approved a new strategic concept, NATO was forced to acknowledge 
Russia's military potential. That is why NATO has rushed its envoys to 
Moscow. There can be no doubt that, as in the case of the decision to 
expand NATO eastward, this time too they will insist that the new 
strategic concept is nothing but the alliance's contribution to the cause 
of peace. 

While confident of its own omnipotence, NATO has lost a sense of reality. 
The world is not just the United States, West Europe and Russia even. It 
is also China, India, and many other countries. In response to NATO's 
international diktat more and more countries will seek to strengthen 
their own security, in particular by developing weapons of mass 
destruction. NATO's strategic concept calls into question the nuclear and 
missile nonproliferation setup and restrictions on the production of 
chemical, bacteriological, and other types of weapons. 

#15
Moscow Times
April 29, 1999 
Solzhenitsyn Compares NATO, Hitler 

Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered a stinging rebuke of NATO
for bombing Yugoslavia, comparing the Atlantic alliance to Nazi dictator
Adolf Hitler, and denounced justifications for the air campaign as
hypocritical and self-serving.
  

"NATO has brought us into a new era, just as Hitler did when he quit the
League of Nations and World War II began," Solzhenitsyn said at a Tuesday
night ceremony at which he awarded his Solzhenitsyn Prize for literature to
poet Inna Lisnyanskaya.  

He said the NATO decision to bypass the United Nations had introduced a
new era of might makes right: "The aggressors have tossed the UN aside and
begun a new era when the strong bear down and dictate their will."  

Solzhenitsyn, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize for literature, said that no
one should "hold onto illusions that this bloc aims to defend the Kosovars."  

"If they were seriously concerned about defending the oppressed, they
could, over the past 40 or 50 years, have defended the Kurds, for example,
who are scattered across several countries, annihilated and unfortunate,"
he said. "But they didn't do it because Turkey is a useful ally."  

Solzhenitsyn also pointed to Tibet, occupied by China, telling Russian
television the West stayed out of Tibet "because you don't tangle with
China."  

NATO says it is bombing to pressure Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic
to end human rights violations against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.  

For NATO "it was such good luck - the Serbs are a defenseless target," he
said, calling the attack a self-serving show of strength. NATO "can show
its beak and talons."  

Solzhenitsyn, expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974 for challenging
Soviet power in his writings, has also criticized Western democracies as
morally bankrupt. In a 1978 speech, he blamed Western humanist ideology for
casting the world into a "harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse."  

Since he returned to Russia in 1994, he has urged the government to follow
a "Russian path" and abandon Western models of development. But his advice
has been ignored, and he has remained largely out of the public eye.