#1
Moscow Times
December 18, 1998 
Raids Unite Russian Politicians In Outrage 
By Melissa Akin
Staff Writer

  Led by President Boris Yeltsin, officials across Russia's political spectrum
loudly condemned the airstrikes against Iraq, calling them unprovoked and
outrageous. 

  Despite the outpouring of rhetoric from democrats, nationalists and
Communists, Russia's ability to oppose the strikes with more than words
remained limited by economic troubles and the need for foreign loans, analysts
said. 

  Yeltsin called in a statement for "an immediate end to military action, to
show common sense and restraint and not to allow further escalation of the
conflict." He said the strikes "could result in the most dramatic
consequences, not only for the Iraqi settlement, but for the stability of the
entire region.' 

  Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert acquainted with Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, called the attacks "outrageous." 

  Russia has opposed the use of force against Iraq and has said that any
military action must be coordinated by the United Nations Security Council,
where it has a veto. 

  But several analysts said Russia's need for assistance from the International
Monetary Fund - where the U.S. has considerable clout - to deal with its
financial turmoil meant it could do little to oppose the U.S. action. 

  "Russia is very weak politically. It depends very much on IMF credits and
World Bank loans. Both politically and militarily, it can't really retaliate,"
said Yevgeny Volk, head of the Moscow office of the Heritage Foundation. 

  The main consequence of Russian displeasure is likely to be postponement of a
ratification vote on the START II arms control treaty, signed in 1993 but
still not ratified by the Communist-dominated Duma, where some members say it
favors the U.S. Prodded by Primakov, the Duma had been moving toward passage
in the past few days, but deputies said ratification was a lost cause for now
in the wake of the attack. 

  Another potential result of the attack was the strain in the relationship
between NATO and Russia, with Yeltsin ordering Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev
not to attend a Friday meeting at the Russia-NATO consultative commission in
Brussels, according to Russian news agencies. The raids, however, were not a
NATO operation. 

  Russia's relationship with Iraq goes back to Soviet days, when Hussein was an
ally against the United States in the Middle East. Iraq also has an important
place in Russia's post-Soviet foreign policy, which seeks to counter U.S.
influence in Asia and the Middle East. In addition, cash-strapped Russia is
owed about $8 billion by Iraq in Soviet-era debts - money it is unlikely to
see while Iraq remains under UN economic sanctions. 

  The rhetoric was fierce. The State Duma, usually bogged down in partisan
squabbling, cleared its agenda Thursday for an unusual show of unity as
deputies condemned the attacks. 

  "This is absolutely intolerable," said Deputy Vladimir Lukin, a former
ambassador to the United States and a member of the liberal Yabloko fraction.
"A debate on whether Iraq has fulfilled this or that UN resolution is no
grounds for the bombing of a country; moreover, it is no grounds for the
unilateral bombing of a country." 

  Communist Party head Gennady Zyuganov branded the strikes an "act of state
terror against the sovereign state of Iraq." 

  "The United States does not reckon with the Security Council of the United
Nations, nor with the world community, nor with Russia as a major nation,"
Interfax quoted Zyuganov as saying in the Duma. 

  Just like some U.S. legislators, deputies said the strikes were a cynical
attempt by U.S. President Bill Clinton to distract attention from his domestic
political troubles. "In the final analysis, it's all Monica Lewinsky's fault,"
Lukin said.The deputies passed a harshly-worded resolution condemning the
attacks by a vote of 394 to one with two abstentions. The resolution calls for
Russia to unilaterally stop observing economic sanctions against Iraq imposed
after the 1991 Gulf War and to increase military spending to 3.5 percent of
gross domestic product. 

  Other high-profile political figures of widely varying stripes joined the
chorus of condemnation, including Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, former Prime
Ministers Sergei Kiriyenko and Viktor Chernomyrdin and Krasnoyarsk region
Governor Alexander Lebed,. 

  Foreign Ministry officials summoned U.S. Ambassador James Collins and British
Ambassador Andrew Wood and complained the United States and Britain had
violated the UN Charter by acting unilaterally, Russian news agencies said. 

  "The unprovoked use of force by Great Britain and the United States crudely
violate the UN Charter, as well as generally accepted principles of
international law, norms and rules of responsible behavior in the
international arena," a foreign ministry statement said. 

  On Yeltsin's orders, Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev called off a visit to
Brussels for a session of the NATO-Russia consultative council. But in one of
several signs that Russia's opposition is not as staunch as it looked, NTV
television reported later the meeting would go forth without Sergeyev. 

  There were voices of moderation. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who had
criticized UNSCOM chief Richard Butler the day before for escalating the
confrontation when he ordered UN inspectors out of Baghdad, told the Duma the
dispute wasn't worth a return to "total confrontation" with the United States.

  Anton Surikov, a spokesman for First Deputy Prime Minister Yury Maslyukov,
said START II should still be ratified, though he said it was not appropriate
to do it against the background of the air strikes.Russia has few cards to
play. The proposal to increase defense spending, for example, is impractical
while the budget lacks funds to pay government workers salaries and social
benefits. 

  Analysts say the START II agreement had become more a political bargaining
chip than a real step in the disarmament process, since Defense Ministry
officials have said Russia's missile forces will be reduced by lack of funds
and attrition to the numbers prescribed by the treaty, ratified by the U.S.
Senate in 1996. 

  The Heritage Foundation's Volk said, however, that the strikes might provide a
temporary domestic boost to the government by distracting the country from
economic woes and uniting it against the United States. "It's easy to build up
anti-American sentiment in order to divert attention away from the failures of
economic policy," he said. 

  One potential windfall for Russia - a rise in oil prices due to Middle East
turmoil - appeared not to be happening Thursday, with crude prices falling
slightly. Oil and gas make up half of Russia's exports, and a fall in world
oil prices contributed to the Aug. 17 ruble collapse and government debt
default. 

  Financier Boris Berezovsky, executive secretary of the Commonwealth of
Independent States, said the strikes highlighted just how weak Russian was. 

  "Today we witnessed the rise of a new order," he was quoted as saying by
Interfax. "There is one country that can independently make and implement any
decisions it considers necessary." 

  "Last night Russia joined a number of other countries who don't have to be
reckoned with." 

  Led by President Boris Yeltsin, officials across Russia's political spectrum
loudly condemned the airstrikes against Iraq, calling them unprovoked and
outrageous. 

  Despite the outpouring of rhetoric from democrats, nationalists and
Communists, Russia's ability to oppose the strikes with more than words
remained limited by economic troubles and the need for foreign loans, analysts
said. 

  Yeltsin called in a statement for "an immediate end to military action, to
show common sense and restraint and not to allow further escalation of the
conflict." He said the strikes "could result in the most dramatic
consequences, not only for the Iraqi settlement, but for the stability of the
entire region.' 

  Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert acquainted with Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, called the attacks "outrageous." 

  Russia has opposed the use of force against Iraq and has said that any
military action must be coordinated by the United Nations Security Council,
where it has a veto. 

  But several analysts said Russia's need for assistance from the International
Monetary Fund - where the U.S. has considerable clout - to deal with its
financial turmoil meant it could do little to oppose the U.S. action. 

  "Russia is very weak politically. It depends very much on IMF credits and
World Bank loans. Both politically and militarily, it can't really retaliate,"
said Yevgeny Volk, head of the Moscow office of the Heritage Foundation. 

  The main consequence of Russian displeasure is likely to be postponement of a
ratification vote on the START II arms control treaty, signed in 1993 but
still not ratified by the Communist-dominated Duma, where some members say it
favors the U.S. Prodded by Primakov, the Duma had been moving toward passage
in the past few days, but deputies said ratification was a lost cause for now
in the wake of the attack. 

  Another potential result of the attack was the strain in the relationship
between NATO and Russia, with Yeltsin ordering Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev
not to attend a Friday meeting at the Russia-NATO consultative commission in
Brussels, according to Russian news agencies. The raids, however, were not a
NATO operation. 

  Russia's relationship with Iraq goes back to Soviet days, when Hussein was an
ally against the United States in the Middle East. Iraq also has an important
place in Russia's post-Soviet foreign policy, which seeks to counter U.S.
influence in Asia and the Middle East. In addition, cash-strapped Russia is
owed about $8 billion by Iraq in Soviet-era debts - money it is unlikely to
see while Iraq remains under UN economic sanctions. 

  The rhetoric was fierce. The State Duma, usually bogged down in partisan
squabbling, cleared its agenda Thursday for an unusual show of unity as
deputies condemned the attacks. 

  "This is absolutely intolerable," said Deputy Vladimir Lukin, a former
ambassador to the United States and a member of the liberal Yabloko fraction.
"A debate on whether Iraq has fulfilled this or that UN resolution is no
grounds for the bombing of a country; moreover, it is no grounds for the
unilateral bombing of a country." 

  Communist Party head Gennady Zyuganov branded the strikes an "act of state
terror against the sovereign state of Iraq." 

  "The United States does not reckon with the Security Council of the United
Nations, nor with the world community, nor with Russia as a major nation,"
Interfax quoted Zyuganov as saying in the Duma. 

  Just like some U.S. legislators, deputies said the strikes were a cynical
attempt by U.S. President Bill Clinton to distract attention from his domestic
political troubles. "In the final analysis, it's all Monica Lewinsky's fault,"
Lukin said.The deputies passed a harshly-worded resolution condemning the
attacks by a vote of 394 to one with two abstentions. The resolution calls for
Russia to unilaterally stop observing economic sanctions against Iraq imposed
after the 1991 Gulf War and to increase military spending to 3.5 percent of
gross domestic product. 

  Other high-profile political figures of widely varying stripes joined the
chorus of condemnation, including Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, former Prime
Ministers Sergei Kiriyenko and Viktor Chernomyrdin and Krasnoyarsk region
Governor Alexander Lebed,. 

  Foreign Ministry officials summoned U.S. Ambassador James Collins and British
Ambassador Andrew Wood and complained the United States and Britain had
violated the UN Charter by acting unilaterally, Russian news agencies said. 

  "The unprovoked use of force by Great Britain and the United States crudely
violate the UN Charter, as well as generally accepted principles of
international law, norms and rules of responsible behavior in the
international arena," a foreign ministry statement said. 

  On Yeltsin's orders, Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev called off a visit to
Brussels for a session of the NATO-Russia consultative council. But in one of
several signs that Russia's opposition is not as staunch as it looked, NTV
television reported later the meeting would go forth without Sergeyev. 

  There were voices of moderation. Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who had
criticized UNSCOM chief Richard Butler the day before for escalating the
confrontation when he ordered UN inspectors out of Baghdad, told the Duma the
dispute wasn't worth a return to "total confrontation" with the United States.

  Anton Surikov, a spokesman for First Deputy Prime Minister Yury Maslyukov,
said START II should still be ratified, though he said it was not appropriate
to do it against the background of the air strikes.Russia has few cards to
play. The proposal to increase defense spending, for example, is impractical
while the budget lacks funds to pay government workers salaries and social
benefits. 

  Analysts say the START II agreement had become more a political bargaining
chip than a real step in the disarmament process, since Defense Ministry
officials have said Russia's missile forces will be reduced by lack of funds
and attrition to the numbers prescribed by the treaty, ratified by the U.S.
Senate in 1996. 

  The Heritage Foundation's Volk said, however, that the strikes might provide a
temporary domestic boost to the government by distracting the country from
economic woes and uniting it against the United States. "It's easy to build up
anti-American sentiment in order to divert attention away from the failures of
economic policy," he said. 

  One potential windfall for Russia - a rise in oil prices due to Middle East
turmoil - appeared not to be happening Thursday, with crude prices falling
slightly. Oil and gas make up half of Russia's exports, and a fall in world
oil prices contributed to the Aug. 17 ruble collapse and government debt
default. 

  Financier Boris Berezovsky, executive secretary of the Commonwealth of
Independent States, said the strikes highlighted just how weak Russian was. 

  "Today we witnessed the rise of a new order," he was quoted as saying by
Interfax. "There is one country that can independently make and implement any
decisions it considers necessary." 

  "Last night Russia joined a number of other countries who don't have to be
reckoned with." 

#2
Moscow Times
December 17, 1998 
DEFENSE DOSSIER: U.S. Gunning for Red Army 
By Pavel Felgenhauer 
Pavel Felgenhauer is the chief defense correspondent of Segodnya. 

  After some desperate lobbying the Defense Ministry has managed to increase
defense spending. In 1999, the defense budget will be 3.1 percent of gross
domestic product, compared with 2.5 percent envisaged in an earlier draft
budget. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev was clearly pleased by the move. 

  Of course, uniformed militaries worldwide, in countries rich and poor,
democratic and authoritarian, always clamor for money and are never fully
satisfied with what they get. But the Russian armed forces are indeed
impoverished. State Duma Deputy Valentin Varennikov, who was the Soviet
commander in chief in 1991, told reporters recently that the cost of a
soldier's ration is now 2.5 rubles (12 cents at Wednesday's official rate)
because of inadequate budget financing. Last year the Defense Ministry asked
for funding to provide each soldier with a daily ration worth 12.5 rubles, but
the money never materialized. Today, Russian solders are surviving mostly on
bread and stocks of vegetables. Each fall, military units traditionally enter
into Russian-style production sharing agreements with farmers. Army divisions
provide free conscript labor to harvest cabbages and potatoes; in return the
soldiers are allowed to take some back to barracks. 

  To save Russian soldiers from starving, the U.S. Defense Department is
planning to send several million packs of surplus field rations as food aid.
During the Cold War, it was often said in Washington that the sole purpose of
the arms race was to force the Russian knight to die of hunger in his armor.
But now this is really seen to be happening, nobody in the Pentagon is
cheering. If the Russian military genuinely disintegrates, it will be much
harder for the U.S. Defense Department to continue to pressure the American
public into spending well in excess of $250 billion of public money annually
on defense. 

  With Russia's military finally down and out there will be only Iraq, North
Korea, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and some other second-rate rogues
left as enemies. Maintaining a decent U.S. defense budget and thousands of
nuclear weapons will become an uphill task. 

  Russians were for decades the best lobbyists of Western military build-ups. As
far as their politicians and general public will allow, Western military and
nuclear establishments will do their best to feed starving Russian soldiers
and to keep the former Red Army as big and strong as possible. But is
continued overmilitarization good for Russia itself? 

  Russian generals may be pleased to get 3.1 percent of GDP to spend in 1999,
but this is much less than they were getting before. Since 1992, the military
has been allocated from $12 billion to $16 billion annually. Today, the ruble
has fallen and the national GDP has shrunk. The 1999 defense budget will be
less than $8 billion at face value. Because budget allocations are never fully
paid out in cash and the ruble will continue to slide, the Defense Ministry
will be lucky to get the equivalent of $6 billion in 1999. 

  With Western food aid forthcoming, Russian soldiers will not starve en masse
this winter. But in the long run it is a totally hopeless endeavor to simply
try to keep alive a Russian military machine that is expected to hold parity
with the U.S. armed forces, while receiving 50 to 60 times less money. 

  Sergeyev told the State Duma last week that at least 30 percent of Russia's
weapons are no longer fit for combat, more than 70 percent of the ships in its
navy need repairs, airfields continue to deteriorate and in 1998 the armed
forces haven't received a "single new nuclear submarine, tank, combat plane,
helicopter or cannon." Getting 3.1 percent of GDP will not change much.
Sergeyev actually needs more than 50 percent of Russia's GDP to restore the
old Red Army to its former glory. 

  Such a complete national sacrifice won't be forthcoming, but it seems no one
has told the Russian generals that the Cold War show is over. They still
maintain an overextended military, waiting for "patriots" to come to power and
redress the evil done by President Boris Yeltsin and his Kremlin cronies. 

  In the absence of any clear and immediate military threat, however, no future
leader of Russia will have the political support needed to begin massive
remilitarization. In the end, the Russian military will have to begin genuine
cutbacks to meet an annual $8 billion to $10 billion budget. That is, if the
proposed globalization of NATO's responsibilities or any other stupid Western
military provocation does not help by reinstating the old threat at the
eleventh hour. 

#3
Christian Science Monitor
December 17, 1998 
[for personal use only]
Unity eludes Russia's reformers 
Fred Weir, Special to The Christian Science Monitor 

MOSCOW -- Russia's beleaguered free-market reformers appear increasingly
frustrated in their attempts to unify forces despite rapidly approaching
parliamentary elections in 1999 - and a possible emergency presidential poll.

  "There is a substantial electorate in favor of market reforms and democratic
development in Russia, but our tragedy is that reform politicians have never
been able to concentrate their forces," says Vladimir Petukhov, an analyst
with the independent Institute for Social and National Problems in Moscow.

  Through most of the turbulent years since the 1991 demise of the Soviet Union
a vigorous President Boris Yeltsin ensured that proponents of market reform
were strongly represented in successive Russian governments.

  But August's financial crash, combined with Mr. Yeltsin's health problems, led
to the formation in September of a government with almost no reformers in top
posts.

  Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, whose Cabinet includes Communists and
economic nationalists, has vowed to correct what he calls the "failures of
market reform" and sharply increase the state's role in economic management.

  "The reformers have suffered a major reverse," says Sergei Tarasenko, of the
Fund for Realism in Politics, a private Moscow think tank. "If they don't
unite they could be wiped off the political map entirely."

  Elections to the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, are scheduled
for next December. In order to enter the Duma, a party must garner at least 5
percent of the vote. Russia's two previous post-Soviet parliamentary
elections, in 1993 and 1995, saw several reformist parties win a combined
total of about 30 percent of the vote. But most failed to get into the Duma.

  President Yeltsin's health has sparked doubts that he will serve out his full
term, which ends in June 2000. Should he die or step down, preterm
presidential elections must follow in three months. "The coming year will be
full of upheavals, both planned and unscheduled," says Mr. Petukhov.

  The murder last month of Galina Starovoitova, a founder of Russia's democratic
movement, in what some believe was a politically motivated contract killing,
led to urgent calls for reformers to close ranks.

  Last week a group of leading liberal politicians launched an as-yet-unnamed
center-right coalition that they hope will meet this challenge. In the words
of one founder, Yegor Gaidar, the basic idea is to "bring together all those
who believe that Russia's current woes stem from insufficient, rather than too
much, market reform."

  The new movement's stars are all young, reformist public figures who rose to
power and prominence through Yeltsin's personal support - and who were later,
without exception, tossed to the winds of political expedience by their
survival-minded patron.

  As post-Soviet Russia's first prime minister, Mr. Gaidar slashed government
spending and pried open the national market to foreign investment and
competition. Another founder, Anatoly Chubais, was the architect of Russia's
mass privatization drive and the mastermind of Yeltsin's 1996 reelection
campaign. Boris Nemtsov, a successful provincial governor, was made vice
premier in 1997 to spearhead the struggle against giant corporate monopolies.

  "The new center-right coalition is composed of people who have all been in
power and know the realities of administration intimately. This is their
strength," says Sergei Markov, director of the Russian Association of

Political Consultancies in Moscow. "But they are also tainted with the
failures of the reform process over the last several years, and this is their
weakness."

  Despite the brave speeches that marked its founding conference the new
movement is already prey to the tendency of Russian democrats to split along
personality lines. The biggest problem is the unwillingness of Russia's most
credible democratic leader, Grigory Yavlinsky, of the liberal Yabloko party,
to join the new coalition.

  Most experts say there are no major ideological differences between Mr.
Yavlinsky and leaders of the new center-right party. But it may be impossible
to bridge the divide between Yabloko activists, who have toiled for years
building a national party, and those such as Gaidar, Mr. Chubais, and Mr.
Nemtsov who chose the high road to power.

  "It is impossible for us to unite with people whose record in government
discredited the ideas of democratic and market reforms in the eyes of the
Russian people," says Yabloko deputy Sergei Mitrokhin.

  But Yabloko's great advantage - that it is untainted by the economic disasters
of the reform years - may also be a fatal drawback. "Yavlinsky has no track
record in power," says Mr. Markov. "He looks like a typical intellectual,
standing aside and criticizing. This is associated with weakness in the
Russian mind, and Russians want a strong leader."

  A coalition between the two groups could produce a synergy between the grass-
roots democrats of Yabloko and the proven practitioners of market reform.
Their continued division might doom both wings of Russia's fractured liberal
movement to defeat.

  "Much depends on how forces on all sides of the spectrum consolidate over the
next few months," says Leonid Sedov, an analyst with the Russian Center for
Public Opinion Research in Moscow, one of the country's largest private
polling organizations. "Large sections of the electorate can move this way or
that way, depending on how they perceive the key players. So far, the outlook
for democrats and market reformers does not look good."

 #4
Boston Globe
December 15, 1998
[for personal use only]
Public discontent fuels hate in Russia 
Anti-Semitism finds some supporters
By David Filipov, Globe Staff

 MOSCOW - In a snow-covered cabin in a wooded park on the outskirts of the city,
a group of men in black paramilitary uniforms and red swastika armbands greet
each other with Nazi-style salutes and sit down to discuss the politics of
hate. 

  This is the headquarters of Russian National Unity, an ultranationalist fringe
group whose ideologues propose an ''ethnic Russian state'' that would impose
''Russian order'' and ''wholly replace'' Jews and other minorities who have
committed ''genocide'' against Russians. 

  These ideas, printed in the group's newspaper ''Russian Order,'' strike an
especially chilling chord in a country that lost 20 million people to Nazi
invaders during World War II. But in the crisis-ridden Russia of today, these
ideas have support, and not only among angry men with black shirts and crew
cuts. 

  Similar statements echo through the halls of the lower house of parliament,
the State Duma. Yesterday a senior member of the Communist faction that
dominates the Duma publicly suggested that Jews surrounding President Boris N.
Yeltsin were responsible for what he called a ''genocide'' of the Russian
people. 

  Russian National Unity wants to hold a congress in Moscow on Saturday, and
organizers say it will be attended by 5,000 followers from across the country.

  But Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, who hopes to win the Russian presidency in
2000, yesterday denied them permission, saying ''such a meeting cannot and
will not take place in Moscow.''

  Luzhkov's police chief yesterday said he would use force if necessary to stop
the meeting. But all the mayor's policemen cannot remove the more insidious
prejudice in evidence at all levels of Russian society. 

  Not long after Luzhkov spoke yesterday, the Duma's Committee on Impeachment
sat down to discuss how to remove Yeltsin from power. 

  Viktor Ilyukhin, the Communist chairman of the Duma's security committee, said
the chaotic market reforms carried out by Yeltsin's governments since 1992 had
decimated Russia's population and therefore qualified as genocide. ''The
large-scale genocide would not have been possible if Yeltsin's entourage and
the country's previous governments had consisted mainly of members of
indigenous peoples rather than members of the Jewish nation alone,'' Ilyukhin
added. 

  Communist and ultranationalist politicians often point to the success of
several prominent businessmen and politicians with Jewish origins in what they
say is a conspiracy to destroy Russia. Two of the most popular targets are
Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky, tycoons who control two of Russia's
main television stations and who also backed Yeltsin's reelection in 1996. 

  Both are ''oligarchs'' - Kremlin insiders who acquired lucrative state
property on the cheap to build financial, industrial, and media empires. 

  Many Russians are angry that the ''oligarchs'' got rich while most of the
country became poor, and these are the emotions Russia's extremists are trying
to exploit. Naturally, the media owned by the insiders do not report the story
this way. Berezovsky has called for a ban on the Communist Party. But that has
only brought more suspicion from millions of Russians who see the Communists
as their advocates. 

  Anti-Semitism has a long history in Russia. It was encouraged by the monarchy
in Czarist Russia, which gave the world the term ''pogrom.'' Anti-Semitism was
state policy under the Soviet Union until the mid-1980s, under the thin guise
of the official Soviet term ''anti-Zionism.'' 

  The recent spate of anti-Semitism is not state policy, but a series of
relatively isolated events. 

  Last month Communists helped block a motion in the Duma to censure lawmaker
Albert Makashov, a Communist who has called for reprisals against Jews. The
Communist governor of the southern Krasnodar region has officially restored
''anti-Zionism'' as his ideology. 

  The national media have loudly protested, and many politicians have joined the
criticism. Even the Communists are split; a leading Communist and a senior
member of Yeltsin's Cabinet, Yury Maslyukov, yesterday denounced Ilyukhin's
remarks. 

  Yeltsin's government, spurred by an alarming rise this year in skinhead
attacks, and the bombing of a Moscow synagogue this summer, has promised to
crack down on ''extremism.'' But Yeltsin's authority has been weakened by his
many illnesses and the economic crisis brought on by his government in August.

  And his Communist and ultranationalist opponents are unwilling to pass on the
chance to tap into public discontent that racial hatred provides them. 

#5
Moscow Times
December 17, 1998 
Yeltsin Promotes Army Brass 

 President Boris Yeltsin has handed out 100 new general's stars to high-ranking
officers, but the number of generals continues to shrink along with the size
of the army, defense officials said Wednesday. 

  The decree, signed Dec. 11, includes colonels moved up to general rank and
gives additional stars to some generals, a Defense Ministry spokesman said. 

  According to Colonel Sergei Ilyin, a spokesman for the ministry's chief
organization and mobilization directorate, the number of generals and admirals
has already decreased from 1,925 last year to 1,500 as the number of their
subordinates dwindled to 1.2 million. 

  The numbers have shrunk through retirements - general officers usually retire
at 60 - and through the mergers of different branches of the service, such as
the combination of the air defense forces with the air force. 

  The record high number of generals in post-communist Russia's war machine was
registered in 1992 when more than 3,000 generals and admirals were reportedly
in Defense Ministry commands. 

#6   
Russian Nuclear Forces Ready to Fight Millennium Bug 

MOSCOW, Dec. 16, 1998 -- (Agence France Presse) The Russian strategic missile
forces command has developed a computer program to resolve problems related to
the millennium bug, its top general said Tuesday. 

  "The program has been completely written and will be implemented in 1999,"
Gen. Vladimir Yakovlev told the press. 

  The millennium bug "isn't causing any worry" to his forces, Yakovlev said. 

  "The total needed to resolve the problem is only 10 million rubles
($500,000)," he added. 

  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) at the urging of the United
States, recently proposed a cooperative effort with Moscow to find solutions
to the computer glitch. 

  The root of the problem is that most computers identify years using just two
digits. As the century moves on, many computers will be unable to distinguish
between 2000 and 1900. 

  Last summer, U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen failed to convince his
Russian counterpart to accept U.S. aid for a joint effort to solve it. 

  The Moscow Times on Dec. 3 quoted Russian Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, who heads the
main research institute for strategic missiles, as saying that certain
computer programs for the nuclear forces "could be affected by the millennium
bug." 

  But Gen. Dvorkin also said that efforts to rewrite missile programs would take
"much less time and cost much less than in the United States." 

  Pavel Felgenhauer, a military affairs expert for the daily Segodnya, said
mainframe computers that controlled nuclear arms don't have hard drives, but
use magnetic tape to run their programs. 

  Beyond the military applications, there are fears worldwide that traffic
lights, life-support units at hospitals, air traffic control systems, bank
vaults, bar code pricing and a host of other systems will be susceptible to
the millennium bug. 

  Some will malfunction, while others will simply shut down. 

#7
The East: NATO Instructs Others On Military's Role In A Democracy
By Roland Eggleston

Garmisch, Germany; 16 December 1998 (RFE/RL) -- NATO has since the fall of
communism in Europe been trying to build a system of cooperation and
assistance with the armed forces of Russia, Ukraine and Central and East
Europe.

  The best known of NATO initiatives is the Partnership for Peace (PfP), a
program to bring military forces of 27 eastern states up to NATO standards.
Several others involve eastern officers and parliamentarians in discussions on
the role of the military in a democracy.

  One of these is the U.S.-sponsored European Center for Security Studies in the
German alpine village of Garmisch-Partenkirchen. It focuses on welding concern
for military security with the principles of democracy. The Center's director,
Robert Kennedy, says that the emphasis is on the civilian control over
military institutions. More than 3,800 officers, government officials and
parliamentarians from the eastern countries have attended the courses, which
may last a few days or several weeks. Next year the center will conduct
seminars in Moscow, Kyiv, Riga, Vilnius, Bucharest and Bratislava.

  Another institution is the NATO School in the German village of Oberammergau,
where senior officers from Russia, Ukraine, East and Central Europe and the
Baltics take courses in organizing peacekeeping operations. They also learn
how to monitor arms-control agreements and manage crises.

  Its commandant, Colonel Lloyd Buchanan, told RFE/RL in a recent interview that
the school teaches how "to run operations in which the military is providing
assistance in the cause of democracy, such as peacekeeping operations."

   Buchanan went on to say that "We don't teach our students how to throw a
grenade. We teach them how to keep the flow of medical supplies coming into a
zone where civilians are taking casualties or how to organize a field hospital
for the civilian wounded....we train them to be weapons inspectors....how to
monitor international arms control agreements, such as the CFE Treaty which
limits the number of artillery, tanks and battle helicopters an individual
country is allowed to possess." Buchanan added that "We also run courses on
subjects such as the management of multi-national units."

  The NATO School opened in 1953 at the height of the Cold War, when it was
known as the U.S. Army School. At that time it had courses on nuclear
operations, including measures for the security of nuclear weapons. In 1975 it
became the NATO School and since 1991 it has opened its doors also to students
from the 27 members of the Partnership for Peace and the 54 active members of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 

  Officers up to the rank of general attend more than 40 different courses it
offers each year. About 20 of the courses are open to non-NATO European
countries. North African and Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan,
Israel, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, are admitted to six courses. Most courses
last up to three weeks. 

  Buchanan said that in its first year as an open institution it had 89 students
from former communist countries. This year their number was 1,050 and plans
are that by the year 2002 it will rise to around 2,000.

  The NATO School insists that participating governments are kept aware of its
activities. In July this year the Ambassadors of about 30 countries spent a
week at the School. In January 1999 several defense ministers and chiefs of
the defense staff will visit.

  Apart from the concrete value of what it teaches in terms of crisis, Buchanan
said that the courses may have other benefits. "These officers get to
understand NATO," he said, adding "they learn that it is not an aggressive
organization but one intended to protect the peace. They take that message
home with them and hopefully spread it around."

#8
Commentary Views Baltic States Joining NATO 

Voice of Russia World Service
December 14, 1998
Commentary by station commentator Eduark Sorokin, read by announcer

  Defense ministers of the Baltic countries have held a meeting in
Kaunas, Lithuania, and one of the main subjects they took up was Latvia's,
Lithuania's and Estonia's prospects for joining NATO.  The Voice of
Russia's Eduard Sorokin looks into the situation, and these are some of the
points he makes.

  The Baltic countries have for some time now been making efforts to
join the North Atlantic Alliance [NATO], just like another six European
countries that seek NATO membership, and this makes the problem of the
alliance's expansion quite topical.

  Different people take this problem differently.  Yet most politicians
and political experts feel that NATO should make a pause after the Czech
Republic, Hungary and Poland join the alliance during a summit meeting due
in Washington next April.  Perhaps it should be a long pause so as they can
take time to consider all the aftermaths of their policy of expansion.  The
plans to expand contain quite a few shortcomings because, of course, they
imply huge financial investment.  And then the alliance will grow less
mobile, because decision making will become more difficult.  Even now there
are major differences inside NATO, for example, on where limits should be
set on NATO's activities or on the alliances nuclear strategy.  There will
be more disagreement once NATO includes three more countries.

  Direct interference in regional or ethnic conflicts beyond the current
zone of operation of the North Atlantic Alliance is also fraught with an
aftermath that is hard to forecast.

  Another thing to be remembered is that providing NATO membership to
more countries will result in new dividing lines in Europe since the North
Atlantic Alliance is an exclusive military and political bloc and far from
all European nations form part of it.  Hence, all kinds of doubts and
apprehensions.  For instance, if NATO comes to immediately border on
Russia, this country's geopolitical situation will worsen and a threat will
be posed to Russia's security.  It is common knowledge that Russia has
never been invited to join NATO, so it stands to reason to conclude that
NATO seeks to isolate Russia from this country's neighbour states and to
keep it away from European affairs.

  Parliamentary hearings on NATO's expansion were held in Moscow several
days ago, and participants noted that this expansion posed a threat both to
Russia and to European security at large.  Given the situation, it is
natural to ask just what an alternative to NATO's enlargement could there
be.  This alternative was formulated by the Russian foreign minister, Igor
Ivanov, as he addressed an audience at the Belgian Royal Institute of
International Relations.  He pointed out that it was the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe that should play a central role in the
new architecture of European security, while an important supplementary
role should go to the council of Euro-Atlantic partnership and the
Russian-NATO joint permanent council.

  On the attempts to make the North Atlantic Alliance central to the
system of collective European security, Igor Ivanov said these appeared
counterproductive.  He described as extremely dangerous plans to perpetuate
NATO's forcible domination of the world at large and the use of force with
prior authorization by the United Nations Security Council.

#9
Ivanov Writes Article on US-Russian Relations for Paper 

MOSCOW, December 15 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian Foreign Minister Igor
Ivanov gave an extensive coverage of the present state of Russia-US
relations in the "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" issue due on Wednesday [16
December]. "The Russia-US relations have traditionally proved a barometer
for the general situation in the world, and attract therefore close
attention of the international political circles and public opinion, which
is only natural," Ivanov wrote under the headline "Russia-US: from
Confrontation to Partnership."

  "The place and role of Russia and the USA in the world affairs are
really great.  As permanent members of the UN Security Council they share
with other nuclear powers special responsibility for maintaining
international peace and security.  Both sides pursue multivector foreign
policy, and take active part in handling the crisis situations on theplanet.

  "At the same time, the essence of our countries' influence on
international affairs has cardinally changed, it is no longer based on the
hard logic of the bipolar world period.  On the contrary, it becomes more
and more evident that in the epoch of problems' globalization it is only
through the establishment of the multipolar and democratic system of
international relations that these global problems could be solved, through
persuasion rather than force. Therefore, I am sure, that as in case with
the bipolar scheme, both unipolar and monobloc projects are doomed.  No
matter what the military or economic power of a state, it would not be able
to cope with the whole complex of global problems on its own.

  "It is of principal importance that this approach was reflected in the
joint statement about common challenges to security on the threshold of the
21st century signed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and US President
Bill Clinton in Moscow in September 1998. The statement read that to handle
challenges to global security the whole international community should
mobilize efforts."Russia and the USA will keep playing leading roles both in
the
bilateral and multilateral aspects to achieve common goals in the domain of
security maintenance.  

  "Awareness of this conclusion which is of principal importance, has
determined the dynamics of the Russia-US relations over the recent years
characterised by realism and understanding that Russia and the USA are
natural partners in the strategic issues of peace and stability
maintenance," Ivanov noted.

#10
Text of Yeltsin Address at Meeting With Ambassadors 

 
ITAR-TASS World Service 
Moscow, 15 Dec -- We are transmitting the text of the address made by
Russian President Boris Yeltsin at a ceremony for the presentation of
credentials by ambassadors from other countries on 15 December 1998, and
issued by the Russian president's press service:

  Esteemed gentlemen!

  You are starting your missions to Moscow at a difficult time for our
country.  The world financial crisis has not left Russia untouched.

  However, no economic difficulties will make us turn away from the road
of democratic reforms.  Moreover, there will be no departure at all from an
active and constructive foreign policy.

  Ensuring stability and security in the world remain a priority for us.

  The tension in the Balkans is currently a threat to European security.

  We are firm advocates of political settlement of the Kosovo crisis.  We
are pleased that diplomatic efforts have succeeded in removing the threat
of the use of force in the region.

  In Asia, we accord huge importance to developing partnership and
cooperation with China aimed at the 21st century.  The recent visit to
Russia by PRC President Jiang Zemin was a huge step in that direction.

  We cherish traditional friendly relations with India and are set on
further deepening cooperation with that great Asian country.

  While strengthening ties with the Asian giants, Russia is also working
on developing relations with other countries in that continent.  Russia's
official admission to APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation]
significantly expands our opportunities for this.

  Russia is interested in further advancing and intensifying contacts
with states in Latin America.

  In the Near East and the Persian Gulf, we are staunch advocates of
guaranteeing security for all states there, making the region a zone of
peace and stability.

  Russia values its many years of traditional friendship with Africa. 
We support further increases in cooperation with the countries of Africa. 
Our potential for cooperation is far from exhausted and needs to be more
fully used.We consider the development of relations with our CIS partners and
maintaining stability throughout the commonwealth to be priorities.  We are
ready to continue the extremely difficult but so necessary peacekeeping
mission in the Caucasus and other "hot spots" of the CIS.

  I am sure that any of the problems facing our multipolar world can and
must be resolved on the basis of respecting international law and close
cooperation among all states.

  I hope you will make a worthy contribution to developing relations
between your country and Russia.

  I congratulate you on the start of your important mission in Moscow
and I wish you success in this extremely important work.

#11
IntellectualCapital.com

http://www.intellectualcapital.com
Baldness and Democracy
by Nina Khrushcheva
December 17, 1998 
Nina Khrushcheva is the deputy editor of The East European Constitutional
Review at the New York University School of Law. 

  Everywhere we turn are predictions, prophecies and assertions: What is
going to happen in Russia? Who will be the next president? Will democracy
continue? Can capitalism survive? What about the new wave of anti-Semitism
and contract killings? 

  Economists, lawyers, political scientists and politicians demonstrate their
skill in using statistics, opinion polls, historical examples, sociological
data and geographical references to assess Russia's future. 

  Predictions are a dangerous business, especially in a country like Russia
where even the past can bite you. Maybe it is better to just ignore all the
analysts and listen to a witness. 

Memoirs of a Kremlin barber 

  I am told that several years ago the White House barber wrote his memoirs.
The idea intrigued me: What if a Kremlin barber, now pensioned, would speak
of his years trimming hair for the party elite? What might he have to say? 

Perhaps something like this: 

  "Lenin was my first client. I was young and inexperienced then, and so was
he -- balding, a devoted revolutionary. He liked to talk to me about world
socialism, the equality of the people, and he promised that once the
revolution came, he and I would sit at the same table. He seemed gentle and
soft-spoken, insisting that the unification of people should happen out of
conviction not just out of violence. 

  "He was not very difficult at first -- a simple trim around the bald spots
and edges and my job was done. But as the revolution gathered speed it
became less simple. Lenin grew a beard. 

  "No coincidence that Russian monarchs, Orthodox Patriarchs, Hasidic
mentors, even Karl Marx had lots of hair. Hair brings respect and
obedience, suggests the weightiness of wisdom and the priesthood. Lenin's
beard was small, neat, unaggressive, but it was still a beard, designed to
make up for his baldness, to confirm the strength of his leadership. 

  "Stalin? Ah, there the adjustment was difficult. First Coba did not want me
at all, but then he was so preoccupied with the purges and the war that he
forgot all about the man with the scissors near his throat. He remembered
only when he urgently needed a good haircut for his only trip abroad to
meet with Churchill and Truman, in Potsdam in 1945. 

  "But he hated to be touched, and I had to be very careful not to push my
luck. Millions had already vanished, and I did not want to be one of them.
So I trimmed his horrifying mustache almost without breathing and cut his
hard hair (it was as hard as Stalin himself) in such a way that my
movements would be light and not disturbing. 

  "I still tremble when I remember those sessions -- after each one I was in
fear of being taken away any minute. 

Bald is better 

  "Working with Krushchev was a piece of cake. He used to meet with me only
to recount the anecdotes that had been told about his baldness. I remember
one to this day. 

  "It was right after his American trip in 1959. Two CIA agents were
preparing an assessment of the visit. One asked another, 'Have you noticed
in which pocket Nikita Sergeievich carried his comb?' The other did not
know. The next morning they admitted their failure in writing up their
report for the agency's director. The director became enraged: 'You
idiots!' he exclaimed. 'Krushchev has no comb -- he's bald!' 

  "Nikita had a very hearty laugh. Through him, I acquired my political
philosophy: Authoritarians are hairy; the more democratic-minded are bald
or balding. 

  "My only trouble spot was Mao. He was a bald autocrat, but on the other
hand, he was Chinese. They have a different concept of hair, I explained to
myself. Besides, as Fidel Castro's beard grew longer the more power he
acquired. The more capricious he became, the more he proved my theory
beautifully in the Western part of the world. 

Brezhnev: A stagnant style

  "Serving Brezhnev was a lot of work. His bushy brows needed special care,
and we had to meet every week to keep his looks fresh. He did not like
anecdotes but rather wanted to know what great things were said about him,
preferably by women. He kept the same hairdo through the years as a
signature of his own stability -- a stagnant style for the man who
initiated the era of stagnation. 

  "When Gorbachev came to power and started his reforms, I was already
absolutely convinced about the truth of my theory. He was a good man, like
all other balding democrats. Although he did not need me, he let me stay in
the Kremlin. After meetings with Reagan, Thatcher and Bush, he, just as
Lenin and Krushchev before, liked to meet with me to explain why socialism
needed reforms and how it would end the Cold War. 

  "When Yeltsin stood on the tank in 1991, announcing Russia's road to
democracy, I knew right away, 'Too hairy: an autocrat. There will be no
democracy.' 

  "I did not say anything then, afraid to go against the majority consensus.
But the parliament shootings in 1993, the Chechen war of 1994, the abrupt
governmental shufflings proved me right. Now everyone agrees that Yeltsin's
liberalization has been of a peculiar type, and -- not to brag -- I have
known it all along, just from the looks of his hair. 

Hair today, gone tomorrow 

  "There are speculations about who is going to come next as Russia's
president. As far as I am concerned, it should be a bald guy. Among all the
candidates, there is only one now suitable for the post: Moscow Mayor Yury
Luzhkov. His opponents label him a non-democrat, but what is democracy in
Russia, anyway? 

  "If Luzhkov is elected in 2000, my theory will be completely proven, and I
will be able to retire in peace. The Kremlin, meanwhile, will get a
different barber, or it may not need one at all. Perhaps Russia will
develop such strong liberal tendencies that there will no longer be any
hair to cut. 

  "Democracy is bald, at least in that part of the world."