Brought to you by the Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202) 332-0600 * Fax (202) 462-4559 * http://www.cdi.org
Edited by David Johnson
| ISSUE #30 | January 8, 1999 |
The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and
analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, economic,
social, military, and foreign policy issues. With funding from the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based
Center for Defense Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education
organization.
#1 Excerpt The Defense Monitor #5 1998 U.S.-Russia Relations: Avoiding a New Cold War from the Center for Defense Information Washington DC http://www.cdi.org
Defense Monitor in Brief * Relations between the U. S. and Russia have dangerously worsened since 1993. * The Russian economic crisis and military collapse have increased the risk of loss of control over nuclear weapons. * Deteriorating U.S.Russian relations threaten existing arms control agreements and future nuclear reductions. * NATO expansion has created suspicion and distrust among Russians. * The U.S.Russian rivalry in the Caspian region has led Russia to fear loss of influence in the former Soviet republics and of important economic resources. * Many Russians believe the U.S. has sought to weaken their country in recent years. Crisis Conditions In recent months the Russian economy has collapsed. Living conditions for millions of Russians have deteriorated substantially. The Russian military, already vastly diminished in size and capability since the days of the Soviet Union, finds itself in the same economic and social crisis as the rest of the country. Crime, violence, and corruption flourish within the military. Great uncertainties and fears confront all Russians as they contemplate the future. Russia’s GNP is not much higher than that of the Netherlands, a nation with one-tenth the population. The population is declining. The life expectancy of the average male has dropped to 58 years. Millions of people, both military and civilian, have not been paid for many months. Economic, political, and social instability threatens the very survival of the country. The United States has been a major financial and political supporter of President Boris Yeltsin and his largely failed policies. The Yeltsin era now appears to be ending and U.S.-Russian relations have soured from the early honeymoon period. The U.S. government is struggling to adjust to the collapse of its Russian policy.
Of particular concern is the fact that there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of a demoralized and underpaid military. Retired general Aleksandr Lebed, the governor of the Krasnoyarsk region in Siberia and possibly the next Russian president, recently warned President Clinton during his visit to Moscow that Russia today faces a greater threat than in 1917 on the eve of the Russian Revolution. The retired general stated that "the situation is worse than in 1917. Now we have huge stockpiles of poorly guarded nuclear weapons." With the collapse of its conventional forces, Russia is relying more and more on its nuclear weapons. The defeat in the war in Chechnya demonstrated how far the once-vaunted Russian military machine has fallen. In the current economic depression a “more bang for the ruble” policy seems attractive to Russian officials. These developments, however, constitute a potentially catastrophic danger to the U.S. Americans have a huge stake in helping Russia in its current crisis.... Conclusions * Increased U.S. funding for nuclear material security and accounting efforts at Russian nuclear sites would serve U.S. interests. * Arms control talks can be revived by making immediate reductions in unneeded U.S. nuclear weapons threatening Russia. Big cuts in expensive nuclear arsenals would benefit both countries. * Cessation of efforts to include the Baltic states as members of NATO would improve U.S.Russian relations. * The U.S. has a huge stake in the future of Russia as a stable, economically prosperous, and cooperative country. With care and understanding we can avoid a Cold War.
#2 From Russia Today http://www.russiatoday.com December 31, 1998 1998 The Year at a Glance
Boris Yeltsin began 1998 as he would end it sick. The president went on a two-week holiday early in January, still fighting off the effects of a December viral infection. He cancelled a trip to India in the early weeks of the year. In March, Yeltsin announced that the medical tests he'd recently undergone proved him to be in good health. He then promptly disappeared from public for a week, suffering from an "acute respiratory infection." Shades of what was to come, as Yeltsin's health deteriorated at something very much the same pace as the Russian economy. Cosmonauts on the Mir space station completed five space walks in the April, seemingly spending more time outside the craft than in, but all eyes were on the center ring, where Yeltsin, after sacking long-time ally Victor Chernomyrdin, fought the Duma over confirmation of Sergei Kiriyenko. The Duma fell into line on the third vote without winning concessions of any importance from the president. Former First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais almost made his reputation as a psychic when he announced that fallout from the Asian crisis would be biggest danger faced by Russia in 1998 but he blew it by announcing in February in no uncertain terms that the worst "was over." By the end of the year, Chubais would once again be out of government, although not exactly at loose ends, having been named head of the Russian electricity grid controller, EES. The only worse psychic than Chubais was the president himself, who proved unable to predict even his own actions. After swearing there would be no devaluation of the ruble on a Friday in August, Yeltsin presided over a de facto devaluation the following Monday. And after insisting in February that Kiriyenko and Nemtsov, his "young reformers" would remain in government no matter what, he sacked both in August. Yeltsin tried unsuccessfully to force Victor Chernomyrdin's nomination as prime minister through the Duma but the deputies, for once, would have none of it. In one of the first serious signs that his powers were on the wane, the president went toe to toe with the Duma on the issue and blinked. He was forced to turn to his former Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov as a candidate acceptable to all. As the year ended, however, the generally respected Primakov had yet to present the country with a coherent plan to get it out of its crisis. With financial difficulties as a constant backdrop, a number of other themes ran through the entire year. At any given time, you could find a Russian official: a) decrying NATO expansion (while tacitly accepting its inevitability) b) denying providing any aid to Iran for the development of ballistic missiles (but insisting on the right to continue helping Tehran with the construction of a nuclear reactor.) c) calling on the U.S. to avert the use of force in Iraq and/or Kosovo. d) Little progress was made on the reform of the military, which had been much hyped as a goal on the eve of 1998, nor did the question of unpaid wages and pensions go away as protesting coal miners blocking the Trans-Siberian railway made perfectly clear. Relations with the breakaway region of Chechnya remained rocky, and lawlessness in the republic reached on new high in December with the discovery of the decapitated heads of four Western hostages. The financial crisis may have helped break the stranglehold of the country's "oligarchs" on the economy, but it's done little to slow the activities of organized criminals, who remain a huge force to be reckoned with in Russia. That point was driven home brutally on Nov. 20 when Galina Starovoitova, a Duma deputy and well-known anti-corruption crusader, was gunned down in the stairwell outside her apartment. It is with these shots ringing in their ears that Russians ask themselves what lies ahead in 1999.
#3 Russia: Christmas Marked Amid Hardship By Floriana Fossato
Moscow, 7 January 1999 (RFE/RL) -- For Anna and Tamara Kusnetsov, two sisters well over 70 living together in a tiny Moscow flat, preparing for today's Orthodox Christmas in Russia was not a complicated affair. Anna, the older but healthier of the two, notes that her sister "Tamara's health is failing and, living on (their) combined pension of 900 rubles (equaling $45,) it has not been difficult ... to observe the prescribed 40 days of abstention from meat and egg products before Christmas." The Orthodox Church celebrates Christmas today, in keeping with the older Julian calendar. According to a poll by the Public Opinion Fund, some 59 percent of Russians had plans to celebrate. For most Orthodox believers, whose numbers have greatly increased since the end of the Soviet-era, Christmas is a private family celebration. Anna takes care of the daily shopping for the two widows' household. Recently, she says, shopping has been limited to bread, flour, vegetables like beetroot, cabbage, carrots and potatoes, and some milk products. She notes that "according to the rules for fasting, milk products should also be limited," but adds that she and her sister "think God will understand." She adds that their lives are difficult, "with the cost of our main source of expenditure, medications, jumping since the financial crisis, while state subsidies vanish." She says that "a cup of hot milk is a necessity, as well as a comfort." Patriarch Aleksii II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, pointed out the hardship many Russians are struggling to cope with in a Christmas message issued yesterday. He said: "Terrible poverty, the failure to pay people their well-earned wages, the excessively high level of crime and immorality in society, interethnic strife, the crisis in education, culture and the health service are all problems constantly encountered by people." He expressed the hope that "state authorities, society and every person of goodwill will do all they can to overcome the present chaos" and ease the suffering of many of Russia's 150 million people. According to data provided by the Public Opinion Fund at the end of last year, eight out of 10 Russians said 1998 was a harder year than the previous one. The majority of respondents to a poll conducted by the fund said the August economic crash was the most important event of the year. For Anna, a former school teacher, the crisis also has meant that her almost daily effort to find cheap foodstuffs now involves longer hours searching the shops and the markets offering the best bargains. She says that "for Christmas, (she) bought ...a treat of apples and mandarins," adding that, "with apples at 28 rubles per kilogram, this is a very expensive present" for her and her sister. Expressing the fear of most other poor and elderly people, she says that "women in the markets say the increase of prices ... so far is nothing compared with what (they) expect in the next months." She asks: "What are we going to do then?" The Russian currency, trading at six rubles to the dollar before the August financial collapse, has slid more than threefold since then. Inflation reached 84 percent at the end of 1998. It was 11 percent at the end of 1997. Despite the fact that trading is slow because of the winter holiday, the ruble took another sharp fall this week. The Central Bank set the ruble rate at 20.7 to the dollar on Tuesday, but in business trading and in currency exchange booths in Moscow the currency was traded at nearly 22 rubles to the dollar. Traders expect more falls as the year progresses.
#4 Intellectualcaptital.com http://www.intellectualcapital.com Ending American Triumphalism by Melvin A. Goodman January 7, 1999 Melvin A. Goodman is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington and co-author of The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze. He is a regular commentator for IntellectualCapital.com.
Ten years ago, the collapse of the Berlin Wall ended the Cold War and the Soviet empire in East Europe, placing the United States in an unprecedented position of preeminence. Since then, two administrations -- one Republican and the other Democratic -- have conducted national security policies without a coherent strategic framework adequate to the challenges and opportunities of the post-Cold War era. The "new world order" with America at the helm? President Bush and his national security adviser, General Brent Scowcroft, referred to a "new world order," but this vacuous phrase provided no guidance for the conduct of foreign policy. President Clinton and his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, designated the United States the "indispensable nation," revealing the arrogance of a global power without a military rival. Neither Bush nor Clinton defined the costs and responsibilities of their highfalutin phrases, and both abrogated the challenge of responding to the dramatic transformations that were taking place in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. A rejection of consensus leadership Bush explained that we have the "will but not the wallet"; Clinton introduced the expansion of NATO, a Cold War alliance. Now Clinton has proposed the first real increase in the defense budget since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the largest increase since the buildup in Ronald Reagan's first administration. More than $100 billion will be added to defense spending, although U.S. defense expenditures are more than a third of the world's total, with the United States spending nearly 50% more than all European members of NATO. As Stephen Walt wrote in the most recent issue of The National Interest, "Military superiority is a good thing, but too much of a good thing is usually unhealthy." Thus far, American preeminence has led to a U.S. policy of triumphalism or exceptionalism, with the Clinton administration taking unilateral actions or positions that lack a global consensus. The recent bombing of Iraq, which was opposed by most U.N. members, was a smokescreen to cover the lack of a coherent policy. Operation Desert Fox, which shared the sobriquet of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler's most brilliant field marshal, did more to help Clinton than it did to hurt Saddam Hussein. As for casualties, the inspection regime has to rank as the greatest casualty of this round of bombing. Other U.S. policies have lacked an international consensus, including: the political and economic containment of Iran; the proliferation of sanctions legislation, particularly the Helms-Burton Act against Cuba; the Iraq Liberation Act, which endorses the overthrow of Saddam; and the threat of military action against the Serbs in Kosovo. Formerly the champion of international law, the United States now regularly opposes the international consensus on the permanent international criminal court endorsed by more than 120 nations at the United Nations. It also opposes the convention banning discrimination against women (ratified by more than 160 nations) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which only the United States and Somalia have not ratified). Russia's place in the world Meanwhile, the Clinton administration has wasted a great deal of time and energy expanding NATO instead of anchoring a beleaguered Russia to the West. The peace following World War I ultimately led to another world war because it treated Germany as a pariah; the peace following World War II contributed to the absence of superpower conflict because it worked to incorporate Germany and Japan into the international arena. The expansion of NATO not only marks a betrayal of U.S. promises to the former Soviet Union during the process of reunifying Germany, but it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, assuring an assertive Russian response to the intrusion of Western power on Russia's vulnerable borders. Moscow is much too weak to respond to American triumphalism in the near term. But continued use of American air power in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, without adequate consultation with Russia, combined with continued expansion of NATO, assures future problems.
U.S. emphasis on the globalization of free markets and democracies fails to address future strategic problems. American bases in Asia will become increasingly vulnerable to an expansion of Chinese power. The new European currency, the euro, will reduce the dollar's hegemony in international finance and make it more expensive for the United States to borrow over the long term. The failure to anchor Russia to the West will add to U.S. problems in Eurasia, eliminating Russia as a future ally against China. Such nations as India, Iraq and Pakistan, moreover, will continue to defy international norms in pursuit of respect, or in response to real or imagined threats. What is to be done? The United States has given too much time and energy to the expansion of NATO, and has far more important problems to address. Our relations with China, international trade, and the need for stability in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf demand more attention from a lame-duck administration that will become increasingly preoccupied with impeachment politics and domestic policy. Throwing more dollars at the military and intelligence communities has made the Pentagon and the CIA the winners of the Cold War but will lead to greater demands for intervention that have dominated national security strategies for Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq and Macedonia in the past decade. These dollars will not address the doctrinal and reform issues that confront these bureaucracies. A potential foreign-policy legacy When the global arena looked to American leadership in the past, we responded with the League of Nations, the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods and the Helsinki Final Act. Even in the worst days of the Cold War from 1945 to 1949, President Harry S. Truman and Secretary of State Dean Acheson effectively used diplomacy as the primary instrument of policy. Clinton sorely needs a bipartisan advisory board to develop new strategic concepts in the post-Cold War era for bringing Russia into a European security architecture. It could also create a regional balance among China, India and Japan, and anchoring the so-called rogue states to a multilateral framework. In this way, the Clinton administration could leave a legacy that prevents an over-reliance on the military instrument of statecraft.
It's an unusual aid initiative from the native peoples of Arctic Canada to those of Arctic Russia. It illustrates how, in the age of e-mail and fax machines, "horizontal" connections among members of a cultural group may be more important than the "vertical" connections within the traditional nation-state. Fourteen tons of foodstuffs and supplies landed in the Russian Far East Wednesday as the first phase of what is hoped will develop into a multimillion-dollar program to help Inuit (Eskimo) villages of the Chukotka Autonomous Region. The money has come from the Canadian government. But the aid is being organized by the Canadian branch of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), a nongovernmental organization representing the 125,000 Inuit of Russia, the United States, and Denmark, as well as Canada. Its agenda focuses on development and environmental issues. The food and supplies were flown into Anadyr, the regional capital. From there, the aid is being transferred to three predominantly Inuit villages: Enurmino, Sireniki, and Yanrakynnot. Officials are quick to point out that the aid is to be distributed on an equal-opportunity basis, to non-Inuit as well, but clearly the personal links between the indigenous peoples in the two countries have been a factor is getting the aid organized. The airlift, in the planning stages since November, has occurred as Canadian Inuit are feeling a shock closer to home: the loss of nine people in an avalanche in the northern Quebec community of Kangiqsualujjuaq. As one official puts it, the tragedy highlights how "marginalized" the Inuit are, with inadequate housing and other problems. But they have demonstrated their generosity before. An international aid officer in Ottawa notes that during the Ethiopian crisis of the mid-1980s, Inuit were among the highest per capita donors in the country. For two years, the ICC in Ottawa has been offering technical assistance to RAIPON, the Rus-sian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, for instance. "We've had our Russian interns," says an ICC official in Ottawa. "And we keep in touch by e-mail." Because of such contacts, "we were able to make our needs assessment very quickly." RAIPON appealed for help to Jane Stewart, Canada's Indian affairs minister. The association provided "village-by-village documentation" of where the needs were, says Michael Rudiak, an international operations officer at the Canadian Red Cross in Ottawa, which is working with the ICC to organizeaid. The Russian government normally supplies the Chukotka villages with food and fuel, brought in by ship during the warmer weather. But economic woes forced Moscow to cut back the number of ships it sent over the summer. This winter is predicted to be especially severe. There have been conflicting reports as to the gravity of the Rus-sian crisis, especially in areas far from Moscow. International-aid efforts have been hampered by Russian bureaucracy and corruption as well as Moscow's ambivalence about accepting aid. Walter Slipchenko, who chairs the group organizing the Chukotka project, acknowledges that "money can be misspent," and that, he says, is why the first phase of the aid is coming in as foodstuffs and supplies. But he insists, "Of course [the aid] will make it. The battle [for government approval] has been fought." Of the connection among the Inuit in different countries, Mr. Slipchenko says, "The problem is that most people have a Mercator-projection map [whose distortions increase toward the poles]. If you have a polar-projection map, the Arctic Ocean begins to look more like the Mediterranean basin. You see that all these countries are neighbors."
President Boris Yeltsin on Tuesday ordered the government to find the money to complete repairs on a battleship that is the pride of Russia's Black Sea Fleet but has been sitting in dock under repair for the past six years. The Black Sea Fleet has been without the 11,000-ton missile cruiser Moskva since 1993 when it was sent to a repair dock in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Nikolayev. Some money has been spent on the job over the years, but the Ukrainian shipbuilders say they need another $10 million to finish. Even though Yeltsin's order gave no hint as to where Russia's cash-strapped government is to find the money, Viktor Stavitsky, who oversees the repairs of the Moskva at the 61 Kommunar Dock, was hopeful that Tuesday's order could bring the Moskva's ordeal to an end. "It is gratifying news for all of us, of course," he said in a telephone interview. Stavitsky said that repairs were about 80 percent completed and the $10 million would cover both the cost of final repairs and outstanding debts. Once the money was paid, the ship could be ready and set sail for the Black Sea Fleet's main base in Sevastopol within five months. The embarrassing delay in repairing the Moskva is part of the general decay of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which has been a hostage to a bitter dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Russia has been forced to divide the fleet it inherited from the Soviet Union, handing over scores of vessels to Ukraine in exchange for rights to use strategic naval bases in the Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine. Russia has cut funding to the fleet partly because of the uncertainty over ownership. Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, who advocates taking back the Crimean port of Sevastopol from Ukraine, took up the cause of the Black Sea Fleet in 1993, even though this is usually a matter for the federal government. He has donated large sums from the Moscow city budget to help the fleet, including, of course, substantial aid to fund repairs on the ship that bears his city's name. Luzhkov had provided a total of 28 million rubles for repairing the Moskva as of late last year, compared with a mere 2.7 million rubles from the poorly- funded Black Sea Fleet itself. Commissioned in 1982, the Moskva cruiser remains the most powerful battleship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, Russian navy spokesman Dmitry Minakov said. The cruiser, which is designed to fight enemy naval vessels, including aircraft carriers, boasts a maximum speed of 32.5 knots and a range of 12,000 kilometers. Alexander Pikayev of the Moscow Carnegie Center said the Black Sea Fleet needs the Moskva to maintain at least "some kind of a parity" with the naval forces of Turkey, a member of NATO. A small Russian naval unit overseeing the repairs at Nikolayev has been most embarrassed by the chronic funding shortages. Ukrainian utility companies have cut off the unit's water and power and the Ukrainian tax service has seized the unit's bank accounts. The unit has been hanging on for six years waiting for funds and once the Moskva is finished, it will be disbanded. "It is the cruiser that keeps us here," the repair brigade's duty officer Sergei Titchenkov said by telephone on Tuesday. Both Titchenkov and Stavitsky denied rumors that the cruiser could be sold off by the 61 Kommunar Dock to scrap merchants if the fleet doesn't pay its debt soon. Two Black Sea Fleet warships - the Tashkent and the Nikolayev - have already been sold off for scrap after the fleet failed to pay for their repairs at the Nikolayev docks. Some of the Russian navy's rusted warships and submarines have sunk at thei moorings after waiting years to be repaired.
MANEUVERING CONTINUES OVER START II. On January 4 a key Russian lawmaker appeared to confirm that consideration of the START II strategic arms treaty has indeed been placed on the Russian State Duma's agenda for its upcoming spring session. Deputy Duma Speaker Vladimir Ryzhkov warned, however, that sentiment within the lower house of parliament is still running against approval of the document. He suggested that dissatisfaction among Russian lawmakers over the recent U.S.-British strikes on Iraq remains one of a number of important factors mitigating against approval of the treaty (Russian agencies, January 4). Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov, meanwhile, late in December appeared to step up his already energetic efforts to win ratification of START II. According to remarks which Maslyukov's press secretary, Anton Surikov, made to the press on December 31, the Russian minister will "actively lobby" Duma deputies for ratification of the treaty. Maslyukov will reportedly argue that, contrary to the prevailing opinion among legislators, START II is no less advantageous for Russia than it is for the United States. He will also argue that a speedy ratification of START II is important because it will permit the two sides to move quickly to consider a follow-up START III treaty. According to Surikov, Maslyukov believes that the Duma could consider the treaty in late January or early February of this year (Russian agencies, January 5). YELTSIN DECREES IMPROVED CONTROL OVER MILITARY EXPORTS. In an apparent effort to address America's continuing concerns, Russian President Boris Yeltsin has reportedly moved to tighten government controls over the export of sensitive Russian military technologies. According to the Kremlin press service, Yeltsin has signed two decrees which amend and broaden the list of export items and technologies subject to government control. Although few details of the decrees were released, they reportedly introduce changes and additions to the national control lists, compiled by the Russian government, which regulate the export of dual-use products and of goods and technologies used in manufacturing missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. The latest decrees reportedly modify two earlier decrees--both of which Yeltsin issued in August 1997--aimed at improving Russia's system of overseeing the export of sensitive military items. The Russian presidential press service said yesterday that the Kremlin's latest measures are "aimed at ensuring the implementation of Russia's international obligations as a member country of the Wassenaar agreements on export control over conventional arms," and various dual-purpose goods and missile technologies. The press service statement also described yesterday's decrees as "additional evidence of Russia's adherence to a policy of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and [Russia's] course toward strengthening the country's national system of export control" (Reuters, Russian agencies, January 5). Yesterday's decrees would appear to represent one more effort by the Russian government to prove to Washington that it is moving seriously to stem the flow of Russian military technologies to Third World countries, and to Iran in particular. The United States has repeatedly complained about what it says is continued cooperation between Russian missile experts and Iranian agencies seeking to develop ballistic missiles. More recently, reports in the Western press have alleged that Russian specialists may also be involved in efforts by Iran to develop both nuclear and biological weapons.
[NVO] Leonid Grigoryevich, what is the RF Ministry of Defense position with respect to U.S. and UK actions of force against Iraq? [Ivashov] As RF Minister of Defense Igor Sergeyev stated, this is a gross violation of rules of international law and an undisguised disregard for the international community"s efforts to settle the situation in the region. The missile strikes against Baghdad resulting in victims among the civilian population were in no way justified from a military standpoint. Moreover, results of the strikes will not promote stabilization of the situation; to the contrary, they will contribute to an escalation of tension concerning Iraq. UN Security Council efforts for a peaceful settlement of the problem were made null and void. [NVO] How was the decision made to call off the Russian military delegation"s visit to Brussels? [Ivashov] It was not easy, of course, but what kind of cooperation and partnership with the Alliance can we speak of if Russia"s opinion is being openly ignored? We do not wish for cooperation within the Permanent Joint Council framework to be merely a front that creates an appearance of well-being. We have moved for now to one of three levels of relations with the Alliance envisaged by the RF-NATO Founding Act-- consultations and an information exchange. We viewed the upcoming Permanent Joint Council as an important step on this path and we planned to move forward constructively and evenly. Unfortunately, this did no happen, and not through our fault. The RF minister of defense consulted with Prime Minister Yevgeniy Primakov concerning cancellation of the Brussels trip. All consequences of this decision were weighed. The fact is that in the final account Sergeyev just did not manage to meet with his colleagues, including those whose position is close to that of the RF Ministry of Defense. But on the other hand, I cannot imagine what could have been discussed with the U.S. and UK secretaries of defense, who totally ignore our opinion. Marshal Sergeyev returned to Moscow with the approval of the president and prime minister. There is no question that this is the correct decision under present circumstances. [NVO] How do matters stand with sending Russian representatives to be part of the OSCE inspection team in Kosovo? [Ivashov] Russia declared a total of 200 persons, including 64 Ministry of Defense candidates. The OSCE Selection Commission is working scrupulously, albeit slowly. Only 10 persons from the Ministry of Defense have been selected for now. [NVO] NATO is reluctant to allow Russia to participate in aerial inspections over Kosovo and in interpreting the materials collected. [Ivashov] This element is absent to be sure. They wish to distance us from active involvement in aerial inspections. As of today a number of essentially fundamental albeit technical problems have not been completely agreed upon. The NATO position here largely is determined by the U.S.position. With respect to reconnaissance aircraft, the RF Ministry of Defense is ready to provide them without delay. The conditions of Russian crews" involvement in aerial monitoring now are being studied. We proceed from the assumption that a joint team must analyze the collected materials. [NVO] Do you believe that bilateral military ties between the United States and Russian Federation may be discontinued under the presentconditions? [Ivashov] By having attacked Iraq, the Americans thereby cast doubt on realization of prospective avenues of cooperation of U.S. and RF armed forces for 1999, including the conduct of joint exercise Peacekeeper-99, naval exercises, and exercises on ABM defense problems. The adjustment of contacts with United States along the military line will depend on further development of the situation concerning Baghdad. By the way, chances for State Duma ratification of the START II Treaty now become minimal. [NVO] How do you assess the prospects of cooperation between Yugoslavia and Russia in the defense sphere? [Ivashov] We now are giving this great attention. At a meeting of ministers of defense of the Russian Federation and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Belgrade on 16 December the parties agreed that cooperation will be developed and activated in those areas of military-technical cooperation which do not fall under sanctions. We intend to pose the question of a phased lifting of sanctions from Yugoslavia. Full-scale Russian-Yugoslav military-technical cooperation will be renewed after they are canceled.
#9 U.S. World Leadership Seen Challenged Rossiyskaya Gazeta 31 December 1998 [translation for personal use only] Article by Vladimir Kuznechevskiy: "Who Will Rule the World in the 21st Century?" -- words between slantlines published in boldface
The events of the past seven years convince us that no such danger
threatens the United States: The world does not accept its claims to a
monopoly on political and military leadership.
Rasul Gamzatov wrote these lines: "What can make a wise man stupid?
Joy!" This is exactly what seems to have happened to the U.S.
establishment over the past seven years. Its joy at the fact that its
eternal opponent in the 20th century -- the Soviet Union -- had departed
from the world arena, leaving behind a weakened and gravely ill Russia, was
so great and the triumphant screaming of the hawks of the struggle against
communism, like Brzezinski, was so eloquent and convincing that America's
leading circles really believed that Carthage had at last really been
destroyed.
The overwhelming majority of congressmen and senators and the U.S.
Presidential Administration believed that just one power was left on earth
at the end of the 20th century, capable of governing peoples and states,
and that it had the right to encourage those who acknowledge its leadership
and to punish (with money, sanctions, and bombs) as it wished the
"unreasonable" ones -- that is, those who would not listen to Washington --
regardless of the country in question: Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, or
Russia.
In this euphoria people in America have failed to notice that in the
past two years the "Lone Ranger" concept has emerged somehow spontaneously
in the world and started to be featured in the mass media with regard to
the United States. Everything about this definition is bad for a truly
great country and a great people: Both the fact that it is "lone" and the
fact that it is a "ranger."
But how could it have been otherwise? Only mind-numbing euphoria can
account for the fact that President Clinton appointed as the country's
chief diplomat someone whose vocabulary did not include at all either the
concept "compromise" or even the very word "diplomacy." The international
public hears from the lips of the chief U.S. diplomat only triumphant,
hawkish screaming and the language of diktat with regard to defendin
America's vital interests all over the world.
At the end of the outgoing year and on the eve of the new century the
United States, following the logic of the "Lone Ranger's" behavior, has
carried out a final trial of strength, as it were, by carrying out a
punitive action against Iraq. This trial of strength resulted in a
political fiasco. This is acknowledged by everyone, and it would not be
worth speaking about, because it is so obvious. But was it only a
political fiasco?
Assessing the U.S. adventure in Iraq, absolutely all commentators
without exception unanimously emphasize that militarily the action was
exceptionally successful and highly effective
This, I repeat, is the belief of everyone except... the Americans
themselves. Officially the top U.S. political leadership tirelessly
maintains that the action's military goal was fulfilled in full. But the
military proper prefers to keep quiet or else gives evasive answers to
journalists' pointed questions. Why?
We will not go into the exclusively military sphere. Too much is
vague here. Let us merely point out that in total British and U.S.
aircraft made 650 sorties and 415 cruise missiles were launched. The Iraqi
military claim that they downed 121 Tomahawks, the Americans deny this.
And they haughtily say that there was no loss of personnel, that is, all
the airmen returned to base. Russian military intelligence officers claim
that one in five missiles missed the target, that is, 83 missiles hit
civilian installations or "disappeared without trace." During the 1991
Gulf war one in 10 Tomahawks "disappeared "without trace" but one in 10 was
downed by Iraqi air defense forces. This time, according to available
information, the Americans successfully "degraded" ("blinded") the Iraqi
Armed Forces' outdated air defense systems (of Soviet, not even Russian,
manufacture). But, once again according to available information, the
Iraqis for some reason did not even try to put these systems into action
but used ordinary antiaircraft fire to combat the Tomahawks. Some time
will pass and then military experts will respond to all these questions.
I would now like to draw your attention to something else entirely.
Let us remember what the U.S. President and his secretary of state
said on the first day of the bombing of Iraq. They said that the military
action would end /only once/ the assigned objectives had been achieved --
that is, installations had been destroyed, which, according to U.S.
intelligence and Richard Butler, chairman of UNSCOM, produce or are capable
of producing weapons of mass-destruction -- chemical, bacteriological, and
nuclear weapons.
So, the military operation in Iraq has ended. But what are we hearing
from the U.S. President? We are hearing that UNSCOM's work must be
continued come what may, furthermore, Madeleine Albright asserts that it
must only be led by Richard Butler. And if Baghdad does not allow this,
the bombings will continue, and they will be even tougher.
What does this mean? That the "smart missile" precision air strikes
against strictly determined targets in Iraq have failed to achieve their
objectives? Then why were they suspended? There is no response.
There is no response for the U.S. people, of course. But there is of
course a response for the rest of the world.
Why is Washington reacting so irritably to Moscow's and Paris' desire
to retire not just Butler but virtually all his commission's personnel?
Why are the Americans insisting on the essential, mandatory resumption of
on-site inspections? Because the U.S. military /do not know/ what they
actually destroyed in Iraq.
Summing up the results of the Iraq military operation, Bill Clinton
said that the strikes on Saddam were accurate, but after a certain pause he
admitted that the full picture of the hits is "still being clarified."
What is going on? What is the reason for this uncertainty? All we can do
is ask another question: How could there be any certainty? After all,
satellite surveillance cannot even penetrate the special camouflage netting
covering an installation. And no matter how much the Americans brag that
they have updated intelligence data supplied by spy satellites five times a
day, this information is not and cannot be reliable. In order to know for
sure what devastation has been caused, people need to inspect the scene of
events. That is why Washington needs to send UNSCOM to the scene of the
bombardment come what may.
Over the last few days the press has openly written that virtually
Butler's commission is virtually crammed full of CIA intelligence officers.
UNSCOM tried for seven years to block the involvement of Russians (also
intelligence officers, it cannot be denied) altogether. In 1998 alone the
UN Secretariat rejected several lists containing Russian UNSCOM candidates
submitted by Moscow. The reasons given were purely bureaucratic in nature:
"There are no suitable vacancies." That is, there were vacancies for
Western countries alone.
Right now it is unclear how this tug-of-war on the UN Security Council
will end, between Russia and France, on the one hand, and the United States
and Britain on the other, with one observer, China, which is not
interfering in the debate as yet but has already voiced its disapproval of
the U.S. military adventure. But one thing can be said for certain -- the
U.S. venture in Iraq has put virtually all UN member states on their guard.
The strikes on Saddam Husayn were backed by just two countries -- Britain
(by participation in the punitive action) and Germany (verbally,
admittedly, by Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping rather than the foreign
minister). All the other countries, at best for the United States,
maintained a disapproving silence or, at worst, voiced disapproval out loud
or outright condemnation.
In general it can be said that the world has been put on its guard,
having seen that Washington's actions can be unpredictable. It is clear
that following the collapse of the bipolar international order the world
does not want to plunge into a monopolar world in the 21st century. And
Washington has also sensed this. U.S. Under Secretary of State Thomas
Pickering has already said that the United States does not object to the
extension of the program enabling Iraq to sell oil for food. This is,
needless to say, a departure from its tough line. But that is not enough
now. VOA reported that the Arab world is already raising a broader
question: that the economic sanctions against Iraq should be lifted
altogether. And that spells the start of a completely different
international order, not one in which the Americans consider themselves
alone the sole leader. In all probability Yevgeniy Primakov's idea or a
multipolar world, which the civilized world is scrutinizing increasingly
carefully and with increasing sympathy, will become the prevailing idea in
the 21st century.
[Description of Source: Rossiyskaya Gazeta -- Government daily
newspaper.]
#10 Scientists Develop Weapons Plutonium Conversion Process ULYANOVSK, January 5 (Itar-Tass) - The original "dry" technology of turning weapons plutonium into fuel for nuclear reactors has been developed and put into practice for the first time ever by specialists from the Research Institute of Nuclear Reactors in the city of Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Region. They have already processed eight kilograms of plutonium in accordance with the new technology and have been heating the building of the institute and the adjacent residential areas since the beginning of January. The fuel they obtained will be enough for heating them until April. According to the estimates of Dimitrovgrad specialists, this is "the technology of the third millenium," because it provides for the turning of weapons plutonium into fuel for nuclear reactors without an enormous amount of water, which was usually needed during the work with nuclear components. This will make it possible to reeduce considerably the expenses on the processing of plutonium, without breaking safety rules. "Humanity has accumulated thousands of tonnes of weapons plutonium, but we were the first to use it for peaceful purposes," Director of the Research Institute Alexey Grachyov told Tass. According to his information, specialists in nuclear physics from the United States, Japan and other countries are showing much interest in the new technology and are offering help for the continuation of the research.
Back
to the Center for Defense Infomation Site
Back
to The CDI Russia Weekly Site