Johnson's Russia List #6032 21 January 2002 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: 1. Interfax: Russia outlines six principles for strategic arms reductions. 2. Itar-Tass: Top Russian MP points to splits in US administration over Chechnya. (Rogozin) 3. The Times (UK): Michael Binyon, Russian envoys given tsarist look. 4. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Alexander Kuranov, END OF THE HONEYMOON. Russia apparently remains the main potential enemy of the US. 5. The Observer (UK): Edward Helmore, US in replay of the 'Great Game.' Costs and consequences of American engagement in Central Asia begin to become clear. 6. CNN: John Kluver, AA battling alcoholism in Russia. 7. Baltimore Sun: Douglas Birch, Kids struggle to survive Moscow streets. Many youths prefer homelessness to cruel treatment in shelters. 8. strana.ru: Michael Hewitt, Is a Bit of "Cold" Creeping Back into U.S.- Russian Relations? Just how telling is Time's selection for "Man of the Year" (Giuliani) versus Itogi's (Putin)? 9. Constantine Dmitriev: Re: 6031-Visas. 10. Mischa Gabowitsch: rus-nat: Relaunch/Relance/Vozrozhdenie. 11. BBC Monitoring: NTV Mir plans US broadcasts, own news programmes. 12. BBC Monitoring: Putin has not yet formed his own team - Russian Communist Party leader. 13. BBC Monitoring: Putin to face difficult choice between Washington and Iran - Russian experts. 14. Yezhenedelny Zhurnal: Alexander Golts and Dmitry Pinsker, SECRET AND REAL ADVISERS. Who advised President Putin to change the course of his policies?] ****** #1 Russia outlines six principles for strategic arms reductions Interfax Moscow, 20 January: The announced radical reduction of Russian and US strategic offensive weapons should guarantee the security of both states in equal measure, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Col-Gen Yuriy Baluyevskiy, said in interview with Interfax on Sunday [20 January]. Last week Baluyevskiy, as the head of a Russian military delegation, held talks in Washington with representatives of the Pentagon leadership on the issue of strategic offensive weapon reductions. According to him, at the consultations "the Russian delegation clearly outlined six principles in its approach to the problem: 1. The principle of equal security of the sides. 2. Transparency of the nuclear policy of the two states. 3. Interdependence of strategic offensive weapon cuts and strategic defensive weapons. 4. The irreversibility of strategic offensive weapon cuts. 5. Monitoring of the strategic offensive weapons reduction process. 6. Cooperation aimed at finding mutually-acceptable decisions, which are understandable by the sides, and financial means for the liquidation and destruction of strategic offensive weapons that are being radically reduced." Baluyevskiy said disagreements remained in the positions of Russian and American military experts on the issue of strategic offensive weapon reductions. "The intention of the USA to store rather than destroy nuclear weapons removed from delivery vehicles is the basic disagreement in our approaches to the process of strategic offensive weapon reductions," the general said. Thus, according to him, the USA is trying to reduce the process of radically reducing strategic offensive weapons to a simple lowering of nuclear weapon readiness". "A new concept - tactically deployed nuclear weapons (on delivery vehicles - Interfax) - is being introduced. All the remaining nuclear weapons that are to be removed from delivery means will be held in storage and, as the US side argues, may be returned to delivery vehicles in a week or more in case of emergency," he said. "I think", Baluyevskiy continued, "that neither we, nor the world public will understand such cuts." "It is not a reduction. It is the transfer of part of the strategic nuclear forces from one condition into another," he said. ****** #2 Top Russian MP points to splits in US administration over Chechnya Itar-Tass Moscow, 20 January: Russia's parliamentary delegation goes to Strasbourg with the intention to hold a constructive and open dialogue, the head of the delegation told ITAR-TASS on Saturday [19 January]. Dmitriy Rogozin, chairman of the International Affairs Committee at the State Duma lower house of parliament, heads the delegation that will on Sunday [20 January] go to Strasbourg for a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), opening on Monday [21 January]... He said he was aware of "certain surprises of the future session, including participation in it of (former Chechen leader) Aslan Maskhadov's envoy". Focusing on renewed criticism in the USA of the Russian leadership's actions in Chechnya, Rogozin stressed that "it is a reaction to that positiveness that has developed in relations between the Russian and US presidents". He believes American political circles clash rather fiercely "on each issue, especially on relations with Russia, as well as concerning the future mechanisms of cooperation between the USA and Russia, and NATO and Russia". He believes that this happens because "two political wings exist in the US administration". "One of them is more pragmatic, aimed at the future, and its representative is [Secretary of State] Colin Powell, while the other, more conservative, is concentrated around [Defence Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld," Rogozin said. ****** #3 The Times (UK) January 21, 2002 Russian envoys given tsarist look FROM MICHAEL BINYON IN MOSCOW AT A TIME when Britain is desperately trying to throw off the colonial image of the plumed hat and ceremonial sword, Russia is preparing to dress its diplomats in tsarist splendour. Embracing the old customs with post-communist vigour, the Russian Foreign Ministry has ordered all its top ambassadors and envoys to report to their tailors to be fitted out for the new ceremonial diplomatic uniform. Those going abroad will be asked to go for a fitting before taking up their posts; those already serving overseas must see a tailor when they are on home leave. The new ceremonial dress is an elaborate affair. Male diplomats will wear black woollen double-breasted jackets with gilded embroidery on the collars and cuffs, black woollen trousers, a white shirt, a grey tie, black silk socks and black low shoes with a leather sole. They will have a black woollen cap with a peak, an emblem on the cap-band, and gilded lace and green edging on the crown. Each senior diplomat will be given kid gloves. For those posted to hot countries, a tropical version has been designed in a light sandy colour. Diplomatic rank will be denoted by buttonholes; senior ambassadors will boast a green rectangle with gilded band and embroidery, and their buttons will have a gilded emblem of the double-headed eagle with two crossed palm leaves above it. The entire cost will be borne by the state, though the uniforms will spend most of their time in wardrobes and appear only on formal occasions and the presentation of credentials. Day-to-day business will be conducted, as usual, in business suits. Officials gave no reason for the change in uniform, but it is believed that the move is an attempt by Russia to cast off its dreary image. The Kremlin guard, the grey-coated police who guard the gates and patrol its walls, are also to have a makeover, the first since 1939. Instead of the long grey military coats and heavy epaulettes, they will be dressed in green, with smaller epaulettes but plenty of gold brocade. Last week Russia unveiled the theme of its Winter Olympic uniform — a throwback to the style of Chaliapin, the prewar opera singer famous for his double-breasted coats with heavy collars. The uniforms, designed in Italy, will come with tall fur hats. ****** #4 Nezavisimaya Gazeta January 19, 2002 END OF THE HONEYMOON Russia apparently remains the main potential enemy of the US Author: Alexander Kuranov [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] THE IMPROVEMENT IN RUSSIAN-US RELATIONS CAUSED BY THE TRAGIC EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11 IS RAPIDLY DWINDLING. MANY PROMINENT POLITICAL ANALYSTS IN RUSSIA AND THE US ARE SAYING THAT FURTHER EXACERBATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES MAY LEAD TO A NEW ARMS RACE, IF NOT A NEW COLD WAR. Many prominent political analysts in Russia and the US are saying that the honeymoon in Russian-US relations that started after the tragic events of September 11 may lead at least to a new arms race, if not a new cold war. Manners of US leaders were gradually changing in the course of the military operation in Afghanistan. The authorities of the Pentagon and some members of George Bush's political retinue have decided that since the US does not have any competitors in the military field, why not make the most of it? Soon Russia felt the change of political climate in Washington. Although the US president and Secretary of State Colin Powell had tried to "sweeten the pill" for the Russian president, the US decision on its unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972 was sad news for Vladimir Putin. He was placed in a very uncomfortable position, although he tried to make believe that nothing extraordinary had happened. Then Washington started to throw one unpleasant surprise at Russia after another. It turned out that the US did not intend to destroy the warheads it cut - only to store them. The US also does not rule out the possibility of resuming nuclear tests, toughening visa requirements for Russian citizens, and is again displeased with the civil rights and liberties situation in Russia. Each of these announcements sound strange after the warm handshakes between the presidents at Bush's Texas ranch and his expressions of deep affection for his "friend Vladimir." What new tricks are to be expected from the US administration next? For instance, it is evidently eager to settle down in Central Asia, which is a region of Russia's economic and political interests. One of the next objects of America's "purges" may be Iraq, which is linked with Russia by multi-profile contacts. Washington also intends to oust Moscow from the sphere of economic relations with India and then with China, since the authorities of the Chinese People's Republic will change at the end of 2002. Simultaneously Americans are doing their best to prevent Russia from having trust relationships with some of the leading European countries. Whatever London and Paris might do to develop Russia's relations with NATO from the 19+1 format to a closer one, the US representative, who plays the first violin among the NATO authorities, immediately uproots all such "liberties." Americans do not conceal their intention to continue the process of NATO's expansion. Perhaps, one of the Baltic states, if not all the three of them, will be included in NATO, although Berlin and Paris think that Slovakia and Slovenia, which are not so important for Russia, will do this time. It is not clear why Moscow could not implement its military- political interests in the course of the anti-terror campaign as unscrupulously as Washington did it. The fact that Russia has refused to bargain with the US and sell its assistance in the anti-terror operation as expensive as possible may be explained either by Vladimir Putin's excessive shyness or by the fact that Russian diplomats do not have such skills. However, the latter is hardly believable. In spring this year, Bush is scheduled to visit his Russian counterpart. It is not clear so far what issues may be discussed at this meeting and what documents may be signed after the negotiations, for practically all the previous agreements between the presidents are either not implemented or breeched by the American side. The recently published report of the US administration about the state of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces practically did not contain anything corresponding to the "fundamental changes" promised by Bush and his fellow-travellers. If the US and Russia have really done away with the cold war and buried the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, why does Washington intend to preserve the nuclear triad comprising strategic missiles, bombers, and submarines until the end of the present decade? Currently, the qualitative structure of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces coincides with that planned in the Clinton era. "The Washington Post" stresses that it is difficult to imagine a plausible unforeseen situation that would require America's use of such forces and such a capability of restoration of the stored warheads with their missile-carriers if Russia is no longer an enemy of the US. Justifying the existence of such a strong nuclear arsenal, representatives of the US administration and the Pentagon mention the possibility of emergence of numerous "petty" opponents of the US possessing nuclear weapons. However, according to the CIA, they will have no more than two hundred warheads in total. This proves that the prime target of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces is Russia. However Russian politicians may aspire to join the Western community, they will still have to preserve Russia's nuclear arsenal, since Russia has no other arguments that might deter the potential aggressor from an attack. (Translated by Kirill Frolov) ****** #5 The Observer (UK) 20 January 2002 US in replay of the 'Great Game' Costs and consequences of American engagement in Central Asia begin to become clear By Edward Helmore Almaty, Kazakhstan They are shadowy figures just visible from the perimeter of the windswept airbase outside the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek - United States troops unloading supplies. As the war in Afghanistan becomes a mopping-up operation, the US has stepped up troop deployments in the region, in what Russia and China fear is an effort to secure dominant influence over their backyards, a region rich in oil and gas reserves. In the past weeks, diplomats and generals from all three countries have streamed into Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The war on terrorism has turned the Central Asian republics from backwaters into prizes overnight. In a letter to the New York Times last week, former Iraq arms inspector Richard Butler warned that the 'Great Game' between Britain and Russia over the Indian sub-continent in the nineteenth century may now be replayed, with Russia and the US as the dominant players. 'Now the prize is oil - getting it and transporting it - and Afghanistan is again the contested territory,' Butler wrote. From Africa to the Philippines, South America and Central Asia, unease is growing over the way the US is flexing its military and political muscle. In the Philippines, a dispute has erupted over the impending deployment of 650 US troops to help combat the Abu Sayyaf Islamic insurgency. In Saudi Arabia, too, public concern over the presence of US troops and Washington's future global ambitions has led officials to declare that the US may have overstayed its welcome. What worries these countries is that when American troops come, they stay. On a swing through the former Soviet republics last week, US Senate majority leader Tom Daschle confirmed Washington's long-term interests when he told Uzbek leaders that the US presence 'is not simply in the immediate term'. Since October, the US has established open-ended military presences in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and is now understood to be negotiating with Kazakhstan's President Nursultan Nazarbayev to send Kazakh troops to Afghanistan and to construct a military base. 'It is clear that the continuing war in Afghanistan is no more than a veil for the US to establish political dominance in the region,' a Kazakh government source said. 'The war on terrorism is only a pretext for extending influence over our energy resources.' Kazakhstan's oil reserves could be the third largest in the world. Moreover, the Afghan conflict has made the prospect of the US-favoured route of a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan a potential reality. Over the past month, the Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji has signalled his country's wariness over a long-term US presence by sending delegations to the former Soviet republics, and by convening a meeting of the regional Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO). Reacting to reports that the US was about to deploy in Kazakhstan, the chief of the general staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, General Fu Quanyou, warned such a move 'poses a direct threat to China's security'. Beijing is understood to be mainly concerned that instability caused by radicals among the Uighur Muslims on its western borders could derail its modernisation. Russia has also expressed unease about the growing Western presence - painfully aware that it does not have the resources to pit itself against the US. 'They are unhappy about the US presence, but not too publicly because [President Vladimir] Putin wants to be seen as an active participant in the coalition aginst terrorism,' says Margot Light, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. 'The speed at which the US established coalition-backed military forces in the region has served to make the Russian failure all the more spectacular.' Last week on the ancient, frozen Silk Road over the Alatau mountains from Kazakhstan to China, it was easy to see how the US presence plays into Chinese fears: large lorries loaded with Chinese goods streamed across the border toward Almaty as high-flying US B-52s flew westwards towards home. America has not sought to hide the fact that it intends to remain in the region, even after its 'battle against terrorism' has been won. To local Kyrgyz and Russians, the spectacle of beefy US soldiers opens a new perspective. 'They are making themselves at home, going to cafes, exchanging money, leafing through the newspapers,' one local resident said recently. 'They are the good guys, who beat the terrorists. They go to the village to stock up on goods. Local people hope for dollar opportunities.' But some Russian leaders have begun to speak out. Last week the Speaker of the Russian parliament, Gennady Seleznyov, said Russia 'would not approve of permanent United States military bases in Central Asia'. And Russia's border guard commander, Konstantin Totsky, warned the US presence could only be tolerated for the duration of the anti-terrorist operation. However, the Russian protestations have been undermined by allegations of influence-peddling in the area. Recent reports suggest that as recently as two years ago Russian forces aided members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in guerrilla operations in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in order to foster insecurity and thus coax its former provinces into accepting protection. Still, human rights groups are already complaining that in the rush to secure influence, the US is ignoring human rights abuses, corruption and weak democratic processes in the region. There is further concern that active support of the US by Muslim countries with nascent Islamic fundamentalist movements serves only to inflame their problems. 'The Central Asian governments are being misguided because their own insurgency movements are likely to only grow with the presence of US military,' says Light. ******* #6 CNN January 21, 2002 AA battling alcoholism in Russia By CNN's John Kluver MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) --It is, and always has been, Russia's biggest problem and most devastating disease -- alcoholism. Studies indicate that at least 30 percent of men and 15 percent of women are addicted to alcohol. Alcohol's toll on Russia -- the damage it does -- is hard to comprehend. World War II, for example, took the lives of 30 million people. Since the war, alcohol has killed almost as many -- 27 million according to government statistics. Alcohol abuse contributes to murders, suicides, accidents, domestic violence and even infertility. It's also a drag on a struggling economy, with inefficent workers and absenteeism costing businesses millions. The Bolsheviks, led by the abstinent Lenin, vowed to wipe out drinking. Distilleries were destroyed and alcohol sales were banned. But such measures failed. Further Soviet attempts using the same primitive methods also failed. Today more modern methods, like Alcoholics Anonymous, are gaining strength. AA was founded in the United States in 1935 but was only organized in Russia in 1986. "Only after Perestroika it was possible to start AA because before that, oh, an American program, something, this is maybe CIA or something like that," says "Kon," a recovering alcoholic who asked that his name not be used. AA's growth in Russia has been steady but slow. There are now 300 groups in more than 100 towns. But that's still a pittance compared to the extent of the disease. "The problem is how to carry the message," says Kon. "Many people would like to solve their problem, but they just don't know how." AA's 11th tradition states the group should attract, not promote. Funds are kept low on purpose. Growth, and getting the word out, takes time. Another AA tradition is faith in a higher power -- God, for most. All alone, AA teaches, alcoholism can't be beat. The USSR, at least officially, was atheist. But that's not a problem, says Kon. "The 12-step program is so arranged, so built up, that the doors are open to anybody, whether you are atheist, Muslim, Hindu or anything else." One day at a time in Russia, alcoholics are discovering hope. ****** #7 Baltimore Sun January 20, 2002 Kids struggle to survive Moscow streets Many youths prefer homelessness to cruel treatment in shelters By Douglas Birch Sun Foreign Staff MOSCOW - They flutter through the Kursky railway station like flocks of dirt-smudged pigeons, sniffing glue fumes out of plastic bags, begging for money from strangers and scattering as police approach waving nightsticks. These are Russia's lost children, part of an army of millions of homeless boys and girls who have fled unhappy homes or escaped from the harsh discipline in state orphanages. Mobs of them, some as young as 5, haunt the capital's subway stations, highway underpasses and railroad terminals. The Kursky railway station, just east of central Moscow, is home to about 150 children who have drifted here from all over the former Soviet empire. By day, they roam the city, begging in subways and stealing what they can from shops. At night, they return to the station. It is a filthy, disease-ridden and violent home. Some of the boys and girls work as prostitutes. Some have contracted hepatitis or HIV. After a day of begging, some wander holding bags containing glue over their mouths to get high. Others discreetly inhale the fumes under their coats, hiking their collars. Station police occasionally administer what seem to be random beatings. Early Friday, two uniformed officers cornered a boy of about 16 in a station entrance. One slammed the boy with a truncheon as more than a dozen bystanders watched. Then the police led the youth away. The children's begging and stealing create problems for passengers, said another policeman, who would not give his name. "They say that we beat them and take money from them," he said, "but we don't." Why do the children stay? "The police beat them here," said Pavel Novikov, an evangelical Christian who feeds homeless children at the railway station. "But they don't get beaten as often as in the shelter." Sasha Vasiliyev, 17, said he came to the railway station in 1991, at age 6, after his parents died. When he was 10, authorities sent him to an orphanage in his hometown outside Moscow. He stayed about 18 months. The routine was boring and the discipline harsh: As punishment, the director sometimes forced children to stand shirtless in the winter cold. Vasiliyev returned to the station. The police periodically try to evict him. "They push me out into the street, even if it is minus-30 outside, and they say, 'Never come back here!'" he said. But he returns. Jan Korin, 8, arrived a few months ago from Belarus. He keeps his 50-cent tubes of plastic cement in a plush yellow bag that hangs on a string around his neck. The glue has made his gaze wander and his movements jerky. He cockily claimed he was happy sleeping in his nook, a space on the concrete floor next to the gates to the subway. Where is his mother? "I miss her," he said, tears making his brown eyes seem larger. "Though my mother sometimes hit me, I still love her." Jan's older sister, Tatiana, loitered in the station's underground shopping arcade, her face bathed in the light of a video game. She claims to be 16; her brother said her 13th birthday was coming up soon. Asked about her mother, she didn't look up from the video game. "I don't know where she is," she said. "She doesn't care about us, so why should I care about her? I have a little brother to feed and clothe." Their prospects are growing worse because of the gentrification of the neighborhood. In November, merchants and city officials ordered the Salvation Army to stop feeding homeless adults out of the back of a truck. In December, police swept through Kursky and other railway stations, rounding up homeless children and detaining them overnight. "It appeared we were being blamed for the crime rate," said Gordon Lewis, the Salvation Army's coordinator for social services in Moscow. Now there are rumors that another sweep is imminent, inspired by President Vladimir V. Putin's declaration last week that Russia's efforts to solve the problem of "the neglected" have failed. Putin said in a letter to his prime minister, "Homeless children and the criminalization of teen-agers has reached threatening proportions." His aides have promised a series of reforms to be introduced in coming weeks. Advocates for the homeless say that at least 10,000 children live on the capital's streets and that at least 90 percent are from outside Moscow. Only three shelters, with a total capacity of several hundred, are willing to accept them. One of the shelters is reserved for minors charged with committing serious crimes; the others are officially limited to use by legal residents of Moscow. Dzera Oxana, a lawyer who works with homeless children, says a police lieutenant tried to find places for some of the children rounded up in the sweep last month. "She took the list of orphanages and called all of them," Oxana said. "All of them told her to go to hell." Lawmakers have passed many measures to protect homeless and runaway children, but critics say that responsibility for the children is divided among agencies lacking the expertise, money and desire to act. "I worked in a district administrative office whose task it was to deal with homeless children," said Lelit Karagyan, who now runs a group home. "Speaking honestly, the only thing they do is to fill in a lot of forms." Moscow officials have promised to open seven new orphanages within two years. But activists caution that the orphanages will be little help without better rehabilitation programs and more trained social workers. And authorities, they say, should change their regulations to make it easier to open group homes and place children in foster care. "Why do they run away from orphanages? Because of the way they are treated," Novikov said. "There are very few orphanages where they express love for the children." Twice a week, Novikov loads chicken soup, bread and tea into the back of an old Land Rover and drives to the station parking lot. Authorities do not welcome him there. Police have twice detained him and told him to stop feeding the children. Novikov, who receives financial support from a network of Christian churches, has refused. He can't forget the shock of his first night at the station last fall. He had come determined to preach. He quickly realized that more than words were needed. "The children were intoxicated, and they were hungry," he said. "And after that moment, I decided that I had to feed them, to give them a place to stay and to eat. Just to express God's care for them." At 2:30 a.m. Friday, the Land Rover rolled into the parking lot. Children raced out of the station. Novikov and two friends prayed in the front seat, then climbed out and served food to the growing crowd. Novikov noticed that one of the regulars - Ivan Chernov, 16 - was missing. Friends said he had been so badly beaten by police that he couldn't get up out of bed. Novikov carried a bag of food through the rail yards, across a garbage dump and over a concrete wall to Chernov's home - a hut built of cardboard and old bedsheets in the roofless ruins of a building. The teen-ager lay under a pile of filthy blankets; the temperature was 26 degrees. Inside the railway station, none of the children seems to think much about what might happen tomorrow. That would be too painful. "They are not killing us outright," said Vasiliyev, the longtime station resident. "They are killing us gradually." Yelena Ilingina of The Sun's Moscow bureau contributed to this article. ******* #8 strana.ru January 18, 2002 Is a Bit of "Cold" Creeping Back into U.S.- Russian Relations? Just how telling is Time's selection for "Man of the Year" (Giuliani) versus Itogi's (Putin)? By Michael Hewitt TIME recently named (now former) New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani "Man of the Year" for the way he inspired and led not only New Yorkers, but all Americans in recovering from September 11th. His leadership struck the necessary balance between resolve and compassion, and his ubiquitous press conferences and eulogies proved cathartic as the mayor managed to express the emotions everyone felt. Giuliani became the voice of Americans. While initially appearing shaken, George W. Bush eventually collected himself - and his team - and succeeded in rallying the public in his own right. Bush used this support to assemble an eclectic international coalition against terrorism, which has since defeated a regime that harbored terrorists within its borders. In doing so, the United States received cooperation from Pakistan and Central Asian nations. Whereas the alliance with President Musharaff of Pakistan had quid-pro-quo elements of debt relief and aid, cooperation with Russia appeared to be prompted by the desire to rout a common enemy, and a mutual desire to develop relations beyond a cold war framework. Russia's willingness to allow U.S. troops to stage in Central Asia - as well as its blessing of the mission - caused many to speculate on whether or not a transformation was taking place in traditional bilateral power relations. Four months later, both Presidents Bush and Putin continue to enjoy high approval ratings. Whereas the American public has certainly warmed to Bush since September 11th, it is more difficult to see a similar correlation between Putin's current popularity and his handling of the war against terrorism, since he had already enjoyed broad popular support before 9/11. Nevertheless, these two men have been recognized in both of their countries for their leadership. How will each of them use this wave of support for advancing their domestic agendas? At the beginning of the military campaign, a Newsweek journalist suggested that perhaps for the first time, the United States needed the rest of the world more than it needed the United States. Since Russia could play the unique role of moderator between many nations considered "rogue states" by the U.S., and could significantly facillitate the American military offensive in Afghanistan by allowing U.S. troops to be stationed in Central Asia, Russia was - for a time, at least - forefront in the mind of U.S. foreign policymakers. However, with the greater military campaign against the Taliban all but successfully concluded, how much validity does that statement still hold? In attempting to address some of these questions, The Russian Observer spoke with Dr. Michael McFaul, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Stanford University. McFaul noted that, "[Putin] enjoys high ratings and the [Russian] economic situation is fine. What is troubling for him is the relationship in general [with the United States]. What originally looked like a real strategic turning point and rapprochement has faded because of what America has or has not done." McFaul focused on three issues that stand out as indicative of America's waning willingness to tread lightly on sensitive issues in lieu of Russia's support for the war in Afghanistan. In December, the U.S. announced it was withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, thereby eliminating any possibility of amending it, as Russia would have preferred. In November, President Bush pledged that the U.S. would reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 warheads. However, in the Pentagon's recently released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department outlines its plans to store, rather than destroy warheads from disassembled missiles. Finally, since the military campaign aimed at driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan has all but concluded, Russia will soon expect the U.S. to begin removing troops from Central Asia. Instead of making ovations aimed at withdrawing troops, the U.S. is seeking to expand their deployment in Central Asia, particularly in Kyrgyzstan. Such actions would seem to refute the notion that the United States needs Russia more than Russia needs the United States. At the very least, it indicates that the Bush administration believes that it does not presently need to appease Russia in hopes of gaining further support in the war against terrorism. "Neither side really needs the other right now," said McFaul. "There was a moment when the U.S. needed Russia's blessing to station troops in Uzbekistan, but that has passed. It was nice for the U.S. to have that blessing, but had Russia not been receptive, it is not as if the U.S. would not have found other ways to conduct the campaign. In reality, Russia didn't really supply all that much to the effort." Despite the recent decisions taken by the United States on arms control issues, Russia did receive support from the West in the form of moderated criticism of the war in Chechnya. In the early days of the military efforts in Afghanistan, the United States and other nations that had previously been critical of the way Russia has conducted the war in Chechnya began to refer to the Chechen fighters as terrorists, thus placing them in the same camp as Al-Qaeda. This redefining of the Chechen fighters freed Putin from some sources of international opposition to the war. In some respects, Putin appears to be much better positioned than Bush for capitalizing on his broad support in the year to come. The Russian president is presiding over an economy that - although still relatively wobbly - is showing healthy growth. His main source of criticism - the war in Chechnya - has been muffled, as it has been successfully respun as part of the global effort against terrorism. Nevertheless, Putin still faces significant domestic obstacles, first and foremost the reform of the military. Commenting on this issue, McFaul stated that, "military reform is the main point on the agenda". With the State Duma well under Putin's control, "the military establishment is the main source of opposition. They are against reform and opposed to pro-American overtures. But Putin can't push forward with reform too aggressively, because he still needs the military on his side in Chechnya". ******* #9 Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 From: Constantine Dmitriev Subject: Re: 6031-Visas Re: 6031- #10 RUSSIAN POLITICIAN CRITICISES AMERICAN AUTHORITIES FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST RUSSIANS RECEIVING AMERICAN ENTRY VISAS Recently there was an outpouring of articles condemning a recent decision by the US State Department to introduce a new Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application (Form DS-157) that contains detailed questions about applicant's military record, political affiliations, occupations, etc. Most articles, including the one cited in JRL-6031, criticized the US government for this new form, arguing that it specifically targets common Russians who wish to visit America. I believe that this criticism is mistaken, as most articles assume that only a handful of countries, including Russia, are targets of this decision. However, according to the US State Department, all male nonimmigrant visa applicants between the ages of 16 and 45, regardless of nationality and regardless of where they apply, must complete and submit a DS-157 in addition to the regular Nonimmigrant Visa Application form (DS-156). In other words, citizens of all those countries, which require a visa to enter the United States, have to complete a DS-157, not just Russians and travellers from the Middle East. ******** #10 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 From: Mischa Gabowitsch Subject: rus-nat: Relaunch/Relance/Vozrozhdenie Dear colleagues, After a promising start, rus-nat, our Russian-English-French discussion list on Russian nationalism, went the way of many academic lists : discussion faded off and the list became silent. Technical problems played a part in this : some people had difficulties reading encodings used by their colleagues, and at some point I (the listowner) stopped receiving messages from the list. Still, given the list's multi-disciplinary, international membership, I believe it can be very useful for an exchange of information and views and to encourage research. I propose to revive it, very modestly, simply by posting bibliographic information and links to interesting web-based sources, hoping that debate will ensue at some point. I will try to do my best to solve technical and translation problems as they come up -- please contact me directly (mischa@clubrussia.org) if you have a specific query or request. You may view the list's archives at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/rus-nat.html. Please also use that page for unsubscription and other operations. The last discussions on the list featured Alexander Verkhovsky's thoughts on how to present links to extremists' web pages (see www.panorama.ru/works/patr/extr.html), and a polemic about the writings of Raddai Raikhlin (see http://www.israel.net/raikhlin and http://raikhlin.h1.ru). Among recent books relevant to our topic, I''ll arbitrarily mention three Russian titles: Andrej Zorin, Kormya dvuglavogo orla, Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001 D.A. Kocyubinskij, Russkij nacionalizm v nachale XX stoletiya, Moscow, ROSSPEN, 2001 Vladimir Malakhov, Skromnoe obayanie rasizma, Moscow, Dom intellektual’noj knigi i Modest Kolerov, 2001 Would anyone be interested in reviewing one of these books for our list ? (I am prepared to translate the review into the two other languages represented.) I'd also welcome a report about relevant discussions at last year's AAASS congress. Waiting for your comments and suggestions, Mischa Gabowitsch, Moscow/Paris, listowner ******* #11 BBC Monitoring Russia: NTV Mir plans US broadcasts, own news programmes Source: Voice of Russia web site, Moscow, in Russian 16 Jan 02 The NTV television channel intends to organize round-the-clock broadcasting to the USA. The NTV Mir television company has issued a press release on its plans for broadcasting to the USA, Canada, Israel and European countries. NTV Mir intends to show, above all, programme owned by NTV, including "Segodnya" [regular news bulletins of 15-40 minutes], "Kukly" ["Puppets", political satire puppet show], "Kriminal" ["Crime", reports on latest police investigations], "Hero of the Day" [15-minute studio discussion with a prominent public figure], "Freedom of Speech" [studio discussion], "Our Favourite Animals" and "Vprok" ["To advantage", consumer advice talk show]. In the future, the company intends to start producing its own programmes, particularly news. In particular, a news programme to be broadcast five times a week is to be produced in the USA together with CBS. A studio for its production is already being built in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Round-the-clock broadcasting to the USA is to start in January and the production of own programmes, in February or March. ****** #12 BBC Monitoring Putin has not yet formed his own team - Russian Communist Party leader Source: NTV International, Moscow, in Russian 1600 gmt 19 Jan 02 [Presenter Yuriy Lepatov] The congress of the Russian Communist Party is the main political news today. The official reason for holding it was the need to register it with the Justice Ministry in accordance with the new law on political parties. ... [Correspondent] ... The Communists are saying that they are staying in the opposition. Their criticism of the authorities is becoming increasingly harsh. Just recently, the left was talking about its hopes in the new president. Now it is again saying it is not happy with the authorities and Vladimir Putin: [Zyuganov] He talks about political values, his adherence to freedom of speech and so forth, but I see that behind his back they are trying to get control of all [television] channels, the oligarchs are trying to control whole territories. Massive moneybags ranging from [Roman] Abramovich [Chukotka governor] to [those in] Adygeya have already got into power, which you don't see in any other state, in principle. So you have to be very wary and cautious. [Correspondent] You think he [Putin] does not want to deal with this, or that he can't? [Zyuganov] I think he does not have his own team yet, so he continues the old policies. He has not even been able to form his own government yet. [Correspondent] The Communists are in general cautious about the Kremlin's foreign policy and its possible rapprochement with the West. Economic problems could lead to early State Duma elections and we need to be ready for this. [Zyuganov] The executive powers do not have additional reserves. So I will be worrying. I expect personnel changes in the government in the first quarter of the year. So, I do not expect a favourable situation for the authorities in this respect and they might try to hold elections earlier. It is not for nothing that they all rushed to hold their congresses. [Correspondent] But not all the delegates agree that the party should join the irreconcilable opposition, all the more so that many communists are already in power. [Mikhail Mashkovtsev, captioned as governor of Kamchatka] Most of the population is today suffering from the ulcer of capitalism, but there is nonetheless no inclination to return yet to socialism. So, our task is not one that can be carried out in a year. It is quite a difficult task - to form a firm belief among the population in the need to return to the socialist path of development. And this wholesale criticism of everything will not help us. [Correspondent] The Communists remain the biggest opposition organization. But at the same time it is obvious that their criticism of the authorities increasingly resembles that of other parties who are not friendly with the Communists. ... ****** #13 BBC Monitoring Putin to face difficult choice between Washington and Iran - Russian experts Source: Centre TV, Moscow, in Russian 1700 gmt 19 Jan 02 Russian-Iranian cooperation, especially Russian arms supplies to Tehran and assistance in the construction of the nuclear plant in Busher, may become a bone of contention in the currently cloud-free relations between Moscow and Washington,the Russian Centre TV weekly analytical programme "Postscript" warns in a special report. Russian experts, interviewed by the programme, advocate close ties with Iran but say that Russian President Vladimir Putin may face a difficult choice some day. [Presenter Aleksey Pushkov] There is one more problem in our relations with the USA brewing little by little. This is the problem of Iran. Everything indicates that a direct collision between the interests of Moscow and Washington is possible there. Aleksey Dubnov has more. [Correspondent] Having declared a war on international terrorism, Washington embarked on a principal reconstruction of the world under a clear-cut and well-defined slogan proclaimed by President Bush: who is not with us, is against us. Iran is among those who, as the Americans believe, pose a major threat to their security. [Omitted: historic background] First of all, the Americans are sure that Tehran is actively working on the creation of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery. However, Iran has arguments of its own. [Sergey Druzhilovskiy, captioned as professor of oriental studies in the Institute of Foreign Relations under the Russian Foreign Ministry] Iran's position to this effect is very clear-cut and secure. The Iranians say that we should strive for universal nuclear disarmament. They go further than us as we propose only the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. They say: let's go further. Nuclear weapons can destroy the whole of mankind, so we are ready to be the first to sign any document describing steps towards the reduction and complete elimination of nuclear weapons. [Correspondent] Another American accusation is that Iran allegedly supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. Washington also believes that Iran is harbouring some Al-Qa'idah fighters who fled from Afghanistan. [Omitted: known facts about the alleged arms ship detained in the Red Sea] [Druzhilovskiy] I think that the attempts to accuse the Palestinians of receiving broad military or financial aid from anywhere are groundless. There are no real channels that the Palestinians could use. They have no ports, no airport and no direct banking relations with other countries. So it will be very difficult for the USA to prove that Iran is doing something to this effect, I mean bolstering terrorism. [Correspondent] Another irritation appeared in relations between Washington and Tehran after the Afghan war. Washington dislikes the Iranian aspiration to play a key role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and restore its former influence in border areas in western Afghanistan. [Omitted: known facts about the situation in Afghanistan] The USA is also unhappy about Russian-Iranian military, nuclear and space cooperation. [Ivan Safranchuk, captioned as head of the Moscow bureau of the centre for military information] The most unpleasant thing for the United States is [Russian-Iranian] nuclear cooperation, namely the construction of a nuclear plant in Busher, that successfully continued - sometimes we failed to meet deadlines but in general it was successful - through the whole of the 1990s accompanied by sharp US criticism. Of course, American pressure will continue but we should not exaggerate this. This question already has a history, it always existed, and Moscow has evidently learned how to withstand this pressure. [Correspondent] Experts say that in five or six years Iran, together with China and India, may become the third area in which Russian arms exports will prevail. Iran is ready to pay 300-400 million dollars per year for our weapons and spend a total of 2bn dollars by 2010. The Russian-Iranian partnership in the oil and gas spheres is also strategically important for us, especially in view of the possible construction of oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia via Afghanistan and Iran. Therefore, we are in a delicate situation. On the one hand, [Russian President] Vladimir Putin has decided to support the US antiterrorist campaign. On the other hand, we cannot drop our commitments to Iran. Moreover, the USA is thinking about returning to the Iranian market and taking over prolific Russian contracts. Finally, Putin may have to make a choice between Washington and Tehran. So far Moscow says it has no intention of not fulfilling Russian obligations concerning cooperation with Iran, though our American partners, for example [US Secretary of State] Colin Powell, return to this issue at the talks again and again. [Video shows scenes of the Afghan war, rallies in Tehran, street clashes in the West Bank, military hardware, industrial facilities, archive footage of Russian, American, Iranian and Israeli politicians] ****** #14 Yezhenedelny Zhurnal No. 1 January 15, 2002 SECRET AND REAL ADVISERS Who advised President Putin to change the course of his policies? Author: Alexander Golts, Dmitry Pinsker [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] OVERCOMING REAL HARDSHIPS WHILE DRAWING CLOSER TO THE WEST WILL REQUIRE NOT ONLY IDEAS AND INITIATIVES, BUT ALSO HARD WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW POLICIES. AND THEN PUTIN WILL HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN HIS PROCLAIMED IDEAS AND HIS ASSOCIATES: BRINGING HIS REAL ADVISERS OUT OF THE SHADOWS. By the start of Vladimir Putin's third year in office, Russian politics has fundamentally changed. After making considerable changes in the economy and legislation, President Putin announced a new foreign policy course. The idea of drawing closer to the US is prevailing in the Kremlin and the Russian leader has made some substantial sacrifices for the sake of this idea: Moscow has allowed the US to establish military bases in Central Asian republics of the former USSR, and closed its radar intelligence center in Cuba. Putin also announced that he does not consider NATO expansion to the East to be dangerous for Russia. Finally, he seemingly was not concerned at all about the Washington decision to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty. Meanwhile, the Kremlin "executors and performers" are still the same. So who worked out and advised the president to take the new course? It is very hard to find this out. it may be a rather large group of all kinds of experts and advisers who had spoken out such ideas for a long time, but only at present their ideas turned to be useful. Apparently, the president had to involve new adviser as both Yeltsin's old timers and Putin's St. Petersburg newcomers turned to be inefficient in such questions. So those who promoted their ideas should have been promoted to key positions themselves, but they are still in the shade. Those who recently tried to prove that a contract-based army is impossible in Russia are charged with forming a contract-based army in the country. Those who until recently threatened the West with "asymmetrical answers" have been charged with strengthening the relations with the West. The Kremlin officials explain the unwillingness of the Russian leader to radically change his team by his solidity and the intention to thoroughly and deeply consider each new candidacy, as well as his unwillingness to reject the old team "in the lump". However, the real reason of the delay of the seemingly inevitable personnel rotation in the Kremlin may also be the consequences of Putin's appearance in the presidential chair. Two years ago he honestly said, "I would never dream in a nightmare that I could be the president." Putin has never before had to participate in a political competition. That is why when he found himself to be the president as a result of his unexpected and rapid political career he did not have a team that could be trusted and fulfilled his plans. As a result, forming of the presidential team has taken over two years already and has not been finished yet, although usually it takes no longer than six months. Vladimir Putin has to publicly admit that he his major principle in personnel policy is "I promote those I know." He says, "I am glad to invite people from other regions, but it is necessary to know these people, it is necessary to see them working and to see the results of their work. So of course it is easier for me to hire people who I know and who I have seen working. That is why St. Petersburg natives appear in the Kremlin," explained Vladimir Putin in his interview with the Financial Times. Two years ago the newly elected president believes that people with shoulder straps would be the best executors for his plans. That is five of seven presidential envoys appointed to the federal districts in May 2000 turned to be army, police, or KGB generals. However, very soon it turned out that those people were able to shamelessly lie to the president. It became the most obvious after the Kursk submarine disaster: the top fleet leadership was cheerfully reporting that the fleet had all the necessary means and equipment for the rescue operation and it took very long until the Supreme Commander-in-Chief made the situation out and characterized it very concisely, "We have not a bean". Meanwhile, the recommendations of Putin's former KGB associates and St. Petersburg compatriots he invited to rule the country turned to be as unworthy as the advice Putin got from officials inherited from Boris Yeltsin. Sergei Ivanov, the closest confidant of the head of the state recommended Putin to not only support Slobodan Milosevic, but to also send an squadron to the Mediterranean in order to protect the dictator from the vicious West - Ivanov based his recommendations on the intelligence reports. Putin managed to avoid an embarrassing position at the very last moment and acknowledged Voislav Kostinsa the new president of Yugoslavia. So the best confidants of the president, such as FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev and Sergei Ivanov did not justify the hopes and have been unable to finish the "anti-terrorist operation" in Chehcnya. Judging by the latest events the president is even unable to receive trustworthy information from his appointees. After the US September 11 tragedy it became obvious that Putin's closest supporters are absolutely unable to fulfill the objectives they get from the president. Moreover, which if much more important, they are unwilling to unconditionally support the presidential initiatives. A graphic example of this is that a few days before President Putin gave the go- ahead to locating the US military in Central Asian republics, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that he could not hypothetically admit such a possibility. The decision of the Russian president to form a contract-based army as soon as possible was obviously out of the blue for all Russian security services. Evidently, President Putin gradually came to the conclusion that the people from his closest surrounding recommend him things that are absolutely wrong for revival of Russia. When Putin said in Berlin that they have missed real threats and dangers endlessly concentrating on ABM and national missile defense system, he addressed not only Western leaders, but also himself and his own subordinates. The "new course" is highly likely to be initiated by the officials who managed to reveal their views to the president. According to confidential sources, they were deputy Kremlin administration head Sergei Prikhodko, who is in charge of foreign policy; presidential aid Sergei Yastrzhembsky; Minister for Economic Development German Gref; Chair of the Federation Council committee for international affairs Mikhail Margelov; and Sergei Karagonov, chairman of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council. For instance, Sergei Yastrzhembsky, who has long exceeded the bounds of his authority as presidential aide, has spoken with the head of state several times recently, and the topic of their talks was far removed from media coverage of the continuing war in Chechnya, which he is supposed to do in accordance with his job description. At the same time, it is known that Yastrzhembsky is a decided opponent of Primakov's "multi-polar world" idea. According to the same sources, German Gref also played a serious role in changing the foreign policy course, as well as in promotion of the military reform concept worked out by the Union of Right Forces. His approach was very simple: Russia needs an inflow of foreign capital that is likely to come from the West only and no selling weapons to the East can refund for absence of western investments - consequently, confrontation with the West means inevitable and considerable economic losses. It should be noted that as soon as Moscow started closing with the US, the process of preparation Russia for joining the World Trade Organization immediately speeded up. The necessity of a radical military reform was also motivated by economic reasons. And an almost impossible thing happened: experts of the Institute of the Transition Economics were involved in working the reform out. Moreover, to eliminate any doubt that the Defense Ministry must follow their recommendations, ideological leaders of the Union of Right forces Yegor Gaidar and Boris Nemtsov attended the governmental meeting devoted to the military reform. Probably, some people who have been admitted to the "inner circle" only recently but have long supported the ideas that are now the official course, also influenced the president of Russia. Mikhail Margelov is considered to be a confidant of the head of the state in the questions of the new Russia - US relationship. Lately, it was Margelov instead of Defense Ministry or Federal Security Service representatives who many times was in the US at the discussions of military partnership or cooperation of the secret services during preparation of the Afghan anti-terrorist operation or the coming Russia - US negotiations on the ABM Treaty issue and US's withdrawal from the treaty. Finally , several times before the Russian president made his speech on US's withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty, Margelov not only exactly predicted the reaction of the Russian president but also said the phrase that later Vladimir Putin told to British journalists, "Do not expect any hysteria". The veteran of the Russian political science Sergei Karaganov was also called for the Kremlin court. Karaganov is the deputy director of the Institute of Europe and a founder of the Foreign and Defense Politics Council, a unique organization in Russia. The Council regularly gives the president non - trivial recommendations on the military reform, and policy in relation to the US, NATO, and the CIS states. Currently Vladimir Putin is trying to realize the "selective involvement" principle in the foreign policy, that was invented by the members of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council. This strategy stipulates "conscious rejection of the super-power phantom and maximum possible avoidance of confrontation, especially with the countries and regions Russia's economic development depends on". Actually, it is not vitally important who advised the president to acquire the new complex of liberal economic ideas and pro-western foreign policy orientation. The most important thing is that having decided to personally shape national politics, President Putin personally listens to the experts and learns a very considerable volume of information. At the same time he still charges his St. Petersburg favorites with implementing the foreign and defense policies he proposes. Sometimes they are unsuccessful at it. Making a speech at the NATO council of defense ministers, Sergei Ivanov completely baffled his western colleagues. For forty minutes he so energetically smashed to pieces all previous experience of Russian relations with NATO that he almost convinced NATO defense ministers of the futility of any contacts and absurdity of establishing a new body where Russia would equally participate in making the key decisions on security. Judging by everything Vladimir Putin is inclined to find a consensus with his associates, which means he will have to make certain concessions. For instance, last week the head of the state personally announced that he transfers the functions of the Pardons Commission of the presidential administration to regional governors. Simultaneously, an accusing sentence was passed for military journalist Grigory Pasko and in Kolomna the court decided to continue investigation of scientist Igor Sutyagin but refused to let the latter out of the prison. Undoubtedly, there is no ground to state that President Putin has any personal relation to these two sentences. However, a person who is quite close to the Russian security services briefly explained in his interview with us: "That's for Lourdes." In other words, our man Putin has to surrender to the damned imperialists one position after another thus hinted to the perplexed security services that the president still remembers who is the major enemy. According to this logic, the endless investigation of Igor Sutyagin's case is "for US's withdrawal from the ABM treaty". If all the aforementioned is true, the new liberal policies are likely to suffer many hardships, since they are being implemented by the old "Byzantine" methods. So far, the new policies exist in the form of intentions and slogans. The Defense Ministry and the Interior Ministry are most likely to sabotage these ideas. The small and not very influential group of "shadowy" advisers is opposed by a wide front of lobbyists and officials in the form of the Foreign Ministry, top generals, directors of defense enterprises who are eager to sell weapons to outsider countries in the turbid waters of the multi-polar world. Meanwhile, the rapid and "bloodless" victory in Afghanistan sharply increased the influence of those who believe it is unnecessary to take into account the position of coalition partners, especially Moscow. It is not ruled out that Vladimir Putin is to encounter lots of disappointments on his way to the western world. At present Moscow bases all its hopes for avoiding a "legal vacuum" because of US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty on the work on a new treaty with the US. Russia is willing to legally register Bush's promise of a reduction of nuclear arsenals. However, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as well as Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, are convinced that the US should not sign any agreements at all, since they may limit their options in the future. Apparently, Russia stands to face many problems in its relations with NATO. It is not ruled out that by spring next year Putin is to pass through another trial: the intimacy between Moscow and NATO will stop at beautiful rhetoric, while the Baltic states will be invited to join the alliance. Overcoming these real hardships will require not only ideas and initiatives, but also hard work on implementing the new policies. And then Putin will have to make a choice between his proclaimed ideas and his associates. If he seriously believes that there is no alternative to drawing closer to the West, he will have to reject his usual personnel policy and make his secret advisers the real leaders of the country. (Translated by Arina Yevtikhova) ******