Johnson's Russia List
#6563
21 November 2002
davidjohnson@erols.com
A CDI Project
www.cdi.org
[Contents:
1. Reuters: Bush to urge peaceful Chechen solution on Putin.
2. Luba Schwartzman: TV1 Review.
3. Kommersant: JOURNALISTS ASK THE PRESIDENT TO VETO...amendments to
the law "On the media." An open letter to President Putin from the media
industry.
4. Moscow Times: Megan Merrill, Rising Middle Class Pumping Up Retail.
5. New York Times: Steven Lee Myers, A Russian Crime Drama Deepens With
Arrests. (re Starovoitova)
6. Vladivostok News: Primorye governor talks perils of investment in
Russia.
7. Vremya Novostei: DOES NATO EXPANSION POSE A THREAT? Brief interviews
with some leading Russian experts.
8. UPI: Czech leader: Russia will never join NATO. (Havel)
9. White House: INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT IN EUROPEAN PRINT ROUNDTABLE.
10. strana.ru: Ira Straus, How Russia can get into NATO.
11. Wall Street Journal: Guy Chazan, EU, Russia Grow Distant As Moscow
Sides
With U.S.. Even as U.S.-Moscow Relations Grow Closer In Terror War, EU,
Russia
Clash Over Issues.
12. Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Reinhard Meier, Putin's Partnership and Putin's
War.
13. Novaya Gazeta: Yuri Baulin, HOW MUCH A DAY OF THE WAR COSTS.
Some facts and figures about the war in Chechnya.]
*******
#1
Bush to urge peaceful Chechen solution on Putin
By Ron Popeski
MOSCOW, Nov 21 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush, in an interview
broadcast on Thursday on the eve of talks with Vladimir Putin, said he
intended to persuade the Russian leader to work towards a peaceful
settlement in separatist Chechnya.
Bush, interviewed by NTV television, also gave full backing to Putin in his
handling of last month's theatre siege, in which security forces used gas
to subdue armed rebels and rescue hostages. A total of 128 hostages and 41
guerrillas died.
"As regards Chechnya, we still hope a solution can be found in a peaceful
way," Bush said, his comments translated into Russian. "This is Russia's
domestic problem. In my work with Vladimir Putin, I'll be trying to direct
him towards a peaceful solution to the problem."
Bush meets Putin in the Kremlin leader's native St Petersburg after
attending the Prague NATO summit, where seven ex-Communist east European
states were on Thursday invited to join the alliance.
The U.S. president spends less than three hours in Russia's second city,
his second visit this year, before travelling on to Lithuania and Romania,
both among the new NATO entrants.
Bush, who has repeatedly praised Russia's full backing for Washington's
declared war against terrorism, rejected any attempt to blame Putin for the
high death toll in the theatre siege.
"...I think that when terrorists cause civilian deaths, a true leader must
be firm. My friend Vladimir Putin found himself in an utterly difficult
situation: the terrorists were threatening to kill 800 people. He did his
utmost and he did it to save lives, to save people," Bush said.
"I have heard that some people are blaming what happened on Russia. The
terrorists should be blamed. They should pay for what they did."
PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT
But he restated his contention that Moscow had to work ultimately for a
peaceful settlement with Chechen separatists.
"I think that one thing does not rule out the other," he said. "One can
call the terrorists and murderers to account but at the same time resolve
the situation by generally peaceful means."
Putin, his actions to end the siege approved overwhelmingly in opinion
polls, has since fiercely defended Russia's policy of refusing to negotiate
with Chechnya's exiled elected leaders. He says the rebels who have been
battling Russian forces in two post-Soviet wars are part of a world-wide
Islamist conspiracy.
Putin has called for faster implementation of a plan to draft a Chechen
constitution and put it to a referendum.
In other comments to the daily Izvestia, Bush said he would also assure
Putin that Russia had nothing to fear from NATO's second expansion to
include three ex-Soviet Baltic states.
Putin has dropped Russia's longstanding objections to NATO enlargement,
acknowledging that it can do nothing to stop it. But Russian officials
remain concerned that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all bordering Russia,
will now be members.
Bush also said he would tell Putin that Washington saw the dispatch of arms
inspectors to Iraq as a step towards disarming Baghdad under the terms of a
U.N. Security Council resolution.
"I will tell Putin that I am resolved on this," he told Izvestia. "If
Saddam does not abide by the resolution's terms, we will have to think
about new steps. And if we have to take military action, as we have said,
we will consult our allies."
*******
#2
TV1 Review
www.1tv.ru
Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba_sch@hotmail.com)
Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information, Moscow office
HEADLINES
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
- Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov
to discuss the development of the state border in the North Caucasus and the
creation of an emergency alert system. Kasyanov also reported to President
Putin on the results of his trip to France.
- Kakhi Asatiani, the legendary soccer player from the USSR national team,
was shot to death by unidentified men. According to investigators, the
murder was related to Asatiani’s entrepreneurial activities.
- Russian Interior Minister Boris Gryzlov was elected chairman of the
Supreme Council of the United Russia party. Emergencies Minister Sergei
Shoigu, Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, and President of the Republic of
Tatarstan Mintimer Shaimiev are co-chairmen of the council.
- Deputy Foreign Minister Georgii Mamedov appealed to the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, asking for flexibility concerning
deadlines for Russia’s destruction of 400 tons of toxins.
- The defense ministers of the Commonwealth of Independent States met in
Moscow. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov reported that Russia asked
all of the former Soviet republics to strengthen control over armaments to
prevent their capture by international terrorists and to review their
anti-air complexes and portable missile launchers in order to trace their
transfer to Chechnya.
- Representatives of leading Russian media organizations appealed to
President Putin to use his veto power and turn down the amendments to the
law on the media currently being reviewed by the Russian parliament.
- The Russian government recovered 5 percent of the shares of Alrosa, a
major diamond-mining company.
- President Putin met with film director Eldar Ryazanov and theater director
Mikhail Ulyanov who celebrated their 75th birthdays on Monday and today,
respectively. The President presented them with gold watches and conversed
with them about their future plans.
- Olympic champions Svetlana Khorkina and Aleksei Nemov will lead the
Russian national gymnastics team in the world championship, which will begin
today in the Hungarian city of Debrecen.
- A decision to triple spending on civil defense was made at the All-Russian
Assembly of the Emergency Ministry.
- The State Duma accepted a new version of the law on the election of State
Duma deputies. Over the next four years the barrier for parties in the
State Duma will remain 5%. The State Duma also accepted a law forbidding
the handing over of the bodies of terrorists to their relatives.
- 20-year-old David Papashvili, who kidnapped a woman this morning and then
exchanged her for three officers, has been arrested.
- The Bank of Russia will release 2-ruble and gold 25-ruble coins with the
sign of the Capricorn as a part of its Signs of the Zodiac series.
- A large cache with arms, ammunition and uniforms was discovered in the
Chechen city of Argun.
- The Moscow City Court has sentenced five men accused in the Tsaritsyno
Market pogrom. The oldest, 20-year-old Mikhail Volkov has been sentenced to
9 years in prison. Three others were sentenced to 3 years in prison and one
to 4 years of probation. At least 150 other youths were not punished.
Three men died and about 30 others were injured in the pogrom.
- Three paintings by Ivan Aivazovsky were sold at the Sotheby's auction in
London (the final prices were 220,000 pounds, 160,000 pounds and 140,000
pounds)
- A dictionary of 829 “difficult words” from political and economic subject
matter was published at the St. Petersburg State University. It will be
distributed to Russian officials.
- Speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament Arturas Paulauskas announced that
Lithuania will not close the Chechen Cultural Center. He declared that the
public organization cannot be banned if there is no proof of its involvement
in terrorist acts.
- 23-year-old Aleksei Anikin, the primary suspect in the murder of Major
General Vitaly Gamov, has been placed on the federal wanted list. Two other
suspects have been arrested.
- The 8th Annual All-Russian Cardiology Summit opened in Moscow. There is
currently only one specialized cardiology center for Russia’s population of
145 million. The cardiologists are asking for the construction of 144 other
such centers.
- The 36th Annual Festival of Japanese Cinema opened in Moscow.
- The State Duma has delayed the discussion of housing-utilities reforms and
requested an amended copy from the Cabinet.
-The fourth anniversary of the death of State Duma Deputy Galina
Staravoitova was commemorated today. Six people have been detained in
connection with her murder.
*******
#3
Kommersant
November 21, 2002
JOURNALISTS ASK THE PRESIDENT TO VETO
...amendments to the law "On the media"
An open letter to President Putin from the media industry.
Author: Arina Borodina, Ilya Bulavinov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
EXECUTIVES FROM NATIONAL TELEVISION AND RADIO STATIONS, CHIEF
EDITORS OF MAJOR NEWSPAPERS, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF JOURNALIST
ORGANIZATIONS ARE PUBLICLY APPEALING TO PRESIDENT PUTIN TO VETO
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW "ON THE MEDIA" WHICH THE DUMA AND THE FEDERATION
COUNCIL ADOPTED AFTER THE HOSTAGE-TAKING IN MOSCOW.
To: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation
The Federal Assembly has adopted amendments to the laws
regulating activities of the media in emergencies.
In connection with this, acting on behalf of Russian journalists,
we consider it important to point out certain nuances.
Most Russian journalists, editors, and media owners understand
the responsibility that rests with the media nowadays and the
responsibility that rests with every one of us in emergencies - during
terrorist acts, counter-terrorism operations, or armed conflicts.
We agree that conduct of some journalists and media during the
latest terrorist act in Moscow was wrong. These were mistakes,
however, not deliberate neglect of the danger this conduct and these
actions presented. To tell the truth, these mistakes can be partially
ascribed to failures of the state structures conducting he counter-
terrorism operation and to the way they cooperate with the media. We
think it necessary therefore to have amendments of the legislation
accompanied by extensive work with journalists and representatives of
state bodies and security structures to promote their cooperation in
emergency areas.
We respect the position of the Federal Assembly and support its
determination to ensure stability of society and its security. The
adopted amendments do not solve this problem.
The process of self-organization is already underway in the
journalist community. The community is already working out new rules
and ethical code regulating actions of journalists in emergencies.
Adoption of amendments like that with the opinion of the media
disregarded and without a specific mechanism of implementation of the
amendments will impede the process of self-organization. Moreover, it
will force the media to abandon the practice of objective
highlighting.
We therefore appeal to you to invoke your veto powers and suggest
that all participants of the process work out a consolidated position
and draft a common set of rules for journalists in emergencies.
Signed by
Konstantin Ernst, Channel One
Oleg Dobrodeev, All-Russian State TV and Radio Broadcasting
Company
Yelena Zelinskaya, Media-Union
Alexander Plesitsky, Europe Plus
Igor Malov, Mayak
Vyacheslav Mostovoi, TV-Center
Aleksei Abakumov, Russian Radio
Raf Shakirov, Gazeta
Irena Lesnevskaya, REN-TV
Aleksei Venediktov, Echo of Moscow
Andrei Vasiliev, Kommersant Publishers
Mikhail Komissar, INTERFAX
Aleksei Simonov, Glasnost Protection Foundation
Anatoly Bogomolov, Russian Union of Journalists
Mikhail Gusman, ITAR-TASS
Mikhail Kozhokin, Izvestia
Sergei Arkhipov, Russian Mediagroup
Dmitry Biryukov, Sem Dnei Publishers
Viktor Losak, Moskovskie Novosti
Pavel Gusev, Moskovsky Komsomolets, Moscow Union of Journalists
Rafael Akopov, NTV
Alexander Levitin, TVC
Nikolai Zyatkov, Argumenty i Fakty
***
The appeal to the president yesterday looks like a well-
orchestrated show that is supposed to end with Putin's decision to
turn down the amendments. In this case Putin will show himself to be a
man who heeds public opinion and builds his own policy around it in
the first place, and a man who defends free speech from the Duma in
the second. It will enable the Kremlin to deprive Putin's antagonists
of the opportunity to criticize the president for encroachment on free
speech.
A source denies the assumption that the appeal was actually
organized by the Kremlin itself. This is said to be journalists' own
initiative: they hope to attract the president's attention to the
problem in this manner.
It became clear yesterday that the president would turn the
amendments down, but the media will have to pay for it. The media
itself recognizes the necessity of new rules. It enables the regime to
draft and adopt a new version of the law "On the media" most
journalists have objected to until recently. It isn't hard to see that
the new law will be much harsher, at least because it is impossible to
come up with a law more liberal than the present legislation. And yet,
journalists themselves asked for it.
********
#4
Moscow Times
November 21, 2002
Rising Middle Class Pumping Up Retail
By Megan Merrill
Special to The Moscow Times
With fewer bills to pay, members of the middle class have plenty to spend
on clothes, appliances and audio-video equipment among other things,
driving up the consumer-goods market in the process, analysts say.
Utility and housing costs are lower compared to Western countries, allowing
members of Moscow's middle class to spend a larger percentage of their
income on consumer goods, Greg Thain, chairman of the Interactive Research
Group, said in a recent interview.
Companies need to keep up with that demand if they want to survive, said
Alexander Utochkin, an IRG analyst.
"We believe that only those domestic companies that can satisfy the
increasing demands of the Russian middle class will succeed," he said.
The middle class "is of high paying capacity, actively consumes
high-quality goods and services and makes the most attractive segment of
the market for advertisers," Comcon, another research company, wrote
earlier this year in a report.
Members of the middle class on average spend the largest proportion of
their income on food, 17 percent, while clothing and shoes took up 10
percent. Education expenses made up 7 percent and 5 percent of income,
while 5 percent went toward household goods, which includes appliances,
audio-video equipment and furniture, according to Comcon. The average
member of the middle class saves 9 percent of their income.
Expert magazine and Monitoring.ru, which conduct joint surveys on the
Russian middle class, said members of the middle class spend most of their
spare cash on clothing, shoes, furniture, household appliances and
audio-video equipment.
Definitions of the middle class and estimations of its size and spending
power vary.
A Russian middle-class family has a monthly income of $300 to $2,000,
Vakatova said. Some 15 percent of Moscow's population aged 18 to 54 and
about 6 percent of the country as a whole are middle class, she said.
Expert and Monitoring.ru said the middle class is made up of families whose
combined yearly income ranges from $6,000 to $40,000, estimating that 9.5
million to 10.5 million families in Russia are middle class and up to
another 2 million are expected to earn enough to join the middle class by
the end of 2002.
IRG's Utochkin did not define the middle class on the basis of income
alone, saying the group is made up of people who spend less than 35 percent
to 40 percent of their income on essential commodities.
Per capita income of the middle class ranges from $300 to $5,000 a month in
Moscow, making up about 40 percent to 45 percent of all population, he said.
In the rest of the country, members of the middle class make $200 to $2,000
a month, Utochkin said, and only 20 percent to 25 percent of households
fall into this category.
Expert and Monitoring.ru, furthermore, said that the middle class is made
up of two subgroups: a rapidly growing lower middle class made up of
families with a combined yearly income of $6,000 to $12,000 and a slowly
growing upper middle class made up of families with a combined income of
$12,000 to $40,000 per family a year.
The lower middle class is made up 6.5 million to 7.5 million families and
members of this group mostly work as middle managers, engineers,
specialists and in other professions, Expert and Monitoring.ru said. They
can easily afford to buy clothes and everyday goods but only once a year
make a big purchase such as a car or furniture.
The upper middle class is made up of 3 million to 3.5 million families and
is growing slowly, with many families struggling to maintain their position
in this group, Expert said. They are often directors of small or
medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs.
Expert had forecasted last year that the middle class's real income would
grow by about 40 percent in the next five years, boosting its spending
power, and the company said in their report earlier this year that spending
on real estate, furniture and household appliances would increase.
"People are becoming richer and their purchasing patterns are changing. Now
they can afford more expensive and high-quality products," IRG's Utochkin
said. "They want to buy brands and try new goods and services. For example,
four to five years ago only a few [people] purchased mobile phones, yogurt
and snacks; now these are products of the mass market.
"Thus, in the [last] four years the market focus has moved from the
low-income segment, where low price is a key factor, to the middle-class
segment, where there are many competitive factors -- quality, advertising,
brand, price."
********
#5
New York Times
November 21, 2002
A Russian Crime Drama Deepens With Arrests
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Nov. 16 — For four years little but rumor swirled
around the killing of Galina V. Starovoitova, a prominent member of
Parliament who was shot three times in the head in her apartment stairwell.
Much of it was false, some of it lurid.
Then, 10 days ago, the cloak of secrecy that has shrouded the investigation
lifted, ever so briefly. Russia's Federal Security Service, or F.S.B., a
successor of the Soviet K.G.B., announced that investigators had arrested
and charged six men in the case.
Far from resolving the mystery, however, the arrests have deepened it.
While the suspects have been indicted, officials refused to identify them,
saying the investigation is still under way. More suspects apparently
remain at large. Investigators refused to discuss any facts of the case and
told Ms. Starovoitova's sister and her aide, who was gravely wounded in the
attack, not to discuss any of the details they had been told.
Ms. Starovoitova's killing — four years ago on Wednesday — represented a
body blow to Russia's nascent democracy. The murky investigation represents
the state of Russia's democratic transition today, illustrating how faintly
her death resonates in a country where assassination is a macabre feature
of politics and the rule of law still struggles to find its way through
secrecy, criminality and corruption.
"Many of us regard the apprehension and punishment of Galina's assassins as
a fundamental test for the Russian state," wrote Margaret Thatcher, the
former British prime minister.
That was more than two years ago.
The arrests have raised hopes that a breakthrough might be near, though Ms.
Starovoitova's allies remain skeptical, saying that arrests and suspects
have been reported before, only to prove unfounded.
What is clear is that Ms. Starovoitova's killing was not a random, isolated
attack, but rather a broadly organized plot to assassinate one of Russia's
most outspoken champions of democracy. Someone ordered her killed, but so
far no one knows — or will say — who or why.
"I have always expressed the point of view that either the investigators
know who killed her but don't have the evidence to make arrests or that the
traces of this crime lead so far to the top that the investigative bodies
don't want to look any further," said Yuri M. Schmidt, a lawyer who has
represented Ms. Starovoitova's family.
The common denominator of the string of political assassinations in Russia
— including, most recently, the killing of the governor of the Far Eastern
province Magadan in broad daylight on one of Moscow's busiest streets — is
that they are rarely solved.
Most have been linked to the victims' "business dealings," the Russian
euphemism for the pervasive corruption of political officials. The killings
are so common that Russians respond with resignation more than outrage.
The killing of Ms. Starovoitova, however, was different. Ms. Starovoitova,
who was 52, was an ethnographer who rose to political prominence in the
1980's. She was elected to the Soviet Parliament in 1989, representing
Armenia, after writing a spirited letter supporting the Armenian quest for
independence.
She later advised Russia's first elected president, Boris N. Yeltsin,
co-founded the Democratic Russia party and became an advocate of economic,
political and judicial changes, railing against Communists, nationalists
and others who resisted these reforms. She was twice elected to the new
Russian Parliament, representing St. Petersburg.
On the night of Nov. 20, 1998, she arrived here on a flight from Moscow
and, with her aide, Ruslan Linkov, returned to her apartment on the
embankment of one of St. Petersburg's elegant, winding canals. Mr. Linkov,
in an interview, recalled few details of the shooting except that he saw
two figures moving down the staircase and firing at Ms. Starovoitova. Mr.
Linkov, shot in the neck and head, then lost consciousness.
Mr. Yeltsin vowed to find the assassins, ordering his interior minister and
the head of the F.S.B. at the time, Vladimir V. Putin, to oversee the
investigation personally. His order reflected the political significance of
the crime, but having the F.S.B. take a lead also ensured the investigation
would proceed in utter secrecy.
The police found two weapons, strong leads to pursue, but the investigation
appeared to stall from the start. Early on, investigators questioned
journalists, who later reported that the questions focused not on the
killers but on Ms. Starovoitova, her finances and even the sexual
proclivities of supporters.
A spokeswoman for the F.S.B. here, Yelena O. Tikhonova, said investigators
had worked tirelessly, interviewing more than 1,000 witnesses and carrying
out dozens of searches and forensic tests. But neither she nor Gen. Mikhail
Milushkin, the agency's deputy director who announced the arrests on Nov.
6, would discuss the case.
It was not clear why General Milushkin would announce arrests but not
provide the suspects' names, though Ms. Starovoitova's supporters believe
that investigators felt pressure to show progress as yet another
anniversary of the killing approached.
Ms. Starovoitova's sister, Olga, said investigators had briefed her on some
of the evidence, but asked her not to divulge details. All she could say
was that the suspects were believed to belong to a criminal organization,
the Tambov Group, which is reputed to wield influence over much of St.
Petersburg's economy and politics. Among those arrested is a former member
of Russia's military intelligence. The killers and their accomplices, she
said, rented an apartment near Ms. Starovoitova's, followed her car from
the airport that night and, intriguingly, recorded her television
appearances leading up to the killing.
"There are only versions," she replied when asked if the investigators had
suggested a motive for the killing. "It's only the first step," Ms.
Starovoitova's sister added, referring to the arrests. "And nobody is sure
whether the next step will be taken."
Mr. Linkov complained that investigators never interrogated the political
leaders who had clashed with Ms. Starovoitova. They include Vladimir A.
Yakovlev, St. Peterburg's governor since 1996; Gennadi N. Seleznyov, the
former Communist leader who remains speaker of the Parliament; and Albert
M. Makashov, a retired major general and former nationalist deputy.
Yuri A. Kravtsov, a former member of St. Petersburg's city council, said it
might be impossible to discern the motive amid the swirling power struggles
that still afflict Russia.
"She was an obstacle to so many who saw her standing in their way," he
said, "but of course no one can say absolutely that they killed her."
As the investigation drags on, Ms. Starovoitova's supporters have tried to
keep alive the values she espoused, at times, it seems, in the face of
public indifference. Her office, in a stately building on Bolshaya Morskaya
Street, is now a small museum, but few visit.
Mr. Linkov is now the chairman of the St. Petersburg chapter of her
Democratic Russia party. When Ms. Starovoitova died, the party had four
representatives in Parliament. Today it has none.
*******
#6
Vladivostok News
November 21, 2002
Primorye governor talks perils of investment in Russia
By Alyona Sokolova
Russia's opaque accounting system keeps out international investment,
Primorye governor Sergei Darkin told a press conference Tuesday, after
attending the sixth annual Russian investment symposium in Boston last week.
"Shady accounting systems within the Russian economy scare off world
business from investing in our country," said Darkin on return from the
event hosted by Dow Jones Conferences and Harvard University.
Also attending were governors from Stavropol and Perm regions, and Evenki
Autonomous District in central Siberia, as well as deputy heads from other
regions.
Sharing his impressions of the symposium, Darkin said that, "The regional
heads for the first time ever described their territories from the point of
view of competitiveness. Investors liked the fact that we spoke the same
business language and this made us closer."
According to the governor's presentation in Boston, the Far East region
(which includes Primorye) has 10 per cent of the world's timber reserves
and 22 per cent of diamonds, making its natural resources worth $22-25
trillion.
High profile Russian delegates in Boston included Anatoly Chubais, chief
executive of Unified Energy Systems and German Gref, minister for economic
development and trade.
Darkin commented that the U.S. conference attracted delegates who did not
attend the APEC Forum Vladivostok in September.
"It's a shame that people still prefer to go to America rather than to
Primorye," he said, stating that the cost of participation in Vladivostok's
APEC forum was $400 while Boston delegates each paid $3,900.
*******
#7
Vremya Novostei
November 21, 2002
DOES NATO EXPANSION POSE A THREAT?
Brief interviews with some leading Russian experts
Author: Olga Koleva
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
OPINIONS OF NATO AND ITS EASTWARD EXPANSION FROM: COLONEL GENERAL
LEONID IVASHOV SERGEI KARAGANOV COLONEL GENERAL VALERY MANILOV, AND
GENERAL ANDREI NIKOLAYEV. THEY DISCUSS WHETHER EXPANSION WILL
STRENGTHEN OR WEAKEN NATO, AND TO WHAT EXTENT RUSSIA OUGHT TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
COLONEL GENERAL LEONID IVASHOV, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ACADEMY OF
GEOPOLITICAL SCIENCES, EX-CHIEF OF THE MAIN DIRECTORATE OF
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY COOPERATION OF THE DEFENSE MINISTRY
Ivashov: NATO is a military alliance. It has not abandoned
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (armed aggression against an ally
in Europe or North America should be regarded an aggression against
all NATO members - Author). NATO retains the right to meddle in the
affairs of any country without the permission given by the UN Security
Council. NATO is potentially dangerous as an alliance operating
regardless of the rules of international conduct and approaching the
borders of Russia.
Save for Britain with its nuclear weapons, other European
countries are not dangerous as far as Russia is concerned. But NATO
has the American military might and the doctrine of preventive strikes
going for it. NATO itself chooses its victims and is ready to use
everything including nuclear weapons.
Let us admit it. The NATO strategic concept adopted in 1999 lists
Russia as an enemy. For Russia, applying for membership in NATO would
be betrayal of its own national interests. Even if we join NATO, will
we have guarantees of safety from the West? All its concepts are built
around the assumption that Russia is kept away. At the same time, our
membership will worry China and our neighbors in the south and east.
Even if we apply for membership, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan will
become NATO members before us. They will be admitted, we will not.
Terrorism is the main challenge, but NATO iss not the right
structure to fight it. Terrorism is a broad underground network, but
NATO is a powerful military mechanism with missiles and aviation.
SERGEI KARAGANOV, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE FOREIGN AND DEFENSE
POLICY COUNCIL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF EUROPE OF THE
RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Karaganov: NATO will become objectively weaker. Its management
structure is becoming more complicated, it has performed all its old
functions. It is no clear at this point whether or not NATO can
modernize itself so as to become an alliance in the name of future
security. Russia's attitude towards it will depend on whether or not
it modernizes itself.
We have to cooperate with NATO because there is no one else to
cooperate with. Otherwise everything will be restricted to bilateral
relations with the United States. Russia's membership in NATO on some
special conditions is actually possible but with a different
generation of politicians - the men thinking strategically, not
tactically. The President of Russia abandoned old ways of thinking.
NATO leaders claim that they have abandon them too, but these are just
words. NATO expansion threatens us only because we will not be there.
We have to retain at least a small nuclear arsenal as a factor
preventing others (I do not mean NATO alone) from putting us under
pressure.
COLONEL GENERAL VALERY MANILOV, SENIOR DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE DEFENSE
AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF THE FEDERATION COUNCIL, EX-SENIOR DEPUTY
CHIEF OF THE GENERAL STAFF
Manilov: We object to expansion of NATO which remains a military
alliance despite all minor external changes. There is more to it than
military might because the Baltic states are small. The problem is,
their territories are adjacent. And if NATO is formed for defense,
then the question is who it is going to defend itself from near our
territory? Russia does not fear NATO but we see the danger of new
dividing lines in Europe returning us to the Cold War era.
We will do everything we can to have NATO transformed from the
military organization it is into a military-political organization
first and purely political afterwards.
GENERAL ANDREI NIKOLAYEV, CHAIRMAN OF THE DEFENSE COMMITTEE OF THE
DUMA, PEOPLE'S DEPUTY
Nikolayev: Expansion will rearrange the balance of power in
Europe and in the world in general. "Creeping" militarism under the
just slogans of security already resulted in two world wars. Increased
financial pressure on budget of new NATO members will aggravate their
internal problems, deform democratic foundations, and up their
dependance on the American military-industrial complex. It will
complicate relations with Russia and result in traditional accusations
of "imperial aspirations" as the reason for "small" states' problems.
The alliance will have to prove its usefulness and it will actively
seek a job, something like the aggression against Yugoslavia.
Russia should take NATO expansion as a hard fact, as a missed
opportunity to set up a belt of neutral states on the territory of the
former Warsaw Pact.
*******
#8
Czech leader: Russia will never join NATO
PRAGUE, Czech Republic, Nov. 21 (UPI) -- Czech President Vaclav Havel
issued a stern warning to Russia on Wednesday never to expect to join NATO,
on the eve of a historic summit that will see four former Warsaw Pact
members and three former Soviet Republics join the alliance.
"Russia obviously represents a Euro-Asian power of such singular character
that its membership in NATO would make no sense," Havel told an opening
conference of the summit.
"The only result might be a profound mutual weakening of both bodies and a
reduction of their partnership to nothingness."
As host of the NATO summit, and speaking with the authority of a repeatedly
jailed anti-Communist dissident on the eve of his own retirement, the
playwright president also offered a more subtle warning to the United States.
NATO's most powerful member should be deeply wary of pre-emptive attacks
against other sovereign states, even for the best of reasons, Havel warned.
The Soviet Union had claimed to be giving "brotherly help to save
socialism" when it invaded the former Czechoslovakia in 1968, Havel noted.
It was the event that made him a dissident.
"Whenever we think of intervening against a state in the name of protection
of human life, we should always ask ourselves, even if only for a moment or
in our innermost thoughts, the question whether this would not be some
'brotherly help' again," said the Czech president, who led the Velvet
Revolution against Soviet power in 1989.
Moreover, Havel continued -- in that tone of thoughtful moral authority
that stems from his extraordinary career as the philosopher king of Central
Europe -- the West should beware of arrogating unto itself the claim to
represent Western values of free speech and free markets and human rights.
"I would recommend that we sometimes use a subtler language and speak not
of values but of a certain perception -- in our case a Western perception
-- of human values that are universal," he said.
"I do not think humankind has fared very well on those occasions when some
claim that they are the only guardians of truth."
It was the kind of speech that only a figure such as Havel, with his unique
credentials as a dissident and democratic humanist, could have delivered to
set the tone of a summit that was otherwise being presented as the final
triumph of the West's victory in the Cold War.
His remarks seemed also to represent a subtle caution to U.S. hopes that
the summit would see a strong statement of alliance solidarity in the
confrontation with Iraq.
He spoke at a conference, "The Transformation of NATO," which was organized
jointly by the NATO host committee and by the Aspen Institute of Berlin,
and held in the Waldenstein Palace, seat of the Czech Senate.
Attended by senior American, NATO and European political leaders and
officials to set the scene for this week's NATO summit, the conference also
saw Havel line up solidly behind the Bush administration's strategy to
transform NATO from a Cold War alliance into an organization that could --
in Havel's words -- "effectively confront a new range of threats."
He said: "The enemy is now represented by an evil that is widely diffused
and very dangerous indeed, an enemy that we find very difficult to grasp,
or even to fathom.
"If the alliance is to be meaningful today, it must be capable of
immediately engaging either its permanent rapid reaction forces, perfectly
trained and constantly ready, or specialized forces of various armies that
will be capable of confronting modern dangers such as terrorism and
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
*******
#9
excerpt
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
November 18, 2002
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT IN EUROPEAN PRINT ROUNDTABLE
The Roosevelt Room
10:45 A.M. EST
Q: Mr. President, I would like to ask you a question regarding
Chechnya.
THE PRESIDENT: Sure.
Q: I guess, it will be one of the topics you will discuss with Mr.
Putin --
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q: Do you believe that after the latest events -- mainly, after
hostage in Moscow and after the statements made by Osama bin Laden
raising the terrorist acts in Bali and Moscow, do you believe, Mr.
President, that you can understand better this red -- terrorists pose
to Russia? And would you agree -- would you agree with President Putin
who says that the Chechen kind of terrorism vis-a-vis Russia is of the
same nature as the al Qaeda terrorism to the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: Right. You didn't ask the question I thought you were
going to ask. I'm going to Russia to make it clear to the Russians and
to Vladimir Putin they have nothing to fear from NATO expansion, that
a Baltic -- the Baltics in NATO are positive for Russia.
Now, my answer to your question -- I thought you were going to ask why
I'm going to St. Petersburg. Anyway -- (Laughter.) And I'm going -- I
didn't hesitate when Vladimir and I talked about my trip to St.
Petersburg, that it was very important for me to go there. And it was
important for me say -- explain why I think it's a positive
development.
Terrorism -- first of all, I've got a good friend in the fight against
terrorism in Vladimir Putin. He understands the stakes. And so do I.
He understands that as you embrace freedom and embrace change and --
that there will be people who resent that and want to impose their
will.
Secondly, I thought that at the theater that he was confronted with a
very difficult situation. Eight hundred people were -- were going to
lose their lives. Clearly, these people were killers, just like the
killers that came to America. There's a common -- a common thread,
that any time anybody is willing to take innocent life for a so-called
cause, they must be dealt with. And he made some very tough decisions.
And people tried to blame Vladimir; they ought to blame the
terrorists. They're the ones who caused the situation, not President
Putin.
Thirdly, I believe Chechnya can -- I hope that Chechnya can be solved
peacefully, that there's ways to discuss the political dialogue in
such a way that this issue can be solved peacefully. Thirdly, to the
extent that there are al Qaeda members infiltrating Russia, they need
to be dealt with -- they need to be brought to justice. And I -- you
know, when Osama praising these -- the Muslim attacks in Chechnya,
it's clear that there is an al Qaeda interest.
That's why we're working so hard in Georgia with the Georgians to,
one, encourage a dialogue between Shevardnadze and President Putin;
and two, develop a joint strategy to deal with the al Qaeda members
which may be in the Pankisi Gorge. And so -- but I will continue to
talk to Vladimir about the need to protect and recognize the rights of
minorities within any country, and at the same time deal with
terrorism. And I hope he can find that balance. I think he can.
Q: Mr. President, how do you assess the performance of the Czech
Republic in NATO in preparation for this summit?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, first of all, they've been valuable members
of NATO. I was able to express that to your President in his recent
visit -- who, by the way, is an outstanding human being and is highly
respected and highly regarded in all of America. NATO has been -- I
mean, the Czech Republic has been a -- was unhesitating in its support
of Article 5 in NATO, for which I am grateful. Every conversation I've
had with the President, he has been nothing more than anxious for the
Czech Republic to perform its role within NATO.
The interesting thing -- let me give you kind of a broader statement
about what you'll see at the Prague summit -- is that everybody has
got something to contribute in the military capacities of NATO to deal
with the new threats. And the Czech Republic, certainly, is such a
country. There's going to be -- I guess, the best word will be
specialization -- there needs to be a specialization as we develop the
military capacity to deal with the true threat.
Russia is not a threat, and, therefore, the military strategies of
NATO need to be changed to recognize that new reality. Russia is --
Russia is a friend, not an enemy. NATO was formed because of the
Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact doesn't exist and, therefore, now -- but
there is a threat to all of us. And that is the threat in the form of
international and global terrorism, which we must be able to deal
with. The Czech Republic understands that. They're willing to help
specialize. And it's up to the Czech Republic to determine that --
along with [NATO Secretary General] Lord Robertson and his strategy --
to determine how best to meet with the threats we face.
Obviously, we've had good relations with the intelligence service of
the Czech Republic, which is one of the key ingredients in order to
fight terror. If you know somebody is thinking about doing something
to us, or we know somebody is thinking about doing something to you,
we share intelligence. We've got good intelligence-sharing with
Russia, by the way, now, because of the joint threat of global terror.
It's a key ingredient in order to make sure we're able to find the new
enemy. The enemy doesn't travel in army formations. They're killers.
They take theaters; they crash airplanes into buildings; they bomb
resorts. And we must know as much about their whereabouts and their
plans as possible, in order to find them and bring them to justice.
And therefore, there needs to be a different attitude about the
threats we face....
Q: Do you think -- do you believe that Russian support of the U.N.
resolution on Iraq has promoted any kind of reconciliation between the
position of Russia and America on this matter? And what would you like
to tell to President Putin in regard to --
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. Well, first, I appreciate them working
together with us on the resolution. The U.N. Security Council sent a
clear signal to Iraq and the world, we expect them to disarm, is what
the signal said. And, actually, the U.N. Security Council sent a
signal about themselves, that they want to be relevant.
You see, if you send out 16 resolutions and all 16 resolutions were
ignored, at some point in time, somebody has got to tell the truth and
say, you're not relevant. Why pass a resolution, unless you really
mean it? And so we got together and we said, fine, let's pass this
significant resolution. And the Russians were helpful and voted for
it. And now the word is out, that the U.N. Security Council will be a
relevant body. In other words, we intend to enforce the serious
consequences if there's not disarmament; and that we're able to work
with our friends. I thought that was a very positive thing.
And I will tell this to Vladimir Putin. It's probably better for me to
tell him, but not through your newspapers, but I'll try anyway. The
issue is not inspectors. The issue is disarmament. That's the issue.
And the question is, will Saddam Hussein disarm? That's what the U.N.
Security Council has said, once again -- with Russian support, along
with other -- a lot of other countries. And so he must show us whether
or not he'll disarm, for the sake of peace.
And if he doesn't then we, of course, will consult, like we said we
would do -- we'd hold a meeting. But the interesting thing about the
U.N. Security Council resolution is all countries are free to act. And
that was explained to Vladimir what my sentiments -- I'm very strong
about. This is not a -- this isn't a free pass for Saddam, now that
the resolution has been passed. Quite the contrary. We expect him to
disarm. And we expect him to do everything he can to disarm. And we
expect him to be cooperating in his disarmament for the sake of peace.
And that's what the U.N. Security Council said to me, that people now
have finally come to the conclusion that it's time now to deal with
the issue. Hopefully, this can get done peacefully. But it's up to Mr.
Saddam Hussein, and we'll see. It's time for him to declare if he's
got any weapons. And we'll proceed from there....
THE PRESIDENT: I'm looking forward to going to St. Petersburg again.
Q: Yes, sure. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The second time in one year. Maybe a third time.
Q: Did you like it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- it was spectacular. Remember, we went out on the
boat, Vladimir, myself -- Sergei Ivanov, floated a -- White Nights.
Fantastic. It won't be White Nights this time, though. Will be white
days, right, snowing?
Q: Yes, snowing. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: We'll see you all there. Thank you.
*******
#10
From: Ira Straus (IRASTRAUS@aol.com)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002
Subject: How Russia can get into NATO
strana.ru
How Russia can get into NATO
By Ira Straus
At its summit Thursday and Friday, NATO is issuing membership invitations
to a number of new countries. Russia is not among them. Nor is Russia on
the list under consideration for the next round.
To get itself on the map and avoid being driven into isolation, Russia will
have to do what every other country in Eastern Europe has done: continue
cooperating with NATO, and meanwhile mount a campaign for its own
inclusion. Every one of the candidate countries had to overcome a whole
series of arguments in NATO against its inclusion -- arguments that ran the
gamut from deep-set prejudices and frivolous misconceptions to valid
concerns. Russia will have to overcome an equally large series of
arguments, including an even larger stock of prejudices and misconceptions.
Russia will have to begin by understanding the actual reasons why it is
being excluded and not get sidetracked by frivolous excuses. It will have
to think through the real problems and find solutions to them -- even if
that might seem to be NATO's business. It will also have to answer the
frivolous arguments, and keep answering them patiently time after time
until people throughout the West understand that they are frivolous. This
may seem unpleasant, but the other Eastern Europeans all had to do the same
things.
It was easier for the others to make a campaign for joining NATO, since
their political elites were largely united on the goal of joining the West.
It has been harder for governments in Russia, where there has been a strong
anti-Western Opposition. It was humiliating for a great power to plead for
membership, or to patiently answer prejudicial arguments against itself.
The Opposition was constantly accusing it of sell-out to NATO. And it
seemed all too likely that, after pleading humbly and suffering the costs
politically, Russia might just get another "no" out of NATO.
In NATO, there were some prejudices against Central-East Europe, and even
more prejudices against Russia. The others overcame those prejudices by
constant persuasion. But a large part of the Western elite still scoffs at
the idea of including Russia, saying that NATO was always defined against
Russia as an enemy and therefore would lose its meaning it is were to
include Russia. Much of the Russian public believes the same thing. This
view may be based on historical amnesia -- actually NATO is the
continuation of the Atlantic alliance of the two World Wars, an alliance
that was not founded at all on enmity to Russia, and that has always
expanded to incorporate its former enemies -- but it is no less influential
for that fact.
Both in Brussels and in Moscow, then, there has been ambivalence about the
idea of Russia-in-NATO, based partly on Cold War habit, partly on
forgetfulness and false historical perspective. On both sides there have
been noisy opponents of the goal. The anti-NATO forces in Moscow and the
anti-Russia forces in Brussels have played a symbiotic role in shooting
down any trial balloons. And, sensing the obstacles, few people have been
willing to take the risk of trying to start a serious dialogue on the matter.
The mainstream of the Russian elite would favor membership in NATO, but is
afraid to broach the question. This is the conclusion that has emerged from
the discussions that ensued in the Russian elite every time that Yeltsin
and Putin did broach the question: they were humiliated for it by the lack
of a favorable response from the West, and the domestic political costs
were too great.
The Russian public is ambivalent on the question of joining NATO. It can
easily be led to get angry at NATO, until recently the enemy, but would
also follow the elite into NATO ... if the elite were able to lead it there
consistently. But the government cannot lead consistently; the political
costs are too high.
And therein lies the rub.
Russia has not mounted the necessary campaign for getting itself into NATO.
The other countries all mounted their campaign. The others are getting in.
Russia is not. There is an object lesson to be learned from this.
Since the Russian government cannot afford to mount a campaign for joining
NATO, it falls to the non-governmental Russian elites -- academics, think
tanks, media -- to make the main effort.
The cause is not at all hopeless. A large majority of the American people
have favored Russia's inclusion in NATO; in polls, the numbers have ranged
from 51% to 65% in favor, only 29% to 41% against. The Western elite has
been more cautious, but after September 11 it became interested in Russia
as an ally. The first serious intra-NATO dialogue on integrating Russia
took place in late 2001. It led to the formation of the NATO-Russia
Council, an interim step that reflects the ambivalence of the Western elite
but nevertheless opens new prospects.
The forces are in existence that could make it work to get Russia into
NATO: the American public, the Russian mainstream elite, sympathetic
portions of the Western elite. A persistent effort will have to be made to
connect these forces and activate them. They will have to get the issue
onto the public agenda. They will have to answer, repeatedly, all the
objections that will be raised against it. They will have to guide the
process through a series of compromises and insufficient achievements,
while never giving in to disillusionment. They will have to patiently
explain to people why they need to proceed more impatiently; year after
year, they will have to explain the damage that was done by last year's
delay on the matter, and the costs of any further delay.
If they do this, the doors will gradually open, and Russia will come in.
Ira Straus is U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and
Russia in NATO, an independent international research network formed in 1992.
******
#11
Wall Street Journal
November 21, 2002
EU, Russia Grow Distant As Moscow Sides With U.S.
Even as U.S.-Moscow Relations Grow Closer In Terror War, EU, Russia Clash
Over Issues
By GUY CHAZAN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
MOSCOW -- The war on terrorism is drawing Russia and the U.S. ever closer
together -- even as it pushes Russia and Europe farther apart.
As President Bush prepares to meet Vladimir Putin for a brief summit in St.
Petersburg Friday, the two find themselves increasingly united against a
common enemy. Mr. Bush supports the Kremlin's view that the rebels it is
fighting in Chechnya are linked to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The
European Union stresses the need for a political settlement.
That difference of opinion is typical of the way Russian foreign policy is
changing. Relations with the U.S. were once dogged by disputes over nuclear
weapons, missile defense and NATO expansion. Now the U.S. has been
supplanted by Europe as perhaps the main source of friction in Russia's
dealings with the outside world.
Yet in practical terms, Russia's relationship with Europe matters more. The
EU does substantially more trade with Russia and invests far more in its
economy than the U.S. It is Brussels, not Washington, that could play the
crucial role in deciding whether Russia can join the World Trade
Organization. Russia's future prosperity largely depends on its dealings
with the EU.
"Over the last two years, Russia and the U.S. have learned how to agree, or
at least how to agree to disagree," says Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the
foreign affairs committee of the Russian parliament's upper house. "We
haven't reached that point with the EU yet."
With the U.S., things are more straightforward. Washington sees Russia as
an ally in the antiterrorism coalition, a fellow nuclear power and
veto-wielding member of the U.N. Security Council, whose opinion on issues
like Iraq still matters. Iraq and the war on terrorism are expected to top
the agenda of tomorrow's meeting.
"Russia and the U.S. now understand each other much better on security
issues than either of us understand Europe," says Sergei Rogov, head of the
U.S.-Canada Institute, a Moscow think tank.
Relations with the EU are more complex -- partly because the two are
geographically closer. Europe often sees Russia not as a security partner,
but as a security threat: a potential source of illegal immigration,
infectious diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, money laundering and human
trafficking.
Because of this proximity, disputes have a more direct impact. Russia isn't
immediately affected by NATO expansion, but plans to enlarge the EU in 2004
to include, among others, Poland and Lithuania have created real,
bread-and-butter problems which both sides have been forced to resolve.
Chief among them was what to do about Kaliningrad, Russia's small exclave
on the Baltic, which will be surrounded by EU territory after enlargement.
Though Moscow and Brussels reached a face-saving compromise on transit
arrangements at a summit last week, the EU rejected Mr. Putin's demand that
Russians be allowed to travel to and from Kaliningrad visa-free.
But differences in approach between Russia and the EU were revealed in
their starkest form after last month's hostage crisis, when gunmen
threatened to blow up a Moscow theater with 800 people inside unless Mr.
Putin ended his war in Chechnya.
Mr. Bush compared the hostage-takers to America's Sept. 11 attackers, and
said the incident showed that members of al Qaeda were infiltrating Russia
. While calling for political dialogue on Chechnya, he noted that Mr. bin
Laden praised the hostage-takers, and the bombers of a nightclub in Bali,
in his latest tape.
With Europe, the hostage incident only seemed to exacerbate existing
tensions. Russia threatened to boycott an EU summit in Copenhagen after
Denmark refused to cancel an international Chechen congress in the Danish
capital that took place two days after the hostage siege ended. The
summit's venue was hastily shifted to Brussels, and Russia relented.
But here, too, talks were overshadowed by Chechnya. Russia rejected EU
attempts to include a discussion of the conflict in the summit's agenda,
and Mr. Putin shocked summit participants by threatening a French
journalist who asked about Russia's use of mines against Chechen civilians.
The agreement on Kaliningrad was almost overlooked in the uproar.
Russian politicians say the trouble is that many EU countries don't really
understand terrorism. "Europe has been incredibly lucky; they haven't had
planes crash in their capitals, or theaters seized in their city centers,"
says Mikhail Margelov. "They understand terrorism theoretically. But for
Americans after 9/11, and Russians after 23-26th October, terrorism is a
personal tragedy."
In the end, though, even if Europe and Russia agreed on terrorism, Brussels
knows it can never fully compete with the U.S. for Russia's attention.
"Russia's major concern is security," said an EU official. "On this issue,
the U.S. will always be Russia's natural partner."
--Paul Hofheinz contributed to this article.
*******
#12
Neue Zürcher Zeitung
November 19, 2002
Putin's Partnership and Putin's War
Reinhard Meier
Despite some stormy and irritating setbacks, Russia and the West have come
quite a long way on the road to a constructive partnership since the
disintegration of the Soviet imperium more than a decade ago. Just this
week, President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with the European Union
in Brussels on transit to and from the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad on
the Baltic Sea, an issue which had clouded EU-Moscow relations considerably
in recent months.
The point was to find the simplest, least bureaucratic way to deal with the
transit of Russian citizens to and from the Baltic exclave through the
territory of Lithuania, a future EU member. In reaching the new agreement,
all parties involved demonstrated pragmatic flexibility and sensitivity for
the sometimes divergent sovereignty and security interests of those
concerned. The pact is well calculated to further nourish confidence and
cooperation between Moscow and the community of European states.
But when the issue of Chechnya arose in Brussels, Putin refused to enter
into any discussion of possible political solutions. Because the Danish
government had failed to ban a convention of Chechen representatives, Putin
initially did not want to participate in the EU-Russian summit, which was
originally planned for Copenhagen. For the sake of diplomatic peace, the
meeting with Putin was hastily shifted to Brussels. There, the Kremlin
ruler permitted himself a rude and highly undiplomatic response to a
journalist's question, revealing the depth of his feelings on the matter.
In Putin's mind, the complex Chechen problem appears to have been reduced
to the dimensions of a ruthless use of power against a terrorist challenge.
Putin seems to be showing the world two different faces. But the contrasts
between them are perfectly consonant with Russian reality and the state of
that country's collective consciousness - and not only since the end of
Soviet rule. That very consonance is probably one of the reasons for
Putin's continuing popularity in Russia.
Especially since the massive attacks against America more than a year ago,
the Russian leader has been determinedly pursuing his course of
foreign-policy agreement with the West and partial integration into its
institutions. This coming week, at a solemn ceremony in Prague, a whole
series of new members will be accepted into NATO, including the three
former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Almost
inconceivable just a few years ago, that step is being swallowed in Moscow
almost without a murmur, though hardly with enthusiasm.
Unlike his impulsive predecessor Yeltsin or his own Foreign Minister
Ivanov, the pragmatic Putin apparently finds it superfluous to fight
against external developments which Russia ultimately cannot prevent. He
was apparently guided by the same consideration when Washington backed out
of the ABM Treaty for the sake of developing and stationing antimissile
systems. The same principle applied to Moscow's reluctant acceptance of the
largely Washington-inspired Security Council resolution on Iraq.
Putin's intensive cultivation of relations and harmony with the West is
based on a sober calculation of national interest. The internal
stabilization of Russian society, and a renaissance of Moscow's influence
abroad, depend heavily on the country's successful economic renewal. The
main thing needed to that end is a confidence-inspiring climate for
domestic and foreign investors. By adopting a rigid, confrontational course
vis-à-vis the West, Putin might gain the applause of confirmed chauvinists
or some aging Russians nostalgic for the old days - but not a better future
for Russia, on which his own long-term success ultimately depends.
The problem of Chechnya apparently plays an important part in Putin's
calculated collaboration with America and its allies against the hydra of
international terrorism. It is no accident that, in speaking of the
terrible hostage drama in a Moscow theater which held the world in suspense
in late October, Putin describes it as the act of "international
terrorists." This linking of Chechen terrorists and guerrillas to Usama bin
Ladin's shadowy al-Kaida terrorist network may be correct in some
peripheral sense. But it does not touch the real core of the Chechen
question, which - in contrast to the diffuse, globally propagated,
cult-like hostility of the al-Kaida terrorists - is a conflict about
territory and sovereignty, which can be more precisely defined
geographically and historically.
Moreover, in the Russian army's second war against Chechnya's separatist
underground, which has been going on for three years now, the Chechen
populace is being horribly mistreated in arbitrary ways which are not being
seriously held in check by any organ of the Russian government. Many of
these crimes against Chechen civilians have been documented in detail by
various human rights organizations (including the Russian group "Memorial").
In the battle against terrorist attacks such as have clearly been carried
out in Russia by isolated Chechen groups, harsh counterforce is essentially
justified. But Putin remains unconcerned by the observation that, to fight
a terrorism which has recognizable territorial roots, the contest for the
hearts and minds of the local populace in disputed territory is no less
important. In this respect he behaves much like Israel's Prime Minister
Sharon, who categorically rejects talks with the opposing side in the
conflict with the Palestinians. It is hardly coincidental that so far
neither Putin nor Sharon has been able to keep his extravagant promises
about achieving peace quickly in their respective problem territories.
In an interview just a few days ago, Ruslan Aushev, the longtime former
president of the Russian republic of Ingushetia - which borders on Chechnya
and is still host to more than a hundred thousand Chechen refugees -
declared his willingness to run as a candidate in the Chechen presidential
election planned by Moscow for next year. Putin does not look kindly on
Aushev, because the Ingushetian leader has often openly criticized the war
in the neighboring Caucasus republic. But precisely for that reason, as
well as because of his energetic efforts on behalf of the refugees, he is
probably more trusted by the Chechen people than any other politician.
Perhaps this might offer a way out of the Chechen deadlock. The Russian
president should at least not subvert such a possibility. And President
Bush and the Europeans must do more than they have so far to persuade their
partner Putin that the fight against terrorism and consideration of decent
living conditions for Chechnya's civilian populace are not mutually
exclusive. Quite the contrary.
******
#13
Novaya Gazeta
No 85
November 2002
HOW MUCH A DAY OF THE WAR COSTS
Some facts and figures about the war in Chechnya
Author: Yuri Baulin
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
CLEANUP OPERATIONS SWEPT CHECHNYA IN EARLY NOVEMBER. THE DEFENSE
MINISTER HIMSELF OFFICIALLY DECLARED A SPECIAL OPERATION ON AN
UNPRECEDENTED SCALE. GENERAL STAFF EXPERTS ALREADY CALL IT A BEGINNING
OF THE THIRD CHECHEN WAR. AND YET NO ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH WAS SPENT ON
THE FIRST OR THE SECOND WARS.
The military has been making threats since the hostage-taking in
Moscow. Even Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov made a sensational
statement recently. "This is essentially a war declared on us," he
said. "A war without fronts or borders, a war without a visible enemy.
But a war all the same. This is a new war of the 21st century."
Cleanup operations swept Chechnya in early November 2002.
Thousands and thousands of servicemen were deployed. The defense
minister himself officially declared a special operation on an
unprecedented scale. General Staff experts already call it a beginning
of the third Chechen war. And yet no one knows how much was spent on
the first or the second wars.
The 42nd Motorized Infantry Division, permanently stationed in
Chechnya, is the only formation in Russia staffed in line with war
regulations. Its nucleus comprises the 70th, 71st, 72nd, 291st
motorized infantry regiments and the 50th regiment of mobile
artillery. Over 15,000 men in all.
Almost 22,000 servicemen in Chechnya are in regiment and
battalion tactical groups from Russian military districts. Add here
3,000 paratroops, the best combat ready part of the United Federal
Group in the Caucasus. Sum total amounts to 40,000 servicemen of the
Defense Ministry alone.
There is also the 46th Brigade of the Internal Troops in
Chechnya. Instead of 3,000 men, there are 10,000 officers and soldiers
in it.
The Federal Border Guards Service deploys unprecedented forces on
the Chechen part of he Russian-Georgian border. The Itum-Kale Border
Detachment alone comprises over 3,000 men. There are over 6,000 border
guards in Chechnya. There are separate commandant's offices as well,
mobile groups, and the Zheleznovodsk Special Assignment Border
Detachment in the reserve.
OMON and fast response police detachments from all over the
country spend between three and six months in Chechnya. That means
almost 4,000 men in all. Over 10,000 policemen and servicemen of the
Internal Troops serve in commandant's offices in all large settlements
of the republic. Neither shall we forget the local police. Interior
Minister Boris Gryzlov wants its numerical strength brought up to
17,000 men. For the time being, its numerical strength amounts to
about 10,000 locals.
All in all, numerical strength of the federal forces in Chechnya
officially amounts to 80,000 men.
As a matter of fact, much more Russians participate in the
Chechen war. It is common knowledge that aircraft of the 4th Air Force
Army support units of the United Federal Group.
Missile units of the 58th Army quartered in the vicinity of
Vladikavkaz, the capital of North Ossetia - Alaniya, use their Tochka-
U and Luna-9M systems against gunmen in Chechnya. Helicopters killed
by extremists usually carry border guards of the Nazran Border
Detachment formally quartered in Ingushetia.
Neither does official information on Chechnya count servicemen of
the Railroad Troops. They are actually numerous. After all, there is
even an armored train in Chechnya.
Neither do military lists include units of civil defense.
Virtually nothing is known about units of the Federal Agency for
Government Communications and Information. No one counts servicemen
from construction battalions either...
Officers of rear services are too numerous to be counted. There
are lots of them at the Khankala military base and elsewhere. The base
comprises the headquarters and seventeen command posts of various
security structures involved in the counter-terrorism operation.
Numerical strength of all sorts of special forces is a secret.
According to journalists, the famous Alpha and Vympel squads are in
Chechnya along with the lesser-known Skif, Vityaz, Vega, Fakel, and
other units. GRU (army intelligence) of the General Staff has more
special forces in Chechnya than anybody else.
Even rough estimates show that unaccounted-for and classified
troops in Chechnya number at least 20,000.
All in all, the federal group in Chechnya numbers 100,000 men.
The Soviet Union had as many men in Afghanistan once.
We sent scores of letters to various ministries and departments
requesting information on financial aspects of the counter-terrorism
operation in the Caucasus. There is nothing to show for these efforts.
Sergei Stepashin of the Auditing Commission replied that the state
budget does not specify funds for the purpose at all.
That's great. The war in Chechnya is in its eighth year, but no
money is allocated for it officially.
The federal budget does not include a special item on the war in
Chechnya. In the United States, the military budget includes 3-4,000
open items. In Russia, expenses of the Defense Ministry include 128
items. At first, only three of them were open. All the rest was
classified.
Seventy items or 65% amounting to 345 billion rubles were
declassified under pressure applied by Yabloko and Union of Right
Forces factions.
What was common knowledge for the whole world was kept hidden
from Russian society. According to Andrei Nikolayev, Chairman of the
Defense Committee of the Duma, Russia gives all this information to
the UN.
Paradoxical though it is, what was known to foreigners was kept
from the Russians themselves. That is why even military specialists in
Russia are forced to get information on he domestic military potential
mostly in the Internet.
It isn't really hard to calculate how much the recent failed
operation to get Shamil Basayev cost Russia. A foreign website reports
that a single SU-25 ground-strafer flight costs $20,000 and a SU-24
frontal bomber flight $40,000. An hour's flying time for an MI-24
helicopter costs almost $10,000.
The federal forces sent three SU-24s, three SU-25s, and two MI-
24s to bomb the gorge. In other words, the use of the planes and
helicopters alone cost Russia $200,000.
Intensity of flights in Chechnya varies. Ground-strafers and
helicopters fly several missions a day. The use of bombers is much
more expensive, after all.
The federal forces have lost 41 helicopters in the second Chechen
war, and the remaining 38 are forced to fly more frequently. If this
helicopter loss rate persists, Russia will be forced to use strategic
aviation in Chechnya soon. A single day's flying time for a TU-160
long-range bomber may cost $100,000.
Here are some other military secrets gleaned from the Internet.
Foreign experts claim that the use of a Russian tank costs almost
$5,000 a day and that of a battle infantry vehicle $3,000. A single
shot fired by a tank costs $200.
An artillery shell costs $150, a grenade $8, and 1,000 rounds
$30. A single Smerch missile costs $2,000.
The battle for the forest in the mountains where Basayev was
believed hiding cost the Russian treasury almost $1 million.
The General Staff is skeptical about the data obtained in the
Internet. Its officers say that it is wrong to use modern market
prices for the old Russian military hardware and ordnance. They claim
that all this is much cheaper.
Most rounds were manufactured in the Soviet Union when the
manufacture cost kopecks. There are 1.5 trillion rubles worth of
ordnance stored all over Russia. Army depots are filled to the brim.
The personnel servicing them is down to two thirds... According to the
Military Prosecutor General's Office, 1,023 inspections at army depots
and storage facilities uncovered 1,677 violations during the first six
months of the year.
Army depots and storage facilities go off every year. Their
explosions in the past decade cost the country 11 billion. Twelve
railroad carriages with rounds went off in Vladivostok not so long
ago. After all, proper storage and implementation of security
regulations demand colossal funds. Only 77% of the needed money is
actually allocated for the purpose. Even that money, however, gets
stolen all too frequently.
We do have a war, however, which is very convenient for chalking
off missing ordnance and military hardware.
Denying details, the General Staff nevertheless admits that the
operation in Chechnya takes huge sums. It requires much more than the
16.5 billion rubles set aside for the military reforms or the 4
billion rubles for construction of housing for officers. A military
financier I know told me once that the situation with Chechnya now is
as it was under Count Baryatinsky in the 19th Century. Appointed by
the tsar to supervise the Caucasus, Baryatinsky spent one third of the
military budget on his war with Shamil. If the analogy is true, then
the current Chechen war costs the army alone 115 billion rubles a
year.
Servicemen of the Defense Ministry in Chechnya amount to less
than 50% of the United Federal Group. Almost 60% are servicemen of
other ministries and departments. By the way, they are costlier than
ordinary servicemen of the army. It follows that to the 115 billion
rubles spent by the Defense Ministry we should add a lion's share of
the funds allocated for the item "Law enforcement activities and
security of the state". Experts say that the matter concerns almost
150 billion rubles.
Initially the 2003 draft budget included 244.7 billion rubles for
law enforcement activities and security of the state. before the
second reading in the Duma, however, 150 million rubles more was added
to the sum. In the wake of the terrorist act in Moscow the suggestion
was made to add 7 billion rubles for "the war on terrorism". The
Finance Ministry has agreed to add 3 billion rubles only. It hints,
however, that it will find even more than that but at a later date.
All in all, the Finance Ministry will allocate 265 billion rubles for
the war in Chechnya.
The Federal Border Guards Service remains the most secretive
structure. Border guards keep their major expenses a secret. Moreover,
much of this spending is camouflaged within "peaceful" budget items,
according to Vladislav Reznik, deputy leader of the Unity faction and
chairman of the commission for closed items of the budget.
Reznik said in an interview that 150 million were needed for
construction of roads on the Chechen part of the Russian-Georgian
border. The money could be found in the next year budget in the item
dealing with the Road Construction Trust. Approximately 63 billion
rubles is to be set aside in the budget for the State Border of the
Russian Federation Program...
Almost all security structures use civilian budget items.
According to some estimates, the matter concerns 65 billion rubles.
A war which is isolated from the budget means uncontrolled and
uncontrollable spending. This is a paradise for organized crime, both
military and civilian. We are talking about 330 billion rubles being
unaccounted for. Should we be surprised that the war in Chechnya does
not end?
Casualties are the worst. Almost 100,000 people died in the first
Chechen war, most of them civilians.
Casualties are not much lighter in the second war. According to
official data released by Moscow, 4,500 servicemen and 14,000
residents of Chechnya died in the counter-terrorism operation.
Different figures can be found in the report German secret services
sent to Schroeder recently: 10,000 soldiers and officers of the
Russian army and 80,000 Chechens.
Western insurance companies say that life of an average person is
worth $370,000, more or less. This is the minimum sum that may be
demanded in compensation from a state that is to blame for the death
of a person. Do Putin and Kasianov have enough money to pay sums like
that?
The regime cuts costs on Chechnya and on its dead. Military
scientists at a classified research facility were ordered recently to
calculate how much all the chemicals in a human body cost... They
calculated and found that an average body is worth just over 15,000
rubles, or less than $500. That is approximately how much army
enlistment and recruitment offices find for the relatives of
servicemen killed in Chechnya...
(Translated by A. Ignatkin)
*******
Web page for CDI Russia Weekly:
http://www.cdi.org/russia
Archive for Johnson's Russia List:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson
With support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and
the MacArthur Foundation
A project of the Center for Defense Information (CDI)
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036