Brought to you by the Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202) 462-4559 * http://www.cdi.org
Edited by David Johnson
| ISSUE #23 | November 13, 1998 |
The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and
analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, economic,
social, military, and foreign policy issues. With funding from the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based
Center for Defense Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education
organization.
#1 Russia: Would Speedy START Two Ratification Bring More Aid Money? By Floriana Fossato
Moscow, 12 November 1998 (RFE/RL) -- What do Russia's mysterious anti-crisis plan and the START-Two arms reduction treaty have in common? Apparently a lot, according to the Russian government. At least that is what the Russian media are reporting today, following yesterday's State Duma session that was closed to the press. Cabinet members reportedly gave deputies an overview of the state of Russia's economy and of its prospects for the future. The cabinet, led by Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, won the deputies' partial support for an anti-crisis program and a draft budget for next year -- something that previous governments were never able to achieve without a fight. Government ministers also managed to produce some signs of activity on the long-stalled START-Two treaty with the United States. Primakov recently called on parliamentary leaders to finally ratify the treaty -- and his ministers yesterday repeated the call, reportedly adding new economic reasons to military ones. Deputies quoted by Russian news agencies said government ministers -- particularly First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov -- strongly lobbied for ratification of the treaty. Accounts of the closed session provided by Duma members indicated that Maslyukov hinted that a quick ratification of START Two would help Moscow's quest for Western financial help, especially in talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Maslyukov has so far failed to win the release of a much-needed $4.3 billion tranche of an IMF-led $22.6 billion package of loans. The IMF approved the package in the summer, but froze it when it appeared clear that Russia would not be able to meet obligations under the deal. IMF officials are waiting for Russia's draft 1999 budget to measure its commitment to stick to a tight economic policy. Alexander Shokhin, leader of the centrist "Our Home Is Russia" faction said "there was no direct link" between the debate on the draft budget and START Two. But he added that "many lawmakers made exactly that conclusion from the way it was presented." Russian newspapers came to the same conclusion. The daily "Segodnya" wrote today that good news on the progress of the ratification process would help Primakov's case for more financial aid in a coming meeting with U.S. President Bill Clinton. Primakov is scheduled to meet Clinton during an Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum meeting in Kuala Lumpur next week. START Two was signed in 1993, and the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty in 1996. However, on the Russian side, Communists and nationalists dominating the Duma have so far resisted ratification. They claim that trimming strategic weapons would harm Russia's security, particularly as NATO is expanding. They also argue that Russia cannot afford the costs of dismantling its arsenal. START Two slashes the two countries' Cold War nuclear arsenals by up to two-thirds to no more than 3,500 warheads each by 2007. The daily "Kommersant" quoted Maslyukov, who is seen as close to industries in Russia's military-industrial complex, as telling deputies that Russia's nuclear shield would remain in place, if Russia goes ahead with building a new Topol-M missile. This missile, known to NATO as the SS-27 and not included in START II, would replace some of the aging rockets to be scrapped under the treaty. Duma speaker Gennady Seleznyov said after yesterday's session that "these were essentially the last parliamentary hearings" on the issue. He told journalists ratification of the treaty is no longer a strategic question, but a purely economic one. Seleznyov said a vote on the issue would be scheduled as soon as the cash-strapped Primakov government provides concrete figures on how much the treaty would cost Russia. Some deputies in the State Duma say there is as yet no majority in favor of ratifying the treaty. Seleznyov's deputy, Vladimir Ryzhkov, agreed, but added that "there is essential progress on this question". He said that four parliamentary committees would prepare all necessary documentation on START Two over the next 10 days, together with proposals for further action. Today, Shokhin of the "Our Home Is Russia" faction said the Duma may vote on an amended version of the START Two ratification law as early as this month.
#2 Moscow Times November 12, 1998 DEFENSE DOSSIER: Tug of War Over Arms Trade By Pavel Felgenhauer
First Deputy Prime Minister Yury Maslyukov has been trying for some time to take over Russia's lucrative arms exporting business. As minister of industries and trade in the government of Sergei Kiriyenko, he insisted that he should be in charge of "issues of military-technical cooperation with foreign countries" and have the power to "approve or reject candidates for appointment as heads of the companies Rosvooruzheniye, Promexport and Russian Technologies." The three companies are state-owned and authorized to export Russian arms and military technology. The official who has the power "to approve or reject" heads of those companies also, in effect, controls the arms trade. Under former Prime Minister Kiriyenko, Maslyukov did not become tsar of the arms trade and eventually resigned from the Cabinet. Today, Maslyukov is No.2 in the Russian government and may soon get his way; last month he was appointed chairman of a new governmental committee that will oversee "military-technical cooperation with foreign countries." But the battle for the control of the arms trade is not over yet. Maslyukov's new committee has only one member - Maslyukov. It is currently an empty shell with no charter stipulating its jurisdiction. An official circular was sent to the Kremlin and all relevant government departments, asking them to submit recommendations on what Maslyukov's new committee should do and in what way it should be formed. This interdepartmental process of committee building is still in progress. Maslyukov has publicly called for the resignation of Yevgeny Ananyev, the current head of Rosvooruzheniye. But Ananyev still remains in place. This clearly indicates Maslyukov's takeover bid has not been fully successful. Of course, President Boris Yeltsin's administration does not oppose the idea of forming a new coordinating committee. True bureaucrats would never do that. Yet, the Kremlin is fighting Maslyukov tooth and nail to keep Ananyev in place, to retain some control over the arms trade and to dilute Maslyukov's powers as chairman of the new committee. "There is no money in the Russian defense budget to purchase new arms," said a high-ranking administration official who asked to remain anonymous. "Only the arms trade brings any real income into Russia's beleaguered defense industry. An official who could single-handedly push through arms contracts would command the unquestioned loyalty of Russia's arms producers and control the livelihoods of millions of workers," he said. "This may be very important when national elections come around. Maslyukov is, of course, a Communist. Maslyukov has told Russia's defense industry chiefs that he will give them freedom to export so they can quadruple their profits. This is a dangerous policy. Under current Russian law, only the president has full control of the arms trade," said the official. The only obvious way Russia could suddenly increase arms exports is to resume Soviet-style arms trade with anti-Western "rogue" states. The obvious choice is Iran. There are no international sanctions imposed on Iran, only a secret memorandum signed in 1995 by U.S. Vice President Al Gore and then-Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin that pledges Russia will not sign new arms contracts with Iran, while honoring old ones. For some time Russian officials have been seeking legal loopholes in this memorandum that would allow increased arms trade with Iran. Now there is talk of scrapping it altogether. Iranian officials have already indicated they have a long shopping list of new Russian arms and technology. But Kremlin officials insist that Iran has no available cash to spend because of the slump in world oil prices, and Russia could earn more money if the U.S. allocates Moscow a bigger share of the lucrative world space launch market; however, resumed arms trade with "rogues" would incur U.S. sanctions and bring an end to cooperative space projects. So the bureaucratic battle over the future of the Russian arms trade continues behind the scenes in Moscow, but its outcome may be decided in Washington if Russia is allowed to earn money by exporting goods and services to the West. However, if different "anti-dumping" barriers and quotas continue to interrupt legitimate business, ultimately it is only in the anti-Western "rogues" that Russia will find true friends and partners. Pavel Felgenhauer is the chief defense correspondent of Segodnya.
#3 The Independent (UK) 13 November 1998 [for personal use only] Jewish insults cause a storm By Helen Womack in Moscow
THE RUSSIAN capital has been wrapped up for days in a storm over anti-Semitic remarks made at a rally by General Albert Makashov, an extremist on the far left of the Communist Party. The failure of the party to condemn him with sufficient vigour prompted Boris Berezovsky, an influential politician and tycoon of Jewish origin, to demand that the Communists be outlawed. The Siberian governor Alexander Lebed has now entered the fray - but in the guise of a senior statesman, rebuking Moscow politicians for making mountains out of molehills and urging them to concentrate on heating homes and feeding the population. General Lebed, governor of the vast Krasnoyarsk region and a man with ambitions to occupy the Kremlin, said he took a negative view of General Makashov's outburst. However, the Communists, the largest party in the State Duma, should hardly be banned for the behaviour of a single one of their number, he argued. And given the crisis in the country, politicians should get down to the practical business of preparing for the long, hard, winter ahead. What Mr Lebed did not take account of, however, was the signal failure of Gennadi Zyuganov, the Communist leader, to repudiate the remarks of General Makashov. Possibly attempting to keep the lid on potential splits in his party, Mr Zyuganov responded instead by attacking the news media and Russia's wealthy tycoons. On Tuesday, various public figures tried to play down the hardships facing Russia after Western intelligence sources said the country lacked grain and potatoes and could go hungry this winter. However, General Lebed said the outcry over General Makashov was a "storm in a teacup". Only 50 million tonnes of grain had been harvested. There were heating problems in the Far East. Breath was also being wasted on the question of whether the body of Lenin should be reburied. "He's been lying there [in the mausoleum] for years. He can lie there a bit longer," said General Lebed. "I repeat, there are very hard times ahead." As it to confirm his words, the temperature plunged in Moscow yesterday to minus 16C, a record degree of frost for November. For intellectuals, for whom moral values are as important as bread, the Makashov affair has been disturbing. Leading artists, including Vladimir Vasiliev, the artistic director of the Bolshoi Theatre, were quick to speak out against anti-Semitism. However, it took a while for the government and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Alexei II, to make clear that they too regarded his racist diatribe as unacceptable. As for Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the nationalist bad boy of Russian politics, he seemed not to care. His reaction was to appeared on television wearing a powdered wig, playing the role of Mozart in a production by MPs on the composer.
#4 Christian Science Monitor NOVEMBER 10, 1998 [for personal use only] US Steps Back From Partnership With Russia Economic tumult and Yeltsin's decline prompt US officials to make stern warnings. Jonathan S. Landay (landa@csmonitor.com) Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON It was to have been a partnership that would make the world a safer place. But the Clinton administration's grand vision of helping transform Russia into a free-market democracy with which it could work to ease international tensions and consolidate the new global economy has vanished. With President Boris Yeltsin's authority ebbing and his people facing a winter of food shortages amid deepening economic tumult, the United States is being forced to rethink relations with Russia. Its size and atomic arsenal hold profound implications for the security of the US and its allies. Mr. Yeltsin and his team of youthful pro-West reformers were driven onto the political sidelines by the economic collapse in August. Now Yeltsin's new health problems have compelled him to hand many of his responsibilities to Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and raised the possibility that he could be forced to resign before his term ends in 2000. "There is a general fear that we are at the beginning of the crisis and we don't know who will be in the Kremlin" in a year, says Russia expert Michael McFaul of Stanford University in California. But recent speeches by senior US officials show that concerns over Russia's struggle to shed its communist legacy run deeper. In a worst-case scenario, Russia, spanning two continents and 11 time zones, could break into smaller, nuclear-armed states as regional strongmen move to restore order after a collapse of Moscow's authority. Another scenario has Russians opting for authoritarian rule in hopes that a firm hand in the Kremlin could end political and financial chaos, crime, corruption, and corrosion of global power. Last Friday, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the Clinton administration's point man on Russia expressed such apprehensions at Stanford University. He slammed Mr. Primakov for retreating from reform and warned that "economic decline carries with it the danger of political drift, turmoil, and even crackup." Assessments of Russia's future are bleaker than at any time since Yeltsin embarked on his Western-style reform programs in 1992. "We cannot say that Russia will emerge from its difficulties any time soon. Nor should we assume the worst, for there are still plenty of people in Russia who will fight against turning back the clock," said US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in an Oct. 2 speech in Chicago. But, she added, Russia's emergence as a stable, free-market democracy after more than 70 years of communism is "an open question." Cooperation continues The administration is eager to continue working with Moscow on security issues of shared concern, such as terrorism, arms control, and securing Russian nuclear materials from theft. Anxious to help millions of poor Russians through the winter, the US agreed last week to provide 3.1 million tons of food aid. But US officials no longer celebrate the "partnership" they touted with unabashed zeal throughout Yeltsin's heyday as a keystone of US-Russian relations. Assertions that reform in Russia is "irreversible" are gone. "We can help Russia make tough choices, but in the end, Russia must choose what kind of country it is going to be," Mrs. Albright said, building on a theme sounded by President Clinton during his September visit to Moscow. In unusually blunt tones, US officials also warn that Russia could pay a heavy price if it adopts policies that put it at odds with the US and its allies. That tone stands in stark contrast to the sunny US pronouncements on Russia aired before fiscal mayhem discredited Yeltsin and pro-West reformers. Only three months earlier, Mr. Clinton had proclaimed in Berlin that "Russians are building a democratic future .... We must support this Russian revolution." Washington's misgivings have been fueled by the failure of Primakov's governing mélange of moderates and communists to produce an economic rescue plan that restores investor confidence. Instead of paying workers back wages, collecting taxes, closing failed banks, and reviving industries, Primakov's government proposed Oct. 31 to print more rubles and increase state economic intervention. Defaulting on loans In a further jolt, Moscow last week announced that next year, for the first time, it will be unable to make foreign-debt payments. "Our concern is that ... the Primakov team is prepared to abandon a stable currency, a viable exchange rate, and a sound monetary policy," said Mr. Talbott. Until Primakov is "willing and able to make the difficult structural adjustments necessary for recovery and growth," he said, the International Monetary Fund will halt disbursements of a US-backed $22.6 billion bailout. Some experts say the Clinton administration should have begun reassessing its Russia policy much sooner. They point out that it continued backing huge injections of money even after Yeltsin became more authoritarian and unpopular and repeatedly reneged on vows to push reforms and crush corruption. As a result, these analysts say, the US was closely identified with the failure of Yeltsin's reforms, allowing nationalists and communists to stoke anti-American sentiment. The administration appears to be trying to avoid a repeat of congressional criticism by distancing itself from Primakov, a former Soviet intelligence operative who is distrusted on Capitol Hill. The US may also be better positioned to deal with whatever political forces emerge from 1999 parliamentary elections and the contest to succeed Yeltsin.
#5 Moscow Tribune Novebmer 11, 1998 Impotence Wonder Drug Finally Comes to Russia By Lyuba Pronina
The drug Viagra, certified by the Health Care Ministry earlier this year, is now available in Russian pharmacies. Registered in 38 countries, Viagra has already been circulating in Russia in a variety of counterfeit forms. The first batch of Viagra, worth $1 million, was delivered by the American pharmaceutical company Pfizer at the end of October. According to Aleksander Koval, Pfizer product manager, negotiations are afoot to supply "tens of thousands of Viagra tablets by the end of the year." The Pfizer management say there is no "restrictive policy" for its distribution. "Any normal distributor in Russia can buy Viagra," said Robert Marshall, head of the Moscow office. However, he warned strongly against buying counterfeit pills available without prescription. "It is a prescription drug to be given by a doctor," Marshall stressed. The real Viagra has three degrees of security and is sold as blue, diamond-shaped pills of 25, 50 or 100 milligrams in white boxes with a blue stripe and a protective hologram. There are fixed selling prices of $7.95, $9.12 and $10.89 per tablet, respectively. With price surcharge, the cost may go up by 60 percent. Although aware that Russian patients' have less money to spare, Marshall says he is sure there will be demand. "Viagra is not a lifesaving drug and therefore it won't be reimbursed by health authorities -- patients will have to pay," he said. "Obviously the demand in Russia is based on the same criteria as in other countries. ... We expect it will be high in Russia, it's a big population," Marshall added. Oleg Loran, chief urologist at the Health Care Ministry said that although "Viagra is not a panacea and will not edge out other methods used to cure impotence, it is effective enough at early stages of the illness." According to Dmitry Pushkar, professor at the urological department, out of 67 tested patients with erectal dysfunction, 66 said they wanted to continue the treatment and 85 percent said they were prepared to buy Viagra.
#6 Congressional Record October 14, 1998 DARE NOT SPURN RUSSIA Remarks of Senator Patrick Moynihan (Democrat-New York)
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the news from Russia remains grim. The Times reported on Saturday: Rocked by its worst harvest in 45 years and a plummeting ruble, Russia appealed today for relief aid from the European Union. It has also approached the United States and Canada for help. Clearly Russia is in a perilous--one could say dangerous--state. The grain harvest is down almost 40 percent primarily because of a summer drought in the Volga River and Ural regions. And the financial crisis in Russia has only added to the problems. For example the Times also reports that because payment has not been made `15 ships full of American frozen poultry have delayed unloading their cargo.' What to do? For starters let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. Following the defeat of Germany in World War I, we failed to provide aid to the Weimar Republic as it attempted to sustain a democratic government. The resulting Nazi reign of terror was both devastating and unspeakable. By contrast, following the defeat of the Nazis in World War II, we adopted the Marshall Plan to rebuild a democratic Germany. From 1948 to 1952, the United States gave almost $3 billion a year to fund the Marshall Plan. A comparable contribution in round numbers, given the current size of the United States economy, would be about $100 billion a year for five years. Recognize that Russia , no less than Nazi Germany, is a defeated nation--the latter on the military battlefield, the former on the economic battlefield. To keep Russia on the road to democracy and economic reform will require economic aid perhaps on the scale of the Marshall Plan. When you consider what we have been through, a post cold war Marshall Plan does not seem excessive. Particularly since we were able to fund the Marshall Plan at the same time we were threatened by an empire that subscribed to the view that eventually the entire world would succumb to communism. The singular truth is that we were utterly unprepared for the collapse of the Soviet Union. During the 1980s we began a defense build up which resulted in the largest debt the United States has ever known. When the Soviet Union did collapse, we felt broke and unable to launch the kind of economic assistance that we were able to do after World War II. While we have provided some assistance, it falls far short of Russia's needs and lacks a coherent plan. Such a plan would include technical assistance on tax collections, operations of banks and stock exchanges, protection of property and individual rights to name just a few areas that a country with little or no experience with democracy and free markets might find helpful. Let me emphasize: without real short- and long-term financial assistance none of this technical assistance will be effective or, indeed, welcome. But the United States cannot do it alone. What would make the countries of Central and Eastern Europe more secure than any military alliance would be membership in the European Union. Unfortunately, our Western European allies have not embraced their eastern neighbors in this way. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke has explained that to a certain extent, expanding NATO served as a surrogate for EU enlargement. Roger Cohen reports Ambassador Holbrooke's remark in the International Herald Tribune: Almost a decade has gone by since the Berlin Wall fell and, instead of reaching out to Central Europe, the European Union turned toward a bizarre search for a common currency. So NATO enlargement had to fill the void. We seem to have stumbled into a reflexive anti-Russian mode. The United States continues to act as though the Cold War is still the central reality of foreign policy, withal there has been a turnover and we now have the ball and it is time to move downfield. For instance, in a Times story on Sunday about the selection of a trans-Caucus oil pipeline, it was reported: The Administration favored the Baku-Ceyhan route because it would pass through only relatively friendly countries--Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey--and would bind them closer to the West; because it would pull Azerbaijan and Georgia out of the Russian shadow; and because it would not pass through either Russia or Iran, both of which have offered routes of their own. Is `binding' Azerbaijan and Georgia closer to the West part of a flawed strategy of isolating Russia ? We seem clearly headed in that direction with the expansion of NATO. And ignoring George F. Kennan, who lamented the Senate vote on NATO expansion in an interview with Thomas L. Friedman. Commenting on the Senate debate, Ambassador Kennan stated: I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove the Soviet Regime. We would do well to remember these words.
Russia could be a future friend or foe 66. Most of the potential challenges discussed above have very little or nothing to do with direct threats or risks posed by Russia. In fact, Russia could well be more a part of the answer to these security challenges than a security problem. In an optimistic scenario, a reforming Russia would continue to make contributions to international peace and stability, as it has in Bosnia, and would more often than not be an ally of the Euro-Atlantic nations in the international system. In such a case, Russia's relationship with the NATO Allies, developed through the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council, would increasingly become an important part of the formula for international peace and stability. 67. Objectively defined, Russia's political, economic and security interests will be best served by an increasingly cooperative relationship with the Euro-Atlantic nations. Nonetheless, it is possible that, in the 21st century, internal developments could take Russia in different directions. Russia's democratic institutions and traditions are nascent, resting on very weak foundations. Russia remains more of a corrupt oligarchy than a democracy. Its economy is sustained largely by massive loans and assistance from international lending institutions. People in Russia are restless, demoralized and angry. Russian foreign policy is a mixture of pragmatic cooperation with the West, yearning for past great power status, and the continued assertion of hegemonic claims over the space of the former Soviet Union. 68. The threat from Russia to regional and global security would be rekindled if their transition to a democratic market system under a rule of law broke down. Russia, facing the potential failure of political and economic reform, might retrogress to an autocratic, chauvinistic, insular state threatening its near and far abroad. Russia's future political leaders could decide that Moscow needs to keep a degree of tension in its relationship with the West in order to sustain a form of authoritarian rule. Or, Russian leaders could decide to align with China in an anti-Western coalition. Both cases could pose serious challenges to international peace and stability and to the interests of NATO countries.... Move relations with Russia beyond arms control through defense cooperation 132. The Allies have opened many doors to cooperation with Russia. The Permanent Joint Council and the Partnership for Peace program offer Russia virtually unlimited opportunities to develop serious consultative and cooperative relationships with NATO. The Allies must continue to make it clear that they seek a transparent and cooperative relationship with Russia. The approach should acknowledge Russia's importance to security in Europe while seeking to move Russia's attitude toward NATO beyond Cold War assumptions and perceptions toward a qualitatively new relationship. 133. Arms control remains a critical tool for management of relations among states in Europe and in the international system more generally. In particular, adaptation and implementation of the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) to the new European circumstances will be a source of reassurance and stability for many years to come. The Allies must nonetheless ensure that the revised Treaty does not restrict NATO's flexibility to reinforce old and new member states in crisis situations and to conduct peace support operations. At the same time, the CFE Treaty should draw Russia even closer into the common European security structures, thus complementing the NATO-Russia Founding Act. 134. The goal of the Allies, however, should be to use defense cooperation with Russia to move beyond arms control to a qualitatively new level of political and military relationships. However important arms control treaties may be, the Allies should persist with their attempts to create a European security system in which concepts like balance of power, zones of influence and strategic position are replaced by cooperative, integrative relationships. Long-term political stability must be based on the growth of democracy, economic development, mutual trust, and a system of cooperative security among all states in the Euro-Atlantic area.
#8 From Russia Today http://www.russiatoday.com November 6, 1998 Good News? What Good News? By Rod Pounsett
"Why can't you find some good news about Russia to write about for a change?" a Moscow friend asked me this week. I knew exactly what he meant, and I wish I could oblige. I am sure the Russian people need it. But as any journalist will tell you, the sharp end of the news business is rarely about providing good cheer at the best of times. And these are certainly not the best of times in Russia. However, knowing Russians as I do, I am sure they are doing their best to maintain a sense of humor during all the gloom and doom that surrounds them. Few people are better than Russians at finding a humorous side to adversity, or laughing at themselves and the antics of those who govern them. They have always been masters at the art of satire, even during the most oppressive times of the Soviet regime. There is a real danger, though, that the nation is about to indulge in an extended orgy of self-retribution and pity when it should be knuckling down to some positive thinking about ways out of the current mess. As a Westerner, I cannot find much to smile about when I survey the current situation in Russia. In fact I am sickened by what I see as a predominantly self-destructive trend which has emerged over the past few months. And unless the incumbent government under Prime Minister/Acting President Yevgeny Primakov undergoes some form of dramatic metamorphosis, I fear this trend will escalate. Too many previously optimistic younger Russians are showing signs of surrendering to what they see as the inevitable. Some are also taking every opportunity to publicly expound on what they claim are the inherent failings of the Russian character. A now all-too-typical outburst came a few days ago from former deputy prime minister and onetime leading reformer, Alfred Kokh. As if hiding behind his ethnic German antecedence, Kokh saw fit to deliver a vitriolic character assassination upon the Russian people during an interview on a Russian-language radio station in New York. He said Russians had no one but themselves and their stupidity to blame for the current situation. And he went on with a general attack on what he saw as national guilt for widespread complicity in atrocities during Soviet times. "This is why this people deserves to reap what it has sowed," he added, "No matter how you look at it, it is a bankrupt country." Now you might expect a measure of bitterness from a man like Kokh, who left office under a cloud of allegations about corruption linked to his term heading the privatization body in Moscow. But we are also hearing similar, if marginally less vitriolic, anti-Russian sentiments from other leading reformers and hitherto members of the vanguard of young Russian entrepreneurs, many of whom have now quit the country in disgust. The broad consensus is very negative about Russia's future. And there is little surprise expressed about the IMF's decision to close the till as far as Russia is concerned. One young entrepreneur who has now decamped to the United States even went so far as to oppose the promised food aid package for Russia to help it through this winter. "The Americans are crazy, my people don't deserve to be helped," he said. "That food should be distributed to the poor in the West who've worked hard all their lives but have now fallen on hard times. Most of my people don't know what hard work is." I think this young man, Kokh and others like them who hold similar views are wrong. You cannot blame every ordinary Russian for the current situation and the West cannot stand back and witness their starvation this winter. But I do think history will record some guilt attached to those now in authority. They have demonstrated their incompetence to deliver a feasible rescue plan and they are pushing Russia toward isolation. Primakov's appointment may have brought about a temporary lull to widespread dissent among ordinary Russia people, but his policy of printing worthless money and propping up defunct portions of the industrial sector has serious implications for the future -- a future in which it will become increasingly difficult for Russians to maintain their sense of humor and with no prospect of me finding good news to write about. Unless, of course, Russia simply gives up, lies down and goes to sleep. Then I suppose we could say no news is good news.
#9 US Seen Targeting Russia's Southern Borders Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, No. 42 6-12 November 1998 [translation for personal use only] Article by Andrey Revunov: "Strategy: Might Is Right. The Americans Intend To Increase Their Influence on Russia's Southern Borders"
As Russia's positions in a number of former USSR republics have weakened, the United States has become more persistent in its efforts to establish overt or covert "patronage" of former zones of Russian influence. Most of the new independent states have actually been named by Washington as zones of vital U.S. interests. The Baltic area, the Caucasus and the Caspian region, and Central Asia have all joined this category. Having gained a "foothold" in recent years in the Baltic countries and having established "mutual understanding" with their leaders, the White House is now concentrating its efforts on the south. In particular, secret Clinton administration and U.S. foreign policy department documents point out that "Moscow's and Washington's economic interests collide in Azerbaijan." The head of the State Department has said that the "White House's position rules out the reestablishment of Russian control over the Caspian oil-producing region." The U.S. interest is clear and explicable, the political priorities are being determined by the appetites of the U.S. oil monopolies. In this case "peacemaking" is merely a means of achieving certain strategic goals. The program of measures now initiated by the United States "to stabilize the situation in the Caucasus region" is specifically intended to neutralize Russian influence. Carefully cultivating its image as a "global peacemaker," the White House has stated its readiness to assume the role of arbiter in the solution of the Caucasus peoples' problems as well. It is absolutely typical that it is by no means diplomatic factors that figure prominently in Washington's plans. By widely advertising such programs as "Partnership For Peace" the United States appears to be looking for any excuse to expand its own military presence. And political leaders in a number of countries are in effect assisting them, obviously hoping, and with good reason, for U.S. assistance in solving their own problems. For instance, Tbilisi has agreed to have U.S. servicemen protecting its Black Sea borders in place of the Russians who are being withdrawn from Georgia. We know that a group of U.S. Coast Guard officers has already started carrying out its new duties. Moreover, the U.S. Congress plans to allocate nearly $1.5 million to Tbilisi this year for the purchase of communications and command and control facilities for the Georgian Defense Ministry's needs. Moreover, there is a plan to supply Georgia with military transport helicopters through Pentagon channels and also to finance the production of modern ground-attack aircraft at local military-industrial complex enterprises. In the light of the continuing Georgian-Abkhaz confrontation this is clearly worrying. In view of the scenario tried and tested on several occasions by the United States, it can be confidently predicted that the next step will be to send U.S. military specialists to Tbilisi, reform the Georgian armed forces using the NATO template, and reequip them with Western models of military hardware and armaments. This would probably be followed by an invitation to participate in NATO activities, since its southern neighbor (Turkey) is a member of NATO. (more) 6-12 nov cd/airey Meanwhile, Baku actively supports Turkey's initiative on creating special peacekeeping forces for the Caucasus region. So the Azerbaijani leadership's statement that it is prepared to have NATO military bases on its territory, coupled with the republic defense minister's statement that "Russia's opposition to the expansion of the NATO bloc poses a threat to Azerbaijan," can be seen as a concrete definition of the regime's political direction at this time. Moreover, it is hard to imagine the Baku authorities resisting the temptation to resort to assistance from their new "friends" in the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh "problem," which is such a thorn in their side. The Americans' further consolidation in their new positions would obviously follow the same scenario as in Georgia. A delegation of State Department and Pentagon representatives plans to visit Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan in the very near future. People in the White House acknowledge that "the establishment of military-political links with Bishkek and Ashgabat will create prerequisites for establishing a long-term U.S. presence in the region and for further weakening Russia's influence." There is information that Washington has plans "to help" protect the borders of Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan. Basically, what is particularly dangerous is not the fact of U.S. expansion itself, but that it is taking place in the politically most explosive regions. So the consequences of this strategy could be very tragic. This U.S. policy could contribute in no small way to a possible exacerbation of the Georgian-Abkhaz and Karabakh conflicts. The future siting of a U.S. military contingent on the eastern and western shores of the Caspian and in its immediate environs is certainly part of Washington's long-term plans to establish itself in the oil- and gas-rich region and secure complete control of the extraction and transportation of the oil and gas. The fact that the White House seriously intends to increase its influence on Russia's southern borders is also evidenced by the creation within the CIA framework of a department whose main job is "to monitor events in the Caspian Sea region and formulate recommendations for the U.S. political leadership."
#10 St. Petersburg Times November 10, 1998 81 Years On, Revolution Day Shows Its Age By Alice Lagnado STAFF WRITER
Eighty-one years after Bolshevik troops stormed the Winter Palace, bringing to an end over three centuries of imperial Romanov rule, a mere 10,000 people gathered next to that building on Saturday in an emotional but modest demonstration of nostalgia for Soviet days. The anniversary of the Russian Revolution was marked by mostly elderly citizens, who marched down Nevsky Prospect late Saturday morning before collecting on Palace Square to listen to speeches from middle-aged Communists. The Nov. 7 turnout was low nationwide, with just 270,000 people taking to the streets throughout the country, according to police reports. Police also put St. Petersburg's demonstration attendance much lower than the event's organizers, who claimed as many as 30,000 attendees. Moscow protesters numbered even fewer, with just 8,800 turning out, according to police figures. In St. Petersburg, elderly Communists came equipped with traditional Revolution Day accessories - portraits of Lenin and Stalin and banners reading "Glory to the Great October Revolution." They were joined by a sprinkling of anarchists, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's LDPR faction, representatives of the city's military-industrial complex, the Union of Soviet Officers and students. Speakers rattled out the same old slogans, ill-suited to the frailty and small size of the crowd. Nov. 7 "has always been a day for struggle and for a show of strength," said Viktor Tyulkin, first secretary of the Russian Communist Workers' Party, speaking on Palace Square, Interfax reported. Other speakers included Communist candidates running for election Dec. 6. Communist supporters seemed more tired and depressed than in a mood for any sort of struggle. "I lived very well under the Communists. Now I can't afford the medicine I need," said Vladimir, 67, a former electrical engineer, who did not wish to give his last name. Others looked fondly back to the old times when they say they were better provided for, glossing over the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime. "I think that this is our country's most important festival, because my grandfather stormed the Winter Palace, and because my father died here during the blockade. All my family are Communists," said Nina, 60, a former literature teacher, who also declined to give her surname. Nina brushed off Communist atrocities. "I know [the camps] existed, but none of my friends or family was sent there," she said. Another more famous Nina also made herself visible at Saturday's demonstrations, more staunch in her views with every passing anniversary. Nina Andreyeva, who a decade ago wrote a now-famous missive, "I Cannot Forsake Principles," slamming Gorbachev's reforms, was still battling on - on Saturday selling literature to pensioners. Andreyeva said she was still awaiting a socialist revolution, and denounced the Communists presently in government as "the cosmetic repair of a capitalist building." The meeting drew to a close about 1:30 p.m., but Alexandra Kyetova, 9, was still doing a brisk trade selling a Communist newspaper, "Leninist Sparks," for a ruble a go. Kyetova, who said she had come with her grandfather, seemed to have little notion of what the event might signify beyond her bustling commercial enterprise. "Today's a festival day," she said simply.
#11 Russia Today press summaries http://www.russiatoday.com Nezavisimaya Gazeta 12 November 1998 Lead Story The Government Is Fighting for the Generals' Loyalty FOR THIS, YEVGENY PRIMAKOV IS READY TO PRINT NEW MONEY Summary
The annual forum of top army and navy officials opened in Moscow on Wednesday. Top officials, including Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, Duma speaker Gennady Seleznyov, Federal Security Service (FSB) director Vladimir Putin and the deputy head of presidential administration gathered for this event. In his opening speech, Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev spoke about the results of army reforms and about defense policies. He noted that some other countries are seeking to block the expansion of Russia's military cooperation internationally. He also noted that the military and political situation in the Trans-Caucasus and in Central Asia remains very tense. Sergeyev noted that the main factor hurting army reforms remains "limited and irregular financing." He said the armed forces received about one-third of the funds confirmed in the 1998 budget. After his speech, journalists were asked to leave the hall. Participants of the meeting reported later that Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov's speech focused primarily on the current difficult economic situation and noted that the military is not the only thing that is suffering. He spoke in favor of "controlled monetary emission, which would bring money to the defense industry and would allow (the state) to pay off wage arrears to the military." In the lobby, many officers and generals seemed skeptical of the government's new pledges to pay wages. The situation in the army is such that many officers do not have the moral or physical strength to serve, and every third officer intends to resign, the daily wrote.
Back to the
Center for Defense Infomation Site
Back to The
CDI Russia Weekly Site