November 25, 1998   
This Date's Issues: 2491 • 2492• 

Johnson's Russia List
#2492
25 November 1998
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
READ: Happy Thanksgiving! 
Next issue of JRL will be around November 28.
1. Interfax: Yabloko's Yavlinskiy: Electing Yeltsin in 1996 'Mistake.'
2. Moscow Times: Dianne Post, Thick Veil on Violence. (Family violence). 
3. Bloomberg: Senate Agriculture Chairman Discounts Need for Russian 
Food Aid.
4. AFP: Russia writes off hopes of debt reprieve.
5. Interfax: Russian Expert Calls For Ratification Of Start-II Treaty.
6. the eXile: Mark Ames, Eat S--- and Die. (re Russia's food problem 
and US aid).
7. The Independent: Phil Reeves, A martyr for democracy.
8. Christian Science Monitor: Alex Bratersky, Russia's 'Generation Nyet'
finds nothing to be for.
9. Interfax: Police Investigate Moscow Links of Starovoytova's Killers/
10. Interfax: Luzhkov Optimistic About Russian Economy.]

******

#1
Yabloko's Yavlinskiy: Electing Yeltsin in 1996 'Mistake' 

Moscow, Nov 23 (Interfax) -- Russia made a mistake by electing Boris
Yeltsin president in 1996, leader of the liberal Yabloko movement Grigoriy
Yavlinskiy told a Monday news conference.
Russia's biggest problem is not Yeltsin's poor health, but the fact
that he has no "notion of what should be done in the country and how,"
Yavlinskiy said. Yeltsin has failed to form an effective and energetic
team that could help Russia resolve its problems.
"We wish recovery to the president, but the situation will not change
greatly from that because the effect of the actions of the president,
whether he is healthy or sick, is absolutely the same," Yavlinskiy said.
He said that the suggestion of some politicians to hold early
presidential and parliamentary elections requires "a deep analysis of the
state of affairs in the government and its orientation."
He stressed that not even the slightest violation of the constitution
should be permitted, otherwise the situation will be the same as in "a
depressurized flying aircraft." Yabloko is also opposed to extraordinary
steps against crime and corruption, primarily because "it is not clear who
is going to take practical steps and in whose interests," Yavlinskiy said.
He said crime and corruption can be stopped only "if all honest people
unite against this lawlessness." He said Yabloko "was and remains a true
ally of the parties and movements that favor democracy and human rights."
"They are our natural allies in any elections," he said.
He said that for many years the authorities have systematically
refused to look for those who pay for contract killings. Yavlinskiy said
that at the first stage law enforcement bodies imitate efforts to solve
such crimes and then drag out the investigation.
"It is more important to find those who order murders, not the
murderers. But the authorities today are not ready to look for those who
hire killers, which means that they virtually collaborate," he said.
Yavlinskiy said Yabloko agrees with the proposals of some politicians
to introduce the post of vice president, but stressed that everything
should be done solely within the framework of the constitution.
He said that probably next week Yabloko will submit to the Duma
Council a package of constitutional amendments. He said these fall into
two groups: amendments aimed at balancing powers between the president,
Cabinet, parliament, and Constitutional and Supreme Courts; and ones
concerning the relationship between the federal authorities and theregions.

******

#2
Moscow Times
November 24, 1998 
Thick Veil on Violence 
By Dianne Post
Dianne Post is an attorney and gender issues specialist with the Central and
East European Initiative of the American Bar Association. She contributed this
comment to The Moscow Times. 

At the end of October, the United States and Russia collaborated in hosting
the first Joint Conference on Family Violence, a three-day event attended by
approximately l45 people from all over Russia. 
According to some members of the organizing committee, both sides seemed to be
divided from the start in what they aimed to accomplish: The Americans wanted
to have multidisciplinary teams from various regions who would form a core of
dedicated activists from the ground up, while the Russians wanted to have top
level officials from various regions who would then introduce new ideas from
the top down. And while both are necessary, neither happened. 
One of the Russian planning committee members described it very well: "When
women's groups hold a conference, it is the beginning of work on the problem.
When the government holds a conference, it is the end." 
Now, with no apparent formal follow-up and accountability, a valuable
opportunity will be wasted. Wasted, when the need for government action over
domestic violence in Russia is acute. In a 1996 report to the United Nations,
the Russian Interior Ministry said that 80 percent of all violent crime in
Russia was related to home violence. As one Russian delegate pointed out, it
was a national tragedy when l3,000 men were killed in the Afghan war, yet
l4,000 Russian women are reportedly killed every year by men who say they love
them. Why isn't that a national tragedy? 
One constant source of disagreement at the conference was whether the focus
should be on violence against women or violence against women and children.
Most of the younger activists felt that violence against women must be dealt
with directly and not connected with children, arguing that however
deplorable, violence against children is a separate issue and receives much
more sympathy and money than violence against women. Yet experience has shown
that the best way to protect a child is to protect its mother. 
Discussion of the failed Russian domestic violence bill was high on the
agenda. One Communist State Duma deputy was unable to attend, but her stand-in
waxed eloquent about the failed domestic violence bill and how her office had
not heard one word from nongovernmental organization's during the process, a
fantastic claim, since the NGOs had been the driving force behind it from the
beginning. The speaker pounded home the point that she and her party were
willing to talk to everyone about this bill and get it moving in the right
direction, yet for the next three days rebuffed my every attempt to get a
business card or telephone so I could contact her later about the bill. It's
hard to hear from "the people" when you won't listen. 
During the second day, spent in "working groups," a formal panel sat high up
on a dais and 19 speakers pontificated from a podium one after another after
another. One American speaker felt that the first five speakers in our group,
the legal track, were definite "plants." The first and only time the moderator
attempted to enforce time limits was when the Americans were speaking.
Further, he seemed to think that the discussion was limited by what the Duma
could or would do, not what the people wanted. Bonnie Campbell, hired to
enforce the Violence Against Women Act in the United States, said in her
presentation that the United States has an opposite process - we tell the
Congress what to do, they don't tell us. 
On the third day, when the "recommendations" were to be formally presented,
the working group met first to finalize them. Previously there had been no
"discussion" at all, just a series of people stating various positions on
numerous topics, not all of which even related to the subject at hand. Having
worked in this field for 20 years, I could have predicted the result and
written the recommendations in 30 seconds, but the importance of "buy in" from
a national group is paramount. However, since the moderator from the previous
day did not show up, a very different format was used. The panel, now all
women, came down from the dais and sat with the people who all moved to the
front rows. A microphone was passed around and for the first time a
"discussion" actually took place. The recommendations were much strengthened
by that process which should have been the prototype for the entire gathering.
However, at the final plenary, government officials once again magically
appeared to exercise tight-fisted control over the process. Interestingly,
when the recommendations directly affected their ministry or their committee,
mumbled comments were heard that it would not be possible. 
One consistent recommendation from every group was that some accountability be
built in - an annual conference to gauge progress, a mandatory report back
from the ministries and from Duma committee heads; a joint working committee
of NGOs and government officials and so on.Some activists suggested that
Russia sponsor the next conference in a year's time but when money was
mentioned, the government officials ducked and covered. At the final plenary,
Deputy Labor Minister Galina Karelova said the final product of all the
recommendations would be collated and distributed. To date, dead silence. 
However, on Nov. l6, Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper ran a two-page center
spread on the conference and on domestic violence with much useful (and some
erroneous) information. Russian activists have said it is the largest piece
they have ever seen in a Russian newspaper. That was at least one positive
result from the conference. 

*******

#3
Senate Agriculture Chairman Discounts Need for Russian Food Aid

Washington, Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The chairman of the U.S. Senate Agriculture
Committee said Russians do not appear to need the $625 million worth of grains
and meat the U.S. Department of Agriculture pledged this month to forestall
the threat of hunger. 
Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, said after returning from a
nine-day trip to Russia the Russians he spoke with and press reports he read
showed a surprising lack of desire for U.S. aid and cynicism about U.S.
motives. 
``This is not a country in which a lot of people are going to starve this
winter, except perhaps in the Northern traces of Siberia,'' Lugar said at a
news conference. U.S. officials in Russia need ``a better fix on what Russian
attitudes might be'' before offering more aid. 
Citing the need to head off food shortages this winter in Russia while helping
boost U.S. commodity prices, the Clinton administration on Nov. 6 signed an
agreement with Russia to provide at least 3.1 million metric tons of wheat,
corn, soybeans, soymeal, rice, beef and pork. 
It is the largest U.S. food aid package for Russia since 1993. The U.S.
government will probably begin buying the U.S. commodities next month for
shipment. Lugar said those shipments should proceed because the U.S. has
already committed itself. 
Lugar is also a member of the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees,
and the main goal of his trip was to inspect nuclear weapons sites. The
journey took him to such locations as the Ukraine, western Siberia and the
city of Arkhangel'sk near the Arctic Circle, giving him the chance to meet
with military and government officials, as well as private citizens he knows. 
He found indications of surplus rather than shortage. 
``You had groups of farmers in Russia protesting that their prices in Russia
are going to go down through oversupply, incredible as that may be,'' Lugar
said. There were reports that some Russians had exported wheat this year. 

Transportation Problems 

A major problem is a lack of roads and rail links. ``The transportation and
distribution system in Russia is inadequate,'' Lugar said. 
Russia's poor transportation system has prompted concern that the food aid may
not reach the people who really need it, despite monitoring by non-
governmental groups. 
A U.S. Agriculture Department spokeswoman neither disputed nor accepted
Lugar's comments. 
``We look forward to meeting with Senator Lugar and his staff to discuss his
findings,'' said Sally Klusaritz, spokeswoman for the department's Foreign
Agricultural Service. She said no one in her office had seen the news
conference. 
The aid package followed a summer drought that slashed grain production in
Russia, raising the prospect of widespread hunger this winter. At the same
time, U.S. granaries are overflowing. 
Soybean supplies going into next year's harvest were forecast Nov. 1 to be the
highest in 13 years, wheat supplies the highest in nine and corn, the highest
in seven. 

******

#4
Russia writes off hopes of debt reprieve

MOSCOW, Nov 24 (AFP) - Russia wrote off hopes of earning a reprieve for
mounting debt on Tuesday, as another IMF mission left Moscow without
releasing aid to a country trying to juggle budgetary rigour with urgent
social needs.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) negotiators wrapped up their week-long
stay here by expressing disappointment with Russia's efforts to improve its
anaemic tax collection and draft a realistic budget for next year.
As a result, Russia's bid to reschedule re-payment of 4.5 billion dollars
in old IMF loans that come due in 1999, and fill empty coffers with
currently-frozen instalments of loan payments, fell flat.
It was the latest in a string of meetings since Russia's financial
collapse in August which has failed to produce concrete results.
But Tuesday's breakdown was especially somber for the estimated 42
million Russians who live below the poverty line and rely heavily on foreign
help them to survive through the bitter Russian winter.
Nearly one third of all citizens here live in poverty despite billions of
dollars poured into the Russian economy by the West.
The IMF and World Bank since 1992 have pledged 23 billion dollars to
Russia. Germany and France alone meanwhile have offered more than three
billion dollars in assistance to Russia since 1996.
Many of these loans however are coming due just when Russia can least
afford to pay them. Moscow has already announced it plans to restructure 17
billion in foreign debts maturing next year.
But the IMF on Tuesday flatly refused to reschedule Russia's payment of
its share of that debt.
"The IMF does not grant deferments," Deputy Finance Minister Oleg Vyugin
explained Tuesday. "But the Fund could give new credits under certain
circumstances," thus helping cover Russia's debt burden, Vyugin added.
Russia's new Communist economy chief Yury Maslyukov credited the latest
negotiations breakdown to unreasonable demands from Fund officials
unfamiliar with Russia's economic needs.
"They are not happy with the way we plan to change our tax system," said
Maslyukov, adding that the IMF team is pressing for the government to
improve its tax collection efforts.
"We agree with this, but there are limits to what we can do," Maslyukov
said. The first deputy premier said the prospects for future IMF talks "are
not very promising."
"I am convinced that next year we will not receive as large a loan as is
currently being written into the budget," Vyugin added in an interview with
the Vremya daily Tuesday. He did not give a precise figure for the loan.
"It is clear from the official memorandum on the talk's results that the
IMF envisions a tighter budget than we do."
Vyugin said the IMF thinks that Russia has over-estimated next year's
revenues by about 40 billion rubles (2.4 billion dollars).
The government, despite promising a new economic course to arrest
Russia's breathtaking financial decline, is still expected to follow IMF
prescriptions in order to maintain a glimmer of hope for further financing.
"We need to clearly make sure that our budget will first guarantee the
minimal social guarantees so that the country can remain stable. Then we
need to finance the army," Vyugin said.
"Everything else must be financed only as far as revenues allow," he added.
Fund officials have not yet scheduled a return date to Moscow, although
Russian officials predict future negotiations may be held in Russia next month.
Analysts predict however that Russia and the Fund will soon reach a
compromise because Moscow simply cannot currently afford to ignore IMF
economic prescriptions.
"There are very strong reasons why Russia should reach an agreement with
the IMF. Russia faces an onerous debt burden in 1999 and the government has
announced that it intends to restructure its Soviet obligations," said
Augusto Lopez-Claros, a former IMF boss in Russia and current chief
economist for Lehman Brothers in Moscow.
"This can be done only within an IMF programme," he said. "Chaos in
Russia is not in the interests of the global economy, as we saw in August,"
Lopez-Claros said. 

*******

#5
Russian Expert Calls For Ratification Of Start-II Treaty 

Moscow, Nov 23 (Interfax) -- The alternative draft for ratifying the
START II treaty that has been prepared in the State Duma takes into
consideration the real ratio of Russia's and the United States' nuclear
potentials at present and early next century, an expert who helped draft
the treaty told Interfax Monday [23 November] on condition of anonymity.
START II, which was signed in 1993 by the Russian and US presidents,
"failed to reflect the growing imbalance of the two countries' nuclear
missile potential to the advantage of the United States," the source said.
Russia "did practically nothing to renew its nuclear missile forces"
over the past ten years due to the aggravated economic situation, he said. 
By 2007, Russia will have approximately 1,500 military units on alert
against roughly 5,500 in the United States, he said. The Russian military
triad will cease to be "a serious deterring factor" as its elements become
obsolete, especially in the air force and navy, he said.
Russia will not be able to maintain nuclear parity with the United
States over the next 10 years, he said. This "jeopardizes the military
reform which Russia planned to implement under the cover of its nuclear
umbrella," he said.
The Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces "may cease to exist" by 2010 if
the current lack of financing persists, he said.
Russia should dismantle its obsolete missiles and install 30-35
Topol-M complexes per year to ensure its defense capabilities in 2001-2006,
he said. Even then, the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces would be three to
four times smaller than envisioned in START II, he said.
The expert urged the State Duma must ratify the treaty and start
negotiating a START III. Otherwise, 10-15 billion rubles will be needed
annually to maintain the force, which is "very unlikely" to be allocated,
he said.Furthermore, early next century Russia will probably be relegated to
the level of "the so-called small nuclear countries" from its previous
level of a nuclear super-power, he said.

******

#6
the eXile
November 19-December 2, 1998
http:///www.exile.ru
Eat Shit and Die
by Mark Ames

"The path to hell is paved with good intentions"
--Russian proverb

Here's a riddle for you. What do you call it when one country--let's call it
"America"--feels so terrible about its role in inadvertently destroying
another country's economy--let's call that country "Russia"--that it offers
this "Russia" and its freshly impoverished citizens a $600 million loan so
that they can starve to death?
Here's another clue. Let's say that this "American" proposal offers those
impoverished "Russians" a chance to take out a loan--but only on condition
that they use the money to pay corn-fed American farmers three times the price
for what the same readily available grain costs at home, pay American shippers
to ship the overpriced, unneeded grain to Russia, and then leave the really
big profits on the whole loan to a small clique of well-connected Russian
distribution companies and their tools in the Russian government, thereby
destroying Russia's shaky distribution network and leaving you, the debtor,
empty-handed and getting thinner every day.
What would you call this? You sir, stand up.
"Why, that sounds like 'American Food Aid' to me!"
Correct. The food aid meant to prevent starvation might actually create
starvation that never would have existed otherwise. Not that you get anything
for guessing correctly. No, in this story, you only win if you're already
rich. If you're poor, from a remote region in Russia, and stranded, then, in
the scheme of this food aid deal, you, sir, madam, little one... can eat shit
and die.
Maria Beztuzheva, chief consultant for Thomson Global Markets, believes that
Russia's food production and distribution network could be dealt a fatal blow
by the aid package.
"The distribution companies that were picked by the government will destroy
the competition because they'll be getting essentially free food, which
they'll turn around and sell at undercut prices. The problem is that after the
distributors die, the ones that survive won't be able to handle all of Russia,
they're just too weak. That could leave those people in the far reaches of
Russia without access to food."
At first glance, the food deal seems either absurd or so sinister as to be
unreal. And yet, like many things, it's actually just a simple back-room deal,
papered over by good surface intentions and willful naivete on the American
side. Meaning that America will once again, Pvt. Pyle-like, cheerfully crunch
its away over another fresh boneyard of our own do-good making.
Although some have argued that Russia may lack the food to feed its population
this winter (including an eXile article by John Evelyn), more evidence points
to the problem not of a quantitative lack of food, but rather, of weak
distribution. Earlier this decade, massive American food aid to Russia
resulted in theft, corruption, and the destruction of a well-entrenched
distribution network, not to mention the bankruptcy of numerous local farmers.
This time, Russia awaits US food aid with a distribution system already
teetering and inadequate, plus a farming system struggling to get on its feet,
all thanks to a couple of disgustingly fat ministers whom you wouldn't trust
to look over your lunch money, let alone $600 million of practically
unsupervised food aid.
Of the three firms hand-picked to distribute the American food, one,
Roskhleboprodukt, is widely thought to have spizdel'd millions of dollars the
last time it distributed American food aid, while Prodintorg and Myasomoltorg
are considered small fish and strange choices. Interestingly, the two
ministers pushing hardest for US food aid, Deputy Prime Minister Gennady Kulik
and First Deputy Prime Minster Yuri Maslyukov, are also the two ministers that
Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky recently accused of bribe-taking and
corruption. Kulik is also suspected of having interests in at least one of the
distribution firms. No one seems to be listening to Food and Agriculture
Minister Viktor Semyonov or the chairman of Russia's Grain Union, Arkady
Zlochevsky, both of whom insist that Russia doesn't need grain or food aid,
but rather, investment.
Last week, Semyonov denounced as "rumor" talk of hunger that he said was meant
to benefit importers; around the same time, Maslyukov claimed that Russia was
only weeks away from running out of food altogether. American officials chose
to listen to Maslyukov, and are including 1.5 million tons of grain and
another 1.5 million tons of wheat in their aid package.
"The grain silos in the Krasnodar region are well-stocked," confirmed Victor
Frumkin, an American entrepreneur working in local food processing. "Grain
lasts for about five years, so there's grain there going back to harvests from
1993. There's no need for more grain, except that some people stand to benefit
from it." While Frumkin disagrees that the scheme could harm the distribution
network enough to actually bring about starvation, he does acknowledge that it
will hurt some and benefit others, while the bulk of the food will never reach
the needy. "It'll all probably end up being sold in Moscow," he said.
American farmers are hurting as world commodity prices have collapsed, which
is why Maslyukov's argument found friendly ears in America. Such a massive
purchase of their grain has boosted depressed prices--at the expense, of
course, of the Russian taxpayer, who is unlikely to ever see any of that food.
What's even more galling is how eerily similar this "aid" package is to all
the IMF and World Bank loans. Russia's strapped masses are forced to borrow
money for something that they don't need and can't pay back; the money
benefits American producers and shippers on one side and a few corrupt insider
Russians on the other side; and the end result is further destruction of local
production and distribution, and even potential starvation.
"Right now, Russian grain is going for $35 a ton, while the average world
price for grain is $110 a ton, and yet the loan is going towards buying and
shipping the American grain," said Frumkin.
Here's a great way to get around this whole market economics thing you've been
pushing on everyone if suddenly it works to your disadvantage. If your grain
can't compete on the open market, then just label your state subsidies "aid,"
give it away for free using American taxpayer subsidies, and make the Russian
taxpayers pay you back later--making it a "purchase" with a heart of gold. It
works both for Americans and for the small clique of Russians who sign onto,
and distribute, the aid. "Clearly, this is just a matter of lobbying. Some
people lost a lot of money in August, and they need to make up for it."
It couldn't have come at a worse time either. Many have argued that Russian
agricultural production has only recently begun to improve as the collapsed
ruble made it competitive and profitable. Now, they'll have to compete with
essentially free, quality foodstuffs being pushed by a few well-connected
firms, putting them right back to square one again. If America was seriously
concerned about Russian hunger and desperately wanted to extend a $600 million
loan, it could have targeted the areas most in need of help, specifically, the
1.4 million Russians stuck in the far reaches of Russia's northern lands. Not
only that, any sane borrower who took out a $600 million dollar loan would
spend it a lot differently than the American government has dictated. $600
million spent on Russian products in today's post-devalued market goes a lot
farther in Russia than in overvalued America.
That American Food Aid could conceivably cause more damage and even starvation
in Russia while enriching the rich and further impoverishing the poor by
burdening them with yet another huge, unnecessary loan is nothing new. It's
all part of a decade-long tradition of Western programs in Russia that are
designed to do so much good, and wind up bringing about just the opposite--the
complete inverse of Bulgakov's Woland. First we offer them shock therapy, and
the country's economy collapses. Then we propose a voucher plan to make all
citizens shareholders, and the entire nation's property gets stolen by a tiny
clique; we subsidize Anatoly Chubais's political career to promote Western
values and a market economy, and he delivers a kleptocracy and a voting public
that wouldn't elect a democrat to high office even if he ran against Genghis
Khan; we loan the government money to help pay back defrauded Russian
investors, and we wind up disbursing the entire loan to Westerners and
government officials, and screwing the defrauded investors a second time by
making them pay us back for loaning us the money to ourselves; and so on, and
so on.
The EU is right behind us, waiting to get in on the scam. They, too, are
looking for a way to dump their excess grain and wheat, which their restless
freeway squatting farmers have piled up in unprecedented quantities as the
world economy slumps. What better way to dump it off than to call it "aid" and
arrange it as a loan?
Not surprisingly, the whole package has been promoted and blessed by the IMF,
the reigning prince of well-intentioned fuck-ups.
Doesn't make sense? Too bad. If you're stuck somewhere in Chukhotka or Tuva,
then this aid package says one thing: eat shit... or die.

****** 

#7
The Independent
November 25, 1998
[for personal use only] 
A martyr for democracy
By Phil Reeves

Yesterday, the Russian democrats - old Soviet dissidents, the intelligentsia,
pro-Western market economists and more - turned and, aided by the ordinary
folk of St Petersburg, showed that they were no longer willing to take lying
down what has been going on in the former Soviet Union. Twenty thousand people
queued in freezing cold for four hours to lay flowers by the coffin of Galina
Starovoitova, a heroine of perestroika and now a martyr of the democrats of
the post-Soviet era. 
Ms Starovoitova, an outspoken parliamentarian and human rights activist from
St Petersburg, who fought to get Boris Yeltsin in power but who - unlike him -
remained one of the few unsullied champions of liberal democracy - was
murdered last weekend. 
For several years, the democrats have been so divided, their ranks corroded by
their failure to adequately protest the Chechen war, internal bickering, and
political scandals, that there were times when it was hard to call them
liberals at all. They seemed to belong to a grimy political landscape in which
the only defining feature was the general venality of the post-Soviet years. 
But the murder changed that. Yesterday brought together their leaders: former
prime ministers Yegor Gaidar and Sergei Kiriyenko; Anatoly Chubais, the
privatisation guru; and Boris Nemtsov, the liberal from Nizhny Novgorod. As
they stood shoulder-to-shoulder to honour Galina Starovoitova, a red-eyed
Chubais stood over the coffin and said: "Our people are being killed, but we
are not going to be deterred or frightened. We will make it in the end." 
Will they, though? After several years of calling the shots, the democrats are
barely represented in the two-month-old government of Yevgeny Primakov.
Yesterday - by contrast - Communists, nationalists and old Soviet apparatchiks
are riding high. Red-black forces dominate the State Duma (the lower house of
parliament) and have a number of heavyweight representatives in the
administration. 
Surveying this mess, even optimists about Russia now struggle to see any sign
of hope. What, then, can we now expect? Which way is Russia going? Could the
West's greatest fear - revolution or dictatorship - become reality? 
Despite everything, after dozens of conversations with Russians in different
parts of the country in the last few weeks, I believe popular unrest involving
significant numbers remains unlikely. The overwhelming impression is that the
country has become profoundly cynical about all politics. It is hard to
imagine it rallying enthusiastically around any ideological banner, let alone
- in a century in which so much blood has been shed - laying down their lives
beneath one. The huge crowds in St Petersburg were to honour an individual,
and to protest against gangsterism, contract killings, and corruption which
have blighted Russia's second city and its government. 
But so often Russians explain that their only concern is to survive day to
day, in spite of - rather than with the help of - their leaders. They are
heartily sick of abrupt change, especially the mass outbreak of kleptomania
that accompanied the privatisation of the Soviet Union's enterprises. 
Unbelievably - given the scale of their problems - many seem to prefer a
government that does nothing to one that tries to rule. Mr Primakov, whose
short stint in office has produced little more than inertia, fits the bill.
Thus, in a matter of weeks, he has become a leading contender to replace Boris
Yeltsin. (Few take seriously his repeated protests that he does not want the
job.) 
Yet many dangers lurk. Scattered violence from extremists - notably young
fascists - has become a reality and could easily grow as they become bolder,
unchecked by any effective law enforcement agencies. Heart-rending protests
from the worst victims of the depression have become commonplace; last week, a
pensioner, unpaid for months, immolated himself on Red Square. Suicides and
alcoholism, the symptoms of utter despair, have rocketed. Nor does corruption
- or, for that matter, contract killings - show any sign of diminishing. 
But perhaps the most concrete threat is to one of the few remaining
achievements of the Yeltsin years: free speech. The Moscow-based mass media,
particularly TV, is making less and less effort to disguise their allegiances
to the democrats. 
The Communists have been clamouring for media restrictions, a task made easier
this weekend by some of the wilder allegations flung in their direction by
their enemies over the Starovoitova murder. Any worsening of the political
climate could easily prompt Mr Primakov -who will be keen to keep the far left
happy - into caving into their demands on the pretext of maintaining order.
There would be a huge outcry from the liberal chattering classes. But the odds
are that Russia would lose an essential component of a free society. 
In much of the country, it is already too late. Many Russian regions pay
little heed to the constitution, and the civil rights it contains, and have
begun flexing their muscles with added force, sensing the centre's weakness.
Frequently, their press is but an organ of the local bosses. The days when
Moscow was the imperial capital are truly over. 
There is little evidence - despite the recent bleatings from the tinpot
republic of Kalmykiya - that its 89 regions and republics want outright
independence, apart from Chechnya and possibly its neighbour, Ingushetia. But
plenty of them are recasting their relationship with the centre. Cut off from
reliable support from Moscow, they must weave ties with their neighbours such
as China, Japan, and Finland. The federation which formally holds the country
together, at best, will become looser. 
This does not mean, however, that a weaker Moscow will become any easier to
deal with on the world stage. Its relationship with the West has deteriorated
markedly since the full extent of the failure of market reforms became clear
this summer with a debt default that cost Western investors around $100bn
(£60bn). 
The thrust of Mr Primakov's tactics during his two and a half years as
Russia's foreign minister was to compensate for Moscow's withering status by
constantly challenging Washington's omnipotence, and showing a readiness to
forge ties with America's foes. Russia's attempts to fight above its
diplomatic weight underwrote much policy - from opposing Nato bomb strikes
against Saddam and the Serbs in Kosovo, to its decision to sell nuclear
technology to Iran. As its power and wealth shrivels, amid deepening
resentment of the West and its failed remedies, the impulse to waltz with the
planet's mischief makers will grow stronger still. 
So what can the West do? Its choices are limited. Throwing more IMF dollars at
Russia is pointless as it will only be stolen or wasted. So, too, is cheering
on its favoured choice for president from the sidelines, although the current
choice is pretty unsavoury. (Apart from Mr Primakov, there are legitimate
concerns about the autocratic and nationalist impulses of the other front
runners - General Alexander Lebed and Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov.) Such is
the suspicion of the West in Russia that Western support is regarded as a
negative. 
The time has come for the world to work quietly, strengthening economic ties
with the regions, discreetly supporting human rights organisations and the
institutions of democracy, including the parliament. It won't save Boris
Yeltsin, but it might just help preserve a few shreds of the ideals which,
long ago, he sought to bring into being, with the help of Galina Starovoitova.
The only difference was that she stuck by them all her life. 

******

#8
Christian Science Monitor
November 25, 1998 
[for personal use only]
Russia's 'Generation Nyet' finds nothing to be for 
Alex Bratersky 
Alex Bratersky is a freelance reporter for the English-language Moscow
Times. Raised in Moscow, he spent a year at Albany High School in Albany, NY.

In the middle of August, three days before the crisis that brought the Russian
economy to near collapse, MTV, the world's biggest music television network,
started broadcasting in Russia.
While the Western media reported this as a new jewel in Russia's drooping
capitalist crown, MTV's target audience - the masses of Russian youths - are
indifferent. Even if there had been no economic crisis, MTV, as a product of
the American music industry, arrived too late in Russia.
Young Russians already know all about American pop culture. It once played a
positive role, crushing the dull Communist ideology, and flooded our lives
with temptation. But it failed us and we're fed up with the Western-style
democracy it stands for in this country.
Many foreigners who arrive in Moscow or St. Petersburg still think the well-
dressed, English-speaking young people they meet are followers of an "American
Way of Life." But we are not.
Several years of so-called reform, a weak and incompetent president, the
incessant threat of the military draft, and economic hardship have forced
thousands of Russians in their early 20s to question the Russian path to
democracy, and the West's urging us down that path.
The question for us is: If this is democracy, is it really worth it? Was it
worth the bloody war in Chechnya, or firing on the "bad guys" in parliament in
1993? It is not for chewing gum and blue jeans that we fought when we stood by
Boris Yeltsin back in 1991 as he stood up to coup-plotters and ended 70 years
of communism. 
I'm a 23-year-old Muscovite, and I call my peers "Generation Nyet" -
Generation No - because all we have is "no." We don't want what we have - a
troubled Russia - but we have no good ideas for what we want. Some of us turn
to religion - we wear crosses and can repeat clichés from religious pamphlets,
but few have read the Bible. Some of us turn to the radical chic of dangerous
new sociopolitical movements; we like the romantic railings, but we have no
realistic programs. Wherever we invest our thought, we feel bankrupt and
apathetic. 
Many of my friends who once supported Mr. Yeltsin and Anatoly Chubais, the
mastermind of Russia's infant market economy and privatization, now see things
differently. They see that they are once again being manipulated as they were
during the Communist era, when they were considered "the driving force of the
Party."
A perfect example of this manipulation was the 1996 presidential campaign,
when Yeltsin's reelection campaign, "Vote or You Lose," had hundreds of pop
stars call upon their fans to support the "right" man, to save Russia from
Communist challenger Gennady Zyuganov.
While many of the stars spoke of courage and patriotism, it was the money to
buy exposure that was the deciding factor in the campaign. It was orchestrated
by Sergei Lisovsky, a young Communist boss-turned-successful advertising
executive, known for opening Moscow's first Western-style nightclub. During
the campaign, Mr. Lisovsky was caught leaving government headquarters with a
box holding $500,000 in cash. He was never charged, and in September 1998 he
ran for a seat in the Duma but lost. While he blamed his political enemies,
his defeat clearly showed that his Western trappings of success aren't so
popular among young voters.
Russian political reformers' lack of morality toward - or even love of - their
own country has turned many younger voters against them, paving the way for
more nationalistic politicians such as Alexander Lebed, the tough-talking
former Army general. In 1996, many young people - including me - thought
voting for Mr. Lebed was the only way to escape both evils: the hypocritical
"democrats" and the boring Communist fuddy-duddies.
Ironically, by voting for Lebed I was, for the first time, in full agreement
with my stepfather, an ex-KGB colonel in his 60s who also viewed Lebed as the
strongman Russia needed. I thought the eternal father-son battle was over, but
soon my pragmatic father started to realize that Lebed, who views the Russian
economy as his own military unit, would bring nothing positive to Russia's
development.
We all were mistaken viewing Lebed as the Russian de Gaulle. In fact, he is
just a cruel GI Joe. But at the time, he was the only answer for Generation
Nyet, a generation that has had enough of Yeltsin and doesn't want the return
of communism, but has no viable choices before it.
As the glitter of democracy and capitalism has faded into economic hard times
and political uncertainty, many of Generation Nyet have turned to various
extremist groups fashionable in today's Russia. One such group is the
National-Bolshevist Party, which combines radical right-wing and left-wing
ideology. The movement is headed by Edward Limonov, a talented novelist who
wrote "It's Me, Eddy," an autobiographical account of the adventures of a
young Russian in New York. Mr. Limonov, who spent half his life in the West,
rejects both Soviet communism and Western democracy and finds a common
language with Generation Nyet. His politics are a sort of Stalinist
totalitarianism of youth, in which anything "old" is equated with the
bureaucratic ills of communism and should be swept away by the young.
It's hard for a romantic young person to escape the influence of such
radicalism - especially in a country that has given its young people so
little. To appease a potentially explosive Generation Nyet, Russia will need
more than MTV.

******

#9
Police Investigate Moscow Links of Starovoytova's Killers 

MOSCOW, Nov 23 (Interfax) - Officers of the Moscow Federal Security
Service's (FSB) board are investigating "the Moscow trail" of the killing
of Duma member Galina Starovoytova in St. Petersburg, Sergey Bogdanov, head
of the board's press service, told Interfax Monday.
It was obvious right away that the killing had origins in Moscow, he
said.
The killers knew the time of her plane's taking off from
Sheremetyevo-1 airport Friday evening, though Starovoytova could have
travelled to St. Petersburg by train.
Consequently, they may have followed her from Moscow.
Only those having "strong inter-regional links and potential" could
have organized this crime. This view is confirmed by the fact that the
killers left an Agran-2000 submachine gun used by U.S. special units on the
crime scene. Moscow law enforcement agencies seized 27 such guns from
criminals in 1998, officers in the board say.
A young woman who said that her name was Olga Korzinkina and that she
was the editor of the newspaper, A Dog's Life, which is published in the
Moscow region, was detained in Starovoytova's St. Petersburg office two
months ago. She was trying to connect a listening device to a telephone
cable.
FSB investigators are analyzing all Starovoytova's contacts in Moscow,
said Boris Neuchev, deputy head of the service's Public Relations Center. 
Her office in the State Duma has been sealed off, he said.
Russian Interior Minister Sergey Stepashin confirmed that threats had
been made against Starovoytova, but she had not complained "directly to the
Interior Ministry." All data on this is being thoroughly analyzed, he said.

******

#10
Luzhkov Optimistic About Russian Economy 

MOSCOW, Nov 23 (Interfax) -- Moscow Mayor Yuriy Luzhkov said in his
address Monday to the nationwide forum on "The Strategy of Economic
Development: A Step into the 21st Century" which is underway in the
Kremlin Palace that he is hopeful and cautiously optimistic about the
future of the Russian economy.
Luzhkov welcomed the expulsion of people such as the "supporters of
dogmatic liberalism and dogmatic monetarism, the Bolsheviks of liberalism"
from posts that involve economic decision making. He also welcomed the
dismissal of those who hold "a more critical view of what foreign advisers
say." He said that he hopes the disastrous consequences of the slaughter of
the economy staged by radical reformers will be surmounted.
The chief cause of the crisis was ignoring the Russian mentality
rather than any economic mistakes on the part of the previous Cabinets or
their advisers, Luzhkov said. Western techniques should be applied in
Russia with caution, he said. They should be analyzed but "one should do
one's own thinking," Luzhkov said.
He called on the authorities to support the real sector of the economy
in order to improve living standards.
"Ineffectively used property must burn the hands of its owners,"
Luzhkov said. He did not, however, call for use of administrative
techniques. Efficient production must be encouraged by the legal and
taxation systems, Luzhkov said.
"There is no point in bankrupting loss-making factories, because the
new owners will not necessarily improve their performance," he said.
"Conditions must be abolished under which some people get rich despite
a decrease in output," Luzhkov said.
The principle of equal opportunities for starting entrepreneurial
activities and obtaining education should be restored, he said. He
objected to making the education system a commercial undertaking.

*******