March 3, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4145 4146 4147

Johnson's Russia List
#4146
3 March 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Bruce Blair new president of Center for Defense Information.
2. Interfax: MIKHAIL GORBACHEV CELEBRATES 69TH BIRTHDAY ON THURSDAY.       3. Washington Post: Michael McFaul, Indifferent to Democracy.
4. RIA Novosti: RUSSIAN INDUSTRIES SHOWS "SPECTACULAR" 10-YEAR DECLINE.
5. AFP: Putin rules out talks to end Chechnya war.
6. Moscow Times: Anna Badkhen, The Stars Wouldn't Vote for Putin.(astrology)
7. Interfax: CLINTON TOUCHES ON U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONS IN MESSAGE TO PUTIN.
8. The Economist (UK) editorial: A Russia to do business with? Yes, but the West would be wise to treat Vladimir Putin with caution.
9. Business Week: After Yeltsin. Rose Brady on WITHOUT A MAP: Political Tactics and Economic Reform in Russia by Andrei Shleifer and Daniel Treisman.
10. Business Week: Russia's Revival May Be Shaky. S&P questions its staying power.
11. Financial Times (UK): Putin seen as a man for all Russians: In Archangel on the White Sea, John Thornhill hears how 'everyoneexpects everything' from the presidential candidate.
12. Reuters: Russia's Putin decries rise in orphan numbers.
13. Moscow Times: Simon Saradzhyan and Andrei Zolotov Jr., Democrats Pondering Alliances.
14. Global Beat Syndicate: Mikhail Pogorely, A Pragmatic Approach to U.S. - Russian Relations. (Views of former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry)
15. Interfax: OVER TWO THIRDS OF RUSSIANS LIKE VLADIMIR PUTIN - POLL.
16. Kommersant - Vlast: Anna Fenko, DEMOGRAPHIC FALL. Russia Is on the Verge of Demographic Catastrophe. According to Forecasts, Its Population Will Halve over the Next 50 Years.] 

*******

#1
The Center for Defense Information
The Weekly Defense Monitor
March 2, 2000

Editor's Note: The Center for Defense Information is pleased to announce
that Bruce G. Blair became its President on March 1. Mr. Blair comes to
CDI after 13 years at the Brookings Institution, where he was a Senior
Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program. He is an expert on the
security policies of the United States and Russia, specializing in nuclear
forces and command-control systems. For additional information on his
background, visit http://www.cdi.org/aboutcdi/staff.html, or learn about
his vision for CDI at http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue2/vision.html

*******

#2
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV CELEBRATES 69TH BIRTHDAY ON THURSDAY

MOSCOW. March 2 (Interfax) - The last Soviet president and Nobel
Peace Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev marks his 69th birthday today.
He is visiting Amman at the invitation of King Abdallah II of Jordan,
the Gorbachev Foundation press service has told Interfax.
Gorbachev, who also heads the Green Cross International, is touring the
Middle East by way of preparation for a conference on the problems of
drinking water organized by that international environmentalist group.
Gorbachev was born in 1931, in the village of Privolnoye in the
Stavropol territory of southern Russia. In 1955, he graduated from the
school of law at Moscow State University and in 1967 from Stavropol
Agricultural College.
In 1952, he joined the Soviet Communist Party and since 1955 was a
functionary in the Young Communist League and the Communist Party, first
in Stavropol territory and later in Moscow. Gorbachev became the general
secretary of the Soviet Communist Party in 1985.
After becoming the Soviet leader, Gorbachev initiated perestroika,
glasnost, the advancement of democracy, new political thinking based on
the priority of general human values and all-round international
security.
In October 1998, he was elected the head of the Soviet national
parliament and in March 1990, the first Soviet president. He won the
Nobel peace prize the same year.
On December 25, 1991, he voluntarily resigned from the post of Soviet
president.
In 1996, Gorbachev ran for the Russian presidency but received less than
1% of the vote. He has said he feels that the elections were held at the
constitutionally set time in part thanks to his participation.
Gorbachev currently heads the International Foundation for Socioeconomic
and Political Studies, better known as the Gorbachev Foundation.
After the death of his beloved wife Raisa last year, Gorbachev returned
to active political life in autumn of 1999, and headed a group for
setting up the Russian United Social Democratic Party, which should hold
its founding congress in mid-March.

*******

#3
Washington Post
3 March 2000
[for personal use only]
Indifferent to Democracy
By Michael McFaul
The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International 
Peace and a professor of political science and Hoover fellow at Stanford 
University. 

Not since the August 1991 coup attempt has the future of Russian democracy 
been more uncertain than it is today. Ironically, at a time when Russian 
society has embraced individual liberties, a free press and competitive 
elections, the new leader of the Russian state, Acting President Vladimir 
Putin, has demonstrated real ambivalence toward democracy. 

American inattention to the cause of Russian democracy also has never been 
greater. Focused on short-term "deliverables" such as ratifying the Start II 
treaty or amending the ABM Treaty, the Clinton administration has praised 
Putin as a liberal democrat and at the same time cut U.S. democratic 
assistance programs to Russia. This trade--cooperation on arms control in 
return for a free hand to pursue anti-democratic policies at home--is a bad 
one for both the Russian and American people. 

For years we assumed that the real threats to Russian democracy would come 
from outside the state. In 1993, it looked to be neo-nationalist Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky; in 1996 it seemed to be Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov. Now 
the real threat comes from within the state. It is fashionable in the West to 
cite Russia's weak state as the source of the country's ills. In the 
political realm, however, the Russian state is still too strong, able to 
dominate and manipulate a beleaguered and weak Russian society.

In the last years of Boris Yeltsin, we did not witness the state's awesome 
power because the man at the controls was often absent or incapacitated. 
Since Putin's rise to power, however, we have seen what this state can do 
when a leader with ambition and a pulse is at the helm. 

In the realm of electoral politics, the Russian state looked more robust than 
ever during the December 1999 parliamentary campaign, wielding its power in 
ways that exacted considerable damage to democratic institutions. Putin and 
his allies created a party, Unity, out of thin air in October, which then won 
nearly a quarter of the vote in December. State television incessantly 
promoted the new party and destroyed its opponents with a barrage of negative 
advertising never before seen in Russian politics.

More gruesome has been Putin's deployment of state resources in Chechnya. 
Russia has a right to defend its borders. Yet, the atrocious violations of 
human rights in the cause of defending Russia's borders reveals the low 
priority Putin assigns to democratic principles.

Independent journalists and academics also have felt the power of the Russian 
state under Putin. Reporters such as Andrei Babitsky from Radio Free Europe 
have suffered the consequences of reporting news from Chechnya that 
inconveniences the Kremlin. Equally disturbing is the case of Igor Sutyagin, 
a researcher on security issues who sits in jail because he shared open 
source documents with an American colleague. 

And more anti-democratic measures may be in the works after the March 
presidential election. Putin advisers speak openly about eliminating 
proportional representation from the Duma electoral law, a revision that 
would practically eliminate all pro-democratic political parties in Russia. 
Putin and his aides also have expressed support for the highly 
anti-democratic idea of appointing rather than electing governors. Putin has 
even hinted that he would like to extend the term of the Russian president to 
seven years, instead of four.

Individually, none of these innovations would spell the end of democracy. In 
combination, however, they could recreate a system dominated by a single 
"party of power," i.e., the Kremlin. 

Despite all of these ominous signs, it would be wrong to conclude that Putin 
is an "anti-democrat." The Russian president is simply too modern and too 
Western-oriented to believe in dictatorship. Rather, Putin is indifferent to 
democratic principles and practices, believing perhaps that Russia might have 
to sacrifice democracy in the short run to achieve "more important" economic 
and state building goals. 

Because Putin wants cooperation with the West, the Clinton administration now 
has an opportunity to help the cause of Russian democracy. Rather than shower 
Putin with faint praise about his businesslike demeanor as a way to secure 
the Russian president's support for arms control treaties, Clinton and his 
foreign policy team need to stress that the preservation of democracy in 
Russia is a precondition for cooperation. In parallel to a more constructive 
engagement of Putin regarding issues of human rights, the United States also 
needs to give greater support to Russian societal forces still fighting to 
preserve Russian democracy.

This means empowering human rights activists through high-level meetings with 
U.S. officials. It also means increasing, not decreasing as currently 
planned, assistance programs designed to strengthen the independent media, 
trade unions, political parties, civil society and the rule of law.

Arms control did not end the Cold War. Rather, it was the collapse of 
communism and the emergence of democracy within the Soviet Union and then 
Russia that suspended the international rivalry between the United States and 
the Soviet Union. If a new nationalist dictatorship eventually consolidates 
in Russia, we will go back to spending trillions on defense to deter a rogue 
state with thousands of nuclear weapons.

In Russia, democracy is not yet lost. Clinton still has the opportunity to 
help promote its consolidation. If, however, Russian democracy fails, no one 
will remember who ratified the Start II treaty.

*******

#4
RUSSIAN INDUSTRIES SHOWS "SPECTACULAR" 10-YEAR DECLINE
RIA Novosti

Moscow, 29th February: Within January 1990 - January 2000, Russia's 
industrial output has shrunk by 53 per cent, said the Russian Federation 
government's Economic Conditions Centre. 

According to expert estimates, the production decline is less characteristic 
of industries dealing in domestic electric power supplies and of basic 
export-oriented industries. Non-ferrous metallurgy, in particular, has shrunk 
production by 4 per cent, the gas industry by 8.3 per cent, power engineering 
37 per cent, ferrous metallurgy 38 per cent, the oil processing industry 45 
per cent and the chemical and petrochemical industries by 45 per cent. 

The most spectacular decline in production, according to the centre, was 
noted in industries dealing in the domestic market mainly. The timber, 
wood-working and cellulose industries have shrunk production by 53 per cent, 
the food industry by 56 per cent, the machine-building industry by 67 per 
cent, building materials production by 72 per cent and light industry by 84 
per cent. 

*******

#5
AFP
March 3, 2000
Putin rules out talks to end Chechnya war

Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed any chance of a
negotiated end to Russia's war in Chechnya.

Answering questions during a visit to a Russian space centre, Mr Putin
accused Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov of being responsible for hostage
taking and crimes in the rebellious republic.

Mr Putin called for Mr Maskhadov's interrogation by Russian prosecutors.

His comments were in response to a statement made by Maskhadov when he
contacted a Moscow radio station by phone and urged Russia to sit down at
the negotiating table.

Maskhadov claims Russian military leaders are deceiving Mr Putin about the
true state of the campaign in Chechnya, saying rebel fighters still
dominate control of the southern mountains.

The Russian army claims it is on the verge of completing its five month
campaign in Chechnya, having raised the Russian flag over the town of
Shatoi, the Chechen fighters' last urban stronghold.

However, Putin brushed aside Mr Maskhadov's plea for peace talks, saying
there was direct evidence linking the Chechen leader to hostage taking.

He accused the Chechen leader of holding two Polish women and a French
citizen hostage.

Mr Putin added that before starting negotiations on political issues,
criminal issues had to be resolved. To this end, Russia was willing to
cooperate and negotiate with any party with an interest in a political
solution in Chechnya.

*******

#6
Moscow Times
March 3, 2000 
The Stars Wouldn't Vote for Putin 
By Anna Badkhen

Who is Vladimir Putin? 

While political observers and journalists desperately search for clues in
the shady, KGB-tinted past of Russia's presidential hopeful, at least one
group of analysts say they have the answer: He's a Libra with a
astrological chart that could spell bad news for the country's future. 

In an article titled "Vladimir Putin: Astrologers' Warning," published in
February on www.astrologer.ru, a group of St. Petersburg star-readers said
the horoscopic profile of the acting president, born Oct. 7, 1952, is of a
man with the potential to be violent, cold and destructive. 

"When he starts to do something, he can't stop until the problem is solved,
and he cares about nothing else," the article, signed jointly by
astrologers Alexei Vaenra, Semira and Vitaly Vetash, Alexander Gromov and
Albert Timashev, reads. 

A dangerous link between the sun and Saturn makes the Libran politician
"likely to be violent." And Putin's "negative Jupiter" lends him
dictatorial tendencies and strips him of his ability to make diplomatic
decisions. His "accentuated Pluto," linked with the "black moon," the
astrologers added, "speaks about his inclination to pander to the lowest
instincts and desires of the masses." 

A "destructive interaction" between a handful of planets, furthermore,
indicate that Putin is "a person who needs a stressful situation" in order
to be creative. All in all, the article concludes, Putin's potential
presidency is a "destabilizing factor," and the astrologers warned voters
who favor Putin that "not only he will not satisfy their hopes, but he may
also cause serious damage to their interests." 

Soon after the article first appeared on the Internet on Feb. 3, Pavel
Sheremet, a commentator on pro-Kremlin ORT television, announced that the
article was written by "people who call themselves St. Petersburg
astrologers" in order to discredit Putin. The article, he went on, was a
tool of "dirty political technologies." 

The astrologers promptly denied these allegations. "We wouldn't have
written this article if it hadn't been for the upcoming elections, of
course, but it was our own decision to write it," said Timashev, the
creator of the astrologer.ru site, in a telephone interview last week. 

"We simply shared our thoughts about his stars and ... came to the
conclusion that it would be bad if Putin is elected," he said, adding that
the astrologers were basing their analysis on the politician's horoscope
alone, and not on their personal attitudes toward him. 

Timashev said he and his fellow astrologers have examined the horoscopes of
each of the politicians running for president in the upcoming March 26
elections, and have concluded that Putin's is "the most unfortunate." 

For example, Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov - a Cancer with an
"accentuated Taurus" - is "an inexpressive personality who has no ideas of
his own and is therefore unlikely to come to power," said Vaenra, another
of the article authors. 

Yabloko party leader Grigory Yavlinsky, an Aries, has a "strong Jupiter"
which ably equips him for "long-term strategic planning," Vaenra said. His
election chances, however, look astrologically dim. "Yavlinsky will
experience a major defeat," Timashev said. 

Both Timashev and Vaenra agreed that of all the presidential hopefuls,
Putin's election-season horoscope is the most fortuitous. The stars,
however, do not see long-term rule in his future, Vaenra said. 

"[Putin's] Jupiter is weak, which means it will be very difficult for him
to achieve legitimate presidential status," Vaenra said. "Acting president
is an ideal position for him. Even if he wins the elections, he won't be
president for long." 

Reached by telephone last week, a Kremlin press official said that "in his
political and state activities, Putin does not use the services of
astrologers. I am not aware of whether he uses their services in his
private life." 

*******

#7
CLINTON TOUCHES ON U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONS IN MESSAGE TO PUTIN

MOSCOW. March 2 (Interfax) - Acting Russian President Vladimir
Putin received U.S. President Bill Clinton's message on March 1 in which
he touched on a number of crucial issues concerning relations between
Russia and the U.S., the press service for the Russian head of state
told Interfax on Thursday.
Clinton called, in particular, for a broader interaction between
the two countries in the areas of arms control and non-proliferation as
well as for a strengthening of economic links, the press service said.
The message insists that disagreements over certain issues existing
between Russia and the U.S. should not be an obstacle for a constructive
and fruitful dialogue. It also contains ideas aimed at the expansion of
Russia's interaction with international humanitarian and human rights
organizations in the North Caucasus, the press service said.

******

#8
The Economist (UK)
March 4-10, 2000
[for personal use only]
Leader/editorial
A Russia to do business with? 
Yes, but the West would be wise to treat Vladimir Putin with caution 

MEET Vladimir Putin, who in less than four weeks hopes to change from being
Russia’s acting president to being its elected one. Plenty of those who do,
from America’s Madeleine Albright down, have been relieved at what they
find: a firm handshake, a clear brain, a coherent grasp of the matter under
discussion, a contrast, in other words, to his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin.
Bill Clinton, echoing Margaret Thatcher’s early assessment of Mikhail
Gorbachev, says he is “a man we can do business with”. And there is plenty
of business to be done. Despite Russia’s recent self-isolation over its war
in Chechnya, renewed engagement makes sense. Yet it may need to be a pretty
arm’s-length affair. 

Mr Putin’s priorities are right: to restore Russia’s economy and to root
out corruption. But he stands so far ahead of his rivals in the opinion
polls largely because of his brutal success in the war against the
Chechens. If he wins on March 26th, he will be Russia’s least experienced
leader since the revolution. And if his tactics in Chechnya are anything to
go by, he may turn out to be far from an embraceable democrat. 

Encouragingly, he does not blame dastardly western plots for his country’s
ills. He acknowledges that, if Russia wants to stand strong and tall in the
world, it needs to have its own house in order. He has started to chip away
at the frost that has blighted relations with NATO. And he recognises that
Russia’s recent isolation could damage his hopes for eventual economic
recovery. With a mandate from the voters, he will have an opportunity to
start mending foreign fences. 

Apart from a fresher face, Mr Putin has another advantage: a more
responsible Duma. One sign that Russia is open for business would be the
Duma’s ratification of the long-delayed START-2 arms-cutting treaty with
America. That would open the way, not only to a START-3, cutting nuclear
warheads on both sides to no more than about 2,500 apiece, but possibly to
even lower numbers as part of a broader bargain that would also allow the
modest changes America is seeking to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. 

Russia is loth to tinker with this treaty, which has preserved deterrence
by limiting (though not banning) both sides’ missile defences. But the new
defences America is proposing would be too modest to affect the Russian
deterrent. Moreover, Russia has a keen interest in seeing nuclear numbers
come down sharply, as it cannot afford to maintain safely the weapons it
has. A pragmatic Mr Putin may soon come to the conclusion that he would
prefer to negotiate changes to the ABM treaty, and therefore keep a cap on
America’s defence effort, rather than have no treaty at all. 

Russia faces plenty of other issues that would be easier to tackle
co-operatively rather than adversarially. Terrorism, international crime,
the illicit spread of the technology needed to make nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them, threaten Russia’s
safety as much as anyone’s. These are all good topics for the summit of the
G8 (the G7 rich nations plus Russia) in Japan in July, when the new Russian
president can show that his country is ready to provide some solutions,
notably by tightening up its controls. 

Russia’s interests will not always coincide with the West’s, but there may
be more room for co-operation than it has recently liked to admit. To the
extent that the Russians have influence in Serbia, and do not want to see
NATO sucked deeper into Balkan conflicts, they would be wise to use it to
prevent Serb pressure on Kosovo and on Montenegro from leading to new
bloodshed. Similarly, Russia has an interest in seeing peace in the
Caucasus, which almost certainly means accepting a role for outsiders
there, whether in the provision of pipelines or of political influence.
That, however, need not work to Russia’s disadvantage: neither trade nor
politics has to be a zero-sum game. 

No longer red, but still amber 

With so much business to be done, western leaders might be forgiven for
sounding calm about the prospects for a Putin presidency. Mr Putin is no
communist ideologue. When he talks of building a strong state, he says he
means one capable of bringing some legal order out of the chaos into which
Russia has fallen. He also seems committed to a market economy. But will he
manage to build the necessary institutions without trampling on the
liberties essential to a durable democracy? And what does he mean by a
strong Russia, anyway? 
Some sort of answer may emerge from his treatment of the smaller places
inside Russia and on its rim, notably Chechnya, which will not long be
pacified without genuine autonomy, if not independence. Georgia, which has
incurred Russia’s wrath for wanting to improve its relations with the West,
may also provide an answer—not an encouraging one to judge by the Russian
aircraft that recently strayed over its border. In his day, Mr Yeltsin put
his signature to all Europe’s rules—from the good-conduct codes of the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to the human-rights
conventions of the Council of Europe—and in the end flouted them. If Mr
Putin can do better, the West should give him its support. If not, it would
be wise to keep its distance. 

****** 

#9
Business Week
March 13, 2000
Book Briefs
After Yeltsin
By ROSE BRADY 

WITHOUT A MAP
Political Tactics and Economic Reform in Russia
By Andrei Shleifer and Daniel Treisman
MIT Press 223pp $25.95

Russia's new Acting President, Vladimir V. Putin, is expected to win a 
four-year mandate when voters go to the polls for presidential elections on 
Mar. 26. It will be his job to pick up the pieces of former President Boris 
N. Yeltsin's reform program--and finish the job of building a market economy 
in Russia.
Putin and his advisers could benefit from reading Without A Map: Political 
Tactics and Economic Reform in Russia. Written by Harvard economist Andrei 
Shleifer and Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at the University of 
California at Los Angeles, it tells why some of Yeltsin's reforms succeeded 
while others failed. ``The main reason,'' the authors say, ``was politics.''
They compare reforming an economy like Russia's to ``embarking on a 
journey through mountains without a map.'' Getting through depends both on 
choosing the right path and on such conditions as the steepness of the 
mountains. In this analogy, the mountains represent obstacles to reform. The 
authors target four groups that could block reforms in Russia: the 
governments of the country's 89 regions, its banking sector, big industrial 
and energy enterprises, and the parliament. When Yeltsin and his aides 
succeeded in co-opting at least some of these ``stakeholders,'' they 
succeeded. Otherwise, they failed.
Consider one of the most successful reforms of the Yeltsin era: 
privatization. In 1992, Yeltsin's team won support for it via a key 
compromise: They let managers of state-owned enterprises acquire, along with 
their workers, majority stakes in their companies--and thus retain their 
positions as bosses. This slowed industrial restructuring since many managers 
clung to their old ways, while others stole from their companies. But it was 
the only ``politically feasible'' way ahead, Shleifer and Treisman argue.
In contrast, Yeltsin's reformers drastically failed when it came to public 
finances. In August, 1998, a serious tax shortfall forced the government to 
devalue the ruble and default on its domestic debt. Under a convoluted 
system, companies are forced to pay dozens of taxes, which are then shared by 
the regional and federal governments. Regional leaders strongly opposed tax 
reform for fear that they would lose income. And government officials didn't 
push big companies to pay arrears because Yeltsin needed their political 
support. In short, reformers failed to co-opt either regional governments or 
the companies.
This analysis implies that tax reform should now become top priority. 
Particularly needed, the authors say, is a tax code that not only cuts rates 
but clearly assigns revenues to the regional governments. That might win 
their support. If Putin can find his own ``politically feasible'' way through 
the mountains, he might succeed where Yeltsin failed.

********

#10
Business Week
March 13, 2000
Economic Trends

Russia's Revival May Be Shaky
S&P questions its staying power
By GENE KORETZ 

According to recent estimates, the Russian economy grew between 2% and 3.2% 
last year, and it could pick up more steam this year. But whether the Russian 
bear is truly awake or will sink into torpor again is a subject being hotly 
debated by observers.
Among the optimists are economists at J.P. Morgan & Co., who cite the 
healthy increases last year in Russia's industrial output, trade surplus, and 
tax revenues as proof that reform and economic recovery are on track. Viewing 
Russia in the context of other former Soviet bloc countries that have perked 
up in recent years, Morgan believes the economy could grow at an average 4.5% 
annual pace for the next half-decade.
Analysts at Standard & Poor's Corp., however, are skeptical. They 
attribute the recovery's strength to the oil-price surge and the pickup in 
demand for domestically produced goods fostered by the ruble's steep drop. 
But they note that the trade surplus rose because of reduced imports rather 
than rising exports, suggesting that severe competitiveness problems still 
hamper the economy. And real investment grew a mere 1% last year, after 
declining at an average 16% annual rate since 1991.
Holding Russia back, says S&P, are a corporate structure that encourages 
managerial and worker shareholders to resist reforms, a still grossly 
ineffective tax system, a government and legal structure that provides weak 
support for private enterprise, and a poorly functioning banking system. J.P. 
Morgan's analysts imply that such roadblocks are at last being dismantled. 
But S&P's experts want more tangible evidence that it's really happening.

******

#11
Financial Times (UK)
3 March 2000
[for personal use only]
Putin seen as a man for all Russians: In Archangel on 
the White Sea, John Thornhill hears how 'everyone expects everything' from 
the presidential candidate

Boris Yeltsin, the former Russian president, appeared rather confused when he 
visited the northern town of Archangel before the last presidential 
elections. He told a startled audience that he was glad to be in Astrakhan 
(some 2,000km to the south) and congratulated them on producing the best 
black caviar in Russia. 

It is difficult to imagine Vladimir Putin making any such gaffe. Indeed, on 
his two visits to the Archangel region since being appointed prime minister 
in August, Mr Putin clearly impressed his hosts with his clarity of thought 
and vigour. Many Archangel residents say Mr Putin is a worthy candidate to 
win this month's presidential poll, expressing high hopes he will lead Russia 
into a more stable and prosperous future. 

"Both his visits were very business-like in contrast with the pompous trips 
made by previous leaders," says Vitaly Fortygin, the general director of 
Severalmaz, the local diamond producing company, which is now heading the 
pro-Putin Unity movement in the region. 

"Putin held a series of strict, concrete and rather dry meetings without 
showing any personal emotion, and struck everyone as being a man of action," 
Mr Fortygin says. 

"He is young and energetic and was never a real member of the Soviet 
nomenklatura. He understands normal life. Such a figure as Putin is simply 
demanded by society today." 

Ivan Bentsa, editor of the city's Pravda Severa (Truth of the North) 
newspaper, says the campaign ahead of the March 26 poll - widely viewed as a 
foregone conclusion - has seen none of the high drama and intrigue that 
characterised the last presidential elections in 1996. 

"My impression is that people here in the provinces are tired of unending 
elections without any results. They do not see any change. The lack of an 
alternative is pleasing for them and so they will all vote for Putin," he 
says. 

Mr Bentsa believes Mr Putin's greatest attraction has been his ability to 
rekindle the hopes that were dissipated during the failed reform era of the 
1990s. He says his readers complain when his newspaper airs any criticisms of 
the acting president because they do not want their illusions shattered. 

Such willing suspension of disbelief is perhaps to be expected in many parts 
of Russia, where deference to power is a deeply ingrained legacy of the past. 
But it comes as more of a surprise in Archangel, which has a long tradition 
of flinty independence. Founded in 1584 by Ivan the Terrible, the northern 
port has for centuries been the home of some of Russia's more energetic 
traders and freer thinkers, including Mikhail Lomonosov, the great scholar 
and founder of Moscow University. Unlike the rest of Russia, there was never 
any tradition of serfdom in the region. 

But Mr Putin's visit to the submarine base in Severodvinsk in September 
convinced many locals he would help revive the region's depressed 
military-industrial plants. 

In December he attended the launch of a Topol rocket at the nearby Plesetsk 
cosmodrome and cheered nationalists by calling for a strong, nuclear-armed 
Russia. 

"Everyone expects everything from Mr Putin," says Sergei Malakovets, a local 
writer. "The peasants expect they will be able to buy cheap tractors and 
fuel. The defence industry workers think there will be big orders for new 
submarines. The Communists are proud that Putin was in the KGB. The democrats 
see that he is a hidden liberal who cried at the funeral of (his mentor) 
Anatoly Sobchak." 

Even the deaths of at least 24 soldiers from Archangel in the latest fighting 
in Chechnya does not appear to have damaged Mr Putin's popularity. 

Dmitry Taskayev, a liberal businessman, who runs the lavish Karat jewellery 
store, says he strongly opposes the military campaign in Chechnya and the 
rough treatment of Andrei Babitsky, the Radio Liberty journalist. "I only 
wish that there were many more Babitskys given that so much of the Russian 
press is intimidated or bought," he says. 

But sitting in his subtly lit office with large paintings of Rome and Perugia 
on his walls, Mr Taskayev says that Mr Putin cannot be held personally 
responsible for these blunders. "You cannot blame Putin for the lack of 
democracy in Russian society, which allows these things to happen," Mr 
Taskayev says. 

The only severe criticism of Mr Putin seems to come from the Communists, who 
complain the acting president has been stealing their ideas. 

"Putin is saying the right slogans. But he is only wanting to please the 
voters to get elected," says Alexander Novikov, a local businessman and 
Communist supporter. 

"After that, he will defend the interests of the oligarchs and the people in 
Yeltsin's regime who appointed him," he says. 

But Tatyana Barandova, who works at the Garant centre supporting non- 
governmental organisations, says the opposition's cries have little resonance 
with Archangel's electorate. 

"It is difficult to decide whether it is for good or bad but it is clear that 
Putin is consolidating society," she says. 

******

#12
Russia's Putin decries rise in orphan numbers

MOSCOW, March 2 (Reuters) - Russia's Acting President Vladimir Putin on 
Thursday decried the rising numbers of children living in orphanages, saying 
it was evidence of an unhealthy post-Soviet society. 

Putin, the favourite in the March 26 presidential election, also pledged to 
raise pensions for Russia's elderly, millions of whom live on the brink of 
poverty. He undertook to boost average pensions by next year to the 
equivalent of $35. 

Putin told a cabinet that the number of ``social orphans'' -- -- children 
living in institutions despite having parents -- was unacceptably high at 90 
percent of the total number of orphans. 

``This is of course evidence of an unhealthy society,'' he said. ``It shows a 
lack of attention of the state to the problems of the family, motherhood and 
child care. This situation is, of course, unacceptable.'' 

According to Social Minister Valentina Matvienko, there are around 620,000 
orphans now in ``children's homes,'' with the number increasing every year. 
She said the government was endeavouring to improve conditions in 
institutions and alter legislation dating back to the 1960s. 

The official Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper told of dreadful conditions in some 
institutions, with some allocating far less than 50 U.S. cents per day to 
feed their charges. 

The fate of pensioners buffeted by post-Soviet change is a key campaign 
issue, with many elderly people firmly supporting the Communist candidate 
Gennady Zyuganov, Putin's main rival. 

Putin, a former head of the domestic spying agency, has been trying to 
emphasise his human side in the campaign and has promised budget funds to 
link pensions to inflation. 

He also promised extra pensions from next month for World War Two veterans to 
coincide with the 55th anniversary of the end of the war -- celebrated as a 
major feat of the Soviet era. 

Opinion polls give Putin a big lead against Zyuganov, though some say he will 
fall short of the 50 percent needed to win outright without a run-off round. 

******

#13
Moscow Times
March 3, 2000 
Democrats Pondering Alliances 
By Simon Saradzhyan and Andrei Zolotov Jr.
Staff Writers

Two minor presidential candidates who bill themselves as part of the 
democratic opposition laid down their conditions Thursday for putting their 
support behind a single candidate to challenge acting President Vladimir 
Putin. 

But at their separate news conferences, Samara regional Governor Konstantin 
Titov and Yevgeny Savostyanov, a former security official who was once a 
member of former President Boris Yeltsin's administration, made clear they 
have very different ideas on how such an alliance could be formed. 

The two men also used the occasion to deny allegations they had used fake 
signatures to qualify for the race. 

Savostyanov said he was ready to pull out of the race if he, Titov and 
Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky can agree on a single candidate among them, 
and only if the three sign a document agreeing to continue their cooperation 
after the March 26 vote. 

Titov said he was negotiating with Savostyanov about nominating a single 
presidential candidate with liberal credentials. "It is a normal, good and 
perhaps fruitful idea," Titov said. "It is important to define on whom to put 
the stake." 

Titov, however, ruled out any alliance with Yavlinsky, who has a history of 
avoiding alliances. 

Savostyanov said the three candidates should determine which of them has the 
most support, and the other two should drop out. But he insisted he will run 
unless the trio agrees on a single candidate. 

Opinion polls show Yavlinsky running third behind Putin and Communist leader 
Gennady Zyuganov. 

Savostyanov insisted that only a "unification of efforts" of the three 
candidates may help the supporters of democracy in Russia prevail over the 
"proponents of dictatorship," who he said support either Putin or Zyuganov. 

"If Zyuganov wins we will have a dictatorship with elements of socialism, 
while if Putin wins we will have the same dictatorship but with elements of 
capitalism," said Savostyanov, 48, who once headed the security services' 
Moscow branch. 

A spokesman for Yavlinsky's Yabloko party, Yevgenia Dillendorf, confirmed 
that he was talking to Savostyanov about an alliance but said Yavlinsky was 
not considering withdrawing his candidacy, Interfax reported. 

Titov's main thrust at his news conference was to declare his stern 
opposition to the constitutional reform proposals expressed last week by 
three governors - Vladimir Prusak of Novgorod, Oleg Bogomolov of Kurgan and 
Yevgeny Savchenko of Belgorod. In an open letter, they proposed extending the 
presidential term to seven years and having regional governors and city 
mayors appointed by Moscow. 

Titov, a reform-oriented governor who has succeeded in drawing foreign 
investment to his Volga River region, decried the proposal as a "detailed 
plan of the liquidation of democratic achievements in Russia." 

Putin said Monday he would support the idea of a seven-year presidency, but 
it should only be "put before the population" after this year's elections. 

Titov said Thursday that appointing governors would "break the ties between 
the power and the people," pave the way for "dynasty" rule from Moscow and 
suppress any dissenting opinions. 

The liquidation of the existing regions and creation of larger administrative 
units, also proposed by the three governors, would "deprive the regions not 
only of political but also of economic independence." 

Titov said the proposal was a "trial balloon" to test the democratic 
convictions of society. "Someone threw a stone to watch the circles on the 
water," he said. Although he was "not sure," Titov said the proposal probably 
emerged "with the Kremlin's approval." 

Titov half-heartedly denied that his campaign had hired companies to collect 
signatures in his support for pay. It was announced earlier this week that 
prosecutors are investigating such allegations against Titov, Savostyanov and 
Moscow businessman Umar Dzhabrailov. The allegations first aired last 
Saturday on government-owned RTR television. 

Savostyanov said Thursday he trusted that the signatures collected on his 
behalf were genuine. Each candidate was obliged to provide at least 500,000 
signatures to get on the ballot. 

Schemes in which self-styled entrepreneurs receive signature sheets from 
various electoral headquarters and hire people, mostly students, to gather 
signatures in "packages" for several candidates simultaneously have long been 
a staple of Russian campaigns. 

Forging of signatures is a different matter, and a sort of quality control at 
every level, from student organizers to the Central Election Commission, 
weeds out suspicious-looking sheets. 

Titov called the investigation "nothing other than the cleansing of the 
political space, or maybe even an attempt to cancel the elections 
altogether." He did not elaborate. 

Some circles within the Kremlin are considering options other than Putin's 
seemingly inevitable presidency, Titov said. "To me personally, it is clear 
that Putin today is not [the Kremlin's] candidate without an alternative," he 
said. 

Titov, who vigorously supported the pro-Putin liberals of the Union of Right 
Forces, struggled Thursday to sell himself as a leader of a "democratic 
opposition." At the news conference, he appeared nervous, shouted at 
journalists who asked uncomfortable questions and preferred grand 
declarations about democracy to concrete answers about his campaign team or 
plans after the first round of elections. 

*******

#14
Global Beat Syndicate 
New York University's Center for War, Peace, and the News Media,
A Pragmatic Approach to U.S. - Russian Relations
By Mikhail Pogorely 
Mikhail Pogorely is an editor of the Nuclear Security bulletin published by 
the National Press Institute in Moscow.

March 2, 2000 
MOSCOW -- Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry was back in Moscow 
recently, trying to rekindle the type of pragmatic relationship that existed 
between the two nations when he held the cabinet post during President Bill 
Clinton's first term in office.

His message to the Russian leadership was that relations between the two 
nations are far too important to be imperiled by a single disagreement, such 
as the West's opposition to Russian actions in Chechnya.

Perry, now a professor at Stanford University, was accompanied by the former 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ret. Gen. John Shalikashvili, along 
with other former members of his Pentagon staff, as part of a joint project 
sponsored by Stanford and Harvard universities to revitalize "normal 
relations" between the two nations.

"Minor issues," such as the war in Chechnya, should not be allowed to get in 
the way of improving U.S. - Russian relations, he said. "Americans are 
sympathetic with the goals of combating international terrorism but criticize 
Moscow for the methods employed to reach these goals," said Perry during an 
appearance at the Carnegie Center here.

The visit coincided with the arrival of the new NATO secretary general, 
George Robertson, who offered a relatively mild criticism of Russia's Chechen 
policy and welcomed the resumption of formal relation, suspended since the 
start of the war in Kosovo.

Both meetings point to how anxious the West is to improve relations with 
Moscow.

Perry went out of his way to assure the Kremlin that the administration' s 
long-cherished anti-ballistic missile defense system, first initiated under 
former president Ronald Reagan and continued in a reduced form by the current 
administration, poses no military threat to Russia. But Washington does 
recognize that any unilateral changes in the existing anti-ballistic missile 
treaty could create political problems for Moscow.

Both sides are now deadlocked on the issue of weapons reduction, with Russia 
warning that it cannot possibly consider ratifying START II if the U.S. goes 
ahead with its missile defense system, and the U.S. warning that such a 
defense system becomes all the more necessary without Russia's START II 
ratification.

Maybe, Perry suggested, it's time for both nations to set aside those 
differences and instead agree on joint efforts to combat nuclear 
proliferation.

Of course, the current political environment limits both the quality and 
quantity of U.S. - Russian relations, notes John Reppert, a former Army and 
later Defense Department attache at the U.S. Embassy here and now executive 
director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the 
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Still, he believes the 
benefits are important enough to encourage the restoration of some forms of 
cooperation.

Observers here see two reasons for the U.S.'s interests in restoring a 
"normal" level of relations with Moscow. The first is Russia's vast nuclear 
arsenal. With the weapons levels agreed upon in START I about to be reached, 
START II remains unimplemented and unratified by the Russian parliament.

The Clinton administration would desperately like to see it accepted by 
Moscow before the president leaves office in less than a year. After all, 
aside from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was rejected by the U.S. 
Senate, it remains the only major disarmament treaty signed by this president 
during his two terms in office.

But this can only be achieved in an environment where U.S. - Russian 
relations are a good deal friendlier than they are today.

The second reason is the upcoming presidential election in the U.S. With the 
Republican candidates taking a somewhat tougher stance towards Russia, the 
administration is anxious to boost Vice President Al Gore's chances by 
demonstrating how maintaining cordial relations with Russia is in the best 
interests of the U.S.

Meanwhile, observers think that there's good reason for Russia to seek 
improved relations too. Russia's obsession with the West in the first years 
after the fall of the Soviet Union was followed by former prime minister 
Eugeny Primakov's turn to the East. The result is that today Russia has few 
friends to its East and even fewer in the West. The Kremlin has strained and 
cooled relations with most of the world, a situation it would like to reverse.

In addition, acting president Vladimir Putin is no less anxious than Gore to 
achieve international recognition and support as he faces his own 
presidential election later this month. And obviously, whoever is elected 
will need a substantial amount of Western goodwill and investment as well.

Future relations between the two countries won't be based on personal 
relationships, such as the one between Clinton and former president Boris 
Yeltsin in the early 1990s. Future relations are more likely to be of the 
pragmatic partnership type fostered by Perry in the mid-1990s. Pragmatism is 
coming of age -- and than may not be such a bad thing after all.

*******

#15
OVER TWO THIRDS OF RUSSIANS LIKE VLADIMIR PUTIN - POLL

MOSCOW. March 2 (Interfax) - More than two thirds of Russian
citizens (70.4 percent) say they like acting President Vladimir Putin,
according to the results of a survey of 1,500 by the ROMIR (Russian
Public Opinion and Market Center) in 94 populated areas of 40 regions.
The results were published on Thursday.
Another 8.3 percent of the polled like Putin more or less and a
further 18.5 percent are neutral.
The acting president's work is approved of by 65.5 percent of the
respondents, and 10.7 percent feel the other way. A total of 17.6
percent of those polled were neutral, and 6.2 percent found it difficult
to answer the question.
Asked to assess Putin's qualities on a seven-point scale, the
respondents ranked Putin's energy at average 6.1 points, determination,
physical strength and communication skills at 5.9 points, adherence to
principles at 5.5 points, and his decency, appearance and charm at 5.4
points.

*******

#16
Kommersant - Vlast No. 5
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
DEMOGRAPHIC FALL 
Russia Is on the Verge of Demographic Catastrophe. 
According to Forecasts, Its Population Will Halve over 
the Next 50 Years
By Anna FENKO

During the years of reforms, life expectancy has fallen to 
a record low level and came to 58 years in 1996. The gap 
between life-span indices of men and women has reached the 
record-breaking figure of 13 years. An abnormally low ratio of 
men to women - Russia is "lacking" in some 5.9 mln men - is 
also connected with these figures. The concurrence of two 
events - economic reforms and a decrease in the population of 
Russia -- does not necessarily mean that the first event 
accounts for the second. In order to verify this, it is not 
enough to analyze data for the past decade, but for a somewhat 
longer period of time.
Most of the characteristics that affect the present demographic 
situation in the Russian Federation have been developing 
gradually for several decades. Up to 1992 the Russian 
population had continued to grow practically at the same pace. 
>From the mid-sixties to the late eighties a 5-7% increase was 
registered every five years. However, it was only up till the 
middle seventies that the population was growing due to a 
natural increase (surplus of births over deaths). Since the 
second half of the seventies an additional factor, migration, 
has come into force - the inflow of population into Russia has 
exceeded its outflow. The role of migration increased rapidly, 
making up, to a great extent, for the fall in the natural 
increase of the population. The total population continued to 
grow at approximately the same rate, thus disguising the fact 
that the basis for depopulation in Russia had already been 
created. 
As far as a natural increase is concerned, a trend towards 
its decrease has been developing for nearly the past 40 years.
The death rate has grown steadily, while the birth rate has 
remained at the same level, though from the mid-eighties has 
started to fall dramatically. This has led to a situation where 
from 1992 the death rate has been steadily exceeding the birth 
rate. In order to account for the present decrease in the 
population, we should analyze death rates and birth rates 
separately. 
First let's speak about the birth rate. Simple 
reproduction requires that every woman should give birth to at 
least two children during her lifetime. Bearing in mind the 
possibility of early deaths, the cumulative birth rate should 
be not less than 2.1. However, this condition was fulfilled 
only up to the mid-sixties. Since 1967 the birth rate has never 
exceeded the 2.1 mark. Since 1990 it has fallen sharply and by 
1996 it reached its record low level of 1.28. Should this birth 
rate remain the same, and even if premature deaths are not 
taken into consideration (which means that no girl will die 
during her childbearing age), it will lead to the country's 
population being halved within 45 years. Currently, the birth 
rate exceeds the mark of 2.1 only in three Russian regions. 
These are the republics of Ingushetia (2.17), Tyva (2.33) and 
Dagestan (2.42). The lowest cumulative birth rates are on the 
territory of the Non-Black Earth Zone, especially in the Kirov 
and Pskov regions, as well as in Moscow (1.19) and St. 
Petersburg (0.95). It is clear that the reason for this 
decrease cannot be solely explained by economic factors, as in 
this case, Moscow, being the most successful region in economic 
terms, would have witnessed a population boom. On the other 
hand, Tyva and Dagestan, successful in a demographic respect, 
do not seemingly represent a social and economic paradise. 
The situation with the death rate is still more 
complicated.
Since 1990 a considerable growth in the death rate has been 
noted. Indeed, year after year the highest death rates have 
been registered on the territories of the Non-Black Earth Zone, 
and the lowest ones - in the northern and eastern regions, as 
well as in the southern republics of European Russia (Dagestan, 
Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachayevo-Cherkessia).
Clearly, the unfavourable development of the demographic 
setting is leading to a pessimistic population forecast.
According to specialists, in the years of 2000-2045 the number 
of children under 15 years will halve and that of the elderly 
will be half as much again. Thus the economic burden, imposed 
on able-bodied citizens will increase considerably. This can be 
of some consolation to the parents of today's schoolchildren - 
their children will not encounter a large demand for places 
when going to colleges for the following 5-6 years. 

*******

Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: 
http://www.cdi.org/russia