March 26, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4199 • 4200   

Johnsons's Russia List
#4200
26 March 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Putin vote creeps higher but may face runoff.
2. Reuters: Results of Russian presidential polls at 2100 GMT.
3. AFP: Albright promises to watch Putin's actions after election.
4. THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (UK): DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH.TODAY'S ELECTIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A FARCE, REPORTS ANNE APPLEBAUM IN MOSCOW.
5. Diana Pearson: elections in Amurskaya Oblast.
6. Boston Globe: Davyd Nyhan, He's Putin - but let's pray he's not Rasputin.
7. vvp.ru: Nikolay Anisin, THERE IS A THIRST FOR STATE SYSTEM IN OUR SOCIETY.
8. vvp.ru: Sergei Zenkin, THE TOP-PRIORITY TASKS WILL BE DETERMINED 
DEPENDING ON WHICH OF THE =STRATEGIES OF ACTION THE FUTURE PRESIDENT CHOOSES.
9. vvp.ru: Maksim Sokolov, IS THE COUNTRY PREPARED TO PAY A PRICE FOR ORDER?
10. Itar-Tass: 85 Percent of Russian Servicemen Take Part in Election. 
11. The Guardian (UK): Amelia Gentleman, Gay slur on Putin opponent. (Yavlinsky)
12. Los Angeles Times: Tyler Marshall, Oil Shortfall in Caspian Sea Basin May Doom U.S.-Backed Pipeline Plan.]

******

#1
Putin vote creeps higher but may face runoff
By Martin Nesirky

MOSCOW, March 27 (Reuters) - Acting President Vladimir Putin slowly built on 
an early lead in Russia's presidential election on Monday but partial returns 
placed him tantalisingly below the barrier needed to avoid a runoff against 
his Communist rival. 

Official results announced by Central Election Commission deputy head 
Valentin Vlasov, based on a fifth of the votes cast on Sunday, had Putin on 
just above 47 percent compared with 31 percent for opposition Communist Party 
chief Gennady Zyuganov. 

Those results were mainly from eastern Russia and might not fully reflect 
greater support for Putin in the more heavily populated Russian heartland in 
the Urals and the cities of Moscow and St Petersburg, Putin's hometown. 

Either way, Putin's share of the vote appeared to be creeping up. The first 
returns put him on about 45 percent. If that rate of climb continues, he 
could still secure the absolute majority needed to avoid an April 16 runoff 
-- and the unseemly horse-trading that would involve. 

PUTIN VISITS CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS 

Putin, who said he would spend the day in the country taking a traditional 
Russian ``banya'' steam bath, arrived at his Moscow campaign headquarters 
around midnight but did not speak to reporters. The atmosphere inside was 
restrained, with plenty of forced smiles, but cautiously upbeat. 

Political analysts said it was too close to say whether there would be a 
runoff. First-round victory would save Putin, a 47-year-old former KGB spy 
who became popular through his war against rebel Chechnya, the embarrassing 
need to haggle with regional leaders and failed candidates to boost his 
runoff vote. 

``I simply have difficulty seeing how a result of 50-51 percent can be 
achieved throughout the country,'' Igor Bunin, head of the Centre of 
Political Technology think-tank, said on RTR state television. 

Putin campaign staffer Mikhail Margelov was more optimistic, telling 
reporters: ``We may say the figures are encouraging already and once the 
count goes over the Urals the result (Putin's) will go over 50 percent.'' 

If Zyuganov's share of 31 percent holds up it would be a major triumph for 
him as most opinion polls had put him closer to 25 percent. It would also 
position him well for a runoff. 

Assuming Putin wins, he faces the task of successfully capitalising on a 
nascent economic upturn based on high world oil prices and favourable prices 
for some strategic metals. So far he has not clearly outlined his economic 
plans. 

Victory would mean Putin would lead Russia, the world's largest country, for 
the next four years with sweeping powers. 

Questions remain where Putin would lead Russia, with some critics fearing his 
past as a KGB agent would make for an authoritarian leader. He has backed 
democratic and market reforms within a strong state. 

Putin was thrust into the presidency by the surprise New Year's Eve 
resignation of Boris Yeltsin. 

REACTION ABROAD MUTED SO FAR 

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on CBS television she could 
understand Russians wanted order after a chaotic period since the breakup of 
the Soviet Union. 

``But the question is whether it's order with a small or a capital 'O','' she 
said. 

Eduardo Aninat, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, 
told Reuters there could be talks in early April in Moscow about economic 
reforms and a stalled lending programme. 

Two exit polls broadcast on Russian RTR state television before voting ended 
showed Putin on the brink of the 50-percent mark or just clearing it. 
Zyuganov was seen on 26-28 percent. 

Zyuganov remained optimistic about a decisive runoff. He also said there had 
been mass irregularities and ``theft of votes'' in various regions. 

``I'm certain there will be a runoff,'' he told RTR. ``We will recognise 
results only on the basis of the written results from each polling station 
certified by our observers.'' 

Ultranationalist candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who had less than four 
percent of the vote so far, said the election had been a waste of time, but 
he would back Putin in a runoff. 

Liberal Grigory Yavlinsky had about five percent of the vote, surprisingly 
behind regional governor Aman Tuleyev on nearly seven percent. 

The exit polls were released by RTR before voting ended at 1700 GMT in the 
western Kaliningrad enclave but RTR said it was not breaking election laws, 
which bans the release of surveys before voting ends, as it had shut off 
broadcasts to the region. 

Election commission chief Alexander Veshnyakov criticised RTR for 
broadcasting the exit polls. Turnout was more than 66 percent, above the 50 
percent needed to validate the poll. 

******

#2
TABLE-Results of Russian presidential polls at 2100 GMT

MOSCOW, March 26 (Reuters) - Following are partial official results of
Russia's presidential election on Sunday with 39.61 percent of the votes
counted. The figures were issued by the Central Election Commission at 2100
GMT. 

Percent of votes counted 

Vladimir Putin 49.52 

Gennady Zyuganov 30.81 

Grigory Yavlinsky 5.60 

Aman Tuleyev 4.61 

Vladimir Zhirinovsky 3.09 

Konstantin Titov 1.62 

Ella Pamfilova 1.01 

Yuri Skuratov 0.42 

Stanislav Govorukhin 0.38 

Alexei Podberyozkin 0.14 

Umar Dzhabrailov 0.07 

Against all 1.82 

The total may not make up 100 percent, because an unpecified number of
ballots were ruled invalid by election commissions. 

A candidate has to receive more than 50 percent of the votes cast to win
outright in the first round. Otherwise the two frontrunners will compete in
a runoff vote on April 16. 

16:07 03-26-00

******

#3
Albright promises to watch Putin's actions after election

WASHINGTON, March 26 (AFP) - 
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Acting Russian President 
Vladimir Putin Sunday "a very complicated man" and promised to judge him by 
his present actions rather that his past association with the KGB secret 
police.

"He is obviously a very complicated man, who has several strands to his 
background," said Albright, appearing on CNN's Late Edition, just after polls 
in Russia's presidential election closed in the capital.

"But as we see him now, he is being very pragmatic, he is dealing with 
Russia's problems, and we are going to have to watch his actions very closely 
and carefully," she added. 

Her comments came as early returns -- with 17 percent of the vote counted -- 
from Russia's presidential elections showed that Putin was ahead of his 
rivals with more than 45 percent of the vote.

But the returns offered no indication whether Putin would be able to garner 
the more than 50 percent of the vote necessary to secure his election in the 
first round.

Putin, who had served with the KGB since the mid-1970s until 1990, has 
repeatedly pledged to restore law in order in Russia, a promise that has 
raised concerns in the West about Russia's possible return to 
authoritarianism.

However, Albright said the United States and other nations should not judge 
Putin by his past but rather monitor his present and future actions.

"I think it's a mistake to prejudge him," she noted.

"When I met with Vladimir Putin as acting president, I found him pragmatic, 
smart, on top of his brief, somebody who is a Russian nationalist but 
someone, I think, that we can and must work with," said the secretary of 
state.

The conflict in Chechnya, however, may continue to drive a wedge between a 
better US-Russian working relationship.

Speaking in Geneva Thursday, Albright urged the Russian government to conduct 
a prompt and transparent investigation into allegations of Russian rights 
violations during the Chechnya conflict.

Putin, the anointed successor of Boris Yeltsin who quit unexpectedly on 
December 31, has been riding high in the polls thanks to his resolute 
handling of the war in Chechnya.

Albright expressed optimism about the new Kremlin leader's determination to 
pursue the economic reforms launched by his predecessor and patron, Yeltsin, 
the first president of post-Communist Russia.

"He is showing that he is interested in some serious economic reforms," she 
said. "He has been open to discussion about arms control and 
non-proliferation issues, which are of major importance to us." 

Republican Congressman Christopher Cox of California, who led a delegation of 
US congressional election monitors to Russia, said Sunday's vote could be 
generally qualified as free and fair.

Cox, also speaking on CNN, made clear he did not have a clear idea about what 
direction Russia would take after the election of Putin, noting that "many 
Russians are asking themselves the same question."

"He talks about a dictatorship of law -- that's an interesting combination of 
words," said Cox. 

"Will it be law supporting order or will it be just the order part?" asked 
the US lawmaker. 

Without giving answers to any of the questions bothering US officials, former 
Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, speaking on the CNN show, said the 
Russian people are vesting in Putin their hopes for a future free of 
corruption and an economic recovery.

And, he predicted trouble, if Putin failed to deliver. 

"If Putin does not live up to those hopes and people see that he is working 
with the same kind of entourage, that he continues to make life cozy for 
corrupt officials and other corrupt people, that things don't change, then 
disappointment, disillusionment will come very quickly," warned Gorbachev. 

"And it will be a very severe disappointment," added the former Soviet leader 
credited with engineering the collapse of Communism in Russia a decade ago. 

*******

#4
THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (UNITED KINGDOM)
March 26, 2000
[for personal use only]
DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH TODAY'S ELECTIONS ARE NOTHING MORE
THAN A FARCE, REPORTS ANNE APPLEBAUM IN MOSCOW (AApplebaum@compuserve.com)

To anyone accustomed to the rituals and absurdities of a Western
political campaign, the weeks leading up to today's presidential election
in Russia might have been experienced as a welcome respite. There have been
few posters, and fewer pamphlets. There have been no televised debates -
the leading candidate, Vladimir Putin (the most recent poll gives him well
over 50% of the vote) has openly refused to participate in them - and
precious little discussion of such mundane matters as policy. At a rare
press conference in Moscow last week, Putin's "campaign manager" evaded
even questions along the lines of "how big is the campaign staff" and "what
does it do all day." The Russian President-to-be has also eschewed
television advertising, on the grounds that it too closely resembles
ordinary advertising: "you don't need to know during the middle of an
election campaign whether Tampax or Snickers are better," he has said,
using the Sphinx-like rhetoric for which he has become famous.
More to the point, claim his staff, Putin is not putting much
effort into campaigning because he intuitively feels that Russians are
bored by political campaigns, and in this he may be correct. Grigory
Yavlinsky, one of the two other significant candidates ("significant" means
he will receive about 5% of the vote) has been heavily criticised for
appearing "too often" on television. Indeed, the greatest threat to an
outright Putin victory in the first round of elections is the distinct
possibility that less than 50% of Russia's voters will show up at all,
thereby invalidating the poll.
But are Russian voters genuinely put off by the tastelessness of
campaign advertising and the wooliness of political speeches, or do they
simply recognise a farce when they see it? These days, the phrase which
Russia's nascent politologists most often use to describe their political
system translates roughly as "managed democracy." It is a good description
of a system in which elections take place regularly, a degree of press
freedom is tolerated, you can hold as many public meetings as you want, and
the thought police will not arrest you for criticising the powers-that-be -
so long, that is, that you don't actually attempt to form a serious
opposition political party.
Should you attempt to break that cardinal rule, the consequences could be
very grave indeed. The speed and ease with which Putin dispatched with his
one potentially serious pair of rivals, the former Prime Minister Yevgeny
Primakov and the mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov was almost shocking: all it
took was a steady drip, drip of hatred from state-owned media, and veiled
threats of financial investigation. Both men immediately resigned from all
higher forms of political ambition, and have jumped eagerly onto the Putin
bandwagon. As for the only other large political party, the tattered
remnants of the old Communist party, its existence is clearly tolerated,
even encouraged, because it threatens no one: its voters are old, its
leaders are stupid, it will never procure more than 30% of the vote - and
in the meantime, it serves as a convenient, docile, paper opposition. In
the wake of the campaign, Putin's triumph over the Communists' pathetic
leader will be served up as evidence to the outside world that Russia is
indeed a democracy. 
And, horrifying though it may sound, the outside world will believe it, or
feign to believe it. These days, the mere holding of elections is enough to
qualify almost any country as a democracy. Worse, the sight of a given
nation's citizens trooping, one by one, to put a paper into a ballot box is
almost a guarantee of all sorts of goodies from the West: preferential
trade agreements, financial aid, recognition and prestige.
I say almost, because there seem to be other, subtler requirements as
well. Next June, for example, Madeleine Albright is to preside over an
elaborate, Davos-style conference in celebration of "democracy", to be held
with great pomp and circumstance in Warsaw. Naturally, it is the American
State department, not the Polish government, which has entrusted itself
with the task of deciding which nations qualify as democracies, and which
do not. As a result, Russia has been invited. But Iran, among others, has
not - although it does indeed hold elections, and in many ways is rather
better run than Russia. It seems that to qualify as a democracy, you also
need to be at least a vocal friend of the West. Putin, with his recent,
ludicrous remarks about joining Nato, a policy he has no intention of
pursuing, has succeeded admirably at appearing, at least, to be our sort of
fellow. If he were walking about speaking of the American president as the
"Great Satan", we would doubtless be hearing very different descriptions of
Russia's "democracy" indeed. 
As it stands, the Russian leader's words, coupled with his inevitable
election, have been enough to win him the title of "democrat," a status
that has brought with it a huge new tranche of IMF money, as well as the
general approval of Western leaders. Bill Clinton sees him as "capable of
being a very strong, effective, straightforward leader." Tony Blair has
praised his talents as well, even offering to lend his Russian counterpart
the services of some of his aides, a promise one dearly hopes he keeps: the
idea of clean-shaven, fresh-faced New Labour ideologists confronted with
the complexities of "policy-making" (money-laundering, bribe-taking, and
contract-killing)in the Kremlin is too entertaining. 
Yet to no Western leaders does it seem to occur that democracy requires
other institutions, aside from mere elections, if its leaders are to remain
accountable to the public after the voting is over: an uncorrupted
judiciary, for example, or police and civil servants who answer to
something higher than the wishes of the absolute ruler. Above all, we
persistently ignore the absence, in Russia, of the most fundamental
principle which underlies our democracy, and indeed all well-run societies:
the rule of law. 
Perhaps if Putin's potential rivals didn't fear the attentions of the tax
po lice, the body now used most frequently to harass newspapers or
independent organisations that step too far out of line, they might have
been a bit braver about challenging him. Perhaps if the hundreds of
Western "observers" who will inevitably declare today's election "free and
fair", spent a bit more time examining whether contracts are enforced in
Russia, and querying what happens when they are not, they might actually
help make Russia an easier place to live in and do business. Perhaps if we
spent a few pennies shoring up Russia's handful of human rights advocates,
rather than millions shoring up its central bank, we would help put Russia
on the path to genuine democracy, rather than the "managed" sort. 
It is not even as if Vladimir Putin is trying very hard to pull the wool
over anybody's eyes. Why are we so determined to hail the arrival of
democracy in Russia? Why should we allow ourselves to be fooled? To their
credit, the Russians aren't. 

*******

#5
From: "Diana O. Pearson, M.Ed." <diana@amur.ru>
Subject: elections in Amurskaya Oblast
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000

Dear David,

I have observed firsthand the process of voting in the small capital city
(220,000) of Blagoveshensk, Amurskaya Oblast, in the Russian Far East. I
walked three blocks with my host family (a young couple and their 8-year-old
daughter) from their home to the voting place in a building which also
houses the movie theater. Another of my friends was scheduled to vote at the
public library, and many voting places were in schools which are closed now
for spring vacation.

There was an air of festivity, perhaps also the result of spring in the air
and school vacations. Accounting for voters was organized by street--line up
in the line behind the hand-lettered cardboard sign which states your street
name. All were carefully and fashionably dressed as usual in Russia, even on
Sunday when not necessarily working or attending church.

The lines were short, the voting booths were draped with usual Russian
drapery fabric, as one would find in an older style Russian
apartment--rather shiny with a floral design woven in--that rusty orange
color which was popular with our avocado green in the 70s in the US.

On the wall was a slick poster showing all candidates with color photographs
and a written description underneath, including the one woman candidate. The
one candidate who withdrew fifteen minutes before the deadline was blocked
out with a plain white piece of paper covering his column. Outside the
voting place, a woman was selling lovely baked goods. Families, including
"mine," stopped to look at the movie advertisements on their way out.
Outside many voting places were ochen seriosna pensioners overseeing the
process, somehow thinking they were making sure everything went as it
should.

The mother of my friend had called him in the morning to ask his advice for
her and her elderly neighbor to help them understand for whom they should
vote. There are so many candidates, TV advertisements and programs, that it
was very confusing for them.

As an idealistic entrepreneur, my friend voted for Yavlinsky. As a realist,
his wife voted for Putin. I was privy to this information as we walked home
and they divulged their votes to one another. He knows his vote is probably
useless, but nonetheless, he has cast it that way because, as one very
flashy, seemingly patriotic and non-partisan TV commercial said over and
over, "Your vote counts."

Policemen airport security guards will be glad when it is over as they can
have a day off from their many consecutive days of extra protection against
terrorists who might wish to influence the process.

At 6 p.m., during supper, the television reporter seriously referred us to a
reporter from Kamchatka, two hours farther east, who then said he had no
results, but could tell us that approximately 62% of registered voters had
turned out. Results were promised "later." My friend, a PhD
physicist-turned-entrepreneur, who shares a direct internet connection with
others in his building, says there has been great discussion about whether
or not preliminary results would be posted on the internet . . . so, we'll
see what you find there!

So, while we wait, the famous "National Fishing," sequel to "National
Hunting" which aired last night, is playing on television . . . not much
fishing has occurred so far, other than for the playfully disdainful mermaid
. . . but most are resigned to the reality and try to laugh about it,
perhaps as with the politics of the day.

*******

#6
Boston Globe
26 March 2000
He's Putin - but let's pray he's not Rasputin 
By David Nyhan, Globe Columnist

Bulletin: This just in! We know who'll win today in Russia's election. The 
victor's name is Putin. We just hope his nickname won't be ''Ras.''

A KGB apparatchik from the age of 22, a wily bureaucrat with an instinct for 
survival and a reputation for being sinister when necessary, Vladimir Putin 
threaded his way up from being deputy mayor of St. Petersburg to becoming 
blustery Boris Yeltsin's handpicked successor as president of the staggering 
giant that is Russia.

There are a dozen names on the ballot, but Putin's huge lead, his aggressive 
prosecution of the ruthless but popular war in Chechnya, and his mastery of 
political propagandizing through control of the most important television 
network, means the only doubt Sunday is whether he captures 50 percent of the 
vote and avoids the need for a runoff next month.

Will he turn out to be a Rasputin of a leader, like the obscure 
conspiratorial mystic who wielded mysterious influence over the last of the 
czars? Throughout what passes for a political campaign in the seething ca 
ldron that is Russian society today, Putin has debated no rival, granted few 
and carefully-choreographed media interviews, and hidden behind a 
Western-style media campaign made easier by the tolerance of corruption and 
favoritism that underlies much of Russian commerce and journalism.

''After the election, he will take off this mask for sure,'' said Harvard's 
Russian-watcher, Graham Allison. ''He has been a very accomplished 
candidate,'' said Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and 
International Affairs, who flew back from Moscow last Monday.

Allison says that in the same way Ronald Reagan used his lifelong acting 
skills to maximize his political clout, so has Putin used the techniques he 
learned as a KGB operative to frustrate his political opponents.

''He has been a very accomplished candidate'' for high office in the Western 
mold, said Allison, because he is adept at the tactics of the spy: 
''deception, disinformation, seduction of agents, using cover - all of those 
skills have quite interesting applications in politics.''

Putin is a thoroughly modern man when it comes to market economics. He's made 
all the right noises about dragging his still-feudal countrymen into the 
modern era. In an obvious overture to Western investors, he promised The New 
York Times and ABC-TV he'll bring in with him an array of KGB types to root 
out the corruption for which present-day Russia is notorious.

Putin will know where to look, and whom to look for, in the eyes of many 
Westerners. ''Putin's early days as deputy mayor of St. Petersburg seem to 
have been spent doing precisely what he says he will eradicate,'' the Globe's 
Moscow correspondent, David Filipov, reported Friday with correspondent Brian 
Whitmore. ''Documents ... appear to reveal a bureaucrat who was less 
interested in enforcing the law than mining profits from the loopholes.''

To these jaded eyes, which try to be ever skeptical but never cynical, the 
West's hope should be that since it may take one to catch one, we should pray 
that Putin has already amassed enough personal wealth to ensure his family's 
prosperity into the third generation, and that he instead seizes an 
opportunity to be the savior of a cultured but corrupt country.

Americans have no right to swoon over the installation of a spook to high 
public office. George Bush ran the CIA before becoming president. Reagan put 
an old spy-chaser named Bill Casey in as his campaign manager in 1980 - then 
gave Casey the CIA top spot. Spying and politicking are no strangers in this 
country, either. And as a 70-ish Russian emigre woman said to me recently of 
the Kremlin crowd, ''They were all KGB,'' one way or another.

Little was known of Putin, a low-level lieutenant colonel in the KGB, till he 
rose skillfully through the shifting ice floes of the collapse of Sovietism. 
Clearly, he is Yeltsin's guy. Just as clearly, he is the favored choice of 
the oligarchs, the shadowy bruisers who control Russian television, 
journalism, oil and mineral extraction, and pull the strings over what 
amounts to a puppet government, so corrupt that even the cop on the beat is 
on the take.

When you have the TV barons who count in your pocket, you can rubbish any 
opponent, disembowel any political rival. Russian TV is apparently rife with 
sexy expose journalism, some of it even true. They still show video of the 
former top state prosecutor frolicking in the sack with three prostitutes, 
whether true or not, whether set up or not, still a boffo show for the 
late-night viewers who just ran out of vodka.

Putin's strongest rivals were gut-shot by the journalism apparatus under the 
thumb of Mission Control. Allegations of corruption do not have to be proved 
to be effective in the Wild West ways of Moscow television. Smearing an 
opponent seems to be the path to power. Lee Atwater would have fit right in.

''The campaign showed us a Putin who is super agile, cynical, effective, 
energetic,'' said Allison. ''So I would say his transformation into a model 
modern candidate is very striking. Everybody has been amazed that his team 
could have done this. Everybody's stunned.'' What happens after he's elected?

''If we look at what he says and does, he seems very realistic. He says very 
harsh things about the current conditions in the country. He's very 
pragmatic, without any evidence of ideology and principle.'' So that's a 
start.

''He thinks they need to recover economically, which will take a 
generation.'' That's the real start. This is a country where, in the words of 
the Globe's Stan Grossfeld five years ago, ''every third person you meet is 
an engineer - and nothing works.'' Putin seems to answer the Russian craving 
for a tyrant, a strong man, a butt-kicker who'll make the railroad run on 
time, or else the train guys will all be sent to Siberia.

Allison said the typical Russian believes his country's life is too chaotic, 
too disorganized. The bombing of Moscow apartment buildings, supposedly by 
terrorists, scared the populace. The feeling is, we need a strong hand now.

To Allison, Putin may improve things. ''This guy wants Russia to be 
integrated into the global economy. He is without any illusions about there 
being some kind of `third Russian way.' Number one on his agenda is economic 
reconstruction. I suspect they'll be open for international investment.''

******

#7
vvp.ru
March 26, 2000
THERE IS A THIRST FOR STATE SYSTEM IN OUR SOCIETY
Nikolay Anisin, deputy editor-in-chief of the "Tomorrow" newspaper

I think that there will be two electoral rounds, and Putin may win in the 
second one. Anyway, the state will become stronger after the election, it 
will be either of liberally democratic or of conservative nature. There is a 
tendency toward that. It will happen but nobody knows yet which variant will 
take place. But the result does not depend on the personality of a winner.

It doesn"t matters who wins, Putin or Zyuganov: the role of the state in 
economics will become more important in either case. The state regulation 
will become better. The high-tech industry will rise. The competitive 
branches of industry will develop. Aircraft, fertilizers, arms will be 
produced under any authorities.

The fact is that the expectations of Putin voters and those of Zyuganov ones 
are similar in principle. Zyuganov seems to be a good statesman. There is a 
thirst for State system in our society. Even thieves want to live in a strong 
state. Those who has stolen enough want to have perspectives for the next 
five or ten years too. So, the popularity of Putin is based on the objective 
bent to a strong state. I think Zyuganov will get 30 or 40 percent of votes. 
A part of Zyuganov"s electorate will go to Putin, but a part of the former 
electorate of Yeltsin will go to Zyuganov. People in the crowd say, "We like 
Putin. He is sensible. He is nice. But he is Yeltsin"s protegee!" And because 
of that they will go to Zyuganov.

Putin"s policy is very understandable for such people. They say that he is a 
good statesman too. But in this case we speak not about ideology but about 
the economical role of the state. So, I think there is not much difference 
between them.

Anyway, authorities will become stronger, the regions will submit to the 
center. Their independence will be confined, there will be more control over 
regions. Secondly, the government structure will change and the role of the 
state in economics will become more important. The financial policy will 
become harder. They will print money by reasonable portions. For now, the 
amount of paper money in Russia is ten times less than that in Japan. Maybe 
we will choose the China way. Exporters take China money, buy China products, 
send them abroad, and pay off their debt to the state in dollars. Such 
technique would be not bad for us too.

As for personnel changes in high places, there are many variants. I do not 
exclude a possibility that Chubays will become prime-minister. Putin may 
propose the post to him. But then Chubays will be bound to take the course 
opposite to that of the former government of which he was a member.

Putin will have the two-winged opposition. The remaining liberals, Yavlinsky, 
for example. And I think that if Putin does not revision the privatization 
results he will get a left-wing opposition too. I think that Putin cooperates 
with the left-wing opposition now and will do that more actively than 
cooperate with the right-wing one.

I don"t think that the rights and freedoms of the media will be confined 
seriously. Our paper was actively against Putin. We don"t expect that they 
will close or terrorize us. But maybe in the course of its strenghtening the 
state will exert more influence upon the media, not "shutting them up" but 
helping some publishers in their work. At present, the state does not help 
the leftists" press as well as the rightists" one. But its strengthening may 
result in its ability to support some programs or papers. The media market 
may change. Perhaps there will appear media publishers independent of 
oligarchs. I would not speak about the perspectives of the press. Maybe 
"Izvestiya" or "Pravda" will become state newspapers.

*****

#8
vvp.ru
March 26, 2000
THE TOP-PRIORITY TASKS WILL BE DETERMINED DEPENDING ON WHICH OF THE 
STRATEGIES OF ACTION THE FUTURE PRESIDENT CHOOSES
Sergei Zenkin, specialist in the history of French literature, translator of 
books by Jean Baudrillard and Roland Barthes

Principal tasks of the post-election period.

The top-priority tasks will be determined depending on which of the 
strategies of action the future President chooses. There are two of them:

(a) the President perceives himself as a person primarily responsible to the 
country;
(b) the President is first and foremost concerned with preserving and 
consolidating the power he has obtained.
Correspondingly, the top-priority tasks may be different in these two 
situations:
?) in the first case, it is modernizing the economy, setting the existing 
legislation in order, making sure it is observed;
?) in the second one, it is spectacular steps with a display of strong will, 
similar to the tough policy with respect to Chechnya being carried out by 
Putin. Such steps might include beginning a powerful anti-corruption 
campaign, a fraternal treaty with NATO or, conversely, open opposition to 
NATO policies.

Long-term objectives to be achieved by the country.

The tasks of the country as a whole are identical with the tasks of the 
President if he follows the first path.

Are the country and its elites prepared for Putin as President?

Both the elites and the country and prepared for Putin as President - there 
is an incredible consensus on that today. However, there is no guarantee that 
this consensus will be long-lived. When a person is elected so unanimously, 
people may in a short while start hating him just as unanimously. This 
possibility cannot be ruled out.

How will the position of the elites, media, oligarchs, officials change after 
the election if Putin
becomes President?

It is precisely due to this unanimous support for Putin that the influence of 
the bureaucrats and oligarchs will largely diminish. The same will happen to 
the regional leaders.

The prospects of the media are the most difficult to determine. In a 
situation when both an external war and an internal war (the information war) 
are being waged in the country, the media are beginning to degrade both from 
the outside (under external pressure) and from the inside. It"s unclear 
whether the new power will manage to stop the process.

Will there be personnel changes in the presidential apparatus and in the 
government?

Reshuffling of personnel in the government is more probable. The presidential 
apparatus has by now been more or less renovated by Putin to suit his own 
needs.

A possible opposition to Putin, who is that?

If one is talking about the political milieus, then the formation of two 
opposition groups is possible. One of them will, of course, be based on CPRF. 
The other, of a more democratic orientation, on "Yabloko" and that section of 
the Union of Rightist Forces which distances itself from, and preserves a 
rigorously independent position towards, Putin (Nemtsov, Hakamada, Titov).

How many rounds will there be, one or two?

I can"t say for sure.

******

#9
vvp.ru
March 26, 2000
IS THE COUNTRY PREPARED TO PAY A PRICE FOR ORDER?
Maksim Sokolov, journalist, political scientist and literary man 

Principal tasks of the post-election period

Definitive establishment of a regular state in Russia. Stopping the game at 
socialism that is beyond the country's strength. The state changing over to, 
as Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it, "not partaking in falsehood". Restoration 
of conservative values.

Your personal tasks for the post-election period. What events in your 
personal and professional life have you planned bearing in mind the election?

Fortunately, none. Not so in 1996, when I was keeping my savings in the most 
liquid assets I could find and had postponed any more or less serious 
purchases till after the election.

Long-term objectives faced by the country. Your own long-term plans in the 
context of the general post-election tasks of Russia.

Il faut cultiver son jardin. This concerns both the country and myself.

Are the country, its elites prepared for Putin as President? Are you, 
personally, prepared to accept Putin as President?

As to the country, the answer is, objectively, yes. Putin's exceptional 
rating is a reflection of a national demand for ordering life. After five 
years of Thermidor, characterized by an utter degradation of state life, some 
version of the Eighteenth Brumaire is inevitable. There may be some 
difficulties as far as the subjective factor is concerned, as the drive for 
ordering is tremendous. Whether there is enough willingness to pay a price 
for this ordering, is harder to tell.

As to me personally, well, if I had not been prepared, I wouldn't have been 
backing him during the election campaign. Since I was backing him, then I was 
evidently doing this with an intention to answer for my words.

How will the elites change after the election, including the regional elites, 
the media, the oligarchs, the bureaucracy?

All the elite groups will be split. Those who, in principle, are capable of 
living and working in the context of a regular state, will go on living and 
working the way they used to. Those who, having once stolen a tremendous 
amount of booty, are incapable of deriving profit from their swag even in a 
remotely honest way - the "little geese", for example (an ironic nickname for 
financial magnate Vladimir Gusinsky and his entourage; the surname Gusinsky 
derives from the Russian word for goose - translator's note) - will stop 
being an elite.

What in your way of life (personal or professional) may change with the 
election of the President?

Nothing, I hope.

Will there be personnel changes in the Presidential Administration and the 
government?

How can one do without them?.

The opposition to Putin - who is that? What is the probable position of the 
media in this context? Who will find themselves in disfavor in the new 
situation?

Grisha (Grigory Yavlinsky) and the "little geese" that are keeping him.

Will there be a single round or two rounds?

I bet nine against one there'll be a single round.

What does "the Right" and "the Left" mean, now and after the election?

When the principal national task is establishing a regular state, the modern 
Western distinction between the Right and the Left is of little relevance. 
When a friend of mine asked me a similar question, I retorted with another 
question: "What about Frederick the Great? Was he a Rightist or a Leftist?" 
Resp. Bonaparte, Bismarck, Stolypin.

******

#10
85 Percent of Russian Servicemen Take Part in Election. 

MOSCOW, March 26 (Itar-Tass) - A total of 85 percent of servicemen of the 
Russian Armed Forces took part in the presidential election by 18:00, Moscow 
time, Major-General Nikolai Burbyga from the Armed Forces's non-combat 
training department told Itar-Tass. 

In his words, 89 percent of servicemen of the Strategic Missile Troops, 95 
percent of the Navy men and 68 percent of the Air Force staff have taken part 
in the voting. 

The index was 99 percent in the Far Eastern military district, 92 percent in 
the Leningrad military district, 87 percent in the Volga military district, 
86 percent in the Siberian military district, 85 percent in the Moscow 
military district, 73 percent in the North Caucasian military district and 72 
percent in the Urals military district. 

Ninety nine percent of servicemen have voted in the Pacific fleet, it was 98 
percent in the Black Sea fleet, 95 percent in the Baltic Sea fleet and 94 
percent in the Northern fleet. 

A total of 94.8 percent of servicemen took part in the election in Chechnya 
by 18:00, Moscow time. 

*****

#11
The Guardian (UK)
March 26, 2000
Gay slur on Putin opponent 
Amelia Gentleman

Crude anti-Semitic and homophobic propaganda has been used by the 
Kremlin-controlled media in a last-minute attempt to target one of the key 
opponents of Vladimir Putin, Russia's acting President who it is widely 
believed will win today's presidential election. 

In one broadcast, alleged members of a gay group, Blue Heart, were shown 
enthusiastically endorsing Grigory Yavlinsky, a liberal candidate who could 
take enough votes from Putin to prevent him gaining the 50 per cent needed to 
win the first round. In Russian 'blue' is slang for gay. A rival broadcasting 
organisation said the entire event appeared to have been staged. 

Another report, broadcast last Thursday on the 51 per cent government-owned 
television channel ORT, claimed Yavlinsky had received financial backing from 
one of the country's most powerful Jewish businessmen, the media magnate 
Vladimir Gusinsky, who also has Israeli citizenship. Gusinksy's deputy, Igor 
Malashenko, said the report, which used images of Jewish people wearing 
traditional skullcaps, was clearly appealing to anti-Semitic sentiments. 

Commentators are accusing Putin's campaign team of exploiting entrenched 
homophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic attitudes in a last-ditch campaign to 
secure the support of wavering and apathetic voters. 

If Putin wins less than 50 per cent of votes, the election will go to a 
second round in mid-April - damaging his prestige. 

Russia's often unreliable opinion polls showed Putin's popularity had dipped 
slightly. By last Thursday - the last day polls could be published - his 
support had fallen from 60 per cent to less than 55 per cent. Although still 
well ahead of his closest rival, the communist leader Gennady Zyuganov - who 
has about 23 per cent - he was dangerously close to the runoff margin. 

This was the point at which the attacks on the liberal candidate began. 
Yavlinsky, a distant third, has just 6 per cent of votes. But he has seen his 
support rise at the tail end of the campaign, crucially eating into Putin's 
popularity. Putin's campaign advisers identified Yavlinsky's 6 per cent as 
crucial to an outright victory for the former KGB man. 

The other state-owned channel, RTR, provided more anti-Yavlinsky ammunition, 
quoting reports he had recently had plastic surgery. 

December's parliamentary elections were tainted by a vicious campaign against 
Putin's key rivals in prime time ORT broadcasts. Boris Berezovsky, the tycoon 
who has a major stake in the channel, said last Friday he was proud of the 
role the station played in dispensing with former prime minister Yevgeny 
Primakov and Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov. 

******

#12
Los Angeles Times
March 26, 2000
[for personal use only]
Oil Shortfall in Caspian Sea Basin May Doom U.S.-Backed Pipeline Plan 
Politics: Amount of crude found so far would not make project feasible, 
experts say. But diplomats aren't giving up what they see as a strategic 
dream. 
By TYLER MARSHALL, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON--An ambitious U.S. plan to link the huge oil fields of the 
Caspian Sea basin firmly to the West is in danger of unraveling because not 
enough oil has been discovered in the region to support a pipeline, 
independent analysts say. And a recent increase in oil prices isn't enough to 
rescue the project. 
A failure of the U.S. initiative could complicate shipments of oil and 
gas to the West from what many experts have said is one of the world's 
biggest undeveloped sources of crude oil. That, in turn, could tighten 
supplies and drive up prices. 
The U.S. plan, formally launched by President Clinton in November, calls 
for the construction of a $2.5-billion pipeline to carry the rich crude from 
the Caspian's western shores through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish 
port of Ceyhan. Undersea pipelines to be added later could feed crude oil and 
natural gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, linking those two eastern 
Caspian nations to the same western export route. 
To achieve this grand vision, the Clinton administration finds itself 
traversing unusual ideological ground. It has rejected shorter, commercially 
more attractive export routes, promoted the interests of repressive national 
leaderships, and done little to discourage the notion that some ill-defined 
U.S. security commitment has been extended to countries far from America's 
historic reach. 

Supply Falls Short by 2 Billion Barrels 
So far, none of this has guaranteed success. Indeed, energy specialists 
believe that a dearth of new discoveries in key offshore fields means that 
the volume of crude needed for oil companies to pay for the ambitious project 
simply isn't there. 
Energy experts calculate that, of the 6 billion barrels of crude oil 
needed for the Baku-Ceyhan route to make sense economically, only about 4 
billion barrels are guaranteed to be there for pumping. And there is no 
obvious way to make up the shortfall. 
Oil industry executives claim that the shortage stems from the slow pace 
of actually locating the huge reserves that they are convinced lie beneath 
the world's largest inland sea--a remote, industrially underdeveloped area 
where most of the equipment required for oil exploration must be built from 
scratch or imported. 
"Higher prices definitely make development of the Caspian look better, 
but there probably isn't enough oil now to justify this pipeline," said Julia 
Nanay, a director at the Petroleum Finance Co., an oil industry advisory firm 
based in Washington. 
Added Robert Ebel, an energy specialist at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies in Washington: "It's not a question of price. You've 
got to have enough oil to put through the pipeline, and there just isn't 
enough there." 
If the 11-member consortium behind the pipeline can't find enough 
oil--and can't get subsidized financing--the project probably will be 
shelved, analysts say. And although it isn't likely to be scrapped entirely 
because of the vast reserves that someday may be discovered, the grand 
American plan to tie the region's new democracies and much of its oil to the 
West at an early phase would have failed. 

For U.S. Diplomats, It's Pipeline Politics 
Despite the possibility of failure, it's not hard to understand why U.S. 
diplomats haven't given up. 
For them, the Baku-Ceyhan route is a strategic dream. The route would 
block Iran from becoming a major player in the Caspian oil bonanza. It would 
diminish Russia's centuries-old influence over the area. And it would provide 
fragile post-Soviet states with an independent outlet to world markets for 
their oil and gas, tying them to the West in the process. 
Best of all, in the diplomats' view, it would secure Western control 
over fields that could eventually produce up to 35 billion or more barrels of 
crude, deposits rivaling in size those of the prolific North Sea. 
With these kinds of stakes, the United States has waded knee-deep into a 
21st century version of the age-old intrigues that in earlier times turned 
the remote and wild Caucasus region into a playground for imperial ambition. 
The State Department has actively discouraged talk of shorter, cheaper 
routes from the Caspian to the open seas, especially the shortest and 
cheapest route of all: through Iran to the Persian Gulf. It has quietly 
warned against reliance on routes that traverse Russia and has heavily 
courted the fledgling post-Soviet states that sit atop most of the valued 
energy reserves. 
Clinton, who likes to cite the export of democratic values as a core 
priority of his administration's foreign policy, seems to make an exception 
when it comes to the Caspian. In the past few years, dubiously elected 
presidents from Azerbaijan (Heydar A. Aliyev) and Kazakhstan (Nursultan A. 
Nazarbayev) have made high-profile visits to Washington. Clinton also has 
welcomed Turkmenistan's president, Saparmurad A. Niyazov, whose personal 
record as a leader has been soundly trashed in annual human rights reports 
released by the State Department. 
Amid such contacts, many officials from these smaller and distant 
countries have come to believe that they are slipping under an American 
defense umbrella, even though U.S. officials insist that no direct 
commitments have been made. Such talk has unsettled Moscow, which has made 
veiled references about the dangers of "outsiders" meddling in the region. 
Some analysts worry that the ambiguous administration actions are 
creating a dangerous uncertainty by building expectations about potential 
U.S. commitments that aren't really there. 
"The State Department is looking at the larger geopolitical picture," 
said Geoffrey Kemp, Middle East specialist at the Nixon Center for Peace and 
Freedom, a Washington-based political think tank. "They've worked themselves 
into a frenzy by justifying the East-West route not only negatively--by 
excluding Iran and limiting Russia--but also positively, as nation-building 
for these smaller countries. 
"The truth is, you are working with very fragile material." 
While senior Azerbaijani officials frequently equate their country with 
Kuwait--an oil-rich nation that a U.S.-led coalition rescued from invasion by 
Iraq--Kemp says a better analogy probably is Lebanon in the 1980s. 
"The moment there was trouble [in Lebanon], we got out, and that's what 
would happen in the Caspian," he said. "We've got important, but not vital, 
interests there. I can't think of a more awkward place in the world to try to 
extend a hand." 
With the rise of moderates in Tehran and recent U.S. conciliatory moves 
in response, the wisdom of trying to freeze Iran out of the Caspian's 
development also might not be as great as it once was. 

Desperately Trying to Make Project Work 
The Turkish government, eager for the enhanced regional power inherent 
in a Baku-Ceyhan route, has discouraged a shorter, cheaper route that would 
run from Baku, the Azerbaijani capital, to Georgia's Black Sea port of Supsa. 
It has cited the environmental risks of supertankers maneuvering through the 
busy Bosporus strait on their way to the open seas. 
Against this political backdrop, the United States is desperately trying 
to make the economics of the Baku-Ceyhan line work. 
The consortium, which is investing up to $12 billion to develop the 
offshore Azerbaijani fields, initially resisted the Baku-Ceyhan plan as 
financially unworkable. But the consortium, headed by BP Amoco, reconsidered 
its position about six months ago in the wake of growing political pressure 
and is trying to come up with other solutions. 
U.S. diplomats and senior consortium executives talk of making up the 
shortfall by taking crude oil from a variety of other, smaller fields 
elsewhere in the Caspian. Some talk of barging crude to Baku from modest 
fields on the Caspian's eastern shores. Others even discuss the possibility 
of diverting crude from the huge offshore Kazakhstan field at Tenghiz in the 
north, oil that is expected to reach global markets via a major pipeline to 
Russia's Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. 
Independent analysts scoff at some of these options. 
"Maybe something magical will happen, but if they think they'll get 
[northern] Kazakh oil coming south, then they're smoking something," Ebel 
said. 
Consortium executives admit privately that they have few answers and 
suggest that subsidized financing might be one way to make the pipeline 
viable. They also hint that if the United States wants the pipeline badly 
enough, it should explore such options. 
Senior Clinton administration officials dealing with the project 
continue to insist that it will go forward without subsidized 
financing--although they, too, say they are worried about finding sufficient 
oil in time. 
"Exactly where it's going to come from is a serious issue," acknowledged 
one administration official. "It's a big problem." 

******