Center for Defense Information
Research Topics
Television
CDI Library
Press
What's New
Search
CDI Library > Johnson's Russia List

Johnson's Russia List
 

 

April 26, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4268  4269 4270  

Johnson's Russia List
#4268
26 April 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Bloomberg: Russia's Gorbachev on Putin, the US and Chechnya.
2. AFP: Putin gets ecstatic welcome in former Communist stronghold.
3. Reuters: Russia's Ivanov dashes hopes for ``star wars''
4. Irish Times: The Russians are cloning. Pirated software costs the 
industry billions of dollars each year, but for those who go to the 
Gorbushka open-air market in Moscow, the temptation is very strong. 
Seamus Martin reports.
5. Carnegie Moscow Center briefing by Nikolai Petrov on presidential election.
6. Karl Hanuska: Regarding #4262, Taibbi, Mueller and IKEA.
7. Vek: Andrei Sogrin, RUSSIA NEEDS BRAINS, TOO.
8. Kommersant: A COSTLY WAR. Kasyanov Estimates Chechen War Expenditures.
9. Ira Straus: Small is ugly (cont'd): Regions oppress media.
10. Marko Beljac: Russia's Nuclear Doctrine.
11. The Globe and Mail (Canada): Geoffrey York, Putin wins praise, 
maintains mystique.
12. RFE/RL: Michael Lelyveld, Moscow's Assertive Words Worry Caspian Neighbors.
13. AP: Worst Effects of Chernobyl To Come.
14. Reuters: U.S. plays down rift with Russia over Caspian.]

*******

#1
Russia's Gorbachev on Putin, the US and Chechnya: Comment
New York, April 25 (Bloomberg)
-- Following are comments by Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of 
the Soviet Union, during a panel discussion and press conference at the 
Regent Wall Street Hotel in New York. The ``Global Forum 2000'' event was 
hosted by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. 

On the U.S. role in world affairs: 

``Indeed the United States is the most advanced country going into the 
future,'' Gorbachev said through an interpreter. ``The United States will 
still retain its prevalence which it has had for some time.'' 

``Partnership is the name of the game,'' he said. ``As we say in Russia, 
sometimes when you are strong, you don't have to be smart. The U.S. should 
act responsibly. It has the power.'' 

On Russian President Vladimir Putin: 

``When people ask me what do you think of Putin given his KGB background, let 
me repeat what my answer is. I just ask what about President Bush. What about 
his background?'' 

``I think the important thing is what kind of person Putin is. Putin is a new 
man in Russian politics. He doesn't have enough experience in statesmanship. 
At the same time he is a serious and well-educated person. He is a very 
hard-working person.'' 

On Chechnya: 

``What's happening in Chechnya is a result of the misguided policies that was 
pursued by the previous administration.'' 

``When Russia became an independent nation, at that time the Republic of 
Chechnya did not receive proper attention from the government.'' 

``In Chechnya, because of neglect, because of lack of political action, the 
situation became acute. When this was first done in 1994 I spoke out against 
it. I suggested my own mediation. I decided I would not send troops to 
Chechnya because the results will be bloodshed and perhaps another Caucasus 
war.'' 

Then-President Boris ``Yeltsin did not respond to my offer of mediation and 
therefore was not successful. We know what happened with that war. But even 

after that first war, politicians were doing nothing.'' 

On the Elian Gonzalez case: 

``I think that we should abide by the rules. The rules that are reflected in 
certain parts of the international law. In this context, from this 
standpoint, I would like this very painful issue to be resolved in a humane 
way.'' 

*******

#2
Putin gets ecstatic welcome in former Communist stronghold

ORYOL, Russia, April 25 (AFP) - 
President-elect Vladimir Putin hopped on a tractor Tuesday as he drew an 
ecstatic welcome in the Oryol agricultural region, a former Communist 
stronghold which backed him in March's elections.

But in a blow to nationalist pride, the Russian leader lost patience when 
farm workers took 15 minutes to start a Russian-made tractor for him, 
declining to take the wheel after a flawless test drive of a German model.

Putin was mobbed by thousands of students -- some of them with tears of joy 
in their eyes -- as he arrived in the hot spring sunshine at an agricultural 
institute in the town of Oryol.

He also pressed the flesh at a privatized collective farm held up as a model 
of excellence by Russia's 47-year-old leader, who spoke out in favour of 
transferring state farms inherited from the Soviet era into private hands.

"I have just seen some of the best farming in the country. In 1992 three of 
the shares belonged to the director, now 51 percent, and output has soared," 
he said after visiting the Maslovo agricultural enterprise.

Putin said that Russia must "pass a general law" to make sure privatization 
took place fairly.

The Kremlin chief, who will be sworn in as president on May 7, is under 
pressure to forge ahead with farming reform, which economists say is urgently 
needed to modernize the inefficient agricultural sector.

During the decade-long rule of former president Boris Yeltsin, opposition in 
the Communist-led parliament blocked land privatization, which has only 
affected a small fraction of the country's total acreage under cultivation.

In areas where privatization has been pushed through it has produced better 
crop results and better prospects for farmers, officials say.

Prospects for land reform grew since anti-Kremlin parties lost their 
dominance in December elections to the State Duma lower house of parliament.

At the privatized Maslovo farm, a 44-year-old accountant, Lyuba, said working 
conditions had improved under commercial ownership.

"We are much better off now. Unlike others, we are paid on time and more. Of 
course there were good things under socialism but we won't go back to that."

Other employees said they voted for Putin because he was young and energetic, 
while Communist Party leader Zyuganov spoke empty phrases.

Oryol, which lies 380 kilometres (240 miles) south of Moscow in the "Red 
Belt" of central Russia that has traditionally been a core base of support 
for the Communists, is the birthplace of Zyuganov.

But in the March 26 presidential poll in which Putin swept to victory on the 
first round, the former KGB spy stunned Zyuganov by beating the Communist 
chief on his own home turf by 45.8 percent to 44.6 percent.


The Maslovo farm is seen as a typical example of former state agricultural 
enterprises, kholkozs, that have been privatized in Russia -- a process that 
has benefited the ex-Soviet managers.

The director holds some 50 percent of the shares and the rest of the 14,700 
hectare farm belongs to 250 employees out of the 420-strong workforce.

Local governor Yegor Stroyev said that 172,000 peasants in the region now 
owned their land.

Founded in 1566 by Tsar Ivan Grozny to defend Moscow against the Tartars, the 
town of Oryol became a centre for grain cultivation. A quarter of the 
workforce in the region is involved in agriculture.

*******

#3
Russia's Ivanov dashes hopes for ``star wars''
By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS, April 25 (Reuters) - Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov 
dashed U.S. hopes again on Tuesday of amending the 1972 Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty and instead promoted a global programme on curbing missile 
technology. 

In a speech to a review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT), Ivanov opposed any changes to the ABM treaty Washington might propose 
so it can develop a missile defence system to protect the United States 
against a rocket from a ``rogue'' state. 

``One has to be fully aware of the fact that the prevailing system of arms 
control agreements is a complex and quite fragile structure,'' Ivanov said. 
``Once one of its key elements has been weakened, the entire system is 
destabilised.'' 

``The collapse of the ABM Treaty would, therefore, undermine the entirety of 
disarmament agreements concluded over the last 30 years,'' he added. 

``The threat of the erosion of the nonproliferation regimes related to 
nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means would, 
therefore grow,'' he said. 

Ivanov spoke a day after U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright defended 
the new National Missile Defence policy, dubbed ``star wars,'' criticised by 
nearly every non-nuclear state as a threat to the ABM treaty. President 
Clinton is expected to decide this summer whether to go ahead and build the 
anti-missile shield. 

Ivanov said Russia was prepared ``to engage in the broadest consultation'' 
with the United States and with other nations. 

Specifically, he referred to a Russian plan to prevent to limit ``rogue'' 
states' access to missile technology, called the Global Missile and Missile 
Technologies Non-Proliferation Control System it proposed in March. 

``A phased approach to the development of this system on a broad voluntary 
basis, I am convinced, will be a step in the right direction,'' he said. 

Ivanov called attention to Russia's recent ratification of the START II 
strategic arms reduction treaty with the United States as well as its 
approval of the global nuclear test ban treaty that the U.S. Senate has 
rejected. 

PROGRESS REPORT ON DESTROYING TACTICAL ARMS 

He also provided a new progress report on Russia's destruction of thousands 
of so-called non-strategic tactical nuclear weapons that are not included in 
the START treaty. 


Ivanov said that one-third of the all nuclear munitions for sea-based 
tactical systems and naval aircraft had been eliminated. 

He said Russia was ``about to complete the destruction of nuclear warheads 
from tactical missiles, artillery shells and nuclear mines'' and that Moscow 
had destroyed half of the nuclear war heads for anti-aircraft missiles and 
air-dropped atomic bombs 

Russia had been harshly criticised for storing rather than destroying some 
20,000 non-strategic or tactical nuclear. The United States plans to 
refurbish its reserve of 2,500-3,000 warheads after Start II's limit of 3,500 
deployed warheads for each side is activated. 

But disarmament experts say that Ivanov's speech showed the same reluctance 
as Albright's presentation on Monday to meet demands by many countries that 
progress on eliminating nuclear weapons was far too slow and that both 
countries needed to commit themselves to an accelerated pace of disarmament. 

``Most of the world wants to work with the U.S. and Russia to eliminate the 
nuclear threat once and for all, `` said Dan Plesch, director of the 
British-American Security Information Council, an arms control pressure 
group. 

Instead we seem locked in an old-fashioned Cold War agenda of point scoring 
and mutual recriminations,'' he said. 

Signatories to the 1970 NPT, the cornerstone in arms reduction treaties, meet 
every five years to review progress and set new goals. 

This year's one-month conference that began on Monday is the first since the 
main nuclear states convinced the rest of the world five years ago to extend 
the treaty indefinitely. 

Under the treaty, only five countries -- the United States, Russia, Britain, 
France and China -- are permitted to have nuclear arms. The other 182 parties 
to the treaty have to renounce nuclear weapons for good. 

In turn the five have promised to move toward getting rid of the strategic 
and tactical nuclear arms they have between them, the vast majority in the 
United States and Russia. 

*******

#4
Irish Times
April 24, 2000 
The Russians are cloning 
Pirated software costs the industry billions of dollars each year, but for 
those who go to the Gorbushka open-air market in Moscow, the temptation is 
very strong. Seamus Martin reports 

At the end of Moscow's Kutusovsky Prospekt stands a triumphal arch that 
celebrates the victory over Napoleon in 1812. It is placed on the spot from 
which the French emperor caught sight of Moscow's golden domes for the first 
time. Leaving central Moscow and turning right at the triumphal arch one 
reaches a place where Russia is in the process of defeating the West once 
more. 

The field of battle is called Gorbushka. Here the West, and the US in 
particular, is losing its fight to hold on to intellectual property rights. 
Gorbushka is the biggest open-air market in Europe for pirated software, 
videos and almost everything electronic. 

I set out with a group of Russian friends in a big tank-like Volga saloon on 
a Sunday morning (the market takes place only at weekends). It was slow 
progress as we approached the park near the Bagrationovskaya metro station 

where the market is held. A husband and wife team held up traffic as they 
lugged a large refrigerator across the street from another nearby market that 
sells legitimate electrical goods. Crowds thronged the area. Almost everyone 
carried a plastic bag containing a purchase of one kind or other. 

Reaching the Gorbushka the first impression is of its size. There are two 
main avenues which meet at one end to form a V. Each avenue is thronged with 
thousands of people. Between the two avenues a free rock concert is in 
progress. Impromptu restaurants sell Shashlik, the traditional kebabs of the 
Caucasus. 

The first stall on the left sells pirated videos. You learn quickly how 
professional the operators are. My visit was a couple of days after the 
announcement of the Oscar winners. The video of American Beauty was already 
on sale at Gorbushka at 170 Roubles (4.85 at that day's rate). All movies 
from Shakespeare in Love to the trashiest porn cost the same price. The range 
available was simply overwhelming. 

Half way down the left-side avenue I met Vladislav who said he came from 
Podmoskovia, a huge region of small towns and dacha complexes, which 
surrounds the capital. He was not giving anything away about where he lived, 
how he operated or where he got his huge range of software. 

"The market has been going for five years now. Every so often, the 
authorities say they will close it down but they never do. I got involved 
because I like software. I have my own computer at home. I do not own the 
software in this stall because I just work here for someone else. A good deal 
of the software is made here in Moscow. Some is imported from Bulgaria," he 
says. 

At Vladislav's stall you can buy the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica on three 
compact discs with video and audio sections plus the Merriam-Webster 
dictionary thrown in for good measure. He had almost all of the most sought 
after computer software including Corel Draw, Adobe PhotoShop and Windows 
2000. 

One item that was missing, I noticed, was the CD containing Norton Utilities; 
Norton Anti-Virus and other Symantec programmes. "That one is really strongly 
protected," Vladislav told me. "You could get a very big fine or even be 
imprisoned for selling that." 

About 50 yards on, a young man emerged from another stall and said: "I hear 
you want the Norton disk. I have it." This trader, who called himself Oleg, 
did not seem worried about the Symantec people or anyone else for that 
matter. He was also selling an illegally produced disk containing all the 
laws of Russia. 

Oleg had one particularly important CD-ROM on offer. Moscow, it should be 
explained, has no telephone book. You simply must know someone's number. But 
here in Oleg's hand was a disk containing the telephone number of everyone in 
a city which has up to 12 million inhabitants. I asked Oleg where it came 
from. "I'm not fully sure," he said "but I think it came from an organisation 
that knows everyone's phone number." A wry smile passed across his face. 

Another organisation may also be involved in Gorbushka. Some days after my 
visit I spoke to my computer adviser Dima. There was no doubt in his mind. 

"Gorbushka is too big to be operating without Mafia involvement." 

*******

#5
From: KatyaSh@CARNEGIE.RU (Katya Shirley)
Subject: CMC has released Briefing #3, 2000 in English and Russian
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 

Dear David:

This briefing by a CMC scholar Nikolai Petrov reflects on the presidential
elections in Russia. With the elections now left behind, we hope the piece
will still be very interesting for your readers.
On the Internet at 

http://pubs.carnegie.ru/english/briefings/2000/issue03-00.asp in English 
and at

http://pubs.carnegie.ru/briefings/2000/issue03-00.asp in Russian.

*******

#6
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 
From: Karl Emerick Hanuska <khanuska@yahoo.com>
Subject: Regarding #4262, Taibbi, Mueller and IKEA

You've probably had enough of the IKEA-Moscow overpass
issue, but I wanted to say that I agree with Matt's
comments on the New York Times article.

No matter how you cut it, one source in a anticle that
long and contentious is shoddy journalism. There is no
excuse for it. For lack of an original source at city
hall it would have been easy enough to cite comments
in the local media or, at the very minimum, get a few
man-on-the street quotes on the issue.

That article and far too many like it in the Western
press in the weeks since IKEA opened here look like
they were written by journalists only wanting to jump
on the IKEA bandwagon. An editor says "Give me an IKEA
story. It's a good read. Everybody loves IKEA," so a
journalist runs off and manufactures a story out of
something less that newsworthy. 

I also think Matt is right about the historic
significance of the tank trap memorial. A few years
ago when I was having dinner at the home of a friend
in Moscow I made an uninformed and plainly stupid
comment about the tank traps only to have the family's
grandmother show me her hands, which were minus
several fingers. She lost them helping to keep the
Germans out of Moscow. Later I was told the
grandmother had also lost most of one leg during an
air raid. Sure it's a maudlin tale, but weighing easy
access to futon couches and pine bedstands against the
significance of the tank traps is absurd.

The grandmother has died since then, so the tank traps
are one of a few remaining symbols of the real
hardship that so many people suffered here and it is
unfortunate the Times article trivializes that
suffering. Whether or not one cares for Mayor Luzhkov,
he has repeatedly shown that symbols are important to
him -- hence the rebuilt Christ the Saviour cathedral
and the awful monument to Peter the Great that stands
in the river near Gorky Park.

******

#7
Vek
No. 16
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIA NEEDS BRAINS, TOO
By Andrei SOGRIN

The people of Russia have been living in conditions of 
crisis for such a long time that one gets the impression that 
economic setbacks tend to accompany democratic Russia ad 
infinitum. The nation's powers-that-be, leading politicians and 
economists alike continue to voice different opinions of the 
persisting crisis, though. It was believed five-seven years ago 
that Russia would manage to weather the crisis by restoring the 

economy and by attaining pre-crisis GDP levels.
However, all priorities have changed completely at this stage.
Whether this is a mere coincidence, or not, but more and 
more people keep saying after Vladimir Putin's election as 
Russia's president that the new government should opt for an 
entirely different economic line, and that it no longer makes 
any sense to produce more oil, gas, to build new plants and 
factories and to turn out more traditional products. The Center 
for Strategic Research has hosted a seminar dealing with the 
globalization of data-exchange technologies, as well as 
specific challenges and new opportunities for Russia in this 
context. Quite a few people, who attended that seminar, made 
some really outspoken statements, noting that the state should 
no longer exert its main efforts for the sake of restoring 
traditional production facilities. Information and 
data-exchange technologies seem to be the only key for Russia's 
long-term success. These factors would also make it possible to 
build a great and prosperous Russia. Anatoly Karachinsky, who 
serves as president of IBS Co., this country can be revived 
only if its economy turns into a veritable brain incubator 
pretty soon, no longer attaching priority to oil-and-gas, 
aircraft and aluminium production. Russia must unequivocally 
stake on computer technologies, also doing its best to train 
top-notch computer programmers. The West is now trying to 
expand the so-called new economy, which doesn't manufacture 
tangible goods, but which trains experts, who, in their turn, 
can streamline specific production processes of the fledgling 
global data-exchange economy all the time.
According to Karachinsky, Russian authorities have so far 
failed to completely comprehend the need for promptly altering 
specific economic-development priorities. Western universities 
keep annually graduating an increasingly greater number of 
specialists for this new economy. However, Russia has very few 
experts in this category. Well, this situation is really 
deplorable. Russian higher education establishments used to 
annually graduate 8,000-10,000 computer programmers ten years 
ago when that new economy was still nowhere to be seen. The 
global economic revolution has now got underway, what with 
Russian universities training just 7,000 computer programmers 
per year. Moreover, Russia, whose population is renowned for 
its really impressive average IQ levels, has turned into a real 
Mecca for big-league trans-national companies. Western 
head-hunters continue to scour Russia for really bright 
specialists. According to some statistics, hundreds of 
thousands of Russian specialists now work in the United States, 
swelling the wealth of the world's richest country by hundreds 
of billions of dollars each year. However, they would come in 
handy all over Russia, provided that, instead of annually 
extending the life of those half-dead leading Soviet-era 
enterprises, the state attaches priority to the new economy's 
development.
Similar opinions were voiced during a recent presentation 
ceremony that unveiled a book entitled "The President's Agenda 

in the Year 2000". This book was published by Russia's Foreign 
and Defense Policy Council. According to one of its authors, 
Sergei Karaganov, who is a well-known political-science expert, 
Russia can never hope to catch up with the West in line with 
that traditional "catch up and overtake" concept.
Even if this country begins to chalk up 10-plus percent GDP 
growth each year (beginning with the year 2000), it would still 
continue to fall behind the West. As a matter of fact, such a 
lag would increase in line with a geometrical progression. 
Russia needs a real economic boom, rather than any substantial 
economic-performance increment, for the sake of becoming a 
great and well-developed country.
Small wonder, the five leading global companies owe their 
successful performance to brains and state-of-the-art 
technologies, rather than steel, machinery, weapons or 
something no less tangible. Russia can no longer hope to catch 
up with America and overtake it with the help of more 
substantial oil-and-gas production. Nor can this be 
accomplished by boosting per-capita pig-iron and steel output.
Any traditional approaches to economic development, as well as 
traditional trouble-shooting options, will prevent Russia from 
offering any tough political and economic competition to the 
United States and its allies throughout the entire 21-st 
century.

******

#8
Kommersant
April 22, 2000
[translation for personal use only from RIA Novosti]
A COSTLY WAR
Kasyanov Estimates Chechen War Expenditures 
By Andrei BAGROV and German GALKIN, Chelyabinsk 

According to Mikhail Kasyanov, the anti-terrorist 
operation in Chechnya costs 2.5 billion rubles a month. This is 
quite a lump sum equivalent to 4% of monthly federal 
expenditures, or as much as the monthly expenditures on 
education or government management, or twice as much as the 
expenditures on health-care.
Commersant has found out that the real expenditures are, at 
least, twice as high.
It turns out that no one, including the Finance Ministry, 
know exactly how much the Chechen war costs. (It goes without 
saying that the issue at hand is more than money - the loss of 
life is irretrievable and cannot be estimated.) This became 
crystal clear after Commersant's correspondents contacted the 
Finance Ministry and many regional administrations.
Official expenditures are, in fact, close to Kasyanov's 
estimates - 2.5 billion rubles a month. This sum includes, 
first and foremost, expenditures on front additional payments 
(officers, non-commissioned officers and contract servicemen 
directly participating in warfare receive from 800 to 1,000 
rubles a day), which make up from 700 million to 1,000 million 
rubles a month. Then come travel allowances - about 40 million, 
and food expenses - up to 50 million rubles. The army and 
Interior troops spend much on benzine, aviation kerosene and 
diesel oil. The Defense Ministry qualifies these expenditures 
as secret. According to the estimate made by Commersant's 
experts (it is not very difficult to estimate the more or less 
exact number of trucks, BTRs, BMPs, tanks, SAUs, helicopters 

and aircraft at the disposal of a 100,000-strong group of 
troops), upwards of 600 million rubles are spent on fuel a 
month. Finally, about 150 million rubles are transferred in the 
form of pensions and wages to the people living in Chechnya who 
are financed out of the federal budget. In addition, Kasyanov 
has estimated that up to one billion rubles have already been 
spent in the first quarter on repairs and restoration. But 
there are also military-medical expenditures and the upkeep of 
200,000 Chechen refugees by the Emergency Situations Ministry 
and the Federal Migration Service.
We started having doubts about the correctness of the sum 
of 2.5 billion rubles, when we tried to estimate federal budget 
expenditures for the purchase of ammunition, weaponry and other 
military hardware. In 1991, during Desert Storm Operation, the 
US army spent $1bn a day. It is true that the Americans used 
strategic bombers, navy and a wealth of high precision weaponry.
Our army makes do, for the most part, without such costly 
"toys".
But as distinct from the first Chechen campaign, enough of 
quite up-to-date equipment and weaponry is being used now. 
Actually, this should be the largest item of military spending. 
These things either were paid for the most part out of the 
Soviet budget some ten years ago or have not been paid at all 
out of the Russian federal budget, which owes the Defense 
Industry Complex more than 20 billion rubles. Weaponry and 
equipment were brought to Chechnya from army storage facilities 
and the arsenals of individual units. But it all requires spare 
parts and repairs. In addition, it is necessary to replenish 
the used ammunition, and so on, and so forth. Anyway, all this 
will have to be paid for - if not now, then a little bit later. 
However, it is already clear that expenditures for weaponry and 
other military hardware alone are to be twice as high as 2.5 
billion rubles a month claimed by the government.
Furthermore. Federal budget allocations to the army and 
Interior troops are only enough to ensure minimal survival. It 
is necessary to appeal to sponsors. Igor Buzuyev from the press 
service of the Interior Ministry's department for Chelyabinsk 
told Commersant's correspondent that sponsors' contributions 
constitute up to 50% of the total sum of expenditure. "Not long 
ago four KamAZ trucks were sent to Chechnya from Chelyabinsk. 
The trucks were provided by two motor transport enterprises and 
the joint-stock company Mechel. Diesel oil was supplied by 
local businessmen," Buzuyev said. By and large, it is 
practically impossible to estimate the real costs of the 
Chechen campaign. 

******

#9
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 
From: IRASTRAUS@aol.com (Ira Straus)
Subject: Small is ugly (cont'd): Regions oppress media

The possibility of centralized suppression of media freedoms by Putin is 
frightening enough that I feel some reluctance at this moment about pointing 
out the local oppression of the media. Nevertheless, it is important to be 
aware of the relative state of the media in the center and the regions. If we 
want to oppose suppression of the media, we have to distinguish measures that 

further restrict the freedom of the media from measures that restrict the 
power of the regions to restrict the media.

The basic fact, shown by a press survey last year, is that central media have 
been far freer in Russia than regional media. Putin's argument for his 
centralizing measures is that they are freeing the media from oppressive 
regional controls. On the evidence, there could indeed be cases of 
substantial enhancement of media freedoms by strengthening central against 
regional influence. 

This does not mean that such liberation is in fact what Putin is doing when 
he tries, e.g., to centralize the subsidies to the media. But it is at least 
plausible. It deserves to be evaluated on the evidence, if only in order to 
distinguish genuine Putin threats to the media from false ones. 

Here are a few relevant statistics, taken from a careful evaluation last year 
of the freedom of the media in each of the 89 regions of the Russian 
Federation except Chechnya. It rated the media in each region by several 
factors indicative of their level of freedom, and then added them up to get 
the following results:


Freedom of Access to Information Index

Region________Index Summary
Bashkortostan____10.0
Sakha (Yakutia)____13.7
Magadan_____14.5
Altai Republic____16.3
Kalmykia______18.1
Buryatia_____44.8
Irkutsk_____47.6
Ivanovo______47.7
Vologda______47.8
Vladimir ____48.2
St. Petersburg_____50.5
Moscow (city)_______63.1

These numbers suggest two correlations: 

1. Nationwide media and media relating to the central government are freer 
than the provincial media. (Moscow media are largely nationwide.) Big city 
media are freer than small town media.

2. Predominantly Russian regions come out better for freedom of the media 
than titularly non-Russian regions.

Each correlation suggests its own causal explanation: 

1. The size explanation. Small is ugly. The press is likely to be more free 
in a big country than a small one, in big cities than small ones, in capital 
cities than in the provinces, because big countries and big cities tend to be 
more complex and pluralistic than small ones, and people from the center tend 
to be more sophisticated than provincials.

2. The ethnic explanation. The political culture of ethnic Russians is more 
liberal than that of most of the other nationalities within the Russian 
Federation, and their social structure is more modern and pluralistic.

Careful empirical study and multivariate path-analysis is needed to evaluate 
the relative weight of these two causal factors.

The survey provided a pretty good supply of data for such an empirical study. 
The brief set of data used above is simply the set that was used in the 
regions-oriented "RFE/RL Russian Federation Report", Vol. 1, No. 36, 3 

November 1999, "EYE ON REGIONAL MEDIA: Less Free Than Meets the Eye". The 
report went on to describe the survey as follows: "Participants in the 
Public Expertise project released on 27 October a "Freedom of Access to 
Information" index of 88 regions in Russia, not including Chechnya. The 
index, which is based on analysis of such indicators as the number of 

violations of press freedom and the ratio of periodicals printed by 
government-owned presses to those printed by private presses, shows that the 
press and access to information is considerably freer in such large cities as 
St. Petersburg and Moscow than in some outlying republics. Out of a possible 
100 points, rankings ranged from a low of 10 in Bashkortostan to a high of 63 
in Moscow. A map depicting the results graphically is available at 

http://www.freepress.ru/win/I.htm. The project is sponsored by the Union of 
Journalists of Russia, the Fund for the Defense of Glasnost, Internews, the 
National Institute for Social-Political Research, the Center for Rights and 
the Media, the Commission on Access to Information, and the Union for the 
Distribution of Publishing Products. (JAC)"

The map and other data from the survey are well worth looking at. They 
confirm in considerable detail the impressions that are left by the specific 
instances cited above. 

*******

#10
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 
From: Marko Beljac <markob@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Russia's Nuclear Doctrine

In JRL No 4265 Stephen Blank makes an interesting point in regards to the
extended
nature of the Russian nuclear deterrent. He did so in response to my original
posting whereby I had asserted that Russia's nuclear deterrent only,
"perhaps", is
extended toward Belarus. My original thinking was based on the following
passage
from the national security concept drawn up on Jan 14 2000 which states the
following "A vital task of the Russian federation is to exercise deterrence to
prevent aggression on any scale and nuclear or otherwise against Russia and
its
allies" (taken from www.armscontrol.ru). If by "it's allies" Russia here
refers to
the CIS I would concede the point to Stephen. I had considered "it's
allies" to
refer to Belarus. I had done so on the basis of the following report in the
march
issue of the journal of the arms control association, "arms control today",
which
states the following "in a Feb 5 statement Belorussian president Alexander
Lukashenko indicated that Russia had agreed to extend its nuclear umbrella to
Belarus, according to Russian press reports. Although Russian officials
have not
formally confirmed Lukashenko's statement, they have not issued a denial". My
usage of the term "perhaps" was a reflection of this lack of official
confirmation
of Lukashenko's claim. Note that a day prior to this, Feb 4, the security
council
approved the Jan 14 national security concept. If Russia agreed to extend its
deterrent as claimed here, then we can assume that it did not do so prior
to this
date to Belarus in particular and to the CIS states in general. Note also
that the
1997 security concept speaks of nuclear weapons in the context of "a threat
to the
existence of the Russian federation".

However even granting Stephen's point would not change my original argument
vis PD
60 and US nuclear deterrence. Indeed one could quite plausibly argue that
any move
by a strong military power or coalition of powers into the territory of the
CIS
would represent a threat to the national security of the Russian
federation. Some

strategic analysts (such as Brezezinski, China threat theorists etc) would
assert
that the presence of a strong non NATO military power or coalition on the
Eurasian
land mass would represent a grave threat to the security of the US, this is
not
even to begin to discuss the Western hemisphere.

*******

#11
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
April 25, 2000
Putin wins praise, maintains mystique
GEOFFREY YORK
Moscow Bureau

Moscow -- A month after his election victory, Russian leader Vladimir Putin 
is revealing himself to be a pragmatic deal maker who is skillful at building 
coalitions, maintaining tight discipline, and avoiding battles when there is 
any risk of defeat.

What he still hasn't revealed is the mystery of the larger aims these 
political skills will serve.

As he prepares for his May 7 inauguration ceremony, Mr. Putin has scored a 
quick series of impressive victories in the Russian parliament. He has also 
cautiously sidestepped potential clashes with regional barons and business 
tycoons who might be strong enough to fight back.

The president-elect used a combination of muscle-flexing and cajoling to 
persuade the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, to ratify START 2 
(Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and a separate global treaty on banning 
nuclear tests. 
He scored another victory last week when he pressured the upper house to 
approve the dismissal of prosecutor-general Yuri Skuratov, who had irritated 
the Kremlin with his corruption investigations.

These thorny issues had frustrated Mr. Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, 
who repeatedly tried and failed to persuade parliament to support him on the 
Skuratov and START 2 questions.

Mr. Yeltsin was hobbled by a bitter personal feud with the opposition 
Communists, who were able to mobilize enough support in parliament to create 
obstacles for the Kremlin even when they couldn't formally command a majority.

Mr. Putin has none of this personal animosity with the Communists. Indeed, he 
was a loyal Communist member himself until he quietly put away his membership 
card after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. His good relations with 
the party, along with his image as a strong patriot, have helped him gain 
support from parliamentary factions that often balked at supporting Mr. 
Yeltsin.

The Communists continued to oppose ratification of START 2 when the Duma 
voted on the treaty this month. But they muted their rhetoric and failed to 
mobilize the allies who supported them in the past.

To sweeten the deal, Mr. Putin shrewdly cultivated key Duma members by 
awarding them promotions in their military rank as reserve officers in the 
Russian military. The Communist leader, Gennady Zyuganov, was promoted to the 
rank of colonel. It was a flattering prize for nationalist parliamentarians 
who enjoy the appearance of patriotism and military honour.

The parliamentary votes on the nuclear treaties have boosted Moscow's 
relations with the West, a key tactical goal for Mr. Putin after the 
deterioration in relations caused by Russia's savage military campaign in 
Chechnya.


More important, they demonstrated Mr. Putin's ability to dominate the upper 
and lower houses of parliament.

"Putin can set aside long-standing ideological differences and make deals 
that Yeltsin could never make," said Alan Rousso, director of the Moscow 
Carnegie Centre, a political think tank.

"He has an ends-justifies-the-means way of thinking. He doesn't have 
Yeltsin's convictions and strength of character . . . But he gets things done 
that are in the West's interests."

The contrast between the political styles of Mr. Putin and Mr. Yeltsin could 
not be sharper. Unlike his predecessor, Mr. Putin and his team are tightly 
focused, organized, disciplined and pragmatic.

"He seems much more dedicated to doing the job of being president than 
Yeltsin was," Mr. Rousso said. "He and his team are more skilled in building 
coalitions. He has an ability to get things done. The pieces are in place for 
Putin to make far more progress in dealing with Russia's endemic problems 
than Yeltsin ever did -- but it's not yet clear whether this is what he wants 
to do."

To bolster his power, Mr. Putin plans to develop his own permanent political 
party, Unity, and use it as the basis for a stable two-party system, with 
Unity on the right wing and a moderate social-democratic party on the left 
wing.

Many Russians, including the political elites, are attracted to Mr. Putin's 
idea of "consolidating society" by building a more stable and predictable 
system of elite consensus. The philosophy harks back to Russia's communal 
traditions, and it has great appeal among Russian politicians.

"After a year of political battles, the Kremlin wants quietness, silence, 
peace of mind and even some kind of stagnation," the Russian newsmagazine 
Itogi commented recently.

"For this it should be able to rely on parties with a nearly military 
discipline. The idea of bipartisanship mostly attracts the Kremlin insiders 
because there will be no more turbulent parliamentary debates which lead to 
political crises. There will be no need to guess the outcome of each vote. . 
. . All questions could be decided well in advance in quiet Kremlin offices."

At this early stage in his rule, Mr. Putin is prudent enough to avoid 
unnecessary confrontations with powerful forces both at home and abroad. He 
knows he must patch up the Kremlin's tattered relationship with the West 
because he will need foreign loans, investment and technology. Even when the 
Council of Europe stripped Russia of its voting rights to protest against its 
Chechnya campaign, Mr. Putin was carefully restrained in his reaction.

In the domestic field, he knows he is not yet strong enough to battle the 
wealthy "oligarchs" and regional bosses who control much of the Russian 
economy.

He stood back and watched, refusing to intervene, as the oligarchs seized 
control of Russia's lucrative aluminum industry in a series of recent deals. 
And he withdrew the Kremlin's candidate from a regional election in St. 
Petersburg when he realized he could not defeat the local governor.

*******


#12
Russia: Moscow's Assertive Words Worry Caspian Neighbors
By Michael Lelyveld

Russia's president-elect Vladimir Putin has raised concerns with a new 
statement on policy for the Caspian region. But it is still unclear what his 
policy will be. Our correspondent Michael Lelyveld looks at the issue. 

Boston, 25 April 2000 (RFE/RL) -- President-elect Vladimir Putin has put 
Caspian oil back on the list of Russia's strategic concerns, but he has given 
few hints of what his government plans to do next.

Speaking before his National Security Council on Friday, Putin suggested that 
Russian companies have left too many openings for foreign competition in the 
Caspian.

Putin said: "We must clearly understand that the interest of our partners, 
Turkey, the United States, and Britain, in this region is not accidental."

"We believe that the key question in resolving this problem is defining the 
balance of the interests of the state and companies ... We will not be able 
to achieve anything by the power of the state alone," Putin said.

With those few words, Putin seems to have unleashed a new wave of speculation 
about Moscow's intentions. The Financial Times carried the Caspian story on 
its front page Saturday, eclipsing the news that Russia's State Duma also 
ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for nuclear weapons after a delay 
of more than three years.

Much of the attention may stem from the scrutiny that all the pronouncements 
of Russia's new leader have received. Many of Putin's comments on his 
policies have been cryptic and brief, creating an environment in which the 
press has been hanging on every word.

But it is unclear whether Putin's statement on the Caspian has broken any new 
ground, or whether it heralds a tougher or less aggressive approach.

On the one hand, Putin may be arguing that companies like Lukoil and Gazprom 
have not done enough to protect Russia's national interests in the Caspian, 
while U.S. and other oil firms have encroached in a region that was once 
under Moscow's control.

Following this reasoning, it can be argued that Caspian countries like 
Azerbaijan once took care to include Russian companies like Lukoil in their 
foreign contracts because of political sensitivities. As a result, Lukoil 
holds stakes in Azerbaijan's earliest Caspian projects, such as the "contract 
of the century" and the Shah Deniz consortium. Those deals were made in 1994 
and 1995.

But Azerbaijan has since signed over a dozen contracts without Russian 
involvement, suggesting that the importance of considering Moscow's wishes 
has waned as foreign influence has grown.

Following this line further, Putin may be saying that Russia now plans to 
work more actively in the Caspian, not only through state-owned enterprises 
like the pipeline monopoly Transneft but also through partially-owned 
companies like Gazprom and Lukoil. The Russian government owns about 38 
percent of Gazprom and 16 percent of Lukoil, although share sales are being 
considered for both firms.

The strategy of increasing Russian pressure in the region through the 
companies may make sense because of at least three reasons of timing.


The first is Lukoil's recent discovery of Russia's first oilfield in its 
Caspian sector. The second is the expectation of an oil discovery at the 
giant Kashagan field in Kazakhstan's neighboring sector. And the third is the 
approaching decision on financing of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

All three factors could motivate Moscow to become more assertive in the 
Caspian. If that is the case, Russia's neighbors may have something to worry 
about.

But an alternate interpretation of Putin's remarks may also be worth 
considering. In saying that he is trying to find the balance between the 
interests of the state and the companies, Putin may be acknowledging that 
Lukoil has largely acted like an independent oil company for years. Its 
conduct as a member of the Azerbaijan consortiums has been largely financial, 
not political. Putin may see a similar course for Gazprom.

Putin may well recognize that attempts at political manipulation will entail 
a major cost to Russian business. It is notable that he referred to Turkey, 
the United States and Britain as "our partners" in speaking about Caspian 
competition. In saying that nothing can be achieved "by the power of the 
state alone," Putin may be taking a business approach and calling a halt to 
political games.

He may also understand that contracts were signed with Western companies 
because of their technology for deep-water drilling, as well as their capital 
resources. Russia was unlikely to pursue the Caspian projects on its own.

One advantage of the ambiguity of Putin's statement is that it may satisfy 
both the domestic constituencies that seek to regain control in the Caspian 
region and those that simply want to do business.

Whatever the interpretation, the new Russian leader has again raised the 
level of interest in his future policies. Over the coming months, his real 
intentions may become clear. 

******

#13
Worst Effects of Chernobyl To Come
By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS
April 25, 2000

GENEVA (AP) - The United Nations released a new assessment of the 1986 
Chernobyl nuclear meltdown Tuesday, saying the worst health consequences for 
millions of people may be yet to come. 

``At least 100 times as much radiation was released by this accident as by 
the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined'' at the end 
of World War II, said a 32-page booklet released to mark the 14th anniversary 
of the disaster. 

Three people were killed in the explosion on April 26, 1986, and 28 emergency 
workers died within the first three months, the report said. It gave no other 
death toll, but noted that 106 of the other emergency workers that were first 
on the scene also were diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome. 

And, the report said, a total of 600,000 emergency workers who helped in the 
cleanup and later built a cover to seal the destroyed reactor ``must be 
constantly monitored for the effects of exposure to radiation.'' 

The booklet, published by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of 
Humanitarian Affairs, said the three countries most affected by the radiation 
- Belarus, Ukraine and Russia - continue to pay the price. 


``Chernobyl is a word we would all like to erase from our memory,'' said U.N. 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a foreword. 

But, Annan added, ``more than 7 million of our fellow human beings do not 
have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering, everyday, as a 
result of what happened.'' He said the exact number of victims may never be 
known, but that 3 million children require treatment and ``many will die 
prematurely.'' 

``Not until 2016, at the earliest, will be known the full number of those 
likely to develop serious medical conditions'' because of delayed reactions 
to radiation exposure, he said. 

Annan said response to a U.N. appeal launched three years ago had fallen so 
short that the original list of 60 projects had been shortened to the nine 
most urgent. 

``These nine projects could, if implemented, make a vital difference to the 
lives of many people,'' Annan said in appealing for governments and 
institutions to contribute $9.5 million. 

The projects include modernization of a hospital, creation of a network of 
centers to treat children and decontamination of schools, kindergartens and 
hospitals in Belarus. 

******

#14
U.S. plays down rift with Russia over Caspian
By Mike Collett-White

ALMATY, April 25 (Reuters) - A U.S. energy expert said on Tuesday that 
Washington and Moscow need not clash in their ambitions for the natural 
resource-rich Caspian region. 

Major powers are vying for control over output and exports of oil and gas 
from the Caspian basin, a volatile former Soviet region where the United 
States is keen to extend its influence and over which Russia wants to restore 
its lost authority. 

Jan Kalicki, a White House energy expert who met with Kazakhstan's Prime 
Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev, sought to play down any rift with Moscow. 

``I think it's clear that Russia plays a very important role in this part of 
the world,'' Kalicki said after meeting Tokayev. 

``We are very glad that the United States and Western countries also play an 
important role, and I think that the key is to develop arrangements where all 
of us can cooperate to further the economic well-being...as well as the 
independence and security of Kazakhstan and this region.'' 

But as the powers jostle for influence in the region the mood has become one 
of rivalry rather than cooperation. 

A string of high-level visits by U.S. officials culminating in a recent tour 
of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan by Secretary of State Madeleine 
Albright was interpreted by one leading Russian politician as a bid to 
alienate Moscow. 

Gennady Seleznyov, speaker of Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament, 
said in the Kazakh capital Astana last week that Washington wanted to 
``divide and rule'' in Central Asia, a region the size of Continental Europe. 

Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin expressed concern that foreign firms 
were eyeing the region's reserves of oil, gas and metals and urged domestic 
companies to get more involved. 

BIGGER RUSSIAN ROLE 

Analysts suggest Putin will pursue a more aggressive Central Asia policy than 
his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. 


That could generate more tension with the United States, which has lobbied 
hard for a pipeline from Baku in Azerbaijan to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, 
providing an outlet to the West which would otherwise pass through Russia or 
Iran. 

Washington has faced setbacks to its Caspian policy in recent months, 
including Kazakhstan's refusal to commit major volumes of oil needed to make 
its preferred export route economically viable. 

Kalicki said after his talks with Tokayev only that the two countries had a 
``clear mutual understanding'' over export issues. 

Despite the problems, it is U.S. and Western firms, not Russian ones, which 
are controlling the region's biggest energy projects. U.S. major Chevron is 
heading development of Kazakhstan's huge Tengiz onshore oilfield and BP Amoco 
leads Azerbaijan's premier oil project. 

*******

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

Return to CDI's Home Page  I  Return to CDI's Library