August 26, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4476 4477 4478

Johnson's Russia List
#4476
26 August 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. THE TIMES (UK) ONLINE SPECIAL: Alice Lagnado and Richard Beeston, 'Silenced' Kursk mother vows to step up campaign.
2. Moscow Times: Sarah Karush, Schools Fret Over Teacher Deficit.
3. Reuters: Thousands of Russians die evading vodka tax.
4. Interfax: RUSSIA COMMUNIST LEADER CALLS FOR "EXTRAORDINARY NATIONAL SALVATION PROGRAMME"
5. Reuters: Putin ups nuclear sector money after sub tragedy.
6. Interfax: RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTER REITERATES BELIEF THAT KURSK SANK FOLLOWING COLLISION.
7. gazeta.ru: No Breakthrough In Search For Moscow Bombers.
8. Ray Thomas: RE: 4474-Sedative.
9. Kenneth Duckworth: RE: Dan Bell in JRL 4472/Chile.
10. Stanislav Menshikov: PLAYING WITH DEFENCE MONEY LED TO KURSK DISASTER. Putin Should Not Be Blamed For Past Financial Policies.
11. Washington Post: Joshua Handler, Cold War Games, Dangerously Old.
12. Wilson Grabill: Media coverage of Russia.
13. STATEMENT OF FATHERLAND--ALL RUSSIA DUMA FACTION on Kursk crisis PRESENTED BY YEVGENY PRIMAKOV.
14. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Igor MAXIMYCHEV, TRAGEDY POLITICIZED. It's Immoral to Try to Capitalize on a National Grief.
15. Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst Biweekly Web Journal: Stephen Blank, THE NEW RUSSO-CHINESE "PARTNERSHIP" AND CENTRAL ASIA.] 


*******


#1
THE TIMES (UK) ONLINE SPECIAL
RUSSIAN SUBMARINE
AUGUST 25, 2000 
'Silenced' Kursk mother vows to step up campaign 
BY ALICE LAGNADO AND RICHARD BEESTON


THE mother of a Russian sailor killed on the Kursk submarine, who was
silenced by a tranquiliser injection as she berated a minister, last night
vowed to step up her push for justice for the victims.


As the Kremlin was thrown on the defensive by the chilling footage
broadcast around the world, the authorities in Russia attempted to suppress
a fresh burst of public outrage.


The pictures of Nadezhda Tylik being knocked out in mid-sentence by a
sedative, which appeared on the front page of The Times on Thursday, were
kept off the national networks.


Mrs Tylik said that she was distraught at the time of the meeting with Ilya
Klebanov, the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of investigating the tragedy.
Her husband had asked if there was a doctor who could help.


Experts in Britain, however, said that the injection administered was
similar to a knockout drug used by vets on animals.


Despite her ordeal Mrs Tylik, contacted on Thursday night at her home in
the closed naval town of Vidyayevo, refused to be muffled and once again
accused President Putin and the naval authorities of abandoning the men
under their command including her son Sergei, 24, who left a wife and a
11-month old daughter.


"When the tragedy is over we are forgotten, all doors shut on us," Mrs
Tylik said. She refused to go on a trip organised by the Navy for relatives
to lay a wreath at sea for the dead crew.


Instead of offering widows professional psychiatric help, the Russian Navy
has sent doctors to the houses of bereaved families to give out injections
and tablets.


Half the women at a recent meeting with the Russian President were heavily
sedated, according to the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper.


The Russian reaction has been extremely muted. Elena Belkin, a local
television editor, was scornful of the incident's importance. "It's
nothing," she said. "They have been giving out injections non-stop to
everybody. There's a brigade of doctors there. It's mass psychosis." 
*******


#2
Moscow Times
August 26, 2000 
Schools Fret Over Teacher Deficit 
By Sarah Karush
Staff Writer


Olga Zarubina's students may be used to fielding her tough questions, but 
Education Minister Vladimir Filippov was stumped by the English teacher's 
query on Friday. 


"On Sept. 1, we have to open the schools and there is a shortage of 
personnel," said Zarubina at news conference held by Filippov. "What are you 
doing about this problem?" 


Filippov conceded that the shortage of teachers is a problem his ministry 
will have to confront f most likely by making school service a requirement 
for some university students. But he offered no answers for educators like 
Zarubina who are scrambling to fill holes in their staff before the start of 
the school year next Friday. 


Filippov did not specify the extent of the shortage, but the daily Segodnya, 
citing ministry statistics, said the country needs 50,000 more teachers to 
make up the difference. Moscow alone has about 1,000 openings for teachers, 
said the paper. 


Zarubina, deputy director of School No. 1,276 in central Moscow, said after 
the news conference that her school is desperately seeking teachers of 
Russian and physical education. 


"It all comes down to money," said Zarubina, whose pretax salary is 2,900 
rubles ($104) a month. That figure includes her wage as deputy director with 
more than 20 years of work in the schools, plus money she gets for teaching 
classes. The Moscow city government boosts the salaries of local teachers 
with funds from its own budget. 


But School No. 1276 f which has a special focus on English f is in fairly 
good shape thanks to its solid reputation and connections with a number of 
respected institutes, said Zarubina. Other schools have it much worse, she 
said. 


Filippov said possible solutions to the shortage include automatic acceptance 
to universities for those who agree to go to work in schools upon graduation. 
Another possibility would be to enact legislation whereby diplomas are 
withheld from graduates of pedagogical institutes until they complete several 
years of work in schools. 


Moscow's City Pedagogical University, established five years ago, requires a 
two-year internship in a classroom after three years of coursework. 


As Sept. 1 looms, Filippov said the most pressing problem for the ministry is 
how to pay debts for utilities. 


He said electricity has been cut off in dozens of educational institutions 
and hundreds of others have received warnings. 


In Moscow, 10 schools do not have electricity right now, said Lyubov Kezin, 
head of the city's education committee, in remarks reported by Interfax. She 
told a city government meeting that 600 million rubles ($22 million) is 
needed to pay for utilities in schools. 


Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov pledged at the same meeting to resolve the problem, 
saying: "We are seeing a lack of understanding from the new leadership of 
Mosenergo." 


*******


#3
Thousands of Russians die evading vodka tax


MOSCOW, Aug 25 (Reuters) - A new liquor tax has caused thousands of deaths in 
heavy-drinking Russia this year, as ever more drinkers turn to dangerous 
black market moonshine vodka, the National Alcohol Association reported on 
Friday. 


Interfax news agency quoted the association as saying 15,823 Russians had 
died of alcohol poisoning in the first five months of 2000, an increase of 45 
percent over the same period in 1999. 


The NAA blamed a 40 percent increase in the tax on alcoholic drinks as the 
prime reason for the increase, saying it had caused drinkers to turn to 
illegally home-distilled, unregulated and potentially dangerous kinds of 
vodka. 


******


#4
RUSSIA COMMUNIST LEADER CALLS FOR "EXTRAORDINARY NATIONAL SALVATION PROGRAMME"
Interfax 


Moscow, 25th August: Russian Communist leader Gennadiy Zyuganov has called
for "an extraordinary national salvation programme" to be put into motion. 


In a message to President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov,
Federation Council speaker Yegor Stroyev and Duma speaker Gennadiy
Seleznev, Zyuganov laid out the Communist demands he believes should be
discussed at a specially convened state assembly consisting of the
president, members of the cabinet, both houses of parliament and prominent
scientists and experts. 


Zyuganov's message, the text of which has been obtained by Interfax,
contains five planks: 


1. To qualitatively change budget-making procedures. To use every
possibility to radically increase the budget, primarily through the
restoration of government control over leading companies taken away through
unlawful privatization. To nationalize the country's natural resources and
make them public property. 


2. To significantly raise funding levels for science, education and health
protection. To earmark the necessary means to the armed forces and all
institutions responsible for the security of both the nation and its people. 


3. To tighten executive discipline. To create a fully-fledged system of
public and government control. To give the Federal Assembly powers to
control the observation of the law and conduct parliamentary
investigations. To create conditions for the effective efforts of the
judicial system, prospector's offices and law-enforcement agencies to
protect the rights and liberties of the individual. 


4. To strengthen the economic and intellectual foundations of the state. To
guarantee true freedom of speech. To stop the antistate propaganda
dominating national TV and radio. To guarantee free comparison of all
points of view and unbiased coverage of news and events. To set up
supervisory councils in the government-owned media outlets for this purpose. 


5. To mercilessly suppress separatist and terrorist forces. To resolutely
stop the implementation of a strategy of tension aimed at creating an
atmosphere of lawlessness, fear and apathy and the destruction of the
foundations of the state system and morals. 


Zyuganov says such steps are necessary because "the terrifying, horrible
and criminal conditions already a decade old in Russian society that is
being destroyed under slogans of democratization and market reforms have
driven Russia to a line beyond which catastrophe awaits". 


"The tragedy in the North Caucasus, the unsolved large-scale acts of
terrorism in the capital and other cities and the demise of the nuclear
submarine Kursk have again shown that the country will not survive with a
government incapable of developing a normal governing mechanism and which
finds itself at a loss in critical situations," Zyuganov says. 


"Russia will not be saved by a simple replacement of one head of state by
another without changing economic or social policies," the message says. 


Zyuganov calls for replenishing the state coffers by "stopping the flow of
national wealth into the pockets of the embezzlers of Russia". 


"The time has come for the public, all branches of power and especially the
head of state to make a decisive choice," he opines. The president should
opt for "a pro-state and patriotic course based on national interests and
the well-being of the entire nation". Then Putin "can count on the support
of the broadest patriotic forces", the message says. 


*******


#5
Putin ups nuclear sector money after sub tragedy
By Adam Tanner

MOSCOW, Aug 25 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin ordered higher pay on 
Friday for workers in Russia's struggling nuclear sector in his latest 
handout to the military since the Kursk submarine disaster. 


A Kremlin spokesman did not give the details of Putin's decree. But 
Prime-Tass news agency said it offered pay raises and higher pensions to 
staff involved in the design, construction and servicing of nuclear warheads. 


The order was the latest sign that Putin is seeking to boost spending on the 
beleaguered defence sector rather than recognise his impoverished country's 
limitations and scale back commitments as some Russian politicians and 
commentators have advocated. 


Putin ordered the government on Thursday to boost salaries to the armed 
forces, police, prison guards, customs officials and the tax police by 20 
percent. 


He met Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin and said defence and security spending 
would benefit from any windfalls from oil or other revenues in next year's 
budget. 


Putin was severely criticised for his hands-off approach to efforts to save 
the crew of the Kursk, which sank on August 12 in the Arctic Barents Sea with 
the loss of all 118 crew. 


Putin said in an emotional television interview on Thursday that more money 
for the military would be forthcoming. 


The sinking of the Kursk, and Russia's inability to launch a quick, effective 
rescue effort, highlighted the impoverished state of the post-Soviet Russian 
military. 


ANY PRICE FOR A STRONG MILITARY? 


Yet Putin, who rose to power on the heels of a military campaign against the 
breakaway Chechen republic, appears loath to admit Russia may have too many 
military commitments for the post-Cold War order. 


Many Russians feel the same way. 


A poll of 1,500 Russians by the Public Opinion Fund showed 49 percent felt 
that Russia is ``a great power and needs a strong army at any cost,'' up from 
29 percent four years ago. 


``During these tragic days, the president has received his strongest support 
from those millions and millions of non-naval specialists, who feel it was 
wrong, if not criminal, to 'reform' the army as they have in recent years,'' 
the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily wrote on Friday. 


Highlighting the government's focus on the nuclear sector, Prime Minister 
Mikhail Kasyanov toured Sarov, the leading atomic research city once called 
Arzamas-16 and home to the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb Andrei 
Sakharov. 


He told scientists there that the nuclear-powered Kursk, which sank in the 
Barents Sea, did not pose an environmental threat. ``The level of radiation 
is normal and we have no concerns,'' Interfax quoted Kasyanov as saying. 


Putin's boost to nuclear workers comes at a time the sector has enjoyed 
stable financing and was not seeking more government funding, Atomic Energy 
Ministry spokesman Yuri Bespalko said. 


``Given the situation in the country things have been pretty good for us,'' 
he said. ``We have enough resources for stable development of the sector.'' 


Two years ago scientists, who earn about 4,000 roubles ($144) a month at 
Sarov staged a brief unprecedented strike because of months of wage delays. 


($1-27.70 Rouble) 


*******
#6
RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTER REITERATES BELIEF THAT KURSK SANK FOLLOWING COLLISION
Interfax 


Ashuluk, (Astrakhan region), 25th August: The most likely cause of the
sinking of the nuclear-powered submarine Kursk on 12th August was a
collision with a foreign submarine, Russian Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev
told Interfax in Ashuluk in Russia's Astrakhan Region today. 


"More than 10 theories are being checked out, but I have been moving
towards the view that this tragedy was caused by a collision with a foreign
submarine," Sergeyev said. 


Russian and foreign submarines have collided during Russian Northern and
Pacific fleets' exercises on 11 occasions over the past 30 years, of which
US submarines were involved 10 times, Sergeyev said. This suggests that the
Kursk might have been disabled and sunk as a result of this kind of
collision, he said. 


The Northern Fleet is using rescue submersibles to canvass the area where
the Kursk sank in a search for evidence to either confirm or refute this
scenario, Sergeyev said. On the other hand, Russian surface ships that were
in the area at the time are also being examined for evidence of collision
damage, he said. None of these theories can be rejected offhand, and each
has to be confirmed or refuted by the evidence, the defence minister
pointed out. 


Sergeyev has arrived at the Ashuluk testing grounds to observe joint CIS
air defence exercises. 


*******


#7
gazeta.ru
August 25, 2000
No Breakthrough In Search For Moscow Bombers

On Thursday Moscow Police Headquarters (GUVD) held a press briefing to
report they had completed the fifth stage of the counter-terrorist
operation nicknamed Vikhr-Antiterror (Whirlwind-Antiterrorism). The police
distributed a press release containing information about how the city
police had been fighting “criminal ethnic groups”, homeless and beggars. 
The police’s press release did not however, contain any information on the
main goal of the operation, i.e. the capture of terrorists. 


The fifth stage of Vikhr-Antiterror operation commenced on August 9, the
day after the bomb blast in the pedestrian subway on Pushkin Square in the
centre of Moscow which killed 12 and injured over a hundred, some of whom
are still in hospital in a serious condition. 


The fifth stage of the operation ended on August 20. The report said that
the police had stepped up patrols, set up more checkpoints on the city
limits streets and searched many apartment blocks, warehouses and all the
city’s underground railway stations. 


The traffic police (State Inspection for Road Safety, GIBDD) inspected all
vehicles arriving in Moscow and searched abandoned cars. 


According to the acting chief of the Public Security Police (MOB GUVD)
Valery Karnaukhov, over the 11-day period, police with dogs searched over
200 thousand apartments and 300 thousand attics and basements. As a result,
almost 3 thousand people were detained, 60 of them suspected of arranging
various explosions. 


The traffic police have started helicopter patrols to survey the city
limits for vehicles attempting to enter the city via unusual routes. All
vehicles arriving from the south are subject to more thorough searches. 


Police headquarters representatives did not say a word about their
allegedly successful investigation into the Pushkin Square blast. Police
will report on the results later, said Valery Karnaukhin. 


After the counter-terrorist operation is completed, the police plan to
maintain the high alert regime. That means that 18 thousand policemen,
instead of the usual 9 thousand, will daily patrol Moscow’s streets. Police
guards work one 12-hour shift a day. 


As from this week, policemen will eventually be granted some days off.
Since August 9th they have been working 7 days a week. 


The police chiefs complained that Muscovites display less vigilance as the
fear of further terrorist acts gradually wears off. For instance, said the
police chief, on Tuesday only 14 people called the police after they had
spotted suspicious objects. None of those objects proved to be an explosive. 


“Yet, earlier we received hundreds of phone calls,” lamented the GUVD chief
and urged Moscow inhabitants to call the police more often, no matter how
slight the suspicion. 


The city police have conducted another operation to deal with homeless
persons and beggars. Moscow homeless are usually scornfully referred to as
‘bomzh,’ (an abbreviation for a person without a fixed place of abode). 


Policemen are continuing to apprehend homeless persons and beggars. Over 30
thousand persons have been detained since the beginning of the year. The
Criminal Code does not stipulate any punishment for homelessness, therefore
they cannot be sent to jail. 


According to a presidential decree from 1993, it is the police’s duty to
prevent vagrancy. The majority of Moscow ‘bomzhs’ are from Moldova,
Tajikistan and The Ukraine. There is no place they can be sent back to.
Policemen take the homeless to special centres where they get a bath and
medical examination, and those in good health are then free to go. Those
who need medical treatment are sent to hospitals. 


Mikhail Zygar 
*******


#8
From: R.Thomas@open.ac.uk (Ray Thomas)
Subject: RE: 4474-Sedative
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000


The Russian naval authorities will need to provide evidence if they are to
disprove the allegation that the mother of a Kursk submariner was
involuntarily given a sedative injection while she was questioning the
deputy prime minister.


The navy spokesman Vladimir Navrotsky by saying that these allegations are
absurd is demonstrating that even he, among others in 
Russia, has not been given the opportunity to see the footage of this
incident that has been seen by millions of westerners.


The dominant tone of the denial is 'find the culprit'. The culprit in this
case being the cameraman who took the pictures! 


A witness is quoted as saying she had not seen an injection. But does
this witness deny that that she saw a female 'nurse' holding a what appeared
to millions of viewers to be a hyperdermic needle standing immediately
behind the protesting mother. Does this witness deny the 'nurse' moved
rapidly away from the protesting mother leaving her to collapse in the arms
of male naval officers.


If there is to be a convincing denial we need an account from the 'nurse'
herself. She is quite recognisable. Can she explain what she was doing
if not administering a sedative?


Without such a denial westerners cannot but conclude that lying is as much a
Russian habit as it was a Soviet habit.


*******


#9
From: "Kenneth Christopher Duckworth" <kgducks@mail.i.com.ua>
Subject: RE: Dan Bell in JRL 4472 - Russia Doesn't Need Advice 
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 


Dan Bell in JRL 4472 wonders why it is that neoliberals "assume people 
working for the state are bad, and people working for private corporations 
are good." He misses the whole point of neoliberal philosophy (which is
not "
neo" at all, but simple classical liberalism as opposed to the pejorative 
form generally bandied about today) is to give individuals self
determination 
over their own affairs. I have of late come to appreciate this in planning 
for my wife's and my retirement and for our daughter's college education. I 
am a better determiner of where and how to invest our money for our own 
present and future needs than is a government agency. This is a simple
fact. 


The difference between "entrusting" my money to a governmental agency or a 
private corporation is the freedom of choice I have in determining where and 
how my money is invested. With the government, I have no such choice. My 
money is forcibly taken from me through taxation, is invested and used as
the 
government sees fit (Often for purposes other than was originally intended. 
Witness how the U.S. Congress sees fit to dip into the Social Security trust 
fund to cover the deficit.), and there is very little accountability when it 
comes to performance. With a private corporation, be it a mutual fund, 
brokerage, bank, or other financial institution, I maintain complete control 
of my savings and investments. I am free to choose the institution, amount, 
and type of investments that will best serve my and my family's needs, and I 
am able to move my money from one institution to another if I am not 
satisfied with the performance. 


The essence of the market is that it gives the individual the widest freedom 
of choice to determine what best satisfies his/her own needs. There are, of 
course, certain public goods, such as police protection, a system of courts 
and laws, international security, etc., that cannot be provided by the 
market, and these are justifiably the services that are to provided by the 
state, and for which the state may legitimately raise revenues through 
taxation. I do not advocate turning these functions over to the market, and 
do not think it would effectively provide for them. However, where turning 
over governmental functions over to the market would enhance individual self 
determination and freedom of choice, and in the process provide a higher 
level of service, then I think we need seriously remove government from
other 
than playing an appropriate regulating role. 


I don't know anything about Jose Pinera and his role during the Pinochet 
regime, but having lived and worked in Russian and Ukraine for the past six 
years, and studied Soviet and Russian politics for an even longer period I 
have come to appreciate that the fundamental difference between the American 
and Soviet systems was the amount of trust that is given to the people.
To a 
large extent, protestations of the Republican right and Libertarians aside, 
the American system has entrusted people with the management of their own 
affairs and public policy debates are generally centered on the issue of how 
to enhance individual liberty and autonomy. All this is enshrined in a body 
of law and cultural practices that have produced a fairly successful,
though 
far from perfect, social, economic, and political model. The Soviet model, 
in contrast, did not place this trust in the hands of the individual or even 
in the people as a collective. The state, through the Communist Party, was 
the sole determiner, and arrogantly and destructively so, of how to meet the 
welfare of all the people. We can see in the ruins of the Soviet Union and 
in how quickly the people's of Eastern Europe threw off Communist rule
what a 
successful model it was! 


I do not defend misguided or inappropriate policies that the U.S. and its 
allies may have put in place to foster the transition from plan to market
and 
from dictatorshio to democracy in Russia and other former Communist states 
that may have favored a few corrupt individuals over the public at large. 
However, I do think, as surely as any American who has inherited the 
country's liberal tradition must think, that the proper role of government
is 
limited to those activities which can best be performed by government, and 
that all other activities belong in the realm of the people who are best
able 
to determine the methods for achieving their own happiness. 


*******


#10
From: "stanislav menshikov" <menschivok@globalxs.nl>
Subject: PLAYING WITH DEFENCE MONEY LED TO KURSK DISASTER
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 


"MOSCOW TRIBUNE", 25 August 2000
PLAYING WITH DEFENCE MONEY LED TO KURSK DISASTER
Putin Should Not Be Blamed For Past Financial Policies
By Stanislav Menshikov


While the immediate causes of the Kursk submarine disaster are probably
technical, or results of human error or sabotage of some sort, the larger
and more important lesson is that Russia has not been spending enough money
and resources on maintaining its defence capacity in an adequate condition.
The Northern Fleet (to which the sunken submarine belonged) reports that so
far it has been receiving less than 10 percent of its funding requirements
which explains the inadequate preparedness of some of its crew, economising
on communication and essential anti-collision equipment and the poor state
of saving facilities available to the Russian navy in general. Under such
conditions tragic incidents like the one that happened are bound to happen
and it is sheer luck that they have not occurred more often.


Beggarly conditions are not peculiar to the Northern Fleet but are shared
by the armed forces in general. The prolonged war in Chechnya and the
exorbitant number of civilian casualties and harm done to civilian housing
and installations there are due to absence of more sophisticated high
precision weaponry that is not available to the Russian army for lack of
development and production resources. Another result is the current
pressure to scrap most of the nation's nuclear arsenal, eliminate ground
anti-aircraft defences, and after the Kursk catastrophe even demands to
cancel plans to expand the nuclear submarine fleet. 


It is useless to blame Mr. Putin for this sorry state of affairs which he
inherited from the Yeltsin administration. Throughout the 1990s, rigid
financial policies were actively strangling whatever remained of the
military establishment after the initial Gaidar shock. The defence budget
was sharply reduced in line with the new concept of national security, but
normally only half or less of the these official budgetary appropriations
were actually allocated to the armed forces by the Finance ministry,
particularly under Mr. Chubais. These policies were pursued by the same
liberals who are today castigating the government and the president for
inattention or worse towards the Kursk crew and the "useless" war in
Chechnya. And who are also claiming (with support from foreign
sympathisers) that Russia is not in a position to pay for the military
posture of a great power and should further reduce its nuclear shield.


The Putin administration is rightly disregarding these claims. It seems to
agree with the view that in a growing economy the nation can afford to
spend more on defence and slowly mend the financial condition of its armed
forces. Draft budget figures for 2001 suggest that the government intends
to raise defence expenditure from this year's 2.39 per cent of GDP to 2.66
per cent. This is in line with our suggestion of an annual increase of at
least a quarter of one percentage point. In real terms this entails a
yearly boost of 17 per cent. Nothing like this has been happened before
Putin and is certainly a step in the right direction. 


But is this a genuine change of heart in the Finance Ministry or is it
simply playing the numbers game to satisfy the President and the defence
establishment? According to Defence Minister Igor Sergeyev the military
are still getting less than half of the appropriated moneys. If that is
true, then only a minuscule 1.2 per cent of GDP is actually being spent on
defence, not 2.4 per cent. The difference is too large to be shrugged off
and deserves special investigation. Vice-premier Ilya Klebanov claims that
the government's debt to the armed services is about to be paid in full.
But there are grave doubts that it is. If it is not, then were does the
appropriated money go? And how much will the military really receive in
2001? The numbers game can easily reduce the projected 52 billion roubles
increase in the defence budget to zero if left out of public control. These
issues have never been seriously raised and discussed in public, as they
should have been. But it is they that underlie the fate of the nation's
submarines and their crews rather than which official should be where at
the time when a disaster happens.


It should be stressed that we are not advocating a resumption of the
armaments race but simply arguing in favour of allocating adequate
resources for defence. Compared to what other nations spend this is not
great money ­ the equivalent of only $7 billion against $200 billions in
the US. Our American friends say that is far too much to maintain US
defences. As to the Russian figure, it is unquestionably too small. The
Russian budget is far from getting militarised, as claimed by some.
Military spending is only 18 per cent of total current federal expenditure
and will be reduced to 17.4 per cent in 2001 ­ even after its scheduled
absolute rise. So there should be more money, not less left for other
purposes. So far the delicate balance is being kept, at least on paper. 
Going back to the Yeltsin days would be a disaster.


******


#11
Washington Post
August 25, 2000
[for personal use only]
Cold War Games, Dangerously Old
By Joshua Handler
The writer is a doctoral student in the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton
University. A former research coordinator for Greenpeace's disarmament
campaign, he has traveled widely in Russia during the past 10 years
investigating the Russian submarine fleet's safety and environmental record.


"We don't discuss submarine operations, other than to say that our
submarines operate throughout the waters of the world. But we don't discuss
the specifics of submarine operations or their locales." -- Pentagon
spokesman Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, at a news conference Aug. 15, when asked
whether U.S. submarines were near the Kursk when it went down.


The lateness of Russia's request for Western help to rescue the crew of the
stricken Kursk has been heavily criticized, and it is safe to say that
Soviet-era secrecy, pride and indifference to the plight of common sailors
undoubtedly played a role in the delay. But the Russian navy might have
been expected to mount a successful rescue on its own; in the past it has
saved sailors from sunken submarines. Moreover, is it realistic to expect
the Russian navy to dial 911 immediately? The U.S. Navy wouldn't call the
Russians if a U.S. nuclear sub went down--and not just because it thought
the Russians couldn't help. As Quigley's comments show, the U.S. Navy
zealously guards its secrets as well.


Why all this secrecy and suspicion? Few realize that since the fall of the
Berlin Wall, a Cold War at sea has persisted. The Russian navy complains
that U.S. submarines still operate near Russia's coasts. Two U.S.
submarines were in the vicinity of the Kursk monitoring the Russian naval
exercises when it went down. In 1992 and 1993, U.S. submarines collided
with Russian submarines in the same area. The downturn in the U.S.-Russian
relations after NATO's expansion, U.S. national missile defense plans and
bombing of Yugoslavia have not helped. The Russian navy is deploying not
only because it needs to show its importance to President Putin but also
because Russia's conservatives can still argue that it needs to go to sea
to counter a threat from the West.


The underwater Cold War has heightened tensions even as the real need for
the navies to confront each other has declined. Although submarines were
the capital ships of the Soviet navy, even during the best of times a
syndrome of poor training, maintenance, construction and design made Soviet
submarines hazardous. Fires, explosions and reactor accidents were common.
Nine Soviet-Russian submarines have sunk since 1957, killing almost 300
sailors. In 1985, a reactor exploded during a refueling, killing 10 and
releasing several million curies of radiation. Soviet submarines were
frequently as much a danger to their crews to Western navies.


The Russian navy inherited all these problems and some new ones. Russia is
unsuccessfully trying to run a first-world navy on a third-world budget.
The lack of funds has caused the Russian nuclear submarine force to shrink
dramatically. In 1990, the Soviet navy had some 190 nuclear-powered
submarines. Today the Russian fleet may have about 50. (The U.S. Navy by
comparison deploys more than 70 nuclear-powered subs). Deployments have
shrunk 70 percent, from 55 in 1991 to 16 in 1999. Russia may lose most of
its nuclear submarines in the next five to 10 years. The United States and
Russia need a new naval agenda centered on cooperation, not competition.
During the late 1980s and '90s, the U.S. and Russian navies engaged in a
series of ship exchange visits. There have also been joint air-sea rescue
exercises. This cooperation needs to be given a higher profile and
expanded. Dangerous operations near each other's coasts need to be reduced
or halted. We need to standardize equipment and procedures to ensure that
when an accident occurs, assistance can be provided in a timely fashion.


Decreasing naval tensions would help with Russia's naval nuclear
environmental problems. The retirement of Russia's nuclear submarines has
compounded a large naval radioactive waste problem left over from Soviet
days. Secretiveness and mistrust on both sides have prevented cooperation
on this point. The Russian authorities have been reluctant to provide
access to closed naval areas.


And the cold warriors of the U.S. Navy's nuclear propulsion program fought
strongly in the early 1990s against any joint action to address the Russian
naval nuclear legacy. The situation is still urgent, and an improvement in
navy-to-navy relations might help sweep the last reservations about
providing Russia with more assistance.


During the past 27 years, seven nuclear-powered submarines have sunk--two
American and five Russian--one every four years on average, killing almost
640 men. This problem needs to be addressed in order to prevent another
nuclear sub sinking in the world's oceans, creating a new human tragedy and
an environmental threat.


*****


#12
From: "Wilson F. Grabill Jr." <wgrabill@one.net>
Subject: Media coverage of Russia
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 


Lets face it, the media oligarchs of the West and Russia
have a common goal, to show Russia in the worst possible
light.


Witness the shameful conclusion jumping that CNN and
others applied to the Kursk mother story.


The report was that the mother of a crew member was
sedated forcibly at an emotion packed meeting with a
government official, as proven by TV footage
(conveniently provided by BBC).


The conclusion jumped to was that Russia was going back
to its Soviet past, with forcible drugging of dissidents


This is what the "News Oligarchs" want to believe, and
want us to believe. This is their agenda. Motives can
be discussed at another time.


I talked with my colleague in Moscow on Thursday, and he
was delighted that Putin on TV had lambasted the Russian
oligarchs for their greed, and neglect of their country-
men. He went so far as to suggest that they sell their
French Riviera villas and invest the money in Russia.
This was unreported in the West.


Next I find that a major French press agency is casting
serious doubt on the British produced "Mother sedation"
story. It seems that nobody knows who filmed it, and no
syringe was ever actually seen. Perhaps the Russian
oligarchs are striking back at Putin! They certainly
have a receptive audience in the West.


Keeping Russia weak is the goal of all the oligarchs,
and the "free to the oligarchs" press in the West and
in Russia are their tools.


Anyone who really knows Russia, and values her wonderful
people who have suffered enough in this century,
understands this, and is revolted by it.


******


#13
TITLE: STATEMENT OF FATHERLAND--ALL RUSSIA DUMA FACTION
PRESENTED BY YEVGENY PRIMAKOV
(KADASHEVSKAYA NAB. 32/2, 16:30, AUGUST 23, 2000)
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE


Primakov: I would like to acquaint you with the statement
issued by the Fatherland--All Russia faction at the State Duma of
the Russian Federation. 
Members of the Fatherland--All Russia faction of the State
Duma bow their heads in memory of the heroic submariners. We
understand that the relatives of the Kursk crew have the worst of
it today. We ask these people who have become so close to us to
accept our profound condolences.
We will consider it to be our sacred duty to seek the
clarification of all the circumstances and causes of what happened
in the Barents Sea however bitter the truth may be. 
But this is not the only reason why the faction is issuing
this statement. The tragedy of the submarine, like a flash of
lightning has illuminated the situation in the country, the state
of our Armed Forces and the situation in the navy. There is no
point in recounting what every conscious citizen of Russia knows
already. It is necessary to draw concrete conclusions from what we
have just felt and experienced.
1. Beginning as early as this year it is necessary to form the
national budget in such a way that the Armed Forces should get all
they need not only in war time, but also for peacetime service.
Yes, missiles with nuclear warheads provide reliable protection for
us. But this need not make us turn a blind eye to the fact that we
have no modern equipment for the rescue of submariners suffering
distress, that because of lack of fuel the necessary exercises are
not carried out, that the Armed Forces are not getting enough
modern armaments, that those who, in the ranks of the Armed Forces,
often at the risk of their lives protect the territorial integrity
of Russia, and its interests and ensure the country's defenses get
pitifully small salaries.
The Russian Army and Navy should be provided with
state-of-the-art hardware. Russia with its huge intellectual and
technological potential in the defense industry is capable of
accomplishing this.
The Fatherland-All Russia faction holds that the year 2001
budget should provide for the financing of the Armed Forces on the
level of at least 3 percent of GDP, proceeding from the premise
that this percentage is to be increased already the next year. If
the government does not make the appropriate changes in the draft
budget the Fatherland-All Russia faction will vote against its
adoption and call on all other deputies to act likewise. 
Second. The structure of the military budget and its
implementation should be under the control of the legislative body.
At the same time it is necessary to put an end to the practice of
using the services of intermediaries which has been imposed on the
Defense Ministry and results in the enrichment of businessmen and
corrupt officials. The military reform should be brought to its
completion because without this any attempts to reverse the present
grave situation in the Armed Forces are doomed to failure. 
Third. It is necessary to immediately introduce order in the
Defense Ministry itself and put an end to the intolerable situation
when routine differences of opinion in its leadership are spilled
into society and undermine the situation in the Armed Forces
themselves. The Fatherland-All Russia faction calls on the
President to take a decision on the strengthening of the leading
cadres both in the Ministry and in the Armed Forces, including the
Navy. 
We need resolute measures to improve the situation in the
whole of society, to strengthen the principles of statehood that
are called upon to ensure the sovereignty of law in all spheres
without exception.
Fourth. The Fatherland-All Russia faction calls on all
political parties and movements in Russia to refrain from attempts
to use our common tragedy for purposes of achieving aims of
expediency and propaganda. 
In the name of those who have remained forever in the sections
of the Kursk we must rally for the good of Russia. 
I thank you for your attention. 


******


#14
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
August 24, 2000
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
TRAGEDY POLITICIZED
It's Immoral to Try to Capitalize on a National Grief 
By Igor MAXIMYCHEV, doctor of political sciences 

The death of 118 crew members of the nuclear submarine 
Kursk has stirred stormy reaction in Russia and abroad. This is 
only natural, as the process of globalization is growing 
deeper, humanity increasingly feels to be an integral whole, 
and the tragedy of one nation becomes a common tragedy. 
However, not all sincerely take this tragedy to their hearts. 
Some try to make political capital on the grief and tears of 
others. The Western press has launched a rabid campaign of 
slander and attack against Russia, its people, army and, in 
particular, President, claiming that they are guilty for the 
Kursk catastrophe, accusing them of heartlessness and even 
urging that the President be toppled.
German radio stations have more than once asked me in the past 
few days to tell about the feelings of the Russian public in 
connection with the Barents Sea tragedy. During such interviews 
I was asked such "leading questions" as "Don't you think that 
President Putin has failed to cope with his duties?" When I 
told them that the catastrophic state of the Russian armed 
forces is connected not with Putin but is the result of a 
15-year-long period of experiments over men in uniform - 
experiments conducted without an conception and clear-cut goal, 
my interviewers did not conceal their dissatisfaction with such 
answers. "He should have flown to the site of the accident 
immediately" - they argued.
They ignored my words when I told them that no one has ever 
told the US President where he should be during accidents with 
American submarines (31 US subs have sunk) and said: "But your 
papers write that Putin should have done this." It is 
outrageous that all this ballyhoo has received such a diligent 
support inside Russia. It is clear that oligarchs, some 
regional leaders and individuals whose interests have been 
infringed by the President's policy line towards strengthening 
the state and restoring order in it, strive to inflict on Putin 
as much political damage as possible. But this damage is not so 
much to the President personally as to the country the 
international prestige of which is being so thoughtlessly 
undermined, its armed forces, which should on the spur of the 
moment become a target of personnel reshuffling for the 
umpteenth time and the organizers of the Kursk rescue 
operation. The latter, alas, proved to be unsuccessful, but all 
the forces and possibilities have been used despite the 
catastrophic shortage of necessary means and equipment, which 
is the result of a many-year-long underfunding.
Yes, it is necessary to criticize, and criticize harshly, 
our military and civilian authorities. But they should not be 
criticized for the helpless, incoherent and conflicting 
information about the situation around the Kursk (it was sooner 
unintentional "misinformation", because the absence of concrete 
information at the disposal of the authorities or any guesses 
that could be made do not count in this context). They should 
be criticized for the absence of deep water divers, rescue 
submarines, underwater television monitors and a system of 
satellite orientation of ships at the disposal of the North 
Fleet. The present deplorable technical and material state of 
our army and navy - the legacy of the "Yeltsin era" is the 
result of the systematic refusal to provide the necessary 
financing of the armed forces. This by no means prompts the 
conclusion that we should give up the modern organization of 
the country's defenses.
An altogether different conclusion is strongly suggested, 
namely: the army should be numerically and technically at the 
level of the tasks set forth before it and the government 
should find the money necessary for this. Reproaches of lies 
should be re-addressed where they are more appropriate.
Russia and its President have received a tragic notch in 
their memory. The principle 'each in his place" is correct only 
if the right people are in the right places. Putin's election 
promise to restore order in the country - both in its civilian 
and military sectors - needs to be translated into life. The 
President has to take up everything at the same time. But this 
is the only chance for our country to prevent a catastrophe 
against the consequences of which even the horror of the Kursk 
death would pale. The President is responsible for all, which 
is happening in Russia. His duty is to prevent the repetition 
of such disasters in the future.

******


#15
From: JCBenAdam@aol.com (Justin Rudelson)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 
Subject: Analyst Article on New Russo-Chinese Partnership


Dr. Justin Rudelson, Editor
Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute
The Johns Hopkins University-SAIS
410.467.7477


Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst Biweekly Web Journal
www.cacianalyst.org, August 16-29, 2000


THE NEW RUSSO-CHINESE "PARTNERSHIP" AND CENTRAL ASIA 
Dr. Stephen Blank


>From its inception in 1992, the Russo-Chinese rapprochement has prominently 
featured Central Asia as the object of mutual geopolitical interests. Both 
governments have endeavored to prevent domestic unrest from receiving Central 
Asian support or from extending into all of Central Asia. This relationship 
sought to put Central Asia "on ice" and safeguard Russo-Chinese internal 
stability and territorial integrity. China hoped to do so by recognizing 
Russian leadership in Central Asia and by launching its own program of 
large-scale economic reform in Xinjiang. Such policies, intended to avert 
violence, actually make its incidence all the more likely.


BACKGROUND: Since 1992, there has been a steep rise in the incidence of 
Muslim insurgencies in both Russia and China. The escalating violence, 
originating but not confined to Xinjiang and Chechnya, added to fears of 
American/NATO support for other potential separatist movements have led China 
and Russia to display stronger expressions of partnership. Those expressions 
are intended to exclude the United States from the area, suppress local 
insurgency, cement ties with Central Asia's authoritarian rulers, suppress 
efforts by insurgents to link up with other insurgent movements across state 
lines, and expand the Shanghai-Five from a community of states sharing 
borders to a regional and collective security system explicitly designed 
against the United States and its positions on human rights, missile defense, 
and Asian security issues like Taiwan.


To achieve these objectives China has supported Moscow's actions to integrate 
Central Asian states around Russia through the mediums of anti-terrorist 
organizations and the appointment of pro-Russian figures to head local 
intelligence, police, and military agencies within Central Asian governments. 
Russian special services have obtained the right to operate freely in Central 
Asia, Russia's army contemplates sending 50,000 more men there by 2003, and 
there is also a renewed effort to realign regional energy economies around 
the Russian pipeline system and exclude Western influence. 


China sent an observer to the April 2000 exercises of the CIS forces in 
Central Asia to signify support for Moscow here. Beijing and Moscow have also 
increased economic assistance to the authoritarian rulers of Central Asia to 
cement this alignment and are also trying to expand the Shanghai-Five into a 
collective security system that will go far beyond its original mandate of 
affirming shared border delimitations and confidence building measures within 
the border zones. Thus Moscow has publicly invited India, Iran, and 
Uzbekistan (which does not border China) into the groups, and successfully 
persuaded its last meeting to attack U.S. missile defense programs. 


IMPLICATIONS: Since 1999's insurgencies in Central Asia and NATO's Kosovo 
operation, both China and Russia now view Muslim insurgency abroad and at 
home with much greater urgency. They both are explicitly linking such 
military actions to international terrorism and potential American support. 
Consequently Central Asia's strategic salience for an evolving Russo-Chinese 
alliance has grown sharply. Trends show that the Russo-Chinese entente or 
partnership is going beyond that label to fulfill earlier bilateral 
communiqués. These stated that they would try to constitute alternative
poles 
to the United States in Asia and globally. 


This signified the conversion of the organization into a regional collective 
security system with a clearly focused anti-American agenda and purpose. The 
Shanghai-Five is intended to become the nucleus of a counter-American 
security system in Asia, a second pole dominated by Russia and China, and 
possibly India. Thus, it is a first step towards restoring bipolarity in 
Asian security structures despite Russo-Chinese talk of multi-polarity. 
Furthermore, by bringing in India and Iran, Moscow and Beijing are trying to 
realize Yevgeny Primakov's vision of an anti-American strategic triangle in 
Asia.


Moscow and Beijing are trying to induce Pakistan to desist from inciting 
insurgency in Kashmir and from supporting the Taliban and terrorists like 
Osama bin Laden. Such policies if they persist could easily erupt into war 
with India or inside Central Asia. Thus, the process of suppressing 
democratization in Central Asia, Russia, and China is linked to international 
security agendas in East, South, and Central Asia. These policy initiatives 
show that the internal structure of Sino-Russian governance exercise a 
powerful influence upon their foreign and defense policies. The policies also 
make clear that the real reason for their burgeoning partnership is to 
safeguard their threatened integrity and stability first of all against 
democratization and its champion, the United States.


CONCLUSIONS: Russia and China are bringing Central Asia further into Asian 
security agendas that can only intensify the "great game" for Central Asia 
and the likelihood of protracted and bitter domestic struggles there and 
possibly in their own states against reform. They also seek to enforce a 
security structure in Central Asia that will, they hope, reduce chances for 
renewed Indo-Pakistani and Indo-Chinese conflict that in itself would be a 
positive outcome. 


But by doing so they show that fundamental structures of governance, from 
Moscow through Astana and Tashkent and on to Beijing are unstable, 
vulnerable, and all too susceptible to violent reactions from even the 
slightest threat or opposition to their rule. Such policies that are intended 
to avert violence, actually make its incidence all the more likely and 
intense when it does happen in the future.


AUTHOR BIO: Dr. Stephen Blank is a Professor at the Strategic Studies 
Institute of the US Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. The 
views expressed here do not represent those of the US Army, Defense 
Department or the US Government.


*******

Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: 
http://www.cdi.org/russia
Archive for JRL (under construction):
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson