September 30, 2000    
This Date's Issues: 4548• 4549•

Johnson's Russia List
#4549
30 September 2000
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK: Does it make any difference whether I give
capsule information about content in the Subject line?
1. Matt Taibbi: Transcripts of tapped phone calls.
2. Interview with President Putin by The Russia Journal's Ajay Goyal 
and India Today's Raj Chengappa.
3. Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez: Anatol Lieven on Chechnya.
4. Peter D. Ekman: re: Reynolds (4548). (re Media-Most)
5. Hugh Phillips: Re: 4546-Anatol Lieven.
6. www.yabloko.ru: Vladimir Lukin Suggests Moscow Should Offer 
Mediation in the Yugoslav Dialogue Between the Opposition and the 
Authorities.
7. St. Petersburg Times: Andrey Musatov, Russian Software Specialists 
Prefer to Stay in Homeland.
8. Moscow Times: Suzanne Thompson, FRAGMENTS: Russians Beat 
Westerners in Neighborliness.
9. Albert L. Weeks: Re: Steele on "evil empire"
10. The Independent (UK): Parick Cockburn in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.]


******


#1
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 
Subject: transcripts of tapped phone calls
From: "Matt Taibbi" <taibbi@exile.ru>


Thought your readers might want to know that "Stringer" has just released a
large special publication, in bound booklet form, which contains
transcripts of all the "proslushki", or tapped phone calls, that have been
published over the years (and some that haven't been). They held a press
conference on the matter on Thursday. It's like a greatest hits of Russian
corruption, containing everything from the famous October 2, 1997 phone
call between Sobchak and Chubais, in which the former pleads with the
latter to kill his criminal case: it likewise contains the "Ye__ vsekh na
kh---" call by Konstantin Tolstoshein, the "Grigoriev vsekh na kh__
posilayet" call by Nemtsov to Lisofsky, a mass of newer ones found in the
Media-Most raid, and others. Here's a sample, an amusing and mysterious
call between Alfred Kokh and Oleg Boiko:


B: So, Reingoldovich, you've been hiding from me, you toad.
K: No.
B: Everybody's saying that if we win Moscow without Luzhok, it'll be a
kipezh. Therefore we probably ought to go to Mikhailich.
K: Right.
B: We have a chance to make a deal. The warriors arrive today, and we'll be
working out the algorithms. And the political and organizational algortihms
are waiting for two things. One is a deal with Luzhkov, and we've got to
understand, who's going to win the tender in Moscow. It might even be
easier to win directly on "Stolichny", and not on "Svyaz". We'll look into
that. Today I'll give your papers to the Petersburg people. And then I'll
see what kind of papers they've got. Now about RGS. About RGS-1 Palich told
me that you held some kind of negotiations about something. What's your
commentary on that?
K: I'm ready to talk about that, if we see real results from your side.
B: I understand. You've got to understand yourself, this is a touchy thing.
In order for there to be results, you understand, there have to be
(inaudible)... Everything that involves what was taken away by Shuvalov,
that's self-explanatory. But everything that relates to the political
aspect, that is you have to understand, what's at stake here.
K: I understand. 
B: What a movie. How will we act?
K: Let's sit down and talk about it.
B: Let's. What are you doing today?
K: I'm all booked today. How about tomorrow or Monday?
B: Okay.
K: You going to be in town on Saturday?
B: I'll be in town, give me a call. Bye.


Anyway, that's just a sample. Anyone who wants to acquire the entire
booklet should get in touch with Leonid Krutakov or Alexei Fomin (better
Alexei) at:
stringer@stringer-agency.ru
Or call at the Moscow telephone: 237-5756.


Beginning next issue, the eXile will be regularly publishing excerpts from
the book, along with commentary.


******


#2
From: Mark Najarian <MarkN@russiajournal.com>
Subject: interview with Putin
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 


David,
Here's the transcript of the 50-minute exclusive interview of Vladimir Putin
by The Russia Journal's Ajay Goyal and India Today's Raj Chengappa,
conducted Thursday night at the Kremlin. The interview was held ahead of
Putin's visit next week to India and touched on topics concerning
Indian-Russian relations as well as general issues. (The interview will be
uploaded later Saturday night on our Website. It was published in the
printed issue that hit the streets Saturday. Portions of the interview will
also appear as the cover story in the India Today issue that will be on the
streets during Putin's visit). 
Thanks,
Mark Najarian
Editor
The Russia Journal


-----


'No prospect for return to totalitarian system'
Russia is still 'a new country,' president says


Ajay Goyal: You discussed basic values with Alexander Solzhenitsyn last
week. What are the basic values in Russia today? Especially when so much
talk is of pragmatism and capitalism. Previously, there was talk of a
national idea; now you're talking of basic values. But what are they?


Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is a very pertinent question for Russia today
because, for many decades, basic values were founded on communist ideology.
Of course, a vacuum formed when [communism] departed from political life in
its old form. You know, Russia isn't going to invent anything new here. It's
not in a position to and shouldn't try. The basic values are none other than
patriotism, love of one's motherland, love of one's own home, one's people,
religious and cultural values, everything that forms the foundation of our
life. Everything that makes us a nation, that is the source of our
uniqueness, everything that we can be proud of - all this will be the
foundation of this idea you mentioned. But, I repeat, Russia is not going to
invent anything new, and is not going to be radically different from any
other people, the Indian people included.


Raj Chengappa: What lessons would you say you have learned from the Kursk
disaster?


Putin: This was a real tragedy that came as a shock to the country and to me
personally. Unfortunately, it's not the first tragedy of its kind. We know
that other countries have also lost submarines and ships. The Americans have
lost two submarines, but no one talks about this. As for us, it's our fourth
such loss. It's a deeply saddening event, a difficult loss because it was
also the first time that we, or any other marine power that has gone through
a tragedy of this sort, had been so open with the public. We showed the
public everything.
[The Kursk tragedy] has raised many issues to think about. The armed forces,
for example, and the relations between the authorities and the public. It
has caused us to think once again about responsibility, our responsibility
to the country. It provides a good reason to make practical decisions, and
these decisions are being made.


AG: At this stage in Russia's development, what do you see as being the main
challenges you face and how do you propose overcoming them?


Putin: There's nothing surprising about the fact that Russia is in the state
it's in. After all, we've witnessed the formation of a new state in terms of
ideology, administration and territory. I want to stress that Russia is not
a fragment of the former Soviet Union. It is a new country and is still in a
stage of construction.
The first task, then, is to define the political structure - develop the
democratic, political structure of society, form viable political parties
and ensure conditions for the effective functioning of all the components of
democracy, including not just a multi-party system, but also a judicial
system. We have to make a single legal space in the country. Of course,
another major task is to develop market relations and make them more
effective. We see one of our main tasks as being to make Russia economically
competitive and, thus, a reliable partner for our friends, including India.


AG: Mr. President, we've come here and invested in the media business. No
one has caused us any trouble for the time being, and no one has called us
heroic for investing here, in Russia. But people are asking whether
democracy, the market economy, freedom of the press can be reversed. Is this
possible?


Putin: I think it's no longer possible. Over this last decade, a whole
generation of young people has grown up and entered active life. These
people would hardly be willing to live under a totalitarian system. But even
many older people would find it difficult, even though it is a sad thing for
many of us that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Many people in the former
Soviet Union are still regretting it deeply to this day, but this doesn't
mean they want to go back to the old ways.
Today, I don't think we have the social base that those people wanting a
return to the past could count on for support. This social base is gone. In
this sense, there's no prospect for a return to a totalitarian system. I'm
certain that the market economy and democratic government have definitively
won out in Russia and are here to stay. 


RC: What qualities should a leader possess in order to solve these problems?


Putin: Decency and patience. And professionalism, of course.


RC: Coming to your own personal philosophy, is it linked to the sport of
Judo? Is Judo a philosophy for you?


Putin: Judo promotes several values that I would call universal values. They
are connected not just to sport, but can also be a basis for relations
between people. Above all, they are respect for one's partner, for any
partner. Respect for one's elders and teachers. Judo provides an approach
that is based on professionalism rather than on brute force, on tactical
skill and, of course, on the strength of will of the person wanting to learn
this art. When you look at all these things together, I think it's enough to
be able to say that Judo is not just a sport, but to a certain extent a
philosophy as well.


RC: How would you describe your leadership style?


Putin: You know, when the state is still only being formed, a lot of
attention has to be paid to improving the state apparatus. But this is not
an end in itself. It's only a means to ensure that the citizens of this
country begin to live better, to help the country prosper and make us proud
of the fact that we are citizens of Russia. 


AG: Turning toward your India visit, Mr. President, many people in India
feel that over the last decade Russia has forgotten the old ties and
friendships and started looking west. So it was very welcome when you said
that you are India's best friend in Russia. 


Putin: We have a saying: One old friend is better than two new ones. It's
true that my visit to India will be the first visit at this level in the
last eight years. But this doesn't mean that Russia no longer values
cooperation with India. It's simply that domestic circumstances prevented
more such visits.
When I said that I'm India's best friend in Russia, what I meant was that
firstly, India has many friends in Russia, and I am just one of them. But by
virtue of the office I hold, I'm also, in some way, India's principle friend
in Russia.
There are, however, other factors, which I mentioned at the beginning of our
conversation. We take the long-term view that as one of the largest
countries in Asia, and in the world, India is a crucial factor for stability
in the region and in the world as a whole. Russia would like to see India
play a genuinely important role in international affairs. We would like to
see this because this is in our national interests. And I have no doubt that
this approach is also in India's national interests. 
I want to stress here that our cooperation is not directed against anyone,
but is for India and for Russia. It acts in the interests of both countries,
of course, but is also completely consistent with the broader interests of
the international community.


AG: It's often been said that Russia is more of Asia than Europe. But Asia
is an immensely complicated region with many sensitive problems, say, the
economic rivalry between China and India, strategic rivalries, and the
issues of terrorism and fundamentalism. How do you see Russia's role in the
region?


Putin: You quite rightly point out that Russia lies geographically both in
Europe and in Asia, and in fact, a very large and resource-rich part of
Russia lies precisely in Asia. So, it's only natural that we should have our
interests in the region. It is in our interest that this part of the world
be stable and prosperous. That's very clear.
I already pointed out that our cooperation with India is not directed
against any "third countries." It is in our interests to have a strong,
developed and independent India, an India that would be a major player on
the world scene. We see this as one of the balancing factors in the world,
and we will do all we can to ensure this doesn't change. This is where the
strategic sense of our partnership lies, this is what it is about. 
Our cooperation is not just a dictate of the moment. Russia will maintain
the best possible relations with all its Asian neighbors - with China,
Japan, and with Korea. As I said, we want this region to be stable and
prosperous. It is in this context that we make our partnership with India
one of the priorities in our work.


RC: How will the strategic partnership agreement you plan to sign with
Indian leadership differ from that signed by India and the Soviet Union in
1971? Will it be a successor agreement or will it contain some completely
new elements?


Putin: In some respects the document will, of course, be a successor
document. But it's clear that both we and our Indian partners have to take
into consideration the fact that the world has changed, Russia has changed,
the balance of force in the world has changed and so have some of our
priorities. 
All of this will certainly be reflected in the agreement we hope to sign.
And we hope that this agreement will become the foundation upon which we can
build further relations.
We also plan to sign a whole series of other agreements on various areas of
cooperation. But the document you mentioned is the one we want to become the
foundation agreement that will set out the principles underlying our mutual
relations. From the point of view of tradition and successor agreements
then, I can say that like previous agreements, this one will be based on the
founding principles of international law and on the United Nations Charter.
But it will also reflect the new reality we live in and the new aims and
tasks we want the cooperation between our two countries to address.


RC: Strategic is a word heavy with meaning. What exactly do you mean by
strategic? Do you mean some kind of military alliance or something else? 


Putin: 'Strategic' doesn't mean military. It doesn't mean creating some kind
of military alliance or bloc. When we say 'strategic,' we mean long term, a
partnership in keeping with the pragmatic national interests of our two
countries, especially in this time of globalization and increasing
competition on the world scene. I'm not talking about military competition,
but above all economic, scientific and technological competition.


RC: Relations between the U.S. and India have been warming fast of late. The
respective leaders of these countries made successful visits to each other.
What does this mean for Russia?


Putin: The collapse of the Soviet Union changed the ideological foundation
of our state. The communist ideology no longer dominates in Russia and our
priorities have changed. Russia today does not see the U.S. either as an
enemy or even an opponent. For Russia today, the U.S. - one of the world's
major nations - is a partner.
We do have different approaches to some of the major issues facing the
world, different approaches on questions of security, anti-ballistic missile
defense and maintaining the 1972 ABM treaty. We have different views when it
comes to the resolution of certain conflicts. We are in favor of a
multi-polar world, of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
We are holding discussions with our American partners on many of the issues
I just named. But these discussions are not aggressive or hostile in nature.
So, we can only welcome the fact that India is developing its relations with
all countries, including the United States. But, as I said, this is all
happening in a context of globalization, which brings both pluses and
minuses in that it entails a very intense battle with often unpredictable
results. And in such a context, we take the view that in areas where
countries have shared interests, they should and must give rise to
cooperation. We have plenty of such interests that we share with India, and
in this sense, India is a natural partner and ally.


RC: How would you describe the new relations that you want to build now with
India?


Putin: We want our relations to be one of equal partners, based on
recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity and respect for each
other's lawful interests. We want it to be clear for each of us in what ways
we can help and support each other. We want the action we take in these
directions to be well-coordinated and effective.


RC: Could you describe these relations as being something of a new deal
between the two countries? 


Putin: It would be too limiting to call it a new deal. It wouldn't be
enough. When you're talking about full-fledged relations between two
countries that have many mutual interests and many areas in which we can
effectively help each other achieve our national interests, this is more
than just business. This could be called destiny.


AG: Coming to economics. Although India and Russia cooperate actively in the
military-technological sector, Indian economy, above all, is the private
sector. Given this, how are the trade ties to work with Russia?


Putin: We are aware of what is going on in India now, especially in computer
technology, programming and so forth. But I already said that our efforts
with our Indian colleagues and the Indian leadership are aimed at
diversifying our work together, making it more varied and bringing it more
in line with today's demands. Above all, this concerns cooperation in
high-technology sectors, space and energy. Our companies intend to work
together with Indian companies to develop India's natural resources in the
interests of India itself.
We also want cooperation in the medical sector. In many sectors, Russia is a
very advanced country with achievements recognized the world over. And of
course, we want to obtain the maximum effect from our efforts.


AG: Over recent years, trade with India has dropped considerably while India
is making huge gains in the information technology sector. What can be done
to increase co-operation in this sector?


Putin: Yes, I know. It is precisely for this reason that we are drawing up a
whole program of joint activity in development and cooperation in modern
computer technologies. This is of great importance to Russia with its
under-developed communications and transport infrastructure coupled with a
vast territory. Modern communications technology, the Internet and new
computer technology are real priorities. But for us to be full partners in
these areas, Russia still has a long way to go in getting the country
computerized. But we are aware of the issue and will definitely make
progress.


RC: Former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov spoke of a possible strategic
alliance between India, China and Russia. Do you think that in the near
future, there could be any such alliance between the three great states?


Putin: We give priority to bilateral relations - bilateral relations on the
one hand, and building an international security architecture, including in
Asia, that will take into account the interests of all countries concerned.
India, China and Russia are indisputably countries that could participate.
But everyone will understand us if we say that India, China and Russia, as
countries all located in this region, have some particular interests that we
wish to tackle together. I don't see anything unusual or dangerous in this.
The only thing is, we need to ensure that all our proposals on cooperation,
both bilateral and multilateral, are open to all our partners and are clear
and transparent. I think that we can achieve this. 


RC: Were the nuclear tests that took place in India a surprise for you? In
this context, how do you view the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty?


Putin: We have been working very fruitfully with India in the atomic energy
sector for a long time now, on peaceful nuclear technologies. We think it
would be the right thing for India to regulate all its nuclear issues with
the international organizations that control this sector, especially with
the IAEA. We have some agreements with the Indian leadership on this issue.
All Russia's plans are in strict keeping with its commitments under the
relevant international agreements.


RC: After the events of the last 2-3 years and India's nuclear tests, do you
think that India is now a nuclear power?


Putin: I already said that India should coordinate its activities in this
sphere with the international community. We don't consider that new nuclear
powers have emerged on the world scene and we don't think that if we were to
recognize new nuclear powers it would have any beneficial consequences for
the states that want this recognition. 
We call on all countries active in this area not to do anything hasty. We
ask them to reflect, together with the international community, on the
consequences these countries would face - from the point of view of their
domestic interests, their relations with their neighbors, and also from the
point of view of the international community's reaction.
I think the international and regional situation is such that there's no
need for hasty decisions. On the contrary, there are good reasons to weigh
up all the pros and cons, keeping in mind, of course, this question of
creating an international security architecture that would guarantee all
countries' and the region's territorial integrity, sovereignty and would
guarantee their national interests. With effective international
cooperation, there are possibilities for this to be achieved.


RC: As you know, India wants to become a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council. Does Russia support this, and how does Russia view
increasing the number of members on the Security Council?


Putin: My personal view is that the United Nations Security Council is the
principal organization that guarantees world peace and resolves conflicts.
This is a major international organization, and it is the heritage of
decades of work by previous generations. Now we have inherited it and we
have to use it wisely and effectively. The U.N. is not only the Security
Council. It is a huge organization that deals with large-scale issues that
affect the interests of a vast number of participants in the international
community. It was set up after World War II and reflected the balance of
power in the world at the time.
But life changes and the international scene has also changed. If the U.N.
is to work effectively, of course it must adapt. We understand this, and we
think that we must work in this direction and make decisions. In this
connection, we also need to think about, and work on, increasing the number
of permanent members on the Security Council. As one of the world's leading
nations and one of our leading partners, India is one of the prime
candidates for a place on the Security Council.


AG: I've been associated with Russia a long time. Almost everyone I meet
here has some kind of a personal memory of India - movies, songs, actors...
What are your associations with India?


Putin: First, I'd remember an artist well known in both Russia and India -
Nikolai Roerich. Roerich's life was an amazing life, a marvel of creativity
and astonishing example of spiritual closeness that, perhaps doesn't lie on
the surface, but is nevertheless the spiritual closeness that binds all
peoples.
Everyone in Russia, even younger generations, has seen the film "Aawara" and
knows the famous and talented Indian actor Raj Kapoor. We are also
interested in Indian religions and closely follow political events in India.
We have immense respect for the heroic past of the Indian people, which,
having achieved freedom, not only attained political and state independence,
but also lead the country to a flourishing market economy, and democratic
priorities in governance. We in Russia have very warm feelings for India and
for the Indian people, and I place much on my upcoming visit there. 
(Translated by Tara Warner of The Russia Journal.)


*****


#3
From: "Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez" <remgin@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Anatol Lieven on Chechnya
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 


Dear David, While we have little argument with the general thrust of Mr.
Lieven's thesis, we would like to comment on one example which he brings,
quoting from Filipov's article. As Israelis we were naturally concerned
with the Adi Sharon case and followed its particulars with special
attention. Its very connection with the Chechnya situation was in all
probability little more than incidental. Adi is the son of an Israeli
businessman originating from the USSR, who returned there to run a
business in one of Moscow's markets. One hardly needs to point out what
that means regarding inevitable contact with criminal "roofs", frequently
including the police. All the evidence that emerged after Adi's rescue
points in that direction as the background for his kidnapping; Sharon Sr.
tried to pay the ransom and did his best to prevent any media coverage of
what would have been a sensational story for the Israeli media. The boy
was never taken to Chechnya, and for months until his rescue was held in
Penza by a Russian gang who only brought in Chechen confederates to do
such dirty work as cutting off Adi's fingertips. Of the culprits arrested
during the rescue operation and later, half were reportedly the father's
"business associates". Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Efraim Sneh stated
that the boy's whereabouts had been known to the Russian authorities long
before they acted to save him; Israeli offers of assistance were rejected.
The rescue (filmed by the MVD, showing very un-Chechen faces of the
captors) was finally effected on the eve of Interior Minister Rushailo's
previously scheduled visit to Israel. He confirmed to us in an interview
here that (after temporizing for six months) he "asked" his underlings to
step up operations so that he could bring Adi home in his plane, which as
expected scored points here for Russia and against the Chechens. In this
Rushailo was assisted by his then Israeli counterpart, Nathan Sharansky,
who presented him with a list of ten other Israelis, prospective
immigrants to Israel and other Russian Jews "in Chechen captivity". We
checked out these cases and found that in none of them was there any
evidence of kidnapping at all, and only two had any connection with
Chechnya: in one of these, the missing person was an FSB medical officer,
and the other concerned the disappearance of an old blind man who had been
left behind in Grozny by his family and was reportedly turned out of his
apartment by Chechens. In the other cases on the list, some dating from
1993, the probable cause for the person's disappearance ranged from
privatization of a Moscow apartment to violating the honor of a North
Ossetian girl. In a previous case where a Jewish boy from Dagestan was
"liberated by the Russian Army from Chechen captivity", the boy himself
related after arriving in Israel that his captors had told him one morning
he was about to be set free. A Russian officer in dress uniform later
drove up and collected him -- which appears to indicate collusion with the
criminal gang. We won't enter here into the argument whether the second
Russian campaign in Chechnya was premeditated or genuinely provoked. But
while the role of Chechen crime and Islamic extremism cannot be
overlooked, they should not be overstated either -- much less allowed to
be scapegoated, as was clearly the case in the Adi Sharon affair. 


*****


#4
From: "Peter D. Ekman" <pdek@co.ru>
Subject: re: Reynolds (4548)
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 


I was surprised to have one of my columns questioned by Garfield Reynolds
as a "series of comments," especially since it didn't appear on JRL. The
single published line of mine that I think he objects to was "First you must 
understand that Media-Most as a business is dead. Dead as a doornail,
lo these many months."
Unfortunately, I think this statement is obviously true. MM owes
over $500 million (mostly overdue) and, as far as anyone can tell, is losing
money on its broadcast operations, as well as the satellite network and other
parts of the business. Gazprom's financial advisors valued the whole business
at less than $500-$700 million, but it looks like an overvaluation, especially
since there don't appear to be any buyers. (First rule of valuation: a thing
is worth what the highest bidder's willing to pay for it).Gazprom already
owns 
25%, Gusinsky seems to still control 50-60%. No money to pay off the debts,
it's time to fold the game.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm totally in favor of free speech in
broadcasting as long as you can pay for the broadcasting facilities. 
But there's no such thing as bezplatny speech in broadcasting. He who pays
the piper calls the tune. When has it ever been different?
I fully agree with Garfield that NTV's programs are head and shoulders
above the competition. But I don't think that Gazprom or the state should
have
to pay for them. If I were a shareholder in Gazprom, I would certainly object
to them giving my money away. Why is the state pressuring Gazprom to 
quit giving NTV subsidies? Does it really matter? If Garfield would like to
continue the subsidies out of his own wallet, that's a different matter.
As far as Ch.7 bankruptcy, in the US it would have to be approved by
the creditors, who have the right to submit their own plan for coming out of
bankruptcy and get rid of the current management. I doubt NTV would be
paying off any creditors right now, unless it cut back on programming
expenses.
The bankruptcy laws should be used now since the business is insolvent and
no agreement is forthcoming with creditors. Any legally reasonable outcome
in any country would leave Gazprom in charge.
The August 1998 default on government debt is a more complicated 
matter, but I don't believe that NTV owned any major amount of GKO's.
Most Bank has been a separate business for some time, and I doubt that it
owned $500 million worth of GKO's. NTV's main claim here is that the crash
hurt it's business. Join the club. Should this indirect harm mean that
NTV can
pay its bills whenever it feels like? If so, the whole economy would come
to a halt,
as everybody was hurt by the crash.
Genri Reznik raised Reynold's GKO argument during the "Glas Noroda"
debate between Kiselyov and Kokh. Having such a distinguished lawyer
bring up such a morally and legally empty argument only shows how weak 
NTV's position actually is.
As far as the Vneshekomonbank IOU's go, I don't know all the details
but I suspect that NTV bought deep discount paper, due at a far off date, and
tried to pass it off at face value. If the paper really was worth face
value, they
could just sell it in the market, and then take the cash to pay off the bills.
Garfield is right about many things, but the importance of the free
press should not blind us to one very basic fact. Economically NTV is dead.


******


#5
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 
From: "Hugh Phillips" <Hugh.Phillips@wku.edu>
Subject: Re: 4546-Anatol Lieven/Through a Distorted Lens: Chechnya and the 
WesternMedia


Just a brief note on Anatol Lieven's excellent article on the present
Chechen war.
Since 1995 I have regularly written commentary pieces for regional, Southern
newspapers and after the new round of fighting broke out, I submitted a
piece that
contained many of the points Lieven makes. The editor wrote back asking me to
write, instead, something on the "Chechen freedom fighters." I refused and
editors have not even responded to my recent submissions. But they'll
always have
George Will and William Safire.


*****


#6
September 29, 2000
www.yabloko.ru
Vladimir Lukin Suggests Moscow Should Offer Mediation in the Yugoslav
Dialogue Between the Opposition and the Authorities
[translation for personal use only]


Vladimir Lukin, Deputy Speaker of the State Duma and one of the Yabloko
leaders, believes that Russia could become a mediator "in the political
dialogue between the opposition and the authorities in the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia."


In his interview, Mr.Lukin opined that Russia ought to "take certain steps
in order to find out whether both sides would agree to such a mediation." In
the current situation in Yugoslavia, it is advisable to have a mediator or a
group of mediators that would have the confidence of both the opposition and
the authorities. Such a mediation is needed first of all in the verification
of election results and in finding out whether any falsification took place
during the vote counting.


Mr.Lukin believes that such a verification could be the basis for a decision
on whether a second round of presidential elections is warranted. "If a
second round is needed, there could be an agreement regarding its conditions
and the extent of its transparency. If it is not needed, it would make sense
to discuss the conditions that would ensure the transfer of power. Russia
has a chance to play a very big role in this process and thus to establish
preconditions for its long-term influence upon developments in this
country."


On the other hand, Mr.Lukin believes that organizing such a mediation is
rather difficult. "But, nevertheless, it is worth trying."


Mr.Lukin also said he was "profoundly upset" by the pronouncements of some
Western leaders with regard to the Yugoslav elections. In fact, some were
talking about the falsification of the vote in advance of the election
itself. He also believes that "these days, there are discussions actively
going on in the US about measures to be taken with regard to the
post-election situation in Yugoslavia." He did not rule out that a military
resolution of the problem is one of the options being considered. He warned
against such steps and expressed his hope that, no matter how big the desire
to exploit the Yugoslav situation for domestic political purposes might be,
especially for the sake of an election victory, US Democrats were unlikely
to undertake such measures and were going to act reasonably. The Yugoslavs
should sort out their problems on their own, unless they ask anybody else
for assistance.


******


#7
St. Petersburg Times
September 29, 2000
Russian Software Specialists Prefer to Stay in Homeland 
By Andrey Musatov


According to a report from the McKinsey Global Institute, Russia's offshore 
programming sector (involving programming specialists in Russia who design 
software under contract with foreign companies) is growing at a rate of 50 to 
60 percent per year. And, although this growth concerns what is, for now, a 
very small base, the authors of the report say that this industry should be 
able to obtain the requisite track record and international certification to 
become a greater force within the world offshore programming market.


Ten years ago, most Russian programmers were anxious to emigrate abroad for 
better pay and living standards. But now, despite the high demand for 
programmers in Europe and the United States, many more Russian programmers 
are interested in remaining in Russia to work and live.


"Those programmers, my friends, who wanted to live in the United States have 
achieved these goals - they live and work there," said Vladimir Shmakov, 
supervisor of the Petersburg branch of secretmaker ag, a company which 
develops Internet security software. "America was where we could find 
absolutely everything we needed to be successful in life and in work."


"However, after living in the United States for half a year, it was difficult 
for me to adjust to the differences in the culture there," Shma kov added. "I 
felt bored, and missed my friends and family. That's why I decided not to 
extend my contract there."


"Russians feel a strong link to their national ideas and traditions," Vitaly 
Me leshko, a programmer at secretmaker ag, said. "For Russians, more so than 
for people from other cultures, these considerations are often decisive."


According to the McKinsey Institute report, the demand for foreign Internet 
technologies specialists in the United States is 850,000 people. Germany 
recently increased its quotas to admit 30,000 IT specialists per year (the 
annual shortage is estimated at 55,000 specialists), and France is 
experiencing an annual skills gap of 13,000 IT graduates and technicians.


"It's much cheaper and quicker [with the same high level of quality] to 
outsource software development to offshore suppliers where highly skilled 
resources are abundant," the report says. "IBM, General Electric, Boeing, 
Motorola, Intel SAP and Microsoft have already outscored software development 
to Russia, and profit from its intellectual capacity."


Secretmaker ag, whose head office is based in Switzerland, opened a branch in 
St. Petersburg about a month ago. According to Roland Stach, general director 
of secretmaker ag's St. Petersburg branch, the company will employ Russian 
specialists, but sell their products on the European market.


"We can't find this number of programmers in Germany, we just lack the human 
resources," he said. "Four years ago, the German government even closed a few 
universities, arguing that there wasn't enough money to keep them open. This 
has further contributed to the gap."


At the same time, foreign companies have deemed it productive to become 
involved in further developing technical education in Russia. For instance, 
the Russian branch of electronics manufacturer Motorola confirmed that the 
company already runs a number of education projects in cooperation with 
higher education institutions in St. Petersburg, Moscow and a number of other 
Russian cities.


The company gives courses in hi-tech programming and Internet technologies at 
different schools. The programs serve as a kind of employment pipeline for 
the company, as certain students are offered the opportunity to gain 
practical experience with the firm and, ultimately, gain permanent employment.


Stach says that even though Germany has upped the quota of programmers 
allowed into the country, immigration laws are not the greatest factor at 
play.


"The problem is that the people don't always want to come. They don't want to 
go too far from their families and enter a different culture," he said. "In 
Russia there are a lot of universities producing software developers, and 
there aren't so many foreign companies, so we can easily find talented staff."


According to representatives of a number of Moscow companies, sales to 
foreign markets are much stronger than at home in Russia.


"We started as the developers of optical character recognition [or OCR] 
computer programs. Today 70 percent of our sales are in Europe and the United 
States, while two-thirds of the remaining part is for corporate-sector 
clients, such as banks and large companies," Sergei Andreyev, general 
director of ABBYY program developers, told Vedmosti.


"We tried to earn money producing computer dictionaries for the broader 
market, but discovered that the only one way to sell them is if the price of 
the product is as low as that of a pirated copy."


And Dmitry Ivanov, an investigator with the St. Petersburg police's special 
"R" detachment, which investigates crimes in the high-tech sphere, sees 
another sign pointing to the growth in the number of talented programmers and 
their abilities.


"Software development in Russia is troubled by computer pirates and low 
profits from the sale of licensed products," Ivanov, said. "At the same time, 
the number of expert hackers shows that the large number of good technical 
institutes here has created an abundance of well-trained programmers."


******


#8
Moscow Times
September 30, 2000 
FRAGMENTS: Russians Beat Westerners in Neighborliness 
By Suzanne Thompson 


We columnists in this publication often indulge in cross-cultural 
comparisons, citing the advantages of, say, elements of a Western society 
over its Russian counterpart. For example, last week I suggested that this 
country's drivers might be a bit less aggressive in their frequent attempts 
to mow down pedestrians on sidewalks. As an American, I imagine this type of 
behavior, should it be viewed by a passing policeman in my native country, 
would result in that worthy's inviting the motorist to examine the inside of 
a jail cell f or at least to pay a hefty fine. 


But nations are complicated skeins of political, cultural, economic, social 
and religious threads, so it's silly to say one is "better" than the other. 
Yet in the category of solicitous neighbors, my personal experience has shown 
that Russia beats the United States, hands down. 


I write this as I breathe f gasp f through my mouth, for I have a nasty cold, 
perhaps the result of too little heat in my apartment and too few sweaters to 
fend off the cold. As soon as my neighbors found out about my condition, they 
sprang to the rescue. 


The first to suggest succor was Tanya, who called me Thursday morning and 
didn't recognize my voice. "Hello, Suzanne?" 


"Yes?" I responded, sounding more like baritone Dmitri Hvorostovsky than my 
usual alto self. Tanya had called about another matter, but she quickly 
shifted into neighborly gear. "Can I get you something at the market? Do you 
have any honey? Enough tea? Fruit?" 


I told Tanya that I was fine, and, as we were saying our good-byes, Tanya 
insisted that I call if I needed anything. Then I started thinking that in 
fact I had very little tea left, and that my fruit supply was running low. So 
when Maya Alexandrovna called about half an hour later, I was ready for 
assistance. 


"Syuzi?" she inquired hesitantly, hearing my deep voice, punctuated by 
violent, phocine barking. "Davai ya tebe prinesu supchik," she said f let me 
bring you a bit of soup. And, knowing how great Maya Alexandrovna's soups 
are, I agreed. 


She brought not only soup f a health-inducing shchi, or cabbage concoction f 
but also two stuffed red peppers and a huge mug of fruit kompot. Just what 
the doctor ordered. 


I don't mean to imply that my neighbors in Arizona are not a friendly bunch. 
But, living as we do in our separate houses f rather than right on top of 
each other, where a neighbor's loud cough can often be heard through walls f 
our paths do not seem to cross very frequently. If I see a neighbor outside 
on his or her way to work, we are as likely to simply wave at each other, 
say, "How's it going?" smile, and go about our business. But here in Moscow, 
perhaps physical proximity engenders a sense of kollektiv. 


The third call Thursday came from Ruta, an ailurophile neighbor who lives in 
the next building over. Hearing my unusually low voice, she asked, "What can 
I bring you from the store? I'm going there anyway, so it's no problem." 


I thanked her but declined her services. One neighbor had brought me some 
tea, and by then Maya Alexandrovna's soup and stuffed peppers were starting 
to work their magic. And that I felt better Friday morning I ascribe to this 
injection of vitamin-packed solicitude. 


******


#9
From: "Albert L. Weeks" <AWeeks1@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Steele on "evil empire"
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 


With all due respect, Ronald Steele (JRL 4547) belongs to that 
school of deutero-Soviet observers who with 20/20 hindsight finds 
that a Manichean struggle was waged during the Cold War between 
Sovietologists who were right in justifying many of the motives and 
policies of the Kremlin vs. those Sovietologists who were wrong, in 
Steele, et al.'s, view, and who, instead, Quixotically if not
ill-intentionally trumpeted anti-Communism. Among the latter villains 
whom the anti-anti-Communist Poohbahs of Steele's persuasion 
place on their Little Lists are--N.B.--such respected writers and 
scholars of various backgrounds as: Robert Conquest; Zbigniew 
Brzezinski; Anton Antonov-Ovseenko; Boris Nicolaevsky; Brian 
Crozier; Gen. Dmitri Volkogonov (former chief of political 
education--no less--for that "harmless" Soviet Army); Walter 
Laqueur; Bertram Wolfe; Gens. William Odom and Daniel 
Graham, heads of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency; 
Nicholas Tolstoy; Dr. Yuri Afanas'iev; Prof. Richard Pipes; 
Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov; Vojtech Mastny; Prof. Sidney Hook; 
Raymond Aron; Merle Fainsod; Russian authors Milkhail Heller 
and Aleksandr Nekrich; a number of highly-informed ex-NKVD or 
ex-KGB officers, among Pavel Sudoplatov; the French 
scholar-compilers of "The Black Book of Communism"--to name 
a few of the more "errant" documenters of the tangible Soviet 
menace to peace, expansionism that not only reached back to 
1945-6 but to November 1917. 
Anyone familiar with the above authors' research and writing 
takes a quite different view of the Soviet period from Ronald 
Steele and those who minimize the danger to peace, security, 
and democracy posed by the Soviet Union, whose goal, 
going back to Lenin--admittedly!--was world domination. 
Mr. Steele appears to be uninformed about even the most recent 
Russian documentation and historiography on that menace. 
If the writer is interested, I will gladly share with him via e-mail 
a list of English- and Russian-language, scholarly books and 
journal articles, published in post-Communist Russia and abroad, 
containing verifiable documents and information that amply support 
the epithet so scorned by Steele, "evil empire."


******


#10
The Independent (UK)
September 30, 2000
By Parick Cockburn in Dushanbe, Tajikistan


“Hitler is a good man,” said Toshi Rajabov as we drove east out of 
Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan. “He is popular around here. 
Everybody likes him.” 
This was alarming news. But on closer questioning Rajabov revealed 
that he was speaking not of the late German dictator but of the lesser 
known Rakhmon Hitler, a local Tajik warlord who rules a district just off 
the road on which we were travelling. 
Rakhmon, it turns out, earned his nickname at school when Tajikistan, 
just north of Afghanistan, was still part of the Soviet Union. As a student 
he invariably played the part of Hitler in the school’s annual play to 
celebrate the Soviet victory over Germany in World War 11 and the name 
stuck.
In the five-year-long civil war which followed soon after Tajik 
independence in 1991 and left 60,000 Tajiks dead Rakhmon fought on the 
Islamic side. The war ended in 1997 with a power sharing agreement 
between the government and the opposition which left him in control of 
the district of Leninsky, just off the road out of Dushanbe, which the 
official Tajik authorities never enter.
Rakhmon Hitler leads a band of 100 ­ 150 men and, in contrast to most 
Tajik warlords, is regarded by local people as honest, driving around his 
district, which he has not left for eight years, in a battered old car. In
his 
spare time he composes poetry. 
We were driving down this particular road for a reason. It leads into the 
steep-sided Karetegin valley which slices across the centre of Tajikistan 
The Karetegin was a centre of rebel resistance during the civil war and 
has been a no-go area for the government ever since. Uzbekistan claims 
that the valley is the headquarters of Juma Namangani, the leader of the 
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is making raids on its border 
regions. President Emomali Rakhmonov, the Tajik leader, claims, on the 
contrary, that he is fully in control.
We got far enough into the Karetegin to decide that government 
authority was tentative and it might be a bad idea to go further. It was on 
this road several years ago that local bandits murdered four UN workers 
in order to steal their car. We passed a government checkpoint where the 
soldiers asked casually if we had seen two men, carrying Kalashnikov 
sub-machine guns, they were looking for. Mr Rajabov’s enthusiasm for a 
rapid return to Dushanbe increased by the mile.
Tajikistan, hidden away in an obscure corner of central Asia, is one of 
those countries, like Yemen or Lebanon during the civil war, where a lot 
of time is spending trying to identify the loyalties of the men at each 
checkpoint. For instance the soldiers looking for the two armed men 
sounded as if they worked for some local warlord or gang leader who had 
rallied to the government but still controlled his own patch.
In so far as Tajikistan ever attracts international attention it is
because 
of the drugs trade, kidnappings or claims that it is the hide-out of Islamic 
guerrillas. About drugs trafficking there is no doubt. Tajikistan shares a 
long common border with Afghanistan, the source of 60 per cent of the 
world’s heroin supply. About half of this comes through Tajikistan, 
providing a third of the country’s gross domestic product according to 
UN officials.
There is nothing much anybody can do about this. Half the population 
of the six million population of Tajikistan is on edge of starvation. In a 
country of mass poverty it is easy enough to find people willing to 
smuggle drugs. Even a teacher earns only the equivalent of $2 a month 
and a government official about $6. 
Kidnappings seldom take place in Tajikistan itself. The most notorious 
are carried out by guerrillas of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan 
moving through the neighbouring republic of Kygyzstan. Last year they 
took prisoner four Japanese geologists who were released in return for a 
payment of $3-5 million.
Yet to write about the drugs trade or Islamic guerrillas obscures the 
most important fact about Tajikistan or the 60 million people who live in 
central Asia. For them the last ten years since the break up of the Soviet 
Union have been a catastrophe. People who had jobs, if poorly paid, an 
adequate diet, health care and education are now unemployed and 
malnourished. 
Central Asia did well out of the Soviet Union. Moscow poured money 
into the region. It built enormous dams and irrigation works which 
trapped the rivers which flow out of the Pamir mountains of eastern 
Tajikistan. If there was over-concentration on cotton and grain it still 
provided a livelihood for villagers.
These irrigation works are now collapsing. When a flash flood destroys 
a puming station it cannot be replaced. Villages are abandoned and their 
inhabitants seek refuge in the cities. The roads are breaking up which 
does not matter much to most Tajiks because they have no cars or buses. 
Instead the donkey is returning as the main mode of transport.
Does any of this matter to the outside world? Not much, going by the 
vain efforts of UN to persuade donors to give money to avert an 
impending famine in Tajikistan. Given the mass impoverishment the only 
surprise is that the drug traffic is not bigger and Islamic guerrillas do not 
enjoy more support. 


******