Johnson's Russia List #5590 10 December 2001 A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: 1. AP: Powell Can't Budge Putin on Missiles. 2. BBC Monitoring: USA's Powell tells Russian TV that detente policy is long-term. 3. Los Angeles Times: Robyn Dixon, Even Amid His Family, Debate Persists Over Stalin. Communism: Half a century after dictator's death, there is no consensus on legacy in lands he once ruled. 4. Chicago Tribune: Cheryl Collins, Kazakstan, though thriving, fears ripple effects of war. 5. New York Times: William Safire, Reading Putin's Mind. 6. Wall Street Journal Europe editorial: NATO at 19 1/2. 7. The Globe and Mail (Canada): Geoffrey York, Canada crowing over NATO pact. Ottawa claims credit for co-operation deal between Russia and former Cold War foe. 8. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Marina Kalashnikova, NATO AVOIDING REVOLUTIONS. NATO is in no hurry to give Russia equal rights in discussions. 9. Itar-Tass: World Bank official upbeat on Russian economy. 10. the eXile: The Hack's Corner. (re "Russia is turning the corner") 11. Argumenty I Fakty: CHURCH AND STATE. 12. Slovo: Sebastian Pritskov, THE IMPENDING CATASTROPHE. The population crisis: life expectancy, migration, and the workforce. 13. Nezavisimoye Voyennoe Obozrenie: Valery Yaremenko, LEAVING LOURDES. Why has Russia abandoned its military bases abroad?] ******* #1 Powell Can't Budge Putin on Missiles December 10, 2001 By TOM RAUM MOSCOW (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell failed to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday to ease Russian objections to American plans for a national missile defense. Powell left Moscow unable to declare victories either on the long-simmering missile defense issue or on a firm commitment from Russia on reducing its nuclear weapon levels. However, Powell and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov told a joint news conference they were close to an agreement on specific missile reductions by Russia. Powell had hoped to get a specific number from the Russians on the extent of the nuclear warhead cuts they would make to match those offered last month by President Bush. Bush, during Putin's visit to the United States in November, announced that the United States would reduce its nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads from the roughly 6,000 today. Putin had earlier suggested Russia might go as low as 1,500, but said last month that Russia would generally match Bush's levels. However, Ivanov told reporters that Russia was not ready to announce its final number - and might not be until Bush visits Russia next summer. Powell, however, said, ``We're very close. It's a matter of reporting it back to President Bush what I heard today.'' The two sides also remained at odds on whether the warhead reductions should be a treaty, as Russia wants, or a less formal document, as Bush wants. ``It could be a treaty or something else,'' Powell said without elaboration. On the issue of U.S. plans to build a national missile defense shield, the two sides seemed no closer than before. To go ahead with such a plan, the two sides would have to agree to modify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits development of such defenses. ``The position of the sides remain unchanged,'' Ivanov told the news conference. Furthermore, Ivanov said, Russia recognizes that its refusal to scrap the treaty might result in a U.S. withdrawal from the landmark arms control pact. ``We're not excluding the possibility of the United States withdrawing from the ABM treaty,'' he said. He hinted that Russia might do the same if that happened, saying that Russia's first priority is ``promoting our own national security.'' Ivanov reiterated the Russian position that ``this treaty is the key ... to strategic stability in the world.'' The Bush administration had hoped the treaty could be modified in time to allow it to begin constructing silos and a testing command center in Alaska next spring. Under the treaty, either side can withdraw by giving six months' notice. Powell met with both Putin and Ivanov, then joined Ivanov in answering reporters' questions. Powell and Ivanov said they also discussed violence in the Middle East, the status of the war on terrorism and the rebuilding of Afghanistan, and the continuing conflict in Chechnya. ``I indicated there is continuing concern on the part of many Americans about atrocities that have been committed in the past,'' Powell said. Ivanov said the Russians were willing to continue discussing the situation in Chechnya, but did not indicate any change in his country's position. Russian troops are battling rebels in the region. Powell was on an eight-day visit to nations in Europe and central Asia. After a 24-hour stay in Moscow, he headed for Berlin, and plans to visit Paris and London Tuesday before heading home. Terrorism clearly dominated the agenda for Powell's talks - both the escalating violence in the Middle East and developments in Afghanistan in the U.S.-led war against terrorism. Shortly after arriving in Moscow late Sunday, Powell placed flowers on a memorial at Pushkin Square on the site of an August 2000 terrorist bombing that killed 13 people. Speaking with reporters as he flew from Central Asia, Powell condemned the latest suicide bombing in Israel and raised fresh questions about the ability of Yasser Arafat to control Palestinian terrorist groups. He said Arafat ``has available to him tens of thousands of security personnel with weapons,'' and should be able to do a better job at cracking down on extremists. ******* #2 BBC Monitoring USA's Powell tells Russian TV that detente policy is long-term Source: Russian Public TV (ORT), Moscow, in Russian 0900 gmt 10 Dec 01 [Presenter] How does the USA see the future of its cooperation with Russia? The head of the American foreign-policy establishment [i.e., Secretary of State] spoke about this yesterday in an exclusive interview to our television station. [Question] Mr Secretary, relations between the United States and Russia are now moving to a qualitatively new level. The policy of the current American administration is to draw closer to Russia. Is this long-term or does it depend on the immediate political climate? [Powell, in English with Russian overlaid] It's a long-term policy. After the tragedy of 11 September, our relations have been developing more quickly. All this is happening because the United States and Russia, Presidents Bush and Putin, joined the coalition against terrorism. I was in Brussels two days ago, and at NATO there we found a way to establish a closer relationship between Russia and NATO for the coming months and years. This means a permanent, long-term policy and not just something temporary. We want to see closer cooperation between Russia and the West, and for that to happen on the basis of mutual interest. We welcome this new era. [Question] Mr Powell, does the USA leadership still insist on a rapid and unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty? And in your opinion, is any compromise possible between our two countries to preserve that treaty? [Powell] We have discussed with the Russian side, for several months now, the new threats emanating from countries that are developing technologies and weapons of mass destruction. In particular, missiles with such weapons. For that reason, we need an anti-missile defence. But that is directed not against Russia but against these new threats. As for the ABM Treaty, it does not allow the development of appropriate antimissile systems. This is why we need to move beyond the treaty and leave it behind. Russia does not agree with this. We have been unable to resolve these differences. But we will continue to discuss this issue... ******* #3 Los Angeles Times December 10, 2001 Even Amid His Family, Debate Persists Over Stalin Communism: Half a century after dictator's death, there is no consensus on legacy in lands he once ruled. By ROBYN DIXON, TIMES STAFF WRITER DUSHETI, Georgia -- Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili is a famous name across the former Soviet Union, the real name of one of the great tyrants of the 20th century--Stalin. Now there is another Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili. He is 6 years old. You find him capering in a sunny garden in a small town in Stalin's native land of Georgia, burying his nose in an overblown yellow rose, strewing golden petals about. He is the great-great-grandson of the Soviet dictator, and the first heir to bear Stalin's full name. That Josef carries the name with its great burden of history is a delight to his Communist grandfather, Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, who reveres Stalin as a demigod. But another of the Soviet leader's grandsons shunned Stalin's name. He is Alexander Burdonsky, 59, born Alexander Stalin. In his teen years he realized the truth about Stalin and changed his name to be free of the taint of cruelty and tyranny. With their conflicting views of history, of Stalin and of family, the grandsons Dzhugashvili and Burdonsky abhor each other. Their attitudes reflect a wider split in the former Soviet societies, most of which have still not come to terms with their bloody histories under communism. Nearly 50 years after Stalin's death in 1953, there is no consensus about his legacy in Georgia, Russia and elsewhere. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia made concerted efforts to untangle decades of Communist lies and set old ghosts to rest. Their commissions are still at work on research, historical reports and public awareness, but have struggled with a lack of cooperation from Russia, where many of the archives remain. Elsewhere, many other countries emerging from repressive rule have adopted formal processes to expose past crimes. South Africa and Latin American countries including Argentina and Chile instituted truth commissions. Some East European countries banned those too closely associated with the former regime from public office. The rationale for such efforts is that those who ignore the past or allow its message to be muddled are in danger of repeating it. But Russians simply turned their backs on the past without systematically examining it. There are many Communists who still laud Stalin, and some carry his picture at their rallies. Survey Shows Division of Opinion Polls indicate that the nation still is confused about his role. A third of those surveyed believe that he did more good than harm, a quarter believe the opposite and another quarter believe he did equal amounts of harm and good, according to a September poll of 1,500 Russians. Stalin's successor, Nikita S. Khrushchev, denounced him in 1956 for his brutality and abuse of power, exposing the mass arrests, deportations and executions of innocent people. In the glasnost era launched by Mikhail S. Gorbachev and after the fall of the Soviet Union, more information became available. Many Russians came to see Stalin as an evil, but powerful, leader. Today he still is given credit, particularly by the elderly, for winning World War II and industrializing the country. In Gori, Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, the atmosphere of denial is almost surreal. The Stalin museum, full of retouched Soviet photographs, makes no mention of his millions of victims. The museum's ardently pro-Stalin view of history appears to have changed little, despite the overall revisions of Soviet history about Stalin. "Historians have always lied. They lied before Stalin, they lied under him, and they're lying now," said Burdonsky, a Moscow theater director. "It's very difficult to find the truth." The truth is so elusive that even the number of those who died because of Stalin's policies is the subject of debate. According to the Memorial human rights group, Stalin's policies were responsible for the deaths of 9 million to 12 million people, including those who perished in the famines of 1932-33 and 1946-47. It says 25 million passed through the Gulag, Stalin's network of prison camps, or were exiled. Author and historian Robert Conquest estimates that 20 million died. Others have suggested higher figures. The uncertainty is exploited by Stalin's devotees. Yevgeny Dzhugashvili asserts that the accusations of mass killings in the purges of 1937 and other criticisms of Stalin were concocted on Khrushchev's orders. He has just written his own version of Soviet history aimed at rehabilitating Stalin. Sergei Sigachev, executive director of Memorial, said ex-Communist officials who came to power in most former Soviet states had no interest in exposing past crimes and identifying the guilty. It would have taken huge public pressure to force the process. "People were not up to it. The shelves were empty. People had lost all their savings. They weren't concerned about restoring historical justice," he said. "I can understand why people are saying, 'Why do we have to remember all these executions and firing squads? It happened, but let's forget it.' But if we forget how bad it was, then it will be very easy to go back and repeat all these things," he said. If it's difficult for society as a whole to come to terms with the past, it seems even more difficult for Stalin's family. Stalin barely knew his own children, let alone his grandchildren. Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, 65, is the son of Stalin's son Yakov, from the dictator's first marriage. Yakov, a Soviet army officer, died in a German POW camp in World War II after Stalin refused an offer to exchange him for a German officer. Yevgeny never met his grandfather. "I was never able to call him grandpa," Dzhugashvili said sentimentally. "Stalin to me was a leader, an incredible person. He managed to gather the whole empire and form it into a fist. People like him are born once in a thousand years." Defense Seen as Foolish, Vain Burdonsky, son of Stalin's son Vasily, from a second marriage, saw him only at a distance, reviewing military parades from atop the Lenin mausoleum on Red Square. He sees Dzhugashvili's defense of Stalin as foolish and vain. "Stalin was a tyrant, a very cruel person, infinitely harsh and strict like the old czars of Russia. No matter how much you try to attach angels' wings to him, they don't stick," Burdonsky said. "All Yevgeny wants is to be part of the Stalin story," Burdonsky said. "He should start thinking about the life he's led. He's sitting on this old hack that the Soviet authorities used to ride, and he hasn't even noticed that the horse is long dead." Like Dzhugashvili, Burdonsky began life with the conviction that Stalin was a god. When he went to Stalin's funeral, he saw thousands of weeping people. But he could summon no tears for a man he did not know. Amid the heaving mass of sorrow, he was ashamed that he could not cry. Later, when he realized Stalin was a tyrant and repudiated the name, he felt liberated. For Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, who spent most of his working life in Russia, the family name made him feel insecure. A prim man, he wears a crisp white shirt, carries an old plastic comb in his pocket, smokes Camel cigarettes and rarely smiles--except at little Josef. He complains that his military career was blighted by the revisions of history and criticisms of Stalin. Friends drifted away. Working at defense manufacturing plants, Dzhugashvili says, he was terrified of scandals that could be used to dismiss or demote him. "My name was a disadvantage because the government has been on a ferocious crusade against Stalin. None of the military bosses had the guts to promote Stalin's grandson," he complained. Despite his experience, Dzhugashvili planned far in advance for his grandson to carry Stalin's exact name, and says he does not believe it will be a problem for him. Since middle names are traditionally taken from a father's first name, Dzhugashvili named his oldest son Vissarion. When his grandson was born, and named Josef, that gave him the exact name as his famous ancestor. Family Name Haunts Younger Son But Dzhugashvili's younger son, Yakov, 29, said no day goes by when the family name does not haunt him. An artist who also runs an Internet operation in Tbilisi, Georgia's capital, he said some people swear at him when they hear his name, while others try to kiss him. "People usually ask very stupid questions like what do I think of him [Stalin]. When I was young, I tried to answer. When I got older, I realized there's no answer to this question," Yakov said. Yevgeny Dzhugashvili has set up a new Stalinist Communist party in Georgia--even though he's a Russian citizen. Occasionally, with TV cameras or journalists in tow, he travels to Gori. Gori is littered with Stalin statues. The oddest is comically small, not much more than a yard high, set in a broken-down amusement park for children. Teaching Soviet history at Gori University, Vazha Kiknadze collides constantly with the town's reverence for Stalin. He confronts students by reeling off the names of famous Georgian writers and artistic figures killed under Stalin. His students are quick to anger when they hear the truth. "There is no anti-Stalin propaganda," he said despairingly. "In fact there is pro-Stalin propaganda. There's a very strong revival going on." People in Gori often express eagerness to learn more about Stalin, but usually only good things. A sweet-faced 13-year-old, Nato Makashvili, says her history teachers told her that Stalin was good. She was taught that he repressed or killed 20 million people, and also that he was a great leader. Quizzed how a man who killed so many could be good, she replied simply that her teachers told her so, and then lapsed into a puzzled silence. Mariko Babilua, 24, heard little about the Gulag, except that all the drug addicts were sent away. "Whatever we were taught I believe, and I believe he was good," she said. 'People Have to Know the Truth' But Leyla Elikauri, 35, has an 8-year-old son, Shotik, and is determined that he know about Stalin's victims. "For me, Stalin was like Mussolini or Hitler," she said. "People have to know the truth about history. I don't want the things that happened in the past ever to happen again." Memorial's Sigachev is concerned that the Russian authorities, including President Vladimir V. Putin, a former KGB spy, are still eager to suppress the negative side of history. He contends that one reason Putin and his associates rose to the top in Russia was that the country never confronted the ugly truths about its past. "There was never any rethinking of history because there has never been any reevaluation of the relations between the individual and the state. The state has always remained paramount," he said. "Up until now, the government and the people have not reached the conclusion that the most important thing in a country is a human being." ******* #4 Chicago Tribune December 10, 2001 Kazakstan, though thriving, fears ripple effects of war By Cheryl Collins Special to the Tribune ALMATY, Kazakstan -- On the broad, tree-lined streets of this city, there is little evidence that life has changed here since the U.S. began its campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But in conversations with residents of this cosmopolitan city--the economic and cultural center of the country and, until 1998, its capital--it is clear that most feel the war to be uncomfortably close and fear its potential to destabilize the most stable nation in the region. Neighboring Uzbekistan is being used as a staging area by the U.S. military, and the television news describes the strengthening of Kazakstan's borders and an increase in its military budget. "The war is now far away, but I worry that my children will see the war," said Egemberdieva Sapargul, who wore a wool hood tightly around her head to fend off the chill as she sold bottles of soda at a busy bus stop. A mother and grandmother, she is frightened that her children will experience the deprivations her parents' generation knew during World War II. During the weekend, Secretary of State Colin Powell, on an eight-day visit to Europe and Central Asia, stopped in the capital, Astana, to thank President Nursultan Nazarbayev for granting airspace rights to the United States and offering the use of his bases. While no bases in Kazakstan have been needed in the military campaign, they may play a role in the humanitarian effort, Powell suggested. U.S. cooperation Nazarbayev praised the level of U.S.-Kazak cooperation in exporting his country's oil to world markets. He said his country supports building several pipelines, including one through Iran that the U.S. opposes. The largest and wealthiest country of the five former Soviet states in Central Asia, Kazakstan has emerged almost by default as the most stable nation in that region, with the strongest economy and the least authoritarian political system. Graced with an abundance of oil and natural-gas reserves and an open market, Kazakstan and Nazarbayev are riding a wave of growth that has not been slowed so far by the war. As this nation celebrates 10 years of statehood this month, it hardly qualifies as a democratic state. While the methods used are perhaps less obvious and heavy-handed than those elsewhere in the region, Nazarbayev exerts tight control over the government. He has been the nation's leader since its independence and got 80 percent of the votes in the 1999 elections. However, government officials barred his chief opponent from running against him, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which observes elections, said the election fell short of international standards. In comparison to other Central Asian states, Kazakstan has worked hard to attract foreign investors by liberalizing its financial system and opening its market, Western analysts say. The nation needs those funds to help finance the development of its vast, largely untapped oil and gas reserves. Although the influx of petrodollars has swelled the economy, especially in the last year, the vast majority of Kazaks have yet to see tangible benefits. According to official statistics compiled in 1999, the unemployment rate was about 14 percent, and 35 percent of the 16 million inhabitants lived below the poverty line. Many more are under-employed, listed on the payroll of barely functioning Soviet-era factories. An ethnically mixed population, a tradition of tolerance and several centuries of Russian influence are seen to contribute to Kazakstan's relaxed attitude toward formal religion, reflected in its constitutional designation as a secular state. For centuries the nomadic Kazaks, a Mongolian people who speak a Turkic language, ranged across the vast steppes with their herds. Their traditional lifestyle faded by the late 18th Century after Russia annexed the land. Soviet-era migration In the early Soviet era, thousands of ethnic Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Chechens, Koreans and others were sent into exile here. During World War II, many European Russians who lived close to the front lines were relocated to Kazakstan, and in the 1950s and 1960s, many more Soviet citizens settled in the region in an effort to increase agricultural production. The result is that today Kazakstan is a multiethnic society; according to official figures, 53 percent of the population is ethnic Kazak and 30 percent is ethnic Russian. In the 1999 census, 47 percent of the population was Sunni Muslim and 44 percent was Russian Orthodox. There has been a religious resurgence since 1991, as throughout the former Soviet Union. However, with a lack of guidance during 70 years of Soviet rule, many Muslims practice a faith that is an amalgam of shamanist beliefs and Islam. One of the most important roles at the hundreds of mosques that have been built in the past 10 years has been to instruct the faithful on proper Islamic practice. Despite the tradition of tolerance, the most immediate consequence of the war that was widely feared by residents was a wave of Afghan refugees flooding their southern border. However, the threat has not yet materialized. For many, these potential refugees present the introduction of an unknown, perhaps dangerous element into their country. "I don't know who they are and what they believe," said Sapargul, echoing many. In Kazakstan, though, the war in Afghanistan is a distant reality. ******** #5 New York Times December 10, 2001 Reading Putin's Mind By WILLIAM SAFIRE MOCKBA -- Last week, I induced the 19 NATO countries to count themselves as 20. That makes Russia officially part of the NATO military organization set up to defend Europe from Russia. We will soon have access to all the West's defense plans, and a strong say (in reality, a veto, though they cannot yet admit it) in every action it plans to take. That also transforms the West's military alliance into a boiled-cabbage political bureaucracy that I can "consult" into impotence. No more attacks on Serbs over our objections — we'll consult nyet and disrupt the consensus. I read in The New York Times that my friend George and my friend Colin agreed to this Russian diplomatic triumph despite the protest of the warrior Rumsfeld. (Why doesn't George shut down that paper? I would in a minute. Revelation of internal struggle encourages opposition.) Now I will permit NATO to welcome the Baltic states. I will pretend this is against the desires of my generals (hmm — maybe that Rumsfeld protest was a trick) and by so approving, solidify my unwritten veto power. Of course, the other 19 nations don't need my approval, but the useful idiots of the West don't realize that. That came on top of what my generals call "Bush's Surrender at Crawford." The strategic deal I had agreed to with Bush beforehand in Shanghai was this: George would reduce his missiles all the way down to the number we could afford to equal, and in return, I would let him amend the ABM treaty so he could test a limited antimissile system. But at his ranch in Texas, smiling through all the strange food, I got the U.S. to cut its missile force down below 2,000 — but didn't give the Americans an inch on ABM. I blamed my generals, which was disinformation, but how could Colin complain publicly? Wasn't I letting the Americans fly over Russia to get to Uzbekistan in our joint war on terror? Ah, the war. The world now forgives me for wiping out our Chechens because all those Muslims are terrorists. And didn't I score yet another personal triumph by sending our people into Kabul just after it surrendered, ahead of the Americans and British? The Russian people, who saw our return on TV, now believe we finally won our war in Afghanistan, with a little U.S. help at the end. But George had better not carry this antiterror business too far by attacking Primakov's friend in Baghdad. Iraq owes us $8 billion for our arms shipments, and we'll never get that money if Saddam is out of power. Currently he's paying us for new weapons out of his oil smuggling, and if he uses our SAM's to bring down American gunships, that's not my fault. Oil. That has been the key to my economic success. After the Saudis, we are the world's largest producer of oil and gas, and have never been part of OPEC. George was so happy to see us pumping away, breaking the monopoly and bringing down prices. This fall's drop in oil prices was equivalent to a huge tax cut, helping stimulate the U.S. out of its recession. But last week, I made a deal with OPEC to cut our production by a symbolic 150,000 barrels a day, and we're ready to reduce our output much more to help our Arab friends push up world prices. As the capitalists taught us: Sorry, George, business is business. I felt I could do that without troubling the new personal trust between George and me. At the Crawford summit, he complained a little about my sale of nuclear materials to Iran, and he wished we would stop sending the best and hungriest Russian scientists to help the Iranians develop their bomb and multiple-stage rockets. I sympathize, but why stop? The ayatollahs pay in cash, and if Iran and Iraq — and Israel — want to fight wars, let them be equals. Nothing beats an antiterrorist pose. I crushed my media critics. I neutralized NATO. My obliteration of Grozny is forgotten. I'm bringing prosperity to Russia by arming America's enemies and fixing prices with the oil cartel. My friend George may be a little ahead of me in our nations' popularity polls, but I have this advantage: he's not president for life. ******* #6 Wall Street Journal Europe December 10, 2001 Editorial NATO at 19 1/2 The Atlantic alliance has seen the Western world through half a century of turmoil, underpinning democracy militarily and giving cohesion to a community of nations that share common values. Ententes Cordiales and Triple Alliances have come and gone, but NATO has stood the test of time. This does not however mean that the alliance is trouble-free. Precisely because of the great value attached to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization it would be imprudent to ignore that the alliance today faces special challenges that, unless tackled, could call into question its future usefulness. NATO tried to deal with some of them at a meeting of foreign ministers with Russia at alliance headquarters in Brussels on Friday. The compromise that ensued is intended to draw Russia closer to NATO. But no such initiative can ever be taken without raising that nagging question: What is NATO's modern role? Some see it making a transition from a military to political alliance and Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to like that idea. U.S. military leaders, on the other hand, tend to think of this as partly a rationalization by those European members who have made deep cuts in military budgets. Clearly, when it comes to projecting military power into dark corners of the world, the U.S. carries the main burden. In no order of importance, the NATO is saddled with at least the following problems. One is a growing perception among some foreign-policy elites that the disappearance of the Soviet Union has left it without a raison d'etre. A consequent but different problem is managing the relationship with Russia, a nation whose aspirations remain difficult to discern. NATO's proposed expansion presents a related problem; Moscow wants to veto the Baltic states' entry. Beyond that, but equally dangerous, are the questions raised about NATO's usefulness to the U.S., or indeed to any of its component states. The liberation of Kosovo, NATO's first hot war, did not leave a good taste in the mouths of some U.S. generals and policy makers, who understandably chafed at combat by committee. The U.S. decision to pick allies on an ad hoc basis for specific mission in Afghanistan may have rankled many in Europe, but it's a direct consequence of Kosovo. All this adds to the doubts that some have about NATO's value. By deciding on Friday to start work on a new council that will bring Russia in for discussions on issues ranging from civil emergencies to missile defense, NATO was taking a seemingly hedged step. Whenever Russia cannot reach agreement with the 19 members, the ruling council will simply meet without Russia. The difference is important. NATO reaches its decisions through consensus, which means that each member has a veto. Russia doesn't. Integrating Russia into the family of Western nations -- while still ensuring that it cannot block necessary NATO missions -- is a lofty goal. It is difficult at the same time to ignore that Russia's history of empire building pre-dated the communists. The communists just appropriated the oppressive apparatus and extended Moscow's reach further. Russian reformer Anatoli Chubais reminded us last week that "before Blair stood British colonialism, and before Aznar was Spanish colonialism." But when can the world trust Russia to have turned that page also? NATO's three newest members -- the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary -- are justifiably cautious and do not think the moment has come. Sources tell us they are aghast that Russia has been allowed to come this far. Nor apparently is U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld completely comfortable with the new coziness. He opposed the designation of the group as "NATO at 20," a title he thought created too much the impression that Russia had been given a veto. NATO sources say the overall direction of drawing Russia closer came from U.S. President George W. Bush, who recently met with Mr. Putin in Washington and at the Bush Texas ranch. This view prevailed. NATO at 20 does not go as far as British Prime Minister Tony Blair's proposal for a Russia-North Atlantic Council body in which all 20 members have equal decision-making power, but it does move the process of conciliation with Russia forward. It would be a shame, however, if in trying to rehabilitate Russia, the allies damaged the alliance at a critical time. As the U.S. pursues Osama bin Laden and his terrorists in Afghanistan it must also look at other terrorism-supporting states. The Iraqi regime is high on that list, but it's also a traditional Russian protege. We note also that missile defense is one of the issues that "NATO at 20" will tackle. Russia's opposition to Mr. Bush's missile shield is well known. A NATO that because of Russian participation -- however limited -- drags its feet on a continuation of the war on terrorism or missile defense is one that will be shunned by U.S. policy makers. The role NATO plays in keeping the U.S. and Europe engaged with one another is too valuable to risk by rushing too fast to accommodate Russia's aspirations for more influence in Western councils. ******* #7 The Globe and Mail (Canada) December 10, 2001 Canada crowing over NATO pact Ottawa claims credit for co-operation deal between Russia and former Cold War foe By GEOFFREY YORK MOSCOW -- Canada is claiming credit for the idea that triggered a breakthrough in relations between NATO and Russia last week, predicting it will help restore Russia to its prerevolution status as a full partner in Europe. The agreement between Moscow and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the latest step in an unprecedented rapprochement between Russia and the West. And federal officials are boasting that Canada is at the forefront of the historic shift. Two years ago, relations had plunged to rock-bottom levels. Canada led a chorus of international protests against Russia's brutal assault on Chechen separatists in Grozny in 1999. But since then, Ottawa has eagerly seized on every possible sign that President Vladimir Putin is a moderate who is seeking a new deal with the West. The rapprochement has escalated dramatically since Russia decided to join the Western counterterrorism campaign after Sept. 11. At a NATO meeting in Brussels on Nov. 7, a Canadian diplomat became the first to propose that Russia should become a full participant in NATO decisions on some issues. The idea was quickly promoted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other leaders, soon producing the NATO-Russia agreement of last week, which would set up a new council to allow joint decision-making. "The Brits stole our idea," a senior Canadian official later complained in half-joking fashion. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has heaped praise on Canada for suggesting the new NATO joint council. When he discovered Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley at an international meeting in Romania last week, Mr. Ivanov interrupted the meeting to hug Mr. Manley and express his fondness for the Canadian minister. "It was a real show of affection," a Canadian official said. "There's a special rapport between the two of them." The West made an earlier attempt to set up a joint council with Russia in 1997, but it now admits the move was ineffective. Mr. Manley said the military alliance had been presenting its decisions to Russia as "a fait accompli." Another Canadian official referred to the earlier council as "an empty shell." But under the new scheme, Russia will be included in the alliance's consensus-building process, Mr. Manley said. "When NATO was created, the enemy was Russia," he said in a telephone interview from Brussels. "Now we're talking about NATO and Russia sitting down as equals at a table to talk about issues of common concern, sharing intelligence and taking joint action. This is the next step toward Russia sitting where it was before 1917, as a true European nation." In sharp contrast to the nasty mood of two years ago, Canadian diplomats say they are now unable to think of a single major disagreement in their relationship with Russia. "We've had a period of very steadily growing relations," said a senior Canadian official in Moscow. "We're very much sharing similar views on major international political issues. We've consulted very closely over the past year. We've co-operated more than ever before in our security relationships and on counterterrorism." At least 10 Canadian cabinet ministers have visited Russia over the past 18 months, and six Russian ministers have visited Canada in the same period. The two leaders, Mr. Putin and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, have exchanged visits. And Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov arrived in Ottawa last night for meetings with Mr. Chrétien and other Canadian leaders today, followed by meetings tomorrow with business leaders in Montreal. Some Western critics, including Czech President Vaclav Havel, have opposed the idea of co-operation between Russia and NATO. Some suggested that Russia's unexpected decision last month to send 200 armed troops to Afghanistan would damage the level of NATO's trust in Russia. But the Canadians have leaped to Russia's defence. "I don't think we should see that as a military invasion of any sort," Mr. Manley said. ******* #8 Nezavisimaya Gazeta December 8, 2001 NATO AVOIDING REVOLUTIONS NATO is in no hurry to give Russia equal rights in discussions Author: Marina Kalashnikova Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 8, 2001, p. 6 [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF RUSSIA GETTING AN EQUAL VOTE IN NATO, AT THE VERY LAST MOMENT NATO AUTHORITIES DECIDED NOT TO MAKE "REVOLUTIONARY DECISIONS." THUS, RUSSIA WILL PARTICIPATE ONLY IN NATO'S DISCUSSIONS OF PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS. At the recent session of the NATO Council in Brussels the intrigue of giving Russia rights equal to other NATO members was resolved. At the very last moment the authorities of the NATO decided to refrain from giving Russia the right to participate in making consolidated decisions. As the communique of the session states, it was decided "to refrain from revolutionary decisions. NATO should retain its prerogative to resolve the main issues related to duties and responsibilities by the narrow circle of 19 members. The foundation of the 'Group of the Twenty' should be postponed until better times. Russia should be allowed to participate in discussions of some separate issues." Participants of the session expressed opposite opinions on these issues. For instance, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine is convinced that the time for resolution of any issues, including construction of the European missile defense system, by the Group of the Twenty has come. Other diplomats, vice versa, showed Russia "the back door" and suggested that it be given access to the NATO table only during discussions of peacekeeping issues. The majority came to the decision that the initiatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair were too premature. Although it is Americans who initiated this discussion a few weeks ago, they finally dotted the i's in this discussion. Despite America's gratitude to Russia for its readiness to help the US in the anti-terror campaign, it is too early to thank Russia by giving it an equal vote in NATO. Thus, America's intrigue envisaged several steps. As the Russia- NATO Basic Act created a friendly atmosphere before the first wave of NATO's expansion, the US decided to repeat this success by giving Russia a sort of compensation. For the first time it was announced in the communique of the session that in November 2002 the treaty organization will accept nine new members. Thus, US President George Bush and other "grads" will have the right to call themselves the great remakers of Europe. At the very last moment some forces in the US protested against closer relations between Russia and NATO. The Pentagon and Congress were against because Russia would allegedly "stir up trouble," i.e. violate the basic principle of NATO: the consolidated nature of making decisions. Besides, Russia's demand that NATO should change its position on the Chechen issue was considered too bold. NATO leaders were also annoyed with the fact that Moscow tried to interpret their announcements regarding Chechnya in Moscow's favor. And the intensive landing of the Russian Airborne Troops in Kabul was viewed nearly as a repetition of the notorious landing of Russian forces in Pristina. The American administration views this action as a sign of Russia's intention to act separately. This independence does not appeal to the NATO collective. (Translated by Kirill Frolov) ******* #9 World Bank official upbeat on Russian economy ITAR-TASS Krasnoyarsk, 8 December: Russia has good economic growth this year, World Bank director for Russia Julian Schweitzer said in an interview with ITAR-TASS on Saturday [8 December]. Together with a group of experts, Schweitzer is in the Russian city of Krasnoyarsk where they are studying small and medium business development. The World Bank is satisfied with Russia's economic development on the whole, Schweitzer said. However, he noted that the country's economy still depends on raw material industrial sectors - oil production and ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy. Depending on the sectors hampers economic development as a whole. And it is proved by the example of Krasnoyarsk Territory, where budget revenues have decreased considerably because of the fall in the prices for non-ferrous metals on the world market. Russia should pay more attention to other sectors, particularly developing small and medium businesses, Schweitzer noted. The World Bank is satisfied with its cooperation with Russia this year and is optimistic over the future, the official said. Based on the positive experience of work with Russia, the World Bank is beginning to discuss new cooperation programmes with the Russian government. Three directions are chosen as the priority - development of the private sector in Russia, particularly small and medium businesses, management of enterprises and social issues. Schweitzer expressed the hope that the talks with the Russian government would be successful and implementation of new joint projects would begin next year. ******* #10 the eXile November 29, 2001 www.exile.ru The Hack's Corner He held out for a long time—almost three years. But last week, New York Times uber-villain Michael Wines finally caved in and wrote his own “Russia is finally turning the corner” story, making him the nine thousand four hundred thirty-seventh person to make this announcement since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, Russia has turned the corner at least once in almost every month of every year since 1995. Strikingly, Russia appears to have turned the corner most often in the early months of 1998, when in fact the economy was on the verge of total collapse. In any case, in Wines’s honor, we’re updating a cliche watch we first posted three years ago: At last, Russia may be turning the corner. Michael Wines, New York Times, Nov. 17, 2001 We believe that Russia has turned the corner. Senior VP of Hines Investment Firm Lee Timmins, Aug. 14, 2001 A new president has pushed through a 13-percent flat tax, a balanced budget and is working on land and regulatory reforms. Has Russia turned the corner? Alvin Rabushka, Hoover Institution, Jan. 11, 2001 The IMF has decided that Russia has enough cash to pay its debt. Revenues from high global energy prices as well as reports of higher-than-expected Russian GDP growth are causing some analysts to conclude that the Russian economy has turned the corner. St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 12, 2000 Many observers say, however, that Russia has turned the corner. Center for Public Policy, Dec. 1, 2000 The equity markets began a strong rally last fall, reflecting belief the economy had finally turned the corner, and the positive impact of the rise in oil prices, a key Russian export. The street.com, David Kurapka, “Fear and Loathing in Moscow,” June 16, 2000 There are signs that Russia may be turning the corner. Prices have stabilized, the economy is showing its first signs of growth in six years. Eric Campbell, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Apr. 2000 Nevertheless it is upon such differential data that claims are made that the Russian economy has turned the corner and is on the road to better things. The Conflict Studies Research Center, Professor A. Kennaway, “The Russian Political Economy 1999” Nevertheless, it seems plausible, on balance, that the economy as a whole is turning the corner. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Apr. 15, 1999 It became apparent however, in the course of 1997 that the Russian economy was at long last turning the corner. Sunday Observer, Oct. 25, 1998 And Russia is putting its fiscal house in order, inflation is under control, and Russia’s economy has turned the corner on growth, promising the first upswing in a decade. Then-Vice President Al Gore, Mar. 11, 1998 I’m actually optimistic, especially after the agreement with the International Monetary Fund, that they’re going to turn the corner and start experiencing some real economic growth soon. Al Gore again, July 25, 1998 And, probably most important, after seven years of transitional depression, the economy appears to be turning the corner. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, mid-1998 report Russia seems to have been turning the corner economically in the past few weeks, having survived the effects of the economic crisis in Asia. Warsaw News, Mar. 29, 1998 But I am still very optimistic about Russia’s future. It looks like the country has finally turned the corner on economic growth. George Munoz, President and CEO, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Mar. 19, 1998 The Ambassador said the Russian economy has turned the corner and is now on a positive growth path. Princeton Club Newsletter, Mar. 1998, on visit from Russian Ambassador Yuli Vorontsev Because as Russia’s long-suffering economy finally turns the corner to growth, well-managed local producers of consumer goods have nowhere to go but up. Mark Whitehouse, Moscow Times, Feb. 24, 1998 Russian Economy May Be Turning Corner Mitchell Landsberg, AP, Jan. 26 1998 I believe Russia is at a turning point. Strobe Talbott, Sept. 19, 1997 Current estimates show that the government is collecting 18% of the tax revenue it should be. While this course of events had a disastrous effect on the Russian economy, Gordon sees hope on the horizon because the domestic economy seems to have turned the corner and is now growing. Gordon Smith, Stanford Lecturer, while on North Pole Expedition, July 25, 1997 The ’97 wave will be based on the realization that Russia is turning the corner. Dirk Damrau, then-managing Director for Research at Renaissance Capital, Dec. 31, 1996 The economy seems to be turning a corner. Bruce Nelan, Time, Mar. 18, 1996 Russia, long regarded by international investors as an economic disaster area, is close to turning the corner. Brian Caplen, AsiaNet, Sept. 1, 1995 Despite political problems and the messy Chechen war, many analysts say the Russian economy is turning the corner and see plenty of investors keen to put their money into the country as soon as issues such as debt are resolved. Jonathan Thatcher, Moscow Times, July 1, 1995 ****** #11 Argumenty I Fakty December 5, 2001, CHURCH AND STATE [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] For the first time in many years, the Church and the state taken several significant steps toward one another. Both the state and the church are concerned that young people have lost some "traditional values"; and the church claims it's able to restore these values. According to Deputy Education Minister Yury Kovrizhkin, three-quarters of all believers in Russia are Orthodox Christians. Sixty percent of Russians are convinced that religion is necessary for preserving national self-awareness. Young people, 25% of the population, are a cause for concern because their faith is shallow and doubtful: 17% of young people believe not in God but in some "higher powers"; 16% of young people are superstitious, and 17% more believe in UFOs. They are the potential victims of totalitarian sects and religious extremism, and they needed to be saved. So "close cooperation between the church and the state on the issues of education, the environment, and human rights" has been proposed as the best option for saving Russia's youth. According to Kovrizhkin, in practice this means "opening Orthodox day-care centers, kindergartens, schools, gymnasiums, Christian-patriotic and Christian-sports clubs under the patronage of local authorities." ******* #12 Slovo December 7-13, 2001 THE IMPENDING CATASTROPHE The population crisis: life expectancy, migration, and the workforce Author: Sebastian Pritskov [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] RUSSIA IS LOSING ITS SKILLED SPECIALISTS BECAUSE OF EMIGRATION, BUT THIS LOSS IS COMPENSATED FOR BY IMMIGRATION OF SKILLED WORKERS FROM THE POORER NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES. ACCORDING TO SOME ESTIMATES, BY 2050 RUSSIA WILL NEED NO FEWER THAN 17.5 MILLION MIGRANTS, OF WHOM ONLY 15% WILL BE ETHNIC RUSSIANS. Currently, Russia is going through a severe demographic crisis. Since early 1990s the Russian population has decreased by 3 million people. This figure would double without migrants. If in 1989 there were 1.53 million deaths for each 2.16 million births, in 1999 this proportion was 1.99:1.28. If the Russian population continues decreasing, in the near fifteen years it will fall by 9-17 million people (from the present 145 million). According to forecasts, by 2050 the population may decrease by 60 million people: then there will be 80 million to 100 million people in Russia. In 2000 women's life expectancy was 72.2 years, men's life expectancy was 59.8 years. Thus, Russia is among the bottom third of all countries according to life expectancy. The reasons for such a high death rate and such low life expectancy are diverse. The food is mostly high-fat and low in vitamins. Almost two-thirds of men smoke. Heart disease is widespread. And the number of people who have tuberculosis, AIDS, and sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis is rapidly growing. According to Russian statistics, in 1998 450,000 cases of syphilis were registered; and the spread of the AIDS virus is reaching African levels. In the past 18 months alone, 129,216 new HIV-positive people have been registered in Russia; this problem is especially disturbing in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Irkutsk, and the Kaliningrad region. Tuberculosis is also spreading in Russia: in some regions 80 people out of 100,000 have tuberculosis, which is actually defined as an epidemic. According to the World Health Organization, in 1998 150,000 cases of tuberculosis were registered, with a trend toward growth; 15% of them were fatal. The tense social situation is also bad for life expectancy. Violence, accidents, alcohol abuse, together with suicide, are the top causes of death after cancer. In 1998 forty percent of men who died were of working age. However, it is not only low life expectancy that is the main reason for the population decline in Russia. One of the main reasons is the extremely low birth rate, which is one of the lowest in the world. In 1998 it was 1.25 and this noticeably lower than 2.15 which provides for full replacement of generations. Today there are 4.4 million fewer children than five years ago. Emigration also has a negative impact on the population. In 1988- 98 many ethnic Germans left Russia. Since mid-1990s about 288,000 people emigrated from the country. In the first half of 1990s mostly people of German and Jewish nationality left the country; in 1998 they totaled a third of all emigrants from Russia. Emigration is a hard issue for Russia because the majority of emigrants are young, well- prepared people, so the country is losing its intellectual potential. The government is considering the high death rate as a factor that endangers the national security. It would be possible to gain quick results if the government managed to increase the men's life expectancy by three years as it happened in the course of Mikhail Gorbachev's prohibition campaign. In order to improve the health of the population, the government passed a law that banned selling cigarettes to under-aged and smoking in public places. The wages of the medical workers much be increased by 60%, the people should be informed about the danger of high blood pressure of which suffers 40% of the population. Simultaneously, the government is working out the state pension system. However, all these measures are far from being enough for improvement of the demographic situation. That is why the migrants arriving in Russia should be paid attention to. From 1992 to 1998 about 5.1 million people immigrated in Russia. They are mostly ethnic Russians from CIS countries and the Baltic states. From 1996 the current of ethnic Russians has reduced; however, the immigration level is still rather high if consider the residents of the Central Asia and the Caucasus. According to the Interior Ministry, 350,000 people arrived in Russia in 2000. As a result of economic growth at present some Siberian regions lack skilled labor force, which is a good reason for oil companies to start looking for employees in the CIS countries. The main subjects for the search are Ukraine and Belarus, as these countries have one language and one culture. Thus, the conclusion is that in particular Russia is losing a part of its skilled specialists because of the emigration, but this loss is compensated for by migration into the country of skilled labor force from the poorer neighbor countries. According to real estimates, by 2050 Russia will need no fewer than 17.5 million migrants, of which only 15% will be ethnic Russians. Many details indicate that even an increase of the birth rate as a result of economic growth will not be enough to replace the departing generation. Given a drastic decline and aging of the population, Russia's global position is endangered. (Translated by Arina Yevtikhova ) ******** #13 Nezavisimoye Voyennoe Obozrenie December 7-14, 2001 LEAVING LOURDES Why has Russia abandoned its military bases abroad? Author: Valery Yaremenko [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] THE CHANGES IN RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY HAVE BEEN SO ABRUPT AND UNEXPECTED THAT THE RUSSIAN POLITICAL ELITE HAS HAD NO TIME TO RE- ORIENT ITSELF. INITIALLY, THEY SUPPORTED THE PRESIDENT'S INITIATIVES, BUT NOW THEY HAVE STARTED TO HAVE DOUBTS. PUTIN NEEDS THE WEST TO MAKE SOME GESTURE OF SUPPORT FOR RUSSIA. Lately, the media has started speaking about some new trends in Russian foreign policy: a course to strategic partnership with the west, forgetting its own interests, unilateral concessions to the US, and so on. In these terms, the September decision of President Vladimir Putin to shut down the radio-electronic center (REC) at Lourdes, Cuba, raised a storm of debate. To be more precise, on October 17 at a closed meeting at the Defense Ministry, the president only announced what had been decided in the Cabinet last summer. In July and August Putin agreed with the opinion of experts (including defense Minister Sergei Ivanov and Joint Staff Head Anatoly Kvashnin as representatives of the Defense Ministry), who reported that Russian foreign military bases - Lourdes, Cam Ranh (Vietnam), Gudauta (Abkhazia), missile warning systems in Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Kirgizia are inefficient in the present geopolitical situation. Over 20 billion rubles that are annually spent on their maintenance, are not repaid form both political and economic viewpoints. In December last year the Russian president visited Cuba, and together with Fidel Castro they visited the "most secret object" on the island. Lourdes subordinates to the Joint Staff main intelligence department, lately experts of the Federal Agency for governmental liaison and information (FAGLI) have also worked there. Since 1964 REC has collected information on weapons on bilateral agreements, intercepted telephone talks and e-mail messages on the considerable part of the US. The Center has also tracked US submarines and provided 24-hour communications between Russian military and civilian facilities: ships and submarines, embassies, consulates, and so on in the Western hemisphere. According to Fidel Castro successor Defense Minister Raoul Castro, Lourdes provides up to 75% of intelligence information to Russia. Putin knew all this, but he also knew other things: the station became obsolete about ten years ago, when the US made a technological leap in the satellite industry, and a tremendous amount of information went via the Internet. So, at present, Russia can receive the same information by means of a less expensive and politicized way: with the help of orbital satellites. According to Colonel N., who until recently worked at Lourdes, "The US has fooled us around for about ten years. They have installed several special stations in Florida, that is about 300 kilometers from Cuba and have been broadcasting misinformation. Now it is clear how much misinformation we had transferred to the leadership of our country! Hundreds of employees of the station were rewarded for 'excellent work'. I came back and I am feeling ashamed to look into my friends' eyes...." Only the annual rent for the Center cost Russia $200 million. Overall, over the past ten years Russia has spent $3 billion, if not take into account technical and personnel maintenance. It is hard to say whether our leaving Cuba is a "present for Bush" or a flap on the back. At least, officially Washington was very reserved about it: "Liquidation of the last relic of the Cold War." According to some data, George Bush-younger knew about Moscow's intentions after the first meeting with Vladimir Putin in Lyublyana. The CIA and the Intelligence Department of the Defense Ministry kept silent, obviously they were not interested in closing the station. The US congressmen were not delighted either - trying to increase the danger from the radio-electronic station, last year they made a decision on banning writing Russian debts off until the station is closed. Double game, double arithmetic. Perhaps, Putin has found an invisible spot, an intricate algorithm! It is also important to stress that for many years Cuba used the rent to bolster its budget, and the center for political blackmail in its game not only against the US, but also with Russia, that in fact was a Cuba's hostage. It was a sort of an asymmetric dependence, when the "tail wagged the dog". As it was expected, the official Havana "completely disagrees" with Moscow. However, evacuation of the center will start only in 2002; part of equipment will for sure be given to Cuba free of charge. This means some Russian specialists will also stay there. In 1999 China started building an analogous station on the island, it will bring money there. Moreover, "Russia's leave" and Russia's closing with the US will only contribute to sooner cancellation of the economic embargo and the Harms-Berton law, that intends to "suffocate Cuba". What does Russia benefit by it? Opponents believe that Castro became an inconvenient figure in Putin's long-term patience, and that Moscow is ready to sacrifice Cuba in order to become closer to the West. Putin's supporters are very pragmatic. They note that the character of international relations has changed in both form and contents, and the military component is at the background now. Cooperation with the US gives Russia great advantages and the president of the country must use it. The main obstacle is that the 1972 ABM Treaty lost its meaning after September 11 for not only the US, but the whole civilized world, including Russia. It may be painlessly rejected. Further on, the issue of Russian debts is likely to be positively resolved, the Jackson-Wanic amendment is to be cancelled, Russia will enter the World Trade Organization, will become a member of the European Community, and probably, of NATO. The west will not interfere with Russia's actions concerning resolving the Chechen crisis and other issues of the Caucasus region. However, the changes in Russian foreign policy have been so abrupt and unexpected that the Russian political elite hasn't had time to re-orient itself. Initially, they supported the president's initiatives, but now they are asking: "Why are we doing all this?" If President Putin continues distancing himself from the elite, after a while the unity of the bureaucratic and military ranks may break and there will be real opposition. The president will be able to prove the correctness of the new course only if the West really moves toward Russia and Russian citizens really feel the impact of this. However, if this does not happen, the present pro-western turn could easily be replaced with an opposite one. (Translated by Arina Yevtikhova) ******* ------- Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: http://www.cdi.org/russia Archive for JRL: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson A project of the Center for Defense Information (CDI) 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20036