Old Saint Basil's Cathedral in MoscowJohnson's Russia List title and scenes of Saint Petersburg
Excerpts from the JRL E-Mail Community :: Founded and Edited by David Johnson

under construction

JRL #7047 Plain Text - Entire Issue

1. Reuters: Moment-of-truth nears for Russia's Putin on Iraq.
2. Washington Post: Peter Slevin, Russia Would Not Block War on Iraq, 
U.S. Believes. Putin's Concern Seen as Protecting Oil Interests
3. Baltimore Sun: Douglas Birch, Russia unites with America in grief.
Lost shuttle astronauts remembered as friends, fellow space explorers
4. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, As space work goes on, Russia key.
With shuttle fleet grounded, NASA may need Russia to keep the space station 
5. Novye Izvestia: Marina Kalashnikova, MORE FRIGHTENING THAN IRAQ.
US prepared to take over monitoring Russian nuclear arsenals. Russia's
weapons of mass destruction are viewed as a serious threat
6. Kennan Institute event Summary: How Russia Shaped the Modern World: 
From Art to Anti-Semitism, Ballet to Bolshevism
7. Kennan Institute event summary: The Post-9/11 Security Dynamics in 
Central Asia
8. Prime-TASS: Peter Lavelle, Civil Service Reform or More Engineering of 
the Soul?
9. Warsaw Business Journal: Boiena Wryblewska, Russian ahead.
10. State Department on Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation.
11. South Florida Sun-Sentinel: David Raterman, Love drives Russia's
hottest pop singer. (Philip Kirkorov)

12. pravda.ru: Ilya Glazunov: Genocide Against Russian People in Full
Swing. There is another thing to learn from Americans: national interests come first
13. Rossiiskaya Gazeta: Alexander Volkov, A DANGEROUS PROSPECT OF WORLD 
14. Interfax: Consumer spending down in Russia.
15. Wall Street Journal: Guy Chazan, Defying Downturn Elsewhere, Russia's
Ad Spending Surges
16. US Department of State: Vershbow Lauds Russian People at Stalingrad 
Battle Comemmoration


Moment-of-truth nears for Russia's Putin on Iraq
By Richard Balmforth

MOSCOW, Feb 4 (Reuters) - It won't be an easy choice for Russia's Vladimir
Putin and it won't be free of political risk.

But, in the end, he seems likely to throw Moscow's weight behind a U.S.
decision to go to war with Iraq rather than damage his crucial partnership
with President George W. Bush, diplomats and analysts say.

Fresh clues to Putin's thinking on Iraq are likely to emerge after U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday presents alleged evidence to
the U.N. Security Council that Iraq has banned weapons.

Until a week ago, Russia, despite its strategic partnership with the United
States, had criticised Washington's line on Iraq, warning it against hasty
military action and emphasising diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis.

Its stance was close to that of France, another of the U.N. 'Big Five' and
which made the running in getting Washington to back a pivotal Security
Council resolution in November allowing U.N. arms inspectors to return to

But, sharply changing tone on January 28, he pointedly told Iraq's Saddam
Hussein that if Baghdad hindered arms inspectors in their weapons searches
Russia would take tougher steps.

Putin added on Monday that a second Council resolution might be needed if
the inspectors were obstructed. Use of force was "a last resort," he said
after talks with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Analysts now doubt Russia will use its veto of a permanent Council member
to block U.S. military action should this be formulated in a second
resolution. Nor is it likely to abstain.

"The January 28 warning by Putin was significant. He is positioning
himself. The Russians are signalling more and more their concern about
Iraqi weapons stocks. They may be preparing public opinion for something,"
a Western diplomat said.

"In the event of a new vote on Iraq, Moscow...has no intention of using its
veto and will not prevent Washington from securing the world community's
support for toppling Saddam Hussein's regime," commentator Sergei Strokan
wrote in Kommersant daily.


The stakes are high for Putin, who is aware Washington measures its former
Cold War adversary by a different yardstick than it uses for France or

His new-formed friendship with Bush is central to Russian economic recovery
and its integration into world structures.

Putin's speedy offer of support to Bush after the hijacked airliner attacks
in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, has brought him political
and economic windfalls.

He has secured a more equal Russian partnership with the NATO alliance.
U.S. cash is helping Russia destroy its huge Cold War stocks of chemical
and other weapons.

Crucially, he has won Washington's backing for Russia's bid to join the
World Trade Organisation.

"Nobody expects Russia to contribute forces (to an anti-Iraq coalition).
But Putin knows Bush will judge his relationships with others by how they
line up on this issue. This is a serious test for Russian-American
relations," said a Western diplomat.

"Putin would like an outcome that maintains good relations with Bush
without war in Iraq. But if war is inevitable, he will want to be on the
side of the victor," he said.


For Putin it would be detrimental if Washington took a unilateralist line
and bypassed the U.N. Security Council to wage war with a coalition of the

This would drive a stake into the world body and damage one of Russia's few
remaining vestiges of big-power status -- its permanent member role on the
Security Council.

Putin does not have to contend with angry public opinion. Unlike in
Britain, France and the United States, there is no public head of steam in
Russia against a U.S.-led war on Iraq.

Anti-war street demonstrations have been modest. There is no hue and cry in
the State Duma, the lower house of parliament dominated by Putin's supporters.

Diplomats draw a contrast with the outcry in Russia in the run-up to NATO
air bombardments of Yugoslavia in 1999. "Iraq is not Orthodox, nor Slav.
There is no sense of kinship," one said.


But support for Bush is not risk-free for Putin.

In May 2004, he will seek re-election for a second four-year term and he
wants to keep the Duma in his grip after a parliamentary vote late this year.

Putin's pro-Western line since taking office in 2000, including his
acceptance of U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan, has raised hackles
among conservative sections of the political and military elite.

Political support for a war on Iraq could rebound on Russia's standing in
the Arab world -- one of the traditional poles of Russian foreign policy.
Its ties with China, which have assumed greater importance under Putin, may
also suffer.

There are plenty of political enemies lying in ambush if he is seen to have
compromised Russia's interests in Iraq, including the recovery of $8
billion Soviet-era debt.

He will also have to sell any pro-war argument hard to Russia's powerful
oil lobby which will hope to resume their tradition of operations in Iraq
in a post-Saddam phase.

Analysts say Putin will make clear to Bush that once the war is over, U.S.
gratitude should be translated into lucrative contracts to exploit Iraq's
oil fields and other concessions.

Russia's economy, dependent on its oil industry, would suffer hugely if a
war drove down oil prices.

"Russia's attitude to a possible war depends on what the Americans will
suggest as a solution to its problems," Boris Nemtsov, head of the liberal
Union of Rightist Forces, said on the Russian television "Zerkalo" talk-show.

"If they say 'We are going to secure oil prices at a level of $20-25 per
barrel, we'll take care of Russian business interests in Iraq's oilfields
and Russia will get its $8 billion from the new Iraq government', then we
should not be worried about what the Americans are going to do in Iraq," he


Washington Post
February 4, 2003
Russia Would Not Block War on Iraq, U.S. Believes 
Putin's Concern Seen as Protecting Oil Interests 
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer

Bush administration officials believe Russia is unlikely to stand in the
way of a U.S.-led military operation against Saddam Hussein if the Iraqi
president continues to refuse United Nations demands to abandon his weapons
of mass destruction.

Russian President Vladimir Putin would prefer a peaceful solution, but if
the United States concludes Hussein must go, Putin is not expected to
protest or use Russia's veto in the U.N. Security Council, say several U.S.
officials who have been involved in extensive discussions with Moscow.

Russia has significant business dealings with Hussein's government,
particularly in the oil industry, that would be imperiled by a change of
government in Baghdad. Sensing an increasing U.S. willingness to challenge
Hussein and occupy Iraq afterward, Russian officials and business
executives have been seeking assurances that their interests will be
respected if the Americans move in.

Putin himself publicly opened a door to a shift last week, when he
retreated from his government's previous assertions that force could not be
justified. He said in Kiev that if Iraq creates problems for U.N.
inspectors, Russia could reach agreement with the United States on stronger
measures that he declined to specify.

Russia occupies a key position in the administration's efforts to win U.N.
approval for a potential use of force. As one of the five permanent
Security Council members, Russia can veto any resolution. With the council
and Europe divided about the next steps to take, Moscow's influence could
prove valuable to the side able to claim it.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will go to the Security Council on
Wednesday to present the U.S. case against Hussein, whom the Americans
accuse of hiding chemical and biological weapons in defiance of the United
Nations. The administration, which also contends Iraq supports
international terrorism and is developing nuclear weapons, is considering
what form of U.N. action to seek.

The Russian position on the issue is motivated largely by pragmatism that
has little to do with Hussein and his weapons, policymakers and analysts
believe. Putin wants to preserve a solid relationship with President Bush
and the West while focusing on developing Russia's troubled economy.

At key moments in the past two years, when presented with a significant
policy choice he disliked, Putin has swallowed his misgivings and moved on.
That was true when the Bush administration pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, negotiated a new 2002 deal on long-range nuclear weapons
and worked to expand the NATO alliance.

Putin, who has no affection for Hussein, also wants to avoid being on the
wrong side of events if the Iraqi leader falls and the Americans are making
key decisions for Iraq during the postwar period.

"Putin is no fool. He has the measure of George Bush. He understands this
president is as serious as one could be" about Iraq, said a senior U.S.
official who described Putin's warning to Iraq last week as "not an accident."

The United States is also preparing evidence for Putin that terrorists
active in Chechnya and the rugged Pankisi Gorge in neighboring Georgia have
spent time in Iraq and received support from Baghdad, said another senior
U.S. official. This official speculated that the terrorist connection could
prove more persuasive to Putin, who is intensely interested in Chechnya,
than details of Iraq's weapons programs.

In discussions initiated last year, Russian officials and business leaders
have made clear to the Bush administration that their primary concern in an
Iraqi endgame is financial. 

Russia has extensive energy interests in Iraq, and a series of contracts
are at stake. The Kremlin, which oversees an economy dependent on oil
revenue, is also worried that a rejuvenated Iraqi oil industry would pump
so much oil that world prices would drop below the $18 a barrel the
Russians say they need to remain solvent.

In addition, heavily indebted Iraq owes Russia $8 billion -- money the
Russians would love to collect if Iraq's economy turns around.

U.S. officials have told the Russians that they can offer no promises of
special treatment. They note that other countries have ambitions in Iraq
and similar claims on postwar revenue, and that the demands on Iraq's oil
profits for reconstruction and social service projects will be vast. 

The administration is pledging to the Russians an "equal opportunity
approach" to Iraqi oil development and reporting that Iraqis ultimately
will be responsible for deciding what happens in their own industry, a
senior State Department official said. 

The Russians "wanted to make sure we would respect their interests," said
another official, who said the U.S. reply was designed to be encouraging.
"We're not going to burn them and I think they appreciate this."

"The Russians would like to have an advantageous position," said Fiona
Hill, a Brookings Institution scholar. "But I think their main hope is that
they won't be excluded -- that it will be an even playing field and the
United States won't dominate the postwar Iraqi oil industry."

Hill believes Putin will not oppose military action if the standoff with
Hussein comes to a head. 

"The Russians," she said, "do not want to be the odd one out."


Baltimore Sun
February 4, 2003
Russia unites with America in grief
Lost shuttle astronauts remembered as friends, fellow space explorers 
By Douglas Birch
Sun Foreign Staff

KOROLYOV, Russia - Some appeared red-eyed and anguished, others stoic and
somber. They spoke different languages and saluted different flags.

But the Russian and American space explorers who gathered at Russia's
Mission Control Center here yesterday were united in their grief. All had
known at least some of the seven crew members - six Americans and one
Israeli - who died Saturday aboard the space shuttle Columbia.

Amid prayers, a few tears and the playing of three national anthems -
American, Israeli and Russian - the astronauts, cosmonauts and others at
yesterday's memorial service sought solace from their colleagues. A similar
ceremony is scheduled for today at Johnson Space Center in Houston.

"I have lost a good friend," said Valery I. Tokarev, a Russian air force
colonel and cosmonaut who flew with Rick Husband - Columbia's commander -
aboard the shuttle Discovery in May 1999.

Husband commanded Discovery on that mission. Tokarev rode along to help
begin construction of the $100 billion international space station. The
orbiting lab is a joint project of many nations. But only two - one-time
rivals Russia and the United States - have put humans in space.

Like many in the tight-knit space community, Tokarev and Husband spent
months together. They trained for the mission in Houston and at Star City,
the Russian space training center. They commuted to meetings in the same
jet trainer and talked about many things, including what they loved best:
their work.

"He was an excellent pilot," said the 49-year-old cosmonaut, "an excellent
specialist." Tokarev said he felt as though he, too, had lost a member of
his family.

Met on Mir 

Pavel "Pasha" Vinogradov, also 49, was a flight engineer aboard the Mir
space station when the space shuttle Endeavour delivered tons of supplies
in January 1998. One of the mission specialists on Endeavour was Michael
Anderson, who died on Columbia.

Life on the Mir was hectic. But in a spare moment Anderson pointed out a
porthole as they passed over North America and showed the crew where he was
born, Plattsburgh, N.Y., Vinogradov recalled. "I tried to show him the
place where I was born, Magadan, but it was too far north. It was
impossible to see from Mir's orbit."

That week spent in the cramped, cluttered Mir was the start of a long
friendship. "I knew Michael well, and our families became good friends,"
Vinogradov said. "My wife is now in Houston. I talked with her yesterday.
She was on her way to visit Michael's family" and pay her respects.

Undeterred by disaster 

Michael Foale, a veteran American astronaut, has spent the past three weeks
at Star City, where he and five other astronauts and cosmonauts are
training to fly to the international space station on a mission that is now
in doubt.

Foale recalled turning on his television Saturday after returning from
skiing and seeing what looked like "beautiful meteorites" crossing the sky.
"What I saw was actually some of our dreams falling," he said.

The veteran astronaut, an astrophysicist, is no stranger to the hazards of
space travel. He was aboard the Mir in 1997 when it was struck and heavily
damaged by an errant unmanned Russian cargo rocket bringing supplies.

After Saturday's accident, Foale said, he spoke with his family, including
a daughter in Houston who is a playmate of the children of some of the
astronauts who were aboard Columbia. He wanted to know whether they wanted
him to remain an astronaut.

He decided to remain in the program. So did all five other others training
at Star City after similar soul-searching.

Even those who couldn't attend the memorial paid their respects at the
vast, echoing control center.

About 20 engineers stood at their consoles, watching telemetry from an
unmanned Progress rocket that lifted off Sunday loaded with supplies for
the space station. It's scheduled to dock with the station today.

But there was one change in routine at mission control. Instead of an
orbital map showing the location of the Progress and the space station, a
billboard-size picture of Columbia's crew was projected on the central screen.

Sorrow and fear 

Among the Russian scientists and explorers yesterday, sorrow was mixed with
fear. Many here suspect that the space station's critics will use the
disaster to kill the program and in the process sever Russia's last link to
manned space flight, whose history began when Yuri Gagarian became the
first man to orbit the earth in April 1961.

Russia's space program, while far smaller than in Soviet days, employs tens
of thousands of engineers, scientists and other staff. They are scattered
in state agencies and contractors across Russia and in several other former
Soviet states.

Valery V. Ryumin, a former cosmonaut and the director of the space station
for Energia, Russia's state-controlled aerospace company, showed up for the
ceremony looking tired.

There were "various prospects" for the future of the international space
station, he said in an interview. But he didn't want to contemplate the
"gloomy" ones.

"We believe we should go on," he said. "We should think hard about how to
go on working at the station. I am an optimist, and I always hope for the
better. If you hope for the worst, why should you live at all?"

The nation's $125 million-a-year manned space flight program is already
hanging by a thread. It was on the verge of shutting down last year.

"The threat was that the money would run out and that would stop the
program," said Aleksandr Aleksandrov, a former cosmonaut who runs Energia's
flight testing services. "And such a threat is still there."

Russia's space efforts could expand significantly if the United States and
other nations decide to use Russian technology to keep the space station
operating. But few here seem to think that will happen.

"The expansion can happen only if there is enough time and enough money,"
Aleksandrov said. "And the question is where the money will come from."

NASA optimistic 

In contrast with their Russian counterparts, the Bush administration and
NASA officials sounded optimistic yesterday about both the investigation
into the causes of the Columbia disaster and the prospects for the
resumption of shuttle flights.

U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said in an interview that the White
House's commitment to the space station "remains strong."

During the ceremony, he offered his Russian hosts more reassurance.

"We look forward to the day the space shuttle returns to space," he said.
"That will be the day we truly honor the memory of the men and women of the
space shuttle Columbia. It is challenging work. It is dangerous work. It is
honorable work."

Kenneth Cockrell, director of NASA's operations at Star City, reminded the
other mourners that they have a lot of work ahead of them - and a lot of

"We have people in orbit now who need our support, and the support of the
international space community," he said, referring to the two American
astronauts and one Russian cosmonaut aboard the space station. "We need to
maintain our focus on keeping this part of the space program operating
safely. We must be ready to make the changes that will be necessary because
of this tragedy."

NASA's optimistic, forward-looking message was best summed up, perhaps, by
Philip Cleary, director of the agency's Moscow liaison office.

"We will get to the bottom of this," he said. "We will fix it, and we will
get flying again."


Christian Science Monitor
February 4, 2003
As space work goes on, Russia key
With shuttle fleet grounded, NASA may need Russia to keep the space station
By Fred Weir | Special to The Christian Science Monitor 

MOSCOW – Derided for pasting a Pizza Hut logo on its rockets and catering
to wealthy "space tourists," Russia could now find itself flying to the

Can Soviet-era spacecraft substitute for the shuttle in supporting
humanity's grandest science project: the International Space Station (ISS)?

The answer appears to be yes, if the US helps out with cash - a lot of it.
Russia's financially strapped space agency is now taking stock of its

"We can support the human side of the ISS program, and ensure adequate
supplies are brought to the crew," says Georgi Gretchko, a former cosmonaut
and space official.

Russia has budgeted for two manned Soyuz launches in 2003 plus three
Progress supply flights to the ISS. Those vehicles are almost ready, and
one Soyuz could be sent up as early as April - perhaps unmanned, in order
to save space and fuel. "Russian ships were always more cost-effective than
the shuttle, and with the proper financing we should be able to at least
keep the station functioning," Mr. Gretchko says.

"If the ISS project is to continue, it obviously means that Russia must
take first place in running the program, at least temporarily," says Sergei
Kazyonnov, an expert at the Institute of National Security and Strategic
Studies in Moscow. "There is proven technology, and enough skilled people,
but the Russian space program is bankrupt. It comes down to money."

The Russian Space Agency's budget, $265 million last year, is dwarfed by
NASA's $15.5 billion annual allocation.

Since ditching its own independent orbiter, the Mir, two years ago,
Russia's Space Agency has focused more than half its meager resources on
meeting its modest ISS obligations, which include the two annual manned
visits to the station by Soyuz spacecraft and three by Progress robot
supply ships.

The Russian commitment would have to increase significantly to make up for
the shuttle's absence. One of NASA's shuttles can heft 30 tons of materiel
in a single launch; the payload of a single-engined Progress is less than
three tons.

One option could be to remove the crew from the ISS and put it into what is
called "dormant mode" until NASA is ready to resume full shuttle operations
or some other alternative is developed. But experts fear this could spell
doom for the ISS, which is already far beyond its projected budget and
several years behind schedule. The station, which is already as big as a
football field and weighs 200 tons - it's currently only half finished -
also needs to have its orbit corrected periodically to prevent it from
sinking into the atmosphere. Without the powerful, six-engined shuttles,
this job would have to be performed regularly by several smaller Russian

The ISS is a collaborative effort by the USA, Russia, and Europe.

The shuttle catastrophe follows a string of accidents with Europe's Ariane
rockets, the only other space program potentially capable of resupplying
the ISS. In December, an unmanned Ariane-5 lifter, with two satellites,
exploded on its launchpad in a $500-million major setback for Europe's
space aspirations.

Following the Challenger explosion in 1986, the US space agency NASA
sidelined its shuttles for almost three years while trying to pin down the
accident's causes. No one is sure how long the Columbia investigations
might take; experts say it will probably be months, if not years. But
operations and construction of the ISS - envisaged as a permanent orbiting
laboratory and hotel for space explorers - require at least half a dozen
annual shuttle visits by NASA's powerful space workhorse.

The three astronauts currently aboard the ISS, two Americans and one
Russian, are in no immediate danger, experts stress. A three-seat Russian
Soyuz landing vehicle is docked with the station and could whisk them
Earthward in any emergency. With the food, mail and other provisions being
brought by a Russian unmanned Progress M-47 supply craft launched on
Sunday, and expected to arrive at the ISS Tuesday, the station's crew is
expected to be safe and comfortable until summer.

The once-proud Soviet space program - designed in part to help bury
capitalism - is fast becoming Russia's biggest billboard. Scrounging for
money, the Russians once pasted a 30-foot-high giant Pizza Hut
advertisement on their Proton booster rocket. Four years ago, PepsiCo Inc.
paid the Russians $5 million to inflate a huge replica of a soda can
outside the Mir space station. Russia's Space Agency reportedly is
negotiating a $400,000 deal with the Italian fashion house of Donatella
Versace to design preflight uniforms, training suits, and lounge wear for
Russian cosmonauts - with the label prominently displayed. In 2001, a
California investor became the first space tourist, paying Moscow $20
million to tag along with two cosmonauts.

These antics were a long way from the Soviet space program's peak, when it
launched up to 100 spacecraft a year and commanded huge, though secret,
budgets. Last year Russia lofted just 26 satellites.

Still, the Russian space program has some surviving strengths. While the US
has concentrated on building a reusable fleet of space shuttles, Russia
abandoned its only experiment with this type, the Buran, when the USSR
collapsed. That now looks as if it might have been a wise technological
decision. Of the three worst disasters to occur in space since the first
manned orbit in 1961, two have involved space shuttles.

"Single-use space vehicles are cheaper to build and safer to operate,"
Roald Sagdeyev, one of Russia's leading space scientists, told Ekho Moskvi
radio. Also, Russia has slowly continued evolving its best Soviet-era
designs, and officials say they expect to test new models of the Soyuz and
Progress within the next year.

However, in contrast to Soviet times, Russia has no spacecraft in reserve.
If Russia's space program is to fill the shuttle's shoes, fresh Soyuz and
Progress vehicles would have to be built, a process that can take up to two
years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But Russian experts say the
30-year-old technology is familiar and production might be accelerated.
"What we need is a change in the mind set of our industry leaders," says
Valentin Belokon, an aeronautics specialist with the Russian Academy of
Sciences. "Our industry still has enormous potential; it used to turn out
Soyuz space ships by the dozen and could do so again."

Russia could even take up some of the planned construction tasks for the
ISS, which include installing heavy trusses, solar panels, lab modules and
sleeping quarters - work the shuttles were supposed to perform.

The Soviet-designed Proton-M booster rocket, which made its maiden flight
just two years ago - with substantial American private-sector help - is
able to loft a 22-ton payload for far less than the cost of a shuttle launch.

"We are looking at what we can do now, given the resources at hand," says
Vyacheslav Mikhailichenko, spokesman for the Russian Space Agency. "Our
space program has potential. But the main issue is funding. In this
business, if you plan to do something next year, you need the money today."


Novye Izvestia
February 4, 2003
US prepared to take over monitoring Russian nuclear arsenals
Russia's weapons of mass destruction are viewed as a serious threat 
Author: Marina Kalashnikova
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has described non-
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as America's major 
foreign policy priority for the next several years. Speaking at the 
Center of Strategic and International Surveys in Washington, Abraham 
announced that "the US Administration considers there are vast risks 
in proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials." That is why the 
cause of non-proliferation will be fortified by truly unprecedented 
financial and organizational measures. The US draft budget for the 
2004 fiscal year specifies the sum of $1.3 billion, a 30% rise 
compared to the sum set aside in the 2003 budget. Moreover, this is 
the largest sum the United States has ever allocated for non-
The list of the major goals to be funded in 2004 includes 
developing technologies for locating nuclear weapons and materials, 
improving export control measures, and facilitating regional security 
frameworks, primarily in the Middle East and Asia.
Moreover, the programs the US Department of Energy intends to 
implement in Russia appear to take precedence over everything else. 
According to Abraham, reducing the number of nuclear storage 
facilities is the major task, and the United States intends to achieve 
this in close cooperation with Russia itself. Russian-American 
cooperation in this sensitive field has been impaired over the past 
few years. Some programs ran into problems, or were suspended 
altogether. To overcome the discord, Abraham has had five meetings 
with his Russian counterpart Alexander Rumyantsev over the last 
eighteen months.
"Money alone is not sufficient," Abraham said. "Joint efforts are 
In fact, this was the central point of Abraham's speech.
Emphasis on cooperation with Russia in the field of non-
proliferation is easily understandable. According to Abraham, most of 
the world's poorly-protected storage facilities can be found in 
Russia. In order to diminish the risks, the US Department of Energy 
intends to set in motion a process of shutting down reactors, chart a 
new commercial plan for acquisition of additional amounts of uranium 
obtained from dismantling Russian nuclear warheads, and take 
additional measures to prevent the smuggling of nuclear materials.
The Center of Strategic and International Surveys organized a 
conference in London the following week. Countering the nuclear threat 
posed by Russia was the central issue. Former senator Sam Nunn, one of 
the authors of the famous Nunn-Lugar program, was a co-chairman of the 
conference. The major thesis accepted by representatives of fifteen 
leading research centers from around the world comes down to the 
following: huge and poorly-protected storage facilities with weapons 
of mass destruction across the territory of the former Soviet Union 
pose a more serious threat to the world than Iraq. Conference 
participants were particularly concerned about Russia. Russia still 
has over 20,000 warheads in 120 storage facilities. Stockpiles of 
chemical weapons are another serious danger. Sam Nunn said: "This is 
the worst danger the international community is facing nowadays. 
Centralized efforts to prevent proliferation of these arsenals should 
be the major principle of security in the 21st century."
(Translated by A. Ignatkin)


Kennan Institute
Event Summary
How Russia Shaped the Modern World: From Art to Anti-Semitism, Ballet to
January 13, 2003

In a recent lecture at the Kennan Institute, Steven Marks discussed his new
book, How Russia Shaped the Modern World: From Art to Anti-Semitism, Ballet
to Bolshevism. In his discussion, Marks focused on three Russian
contributions to international political ideologies. He stated that Russia
“provided alternatives to modern western political thought.” He explained
that because Russia was one of the first societies to come to grips with
Westernization, anti-Western political ideologies quickly emerged. Marks
noted that the ideologies he would be speaking about, namely anarchism,
Bolshevism, and anti-Semitism, had an enormous impact on the modern world
and “help place current anti-Western trends in context.”

According to Marks, Russian anarchism was the predominant left-wing
ideology before 1917. He explained that among the most prominent anarchist
ideologists were Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Tolstoy. Marks noted that one
branch of Russian anarchism “gave rise to modern political terrorism.” He
cited the use of dynamite as a weapon to assassinate and the use of the
terrorist “cell structure” to escape arrest as examples of tactics that
continue to be used by terrorists today. In Marks’ view, Kropotkin was “one
of the most significant social thinkers of modern times.” Marks explained
that Kropotkin’s ideas of cooperatism and the Russian peasant commune were
embraced with enthusiasm around the world. Marks noted that Tolstoy’s
writings were at one time among the most widely read works throughout the
world. He also stated that Tolstoy’s thoughts on non-violence had an
influence on Gandhi’s movement in India as well as the U.S. civil rights

Marks also discussed Russian Bolshevism. He explained that the effects of
Russian communism in the western world were far less significant than many
people think, for instance on the development of the welfare state. In
fact, Marks argued that the effects of the anti-communism movement had more
of an impact throughout the world. He contended that while there was
tremendous interest concerning communism among U.S. economic planners,
there was very little interest in actually following the Russian economic
model. Marks stated that the civil rights movement was also only marginally
influenced by communist participants. 

Marks explained that many of the Russian ideas of anti-Semitism come from
“almost a paranoid fear of Jews within the Russian government” in the late
19th and early 20th century. Many within the Russian elite didn’t
understand how their world was changing and blamed Jews for the evils of
capitalism and socialism. Marks noted that some of the reasons for this
mistrust were that large numbers of Jews were involved in Russian
revolutionary groups and because most Jews lived in urban areas and were
involved in commerce. Marks stated that these differences were further
compounded by old antagonisms between the Orthodox Church and Jews. He
stated that out of this context emerged anti-Semitic literature including
“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” This document and others like it
were accepted and used by anti-Semites throughout the world, including here
in the United States. Russian anti-Semitism, he argued, was another of the
anti-modern political ideologies that influenced events in the
twentieth-century world.

Marks concluded that there are many other and more positive examples of how
Russia influenced the modern world. He reiterated that all of these
influences came about “because Russia articulated a response to the changes
brought into its country by the West,” and countries, which later came in
contact with the West, were attracted by this response. 


Kennan Institute
Event Summary
The Post-9/11 Security Dynamics in Central Asia 
January 21, 2003

In a recent seminar at the Kennan Institute, Mehrdad Haghayeghi, Associate
Professor of Political Science, Southwest Missouri State, discussed the new
security dynamics facing the Central Asian states. He explained that the
internal dynamics of security in Central Asia are defined by four main
factors; the rise of militant and radical Islam in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan; the growing authoritarianism of the Soviet-era power
structures which are still present; the failure of economic reforms to
produce positive results; and the ethnic makeup of the region. Haghayeghi
concluded by pointing out a number of external factors that could also
affect the security of the region.

According to Haghayeghi, several factors have contributed to the rise of
Central Asian militant Islamic groups. He noted that newly emerging Muslim
forces have been denied access to political power through both
parliamentary and electoral processes. Exclusionary tactics imposed by
several of the Central Asian regimes have increased frustration for Islamic
groups in the region and affected the legitimacy of the regimes. Haghayeghi
explained that the efforts of the Central Asian governments to promote
Islamic culture have been perceived as inadequate or insincere. 

Haghayeghi stated that while the U.S.-led war against terrorism in
Afghanistan has had a measurable effect on reducing the Islamic threat to
Central Asia, “its long-term strategic alliance with Uzbekistan and other
republics inadvertently encouraged authoritarian tendencies of the other
regimes in the region.” He contended that the Soviet-era political power
structures concentrate political power in the hands of the ruling elite. In
both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the governments have banned political
opposition. In other countries, opposition party leaders are subject to
intimidation or arrest. Finally, factors such as corruption and nepotism
continue to plague efforts to introduce democratic and economic reform and
have contributed to strengthening of existing power structures. 

Haghayeghi stated that the failure of economic transition has affected
regime legitimacy throughout the region. He noted that despite government
success in macroeconomic stabilization, the living standards of the average
citizen throughout the region have decreased over the last 10 years.
Haghayeghi contended that unemployment remains a serious concern for a
large portion of the population. He stated that factors such as access to
world markets, political elites’ attitude toward economic reform, and the
extent to which foreign aid is made available are critical for a successful
economic transition.

According to Haghayeghi, the ethnic makeup of the region is a key element
of security dynamics. He explained that the breakup of the Soviet Union,
“resulted in three significant trends: the Uzbek drive for regional
hegemony, ethnic de-Sovietization, and an intensification of intraethnic
discord.” Haghayeghi argued that the intensification of ethnic discord
along regional and tribal lines is a worrisome problem for regional
security. He noted that economic disparities play a significant role in
these conflicts as more deprived regions or clans try to challenge their
more wealthy counterparts.

Haghayeghi concluded by briefly discussing the external parameters that
affect Central Asian security. He noted that Russia and China have a vested
interest in the stability of the region and continue to exert influence in
a number of ways. Haghayeghi pointed out that it appears that Afghanistan
will continue to pose a long-term threat to the security of the region, as
internal strife, drug trafficking and the regrouping of the Taliban and Al
Qaida leaders remain serious concerns. 


OPINION: Civil Service Reform or More Engineering of the Soul? 
Contributed by Peter Lavelle, Moscow-based analyst, columnist for the
Russia Journal

MOSCOW, Feb 3 /Prime-TASS/ -- The State Duma has passed the first reading
of the draft law on the civil-service system in the Russian Federation.
Some commentators have remarked that, once the Duma completes its debate on
civil-service reform, President Vladimir Putin’s achievement will be
something akin the to creation of the 18th-century Rank Table introduced by
Peter the Great. In theory, the Kremlin's civil-service proposal is what
everybody seems to want, but debate during the first reading was not very
heated, and deputies voted strictly along party lines. When the Duma does
not debate, we all should take pause.

The Putin Civil Service Code reads like pristine legal scholarship and
philosophical utopianism. Dmitry Medvedev, senior deputy head of the
Presidential Administration, reinforced this impression when he stated that
"the adopted basic principles are advisory and do not provide for some
special accountability, except for the one that has always existed within
the scope of administrative, civil and, in some cases, criminal
legislation." This sounds interesting, but what does it mean?

What Putin is proposing is to revolutionize Russia's political culture. He
is not the first Russian leader to try. He certainly won't be the last to
fail. The draft states that a civil servant entrusted with organizational
and administrative authority in respect to other civil servants is intended
to "take measures to prevent and settle a conflict of interest; and prevent
forcing civil servants to participate in activities of political parties
and other public organizations." 

This kind of language is the stuff of utopianism and is just plain suspect.
The only meaningful political class in this country is the bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies by their very nature are politicized — it is only a matter of
degree. Russia's bureaucracy has traditionally defined the country's
political culture. The Kremlin's code should start with this state of
affairs and why the status quo exists. Then, it should say what kind of
civil service is being sought. Weaning the bureaucracy off
influence-peddling should be dealt with like someone with a
controlled-substance addiction problem — with a 10-year, 10-step program.

The current Kremlin approach of drawing a line in the sand may make the
cure worse than the disease. Evolutionism has been Putin's political
calling card, and he should stay the course regarding this issue. Most
Russians seem receptive to his gradualism.

Evolutionism should not be confused with lack of political will.
Revolutionary approaches to policy changes have a startling history of
failure in this country.

In fact, what Putin is attempting has little or nothing to do with legal
reform. He has entered the realm of moral engineering. "Engineering the
soul" also has a tradition in Russia. Putin's lofty ideas could be defined
in modern as "engineering the soul lite."

But, then again, reform of the moral code of the bureaucracy has to start
somewhere. At present, the code is only voluntary. Voluntarism has a
limited history in Russia — and only voluntarism in excess is remembered.
One should not be against Putin's initiative, but one should be concerned
about the implementation his proposal. The new code should be considered a
thoughtful starting point, something akin to a policy white paper.

Press reception of the code was less than satisfactory. Certainly, Putin is
mindful of the upcoming election season and desires to take advantage of
all the positive PR he can generate from the code's passage and,
eventually, implementation. Every politician, everywhere, does this kind of
thing. There is no shortage of cynicism in Russian politics. But to explain
the new code as mere electioneering, as some members of the media have
suggested, is grossly shortsighted. This is not to say that politics did
not play a role in the Kremlin's timing, but, in the real world,
interpretation of such events is almost always more complicated than the
quick sound bite.

Interviews about and articles on the proposed bills show there was little
involvement or commentary from the business community concerning the code.
Obviously, civil activists were not included as well. This, of course, is
the flip side of the whole discussion, virtually unmentioned in the media —
is the business class ready to play by the new and modern rules? A level
playing field is usually called for by the politically weak or by the
powerful, who are indifferent. After three years, is the business community
really ready for Putin's enlightened gradualism? There has been a lot of
sound and fury, but when the metal meets the meat, no one really knows if
the current owners of the economy are really interested in allowing the
market outside the bureaucracy determine what value and efficiency mean. End 


Warsaw Business Journal
February 3, 2003
Russian ahead
Boiena Wryblewska is the director of the Polish-Lithuanian Chamber of
Commerce for Eastern Markets.

Is there such a thing as the “Russian miracle?” This article looks at the
increasingly divergent performance of the Russian and Polish economies and
how radical fiscal and legal reforms enacted in Russia stand in marked
contrast to the state of affairs here.

Over the last three years the Russian economy has expanded steadily, ahead
of average global dynamics, including Poland’s performance. In 2002,
despite the worsening state of its main export markets, the Russian economy
was stable. According to the latest assessment by leading investment funds,
GDP growth in 2002 touched 3.9%, while the global average was 2.2%. 

Following the crisis of 1998, market mechanisms were reshaped and, on the
level of microeconomics, the number of private companies started growing.
The law is being changed to allow companies to operate more freely and
efficiently, reducing bureaucracy and external interference.

The general post-crisis recovery in Russia has been marked by an increase
in production, which has replaced imports, and the investment of the
profits as working capital. The major production increase has been in
machinery and raw materials. Exports, mainly raw materials and fuels, have
contributed to the growth, along with stronger demand from consumers. Wage
increases have introduced disposable income into the market.

The devaluation of the rouble after the crisis of 1998 and the increase in
oil prices on the global market created highly favourable conditions for
Russian export growth. Raw materials, fuels and oil derivatives dominate.
But the geographical pitch has changed from Ukraine, Germany, the USA and
China towards other highly developed, mainly EU, countries, confirming a
process which began in 1994.

The future accession of Russia to the World Trade Organisation, which is
still under discussion, will be highly significant for the country. It
brings the advantages of an ability to overcome discriminating,
anti-dumping procedures and other barriers directed against exports.
Currently, these depress economic performance by 30%-40%, which translates
into about ?3.5 billion a year.

The knock-on impact of the Russian crisis in Poland provoked a serious drop
in exports and stoked the trade deficit. In Russia, the crisis turned into
a tonic for the economy and ironically, created highly favourable
conditions for recovery. Domestic production switched into replacing
imports which, of course, served to depress Polish export performance.

During the last three years, Russia has achieved significant progress in
the execution of its fiscal reform, reducing the real fiscal burden on the
economy, and has changed the system for the benefit of reliable payers
acting within the law. The fixed tax rate for Poland proposed by Leszek
Balcerowicz was introduced – a strong government’s wish to reduce tax
burdens – and created a highly favourable environment for the stimulation
of new commercial activity. This in turn contributed to more competition
and growth in consumer demand and in people’s savings. The fiscal reform
has benefited from the current stable macroeconomic situation with balanced
public spending, GDP growth and solid revenues for the budget – all boosted
by improved Russian exports. 

Among the important changes introduced last year, I should stress the
reduction of the tax base, coupled with the actual reduction of the tax
rate. In Poland, on the contrary, no significant reduction of tax rates
took place, and the latest changes have no real impact on business or
economic growth.

An especially significant step towards a modern market was the
simplification of land ownership procedures. It is a positive signal for
companies. The code simplified the procedures for land purchases and the
transfer of the rights to the land. Those rights are more clearly
guaranteed and the area open for bureaucratic interference is narrow, all
of which serves to reduce opportunities for corruption in transactions
connected with land ownership. The new code swept away the last remaining
obstacles on the way towards a fully developed market economy.

The breakthrough in Russia also encompassed regulatory arrangements for the
stock market, which limit the possibilities for criminal interference with
investors’ rights. The system of reporting significant corporate
information in a prospectus and in financial statements has been made far
more transparent, while a new watchdog, an independent guarantor of the
transparency of the information, was introduced.

Business activity, especially that of SMEs, was given an additional boost
by a frontal attack on stifling bureaucracy and, in particular, a reduction
in the number of state-controlled offices and their powers. The licensing
of numerous activities has been entirely abolished, while the remaining
licence procedures were simplified, better organised and made universal for
the whole country. Nothing could stand in greater contrast to the situation
in Poland.

The Russian labour market has also received the attention of the reformers,
with the aim of creating increased labour mobility and reducing costs. The
new labour code is based on a framework aimed at balancing the interests of
all parties involved. By comparison, the Polish labour code, despite the
recent changes, still protects the employee largely at the employer’s expense.

Russia is undergoing a truly remarkable process of opening up and
liberalising, which is reflected in the country’s generally improved
connection to the global economy. Poland might have participated actively
in this process of revival of economic relations within Russia, and
directly benefited. For it to do so now depends, however, on preparing a
new strategy for co-operation and adjusting to the changes in both
economies. It requires a change in the Polish authorities’ attitude to
Russia and to the East in general. Both Poland and Russia require more
capital and new technologies. Poland has an opportunity to use its
geographical position, for once, to its advantage. Another Polish advantage
is participation 
in the enlargement of the EU and subsequent expansion in the country’s trade. 

What the Russians have learned is this: foreign investment is a vital
aspect of economic development. Poor conditions for investment provoke
capital to leave, which reduces tax revenues, slows growth and erodes the
quality of capital.

Putting the two economies side by side leads to the conclusion that Poland
urgently requires a dose of Russian-style reforms, notably a major overhaul
of public finances, the fiscal system and labour laws. After the expected
accession to the EU, Polish companies will be compelled to rediscover
Russia. Their current views on Russia are very far indeed from the Moscow,
St. Petersburg or Volgograd realities.


US Department of State
03 February 2003 
Text: State Department on Russia-Iran Nuclear Cooperation 
(Taken Question: January 31 State Department statement) (500)

In the official answer to a question asked at the January 31 State
Department daily briefing, the State Department said the United States
has "consistently urged Russia to cease all [nuclear] cooperation with
Iran, including its assistance to the light water reactor at Bushehr."

"We have underscored to Russia that an end to Russian nuclear
assistance to Iran would allow the United States and Russia to reap
the full promise of our new strategic relationship, benefiting Russia
economically and strategically far more than any short-term gain from
construction of additional reactors or other sensitive transfers to
Iran," the statement said.

Following is the question taken at the briefing and the answer that
was posted later in the day:

(begin text)

Office of the Spokesman 
January 31, 2003

Taken Question from January 31, 2003 Daily Press Briefing


Question: Why is Russia seeking contracts to build additional reactors
in Iran? What are our views? Have we raised it with the Russians?

Answer: The United States is engaged intensively with Russia, and at
senior levels, regarding Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran. We
have consistently urged Russia to cease all such cooperation with
Iran, including its assistance to the light water reactor at Bushehr.

We believe Iran uses Bushehr as a cover and a pretext for obtaining
sensitive technologies to advance its nuclear weapons program. The
recent revelations that Iran has been secretly constructing
nuclear-related facilities capable of producing fissile material not
needed for Iran's "peaceful" nuclear energy needs, is but one example
of the sustained effort by Iran to cloak the true activities and
intentions of its nuclear program. Iran's copious oil and natural gas
reserves put into question Iran's stated rationale of pursuing nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes; it currently throws away more energy
annually by flaring off natural gas than Bushehr could produce.

We believe that President Putin shares our deep concern at the
prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. We have made clear to Russia that
any further nuclear cooperation with Iran, including construction of
additional power reactors, will assist directly or indirectly Iran's
ambitious quest for nuclear weapons.

We have underscored to Russia that an end to Russian nuclear
assistance to Iran would allow the United States and Russia to reap
the full promise of our new strategic relationship, benefiting Russia
economically and strategically far more than any short-term gain from
construction of additional reactors or other sensitive transfers to

One example is the potential transfer to Russia for storage of spent
reactor fuel currently held by third countries, much of which requires
US approval for such transfer because the US originally supplied the
fresh fuel to those countries. If the Russians end their sensitive
cooperation with Iran, we have indicated we would be prepared to
favorably consider such transfers, an arrangement worth potentially
worth several billion USD in revenue to Moscow.


South Florida Sun-Sentinel 
February 3, 2003
Love drives Russia's hottest pop singer
By David Raterman
Special Correspondent

Philip Kirkorov is the most popular male performer in 11 time zones. He's 
almost as flamboyant as Queen's Freddie Mercury was, and he's reportedly sold 
more than 60 million pop-rock records.

But you've probably never heard of him. Unless you speak Russian.

Between sold-out shows at the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, N.J., and the Kodak 
Theatre in Los Angeles, Kirkorov will sing and dance across the stage at the 
Jackie Gleason Theater in Miami Beach on Wednesday. His spectacle includes 14 
musicians, 16 dancers, fireworks, a light show and other special effects. 
Tickets are still available.

Thanks to his powerful honey voice, Kirkorov has developed into the former 
Soviet Union's top performer by constantly re-inventing himself in the pop 
and rock genres. He's covered a Turkish mega-hit (Oh, Mama Shika Dam!), 
expanded into Spanish (Diva), and starred in the Russian production of an 
American musical (Chicago). He nailed his fame by marrying Alla Pugacheva, 
Russia's queen of pop, in 1994. She's sold more than 150 million records.

(With rampant piracy in Russia, Kirkorov's and Pugacheva's record sales are 
actually much higher, says Kirkorov's Miami promoter, Marta Klioner.)

"For 20 years in Russia [my concerts have] always been sold out because I'm 
always experimenting, taking a risk," Kirkorov says. "I'm not afraid of image 
change. All this I made myself."

Katya Olson, a Fort Lauderdale Russian, has seen him on television many times 
but never in person. 

"His combination of a live show and singing about love is entertaining for 
me," she says. "I wouldn't say, `Oh, God, he's so talented,' but it's a great 
show. Ladies and girls like his love and romance songs, but my dad didn't 
like him. My dad's a man's man.

"The main reason I'm going [to the concert] is because I haven't heard 
Russian singers in five years, so it'll be nice to get back in the culture 
and atmosphere."

Olson, 29, and friend Nina Pierson, a 26-year-old Ukrainian who lives in 
Dania Beach, are going with another Russian friend and her American husband.

"Kirkorov's really popular," says Pierson. "And he puts a lot of money into 
his concerts. I never had chance in Russia to see him."

Sholkovaya Nit (The Silk Thread), which she describes as a song about fate, 
is her favorite Kirkorov song.

The Bulgarian-born Kirkorov doesn't know how many records he's made ("Maybe 
10 or 12," his promoter says 13), but he does know why they're special.

"I always sang, sing and will sing only about love," he says.

Kirkorov won World Music Awards in 1996 and 1999 as the best-selling Russian 
performer; he's been nominated eight times for a Russian Grammy (the 
Ovatsia), and in 2001 Russian President Vladimir Putin designated him 
Distinguished Artist of the Russian Federation.

But, as if tutored by his American counterparts, he swears the awards mean 

"To me, most important is to respect your own creativity," he says.

Although non-English singers rarely achieve fame in the United States, before 
his current American tour Kirkorov sold out concerts at New York's Madison 
Square Garden, Las Vegas' MGM Grand Theatre, and elsewhere. 

He also performed in 1999's "Michael Jackson and Friends" benefits in South 
Korea and Germany. Other stars included Luciano Pavarotti and Mariah Carey.

"For me, Michael Jackson is a legend," Kirkorov says. "He's a genius."

Again like his American counterparts, he's got the name-dropping down.

"I love all that's rock 'n' roll: Elvis Presley, Freddie Mercury. I madly 
love Elton John, really like Ricky Martin and, of course, Madonna. She always 
was my role model because she's a self-made woman and I'm a self-made man."

Kirkorov's Wednesday concert will be his first in Miami, although he and his 
wife often vacation at their South Florida home.

"I have many friends in Miami," he says, "and not just ones who are Russian. 
I always had a desire to do a show in this city as a tribute to my friends 
and because I really want to get more fans.

"Second, I wrote my own album last year, Magico Amor, where I sing in Russian 
and Spanish, and I want Spanish-language fans to hear the songs."

Opening for Kirkorov is Smash, one of Russia's most popular boy bands. Its 
debut single, Belle, skyrocketed to the top of Russia's music charts.

David Raterman is a freelance writer based in Fort Lauderdale.


February 3, 2003
Ilya Glazunov: Genocide Against Russian People in Full Swing 
There is another thing to learn from Americans: national interests come first 
Ilya Glazunov’s speech at the VII World Russian National Council 

There was a note handed over to the presidium of the council: “Will anyone
say that there is the genocide of the Russian people? Will anyone say
that?” Yes, there is someone to say that. I say that there is the genocide
of the Russian people. The session of our council is devoted to the
following issue: “Faith and Labor: Spiritual and Cultural Traditions and
Russia’s Economic Future.” Faith and labor are the grounds of every
nation’s living. The World Church wants to take our Orthodox religion away
from us. They want to take away the faith of our ancestors, who created the
power of the Russian State. The state does not guarantee the right for
labor nowadays. The old production system has been destroyed, but there is
nothing new developed instead. Bright talents of the Russian science have
to deal with the production of kitchen ware. A lot of them decided to leave
Russia. What is that right, on the ground of which a small group of
oligarchs got the Russian national wealth and all natural resources in
their possession? The country’s oil and gas must be given back to the state
and the people. 

Democracy is not the power of a dozen of oligarchs over millions of our
people, over the multinational Russia! After the national suicide, after
the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was forced to ask for help, since
it was unable to demand anything. I suggest we should set up the
International League for protection of Russian people, the same like
Muslims or Jews did. This will be our protection against the Russophobia in
all of its forms that are typical for these days. 

More than 25 million Russian people are the citizens of the second kind in
former neighborly republics. However, those people assisted a lot in the
prosperity of those former Soviet republics. Russian people are not allowed
to speak Russian in the Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
We were turned to the people of the second kind over there. How long are we
going to stand that? (Addressing to Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation): Mr. Zyuganov, if you have
one-third of the faithful at the moment (Zyuganov stated so himself, making
a speech at the council), why not renaming your party and have it as the
People’s Party. Why do you load yourself with someone else’s crimes? 

I was shocked and exasperated, when I found out that the State Duma passed
the law, according to which Russian people from the so-called CIS (from
historic Russia) have to wait three years until they can get a Russian
passport. However, the people of Asia and the Caucasus keep conquering
Russia without a gunshot and without a citizenship, going to Russian cities
and towns to settle there. The Russian culture is in the oblivion, it is
buried under the ruins of show business. I am thankful to the government
for the fact that my school of Russian high realism exists. This school is
called the Russian Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. We must
preserve the traditions of our culture, the world has become so poor
without it. The Great Russian Language gets so dirty on our television.
Democrats are colonial apes. Why doesn’t George W. Bush say the word
“vstrecha” (“meeting” in Russian) instead of saying the word “summit?” Why
doesn’t he say “my White Kremlin,” for example? Why do we have to adjust
ourselves to those people, whose history counts only 200 years? Our culture
and history counts a thousand years, but our politicians keep using the
words of foreign origin in their daily speech. Who gave them a right to
ruin the Great Russian Language? Two buildings were leveled in the republic
of Tatarstan: Fyodor Shalyapin was born in one of those buildings and then
lived in the other one. And we still have patience about it. 

I think that one should introduce new subjects to study in Russian schools:
the Old Slavonic language, God’s Law. The Russian and the Slavonic
languages are single. Then there would be no need to translate church
services from the Slavonic language to the Russian one, as it is practiced
on television now. We need to have a state television channel, which would
teach our youth. It will make it easier for the state to struggle with
prostitution, drug addiction and criminality. 

Another thing: why do we have to be a member of the European Union? I
demand the death penalty should be reinstated. Criminals should be
murdered. Terrorism and the struggle with it are not supposed to become the
reason of another kind of global terror. The American way of fighting the
international terrorism reminds me an old Soviet saying: “This fight for
peace will not leave a stone standing.” We can learn another thing from the
United States of America –national interests come first. Only the great
Orthodox faith and labor will help to revive Holy Russia. God save Russia!
Long live Russia! 

This was the speech by Ilya Glazunov, Russian people’s artist. The speech
was delivered at the VII World Russian National Council 
Translated by Dmitry Sudakov 


Rossiiskaya Gazeta
No. 18
January 30, 2003
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
By Alexander VOLKOV, Doctor of Science (History) 

International totalitarianism - perhaps this word 
combination is shocking to political analysts. Let us for the 
beginning speak about the tendency of concentrating the means 
of global domination in the power agencies of a single country, 
about using them for influencing the entire international 
situation, about making the life of the world community 
dependent on the interests of a single power, about imposing 
one's standards on other nations, about interference in the 
domestic affairs of sovereign states and suppression by force 
of any protest against such interference. All this roughly 
means totalitarianism on a national scale.
Looking back at the past we find instances of a state or a 
regime striving at different times for total world domination.
Not looking back too far at events in ancient history, when the 
influence of even a large empire could not reach global 
proportions, one may recall Nazi Germany's claims to world 
domination. The same idea, no doubt, was present in Stalin's 
dreams. But never before in world history have there been so 
favorable conditions for attaining such a goal.
Unfortunately, globalization, being an objective and 
inevitable process, is developing in conditions when one 
country - the United States - appears to be more powerful and 
more successful than the others. It not only dominates in 
economy, but, willingly or not, is adjusting the life of 
mankind to its own standards. Even if these standards may be 
largely attractive in general, they appear to be alien to other 
nations and evoke rejection and sometimes strong protest. This 
becomes most painful in interaction of different civilizations, 
because one of them, imposing its way of life on another 
civilization (or civilizations), does not allow the weaker ones 
to live according to their own laws and traditions. For this 
reason a militarization of a conflict between different world 
outlooks occurs, a professor from Goettingen, Germany, writes.
Most dangerous in this context is that, owing to enormous 
technological breakthroughs the U.S. has achieved overwhelming 
military superiority and surpassed the military might of all 
the other countries taken together many times over. Such an 
assessment has been made by Joseph Rotblat, a prominent British 
scientist and a Nobel Prize winner, one of the developers of 
the atomic bomb. He accuses the present U.S. Administration of 
beginning to view nuclear arms not as a means of deterrence but 
as a that of pressure on disagreeable states. 
It is quite obvious that all this is taking place when the 
effectiveness of international organizations is weakening. In 
the past decades they have been growing in number, new regional 
organizations have been established and new international 
branch agencies appeared, but, on the whole, interaction among 
countries within the framework of the main organizations set up 
to protect world peace, the UN in the first place, far from 
improving, has even decreased. We already know quite a few 
examples when problems caused by interference in the affairs of 
sovereign states were resolved not by the UN or other 
international organizations but by individual countries. Today, 
impotence, or at least insufficient influence, of these 
organizations and the need to revise their structure and powers 
are among most acute problems.
It becomes all the more serious since the world community 
has too easily accepted a practical cancellation of a hitherto 
generally accepted principle of international law - 
noninterference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. A 
new postulate declared by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has 
appeared - a principle of noninterference is not a fundamental 
one in relation to states violating human rights. As it always 
happens in similar situations, a question arises - who is to 
decide whether these rights are violated or not.
Thus, all the main factors allowing one country to 
dominate others are present today. They are economic might, 
military superiority, weakness of international collective 
security organizations and, if not controlling international 
legal norms, then vast possibilities of exerting influence on 
them and on those who observe these norms from the side of this 
very power.
In these conditions, what allows one state to dictate its will 
to others and practise what we have called international 
totalitarianism? It is in most cases the character of power in 
this mighty country and the will of those who rule it. It 
depends also on the persons whom its citizens elect to power 
bodies. And now, taking part in elections, the citizens of that 
country are responsible not only before their children and 
their future but also before the whole world.
As usual, one tendency, even a leading one, is accompanied 
by others acting in an opposite direction. Definite hopes are 
pinned on the U.S. system of democracy, which has always proved 
effective in the country's domestic life. But the almost 
maniacal struggle of Americans for democracy in other countries 
and their assumption of missionary functions remind one of an 
old joke - there will be no Third World war, but a struggle for 
peace will be so fierce that no living being will remain on 
earth. Democracy imposed by force degenerates to a point of 
becoming dangerous. A hope is placed on Europeans, for whom 
violence is far more unacceptable than it is for Americans. 
Nonetheless, the world community is well organized, though it 
can be organized still better. In the world a few centers are 
emerging that influence the international situation. However, 
one center formed by the U.S. prevails for the time being over 
all the other, and it would be unwise not to watch in what 
direction it is developing. We must therefore take a close look 
at some factors and symptoms.
After the September 11 tragedy the U.S. began immediately 
to speak about vengeance, about a powerful retaliation blow, 
though it was not clear at whom the blow should be dealt.
Numerous bomb attacks on Afghanistan followed. Most up-to-date 
weapons and select ground forces have been used in that country.
Not only terrorists, but also innocent people die in this war - 
"a la guerre comme a la guerre," as the French say. Iraq is 
And North Korea is often mentioned in this context although the 
situation there is different in many respects.
No doubt, terrorism is a most dangerous phenomenon and 
must be combated resolutely. Those who advocate the ideas of 
Islamic fundamentalism, or even Islamic fascism (the term 
already exists) also claim to exercise world domination. They 
also have up-to-date arms developed on the basis of the latest 
technological achievements. Though these are powerful 
organizations, they are inferior to a state in their 
possibilities, even though Al Qaeda is already called a network 
state. It is likewise obvious that prevention of nuclear arms 
proliferation is a noble mission. But doesn't there come a 
moment when ambitious interests of a single country are 
beginning to stick out from behind the banner of struggle 
against these dangerous phenomena, a banner that has brought 
together many nations? I mean the country, the only one in the 
world, so far, that has already used nuclear arms and destroyed 
two large Japanese cities, which possesses the largest reserve 
of diverse mass destruction means (the list of the means which, 
according to the U.S. press, are supposed to be used in Iraq is 
appalling) and which sees to it, above all, that no other 
country would have them. And it itself decides which country is 
to be deprived of mass destruction weapons.
Statements by the U.S. authorities, uttered with obstinacy 
that calls to mind the famous oft-repeated phrase, "Carthage 
must be destroyed!" and the preparations for a war in Iraq give 
an impression of an imminent avalanche that cannot be stopped. 
And few people doubt that a war will begin, whatever the 
findings of the UN experts are and whatever resolutions the UN 
issues. An opinion has already been expressed that behind all 
these actions are more far reaching goals than punishment of 
Saddam Hussein.
The goals are to consolidate the new rules of the game that 
emerged during the Desert Storm, the time when the dismantling 
of the system of UN Security Council's global powers began, the 
rules according to which decisions are taken by the U.S. and 
the club of its allies, but not by the UN. 
Almost every day one may hear speeches calling for people 
to heed this view. I will cite but one example. Richard Pearl, 
chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, said it would be a 
gross mistake for the U.S. to depend on a UN Security Council 
resolution and to consider that the U.S. cannot act on its own 
account. He also pointed out that this would mean to deprive 
the president of his responsibility. Doesn't it sound like 
"America is above all"? And don't we hear almost every day 
about demands for special rights and powers for America and the 
Americans, at least with regard to the International Court of 
Justice in Hague?
Right after September 11 Russia declared its support for 
the U.S. in its struggle against terrorism and in fact it 
entered the anti-terrorist coalition. In this case the 
interests of our countries coincided, as they coincide with 
regard to many other matters. Growing cooperation with this 
great country yields its fruits, which is wonderful. In no case 
should we give way to anti-Americanism provoked by sharp 
statements made by some Russian officials and politicians and 
encouraged by public opinion stereotypes of the Soviet years. 
Nor should we oppose the developing interaction between Russia 
and the U.S. to our relations with Europe, though some 
illusory or even quite real motives may be prodding us toward 
that. But isn't euphoria caused by successes on this "front" 
dangerous enough? For all the importance of personal good 
relations between political leaders, shouldn't we abandon 
delusive relationships in a "friend Bill-friend Boris" manner, 
and take a closer look at the strategic interests of our 
country in the system of relations taking shape today? 
Shouldn't we look farther into the time when the U.S. already 
solves the problems associated with Iraq? Shall we not be 
ousted by that time from some vital positions which allowed us 
to influence international affairs and the atmosphere in the 
world; to influence not as an end in itself, not for satisfying 
certain ambitions but in order to meet the vital interests of 
our country?
I do not say that international totalitarianism has 
already become a reality. And the above-mentioned tendency will 
not necessarily develop. But I am convinced that such a 
possibility does exist. And it is too serious to be ignored and 
to do nothing to prevent it from becoming a reality. Therefore 
consistent efforts are to be taken, above all, to preserve UN 
influence and revise UN Security Council functions, increasing 
the powers of its members. There is nothing that can replace 
this - neither participation in G-8, where we still have a 
junior-brother status, nor Russia's cooperation with NATO, nor 
even fruitful bilateral agreements. So, let precisely the 
United Nations but not a "community headed by the only 
superpower" be preserved.


Consumer spending down in Russia

MOSCOW. Feb 3 (Interfax) - Spending on consumer goods and retail services
fell in Russia last year from 74.4% to 72.2% of total monetary incomes. 
Spending on foreign currency dipped from 5.7% to 5.6%, the State
Statistics Committee said. 
In the fourth quarter, consumer spending came to 71.1% of all incomes,
compared with 73.2% a year earlier. 
Monetary incomes totaled 6.696 trillion rubles, compared with 5.294
trillion rubles in 2001. Expenditures came to 6.577 trillion rubles,
compared with 5.1896 trillion rubles. 
Spending on goods fell from 59.5% to 57.7% of total spending in 2002,
while spending on services grew from 14.9% to 15.1%. This was because
service charges, particularly housing and utilities, transport and
communications, grew faster than goods prices. 
Taxes and other dues consumed 9.3% of all spending, compared with 8.9%
in 2001. Investments in bank savings, securities, loan payments and the
purchase of real estate were up from 9% to 10.5% of the total. Russians had
1.8% left over in cash after expenditures and investments, compared with 2%
in 2001.


Wall Street Journal
February 4, 2003
Defying Downturn Elsewhere, Russia's Ad Spending Surges

MOSCOW -- Russia has emerged as the world's fastest growing advertising
market, with ad spending increasing by more than 50% last year while it
stayed flat or fell in most Western countries.

The growth reflects the buoyancy of an economy that grew by 4% in 2002,
helped by the high price of oil, Russia's staple export. With much of the
rest of the world in recession, Russia has seen a big uptick in equity
prices, corporate profits and consumer spending, and advertisers have been
quick to exploit the new affluence. Cities such as Moscow now are awash
with billboards, neon signs and even video clips on roadside screens
selling everything from mobile phones and cars to vodka.

According to the Russian Advertising Agencies Association, a trade group,
ad spending in 2002 rose by 51% to $2.68 billion (€2.49 billion) from a
year earlier. Spending on television ads had the biggest surge, rising 76%
to $900 million.

But the total budget is still small. Ad spending in Russia is $19 per
capita, compared with about $500 in the U.S. "Russia has seen the fastest
growth of any market in dollar terms," says Jonathan Barnard, an analyst at
ZenithOptimedia. "But ad spending is only 0.6% of [gross domestic product]
-- about half of what you'd expect in a developed industrial country."

The increase is still impressive compared with Europe's slump.
ZenithOptimedia says ad spending fell in Germany by 5% last year and by 1%
in Britain and France, though it grew 1.3% in the U.S. The Russian ad trade
group predicts the Russian market will grow by another 50% this year to $4
billion, boosted by political advertising in the run-up to December's
parliamentary elections. ZenithOptimedia forecasts growth of 41% for Russia
this year.

An important factor in the surge has been the increasing dominance of
home-grown Russian firms, whose ad budgets now compare with those of
big-spending multinationals. Consumer-oods companies such as Procter &
Gamble and Unilever still figure prominently, but the Russian ad trade
group says Russia's biggest advertiser now is Wimm-Bill-Dann, a
Moscow-based dairy and juice group. Russian companies accounted for more
than 60% of the market last year.

"Russia is now among the top 10 biggest advertising markets in Europe,"
says Vladimir Yevstafyev, the president of the Russian Advertising Agencies

Analysts say another factor has been the popularity of billboards, which
are relatively cheap and not subject to the kind of tough regulations found
in the West. Mr. Yevstafyev estimates a third of billboards in Russia are
erected illegally. Outdoor advertising now makes up a fifth of the total
Russian market, while the world average is about 5%.

"Billboards are popular because they provide simple messages that are good
for brand-building," says ZenithOptimedia's Mr. Barnard. "And that's a
stage a lot of Russian companies are at right now."


US Department of State
03 February 2003 
Vershbow Lauds Russian People at Stalingrad Battle Comemmoration
(U.S. Ambassador at ceremony marking 60th anniversary of battle) (660)

U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow spoke at a ceremony
marking the 60th anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad in
recognition of the soldiers' sacrifices in that battle, and "the great
burden shouldered by the Russian people during the war."

Invoking Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Vershbow said: "We can
never do justice to the memory of those who died here, or to the
suffering and the bravery of those who survived. But we shall always
remember that they did not die in vain. Their sacrifices here turned
the tide of the war and ensured victory for the Allies against

"Our two countries were Allies during the Second World War, enemies
during the Cold War, and are becoming allies once again," he noted.
"Such strong ties between our great nations would have been
unthinkable just fifteen years ago."

Thousands attended the commemoration ceremony in Volgograd Square,
including a reported 250 Soviet veterans who laid wreaths at a

Following is the transcript of Ambassador Vershbow's speech:

(begin transcript)



February 1, 2003

Governor Maksyuta, distinguished veterans, honored guests, ladies and

It is a great honor for me to participate in the ceremonies to
commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad.

In the United States, we refer to the brave men and women who served
in our military during the Second World War as "the greatest
generation." I think the Russian people regard the veterans of the
Great Patriotic War in the same way, although those who fought here at
the Battle of Stalingrad perhaps hold a particularly respected place
in the hearts of the people. We are here today to recognize the
bravery and sacrifices of this country's veterans, particularly those
who fought and achieved an extraordinary victory here in this city
sixty years ago.

Our two countries were Allies during the Second World War, enemies
during the Cold War, and are becoming allies once again. Our
presidents have demonstrated the vision and leadership to join our
countries in a powerful partnership, cooperating on a wide range of
issues: the fight against international terrorism; preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; developing a new
partnership between Russia and NATO; and expanding trade and
investment. Such strong ties between our great nations would have been
unthinkable just fifteen years ago. May this new U.S. Russian
partnership be lasting, warm and productive, based on our shared
values and, to use President Putin's phrase, on the "logic of common
interests" in this new century.

During the American Civil War, our great President, Abraham Lincoln,
came to the town of Gettysburg in the state of Pennsylvania to
dedicate a cemetery for the fallen soldiers of both sides, following
the most devastating battle of that war. Yet he said the living could
not really consecrate that spot of earth. Instead, it was the brave
men, living and dead, who struggled there in battle, who had already
consecrated it with their blood.

Likewise, no matter what monuments we build here in Volgograd, no
matter in what commemorative events we partake, we can never do
justice to the memory of those who died here, or to the suffering and
the bravery of those who survived. But we shall always remember that
they did not die in vain. Their sacrifices here turned the tide of the
war and ensured victory for the Allies against Hitler. On behalf of
President Bush and the American people, I would like to recognize the
sacrifices of soldiers here at the Battle of Stalingrad, and to the
great burden shouldered by the Russian people during the war.

Congratulations, especially to all the veterans present, on this great