MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Dmitry Babich) - Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko signed an agreement on the establishment of a Union State on December 8, 1999. Less than a month later, Yeltsin retired and appointed his successor, Vladimir Putin.
What were the two presidents' objectives? Critics say they were guided by ulterior motives, suggesting that Lukashenko hoped to become president of a large Union State and that Yeltsin felt guilty for presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet Union. They claim he wanted to be remembered as the leader who started the reunification of the former Soviet republics by signing the Union State agreement with Belarus.
On the other hand, the two presidents' motives might be considered commonplace as politicians often make history from a mixture of political ambition, envy or impossible dreams.
Unfortunately, some provisions of the Union State agreement have not materialized, such as a common currency (planned for 2004), common citizenship, and the Constitutional Act designed to streamline the two countries' legislation.
If we look at the agreement today, we see that for Belarus it became the final chord of a difficult 20th century which brought the chaos of disintegration and division to Eastern Europe.
The East Slavic border nations, nearly all of which were part of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century, were an ethnic puzzle of Belarusians, Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, Germans and Jews.
The puzzle was broken up after World War I, with Poland being the first to create a sovereign state in 1918. Belarus was united with Lithuania in 1919, but a year later the Lithuanian-Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic split into sovereign Belarusian and Lithuanian states.
During World War II, the Nazis liquidated and dispersed one of the key ethnic minorities in the region, Jews, thus inflicting deep wounds on the Belarusian nation.
Stalin easily changed borders within the Soviet empire, moving Poles closer to Poles, bringing Lithuanians together in a close-knit community, and uniting Belarusians and Ukrainians by not formalizing borders.
However, these borders became reality in the late 20th century. Each ethnic group in that puzzle, from Jews to Lithuanians, now has its own state. The divorce looked final, but it turned out that they missed their former neighbors.
Even the Poles, who probably worked for independence harder than any other East European nation, are now demonstrating a lively interest in their eastern neighbors. There are no centers studying individual West European countries in Poland, although it badly wanted to become part of Western Europe. It does, however, have the Center for Eastern Studies set up in 1990 at the initiative of a non-Communist prime minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki.
Marek Menkiszak, a Russia analyst at the Center for Eastern Studies, said: "We are concerned about the Customs Union of Russia and Belarus because we do not know if it will limit the sovereignty of Belarus or change our trade process with Russia."
Yeltsin's and Lukashenko's motives and indeed their very names will be forgotten, but the feeling of "abnormality" from the former ethnic puzzle's break-up will persist for years. As for the sluggish Russian-Belarusian integration projects, they do not look hopeless against Ukraine's attempts to integrate with Europe.
Integration can be conducted quickly only in a totalitarian regime. In a market economy with an emerging civil society, potential integration partners have to count every kopeck when coordinating interests and establishing common institutions.
The recent gas and dairy wars between Russia and Belarus have illustrated that these institutions are so far not steady on their feet. When Russia closed the gas tap, neither EurAsEC - the Eurasian Economic Community of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan - nor the Parliamentary Council of Russia and Belarus protested the move.
It took the institutions of the European Union 50 years to gain their current strength, yet they are still not on a par with the national governments.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
On December 8, the Russian aircraft corporation MiG, formerly called the Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau, celebrates its 70th anniversary.
MiG, one of the most popular Soviet aircraft brands, was known all over the world and came to symbolize just about any Soviet warplane, except long-range bombers, in the West during the Cold War.
And in fact, MiG's glory was well-deserved.
The MiG Design Bureau pioneered the development of post-war turbojet fighters in the Soviet Union. Its first jet fighter, the I-300 later designated the MiG-9 Fargo, performed its maiden flight on April 24, 1946 and became the first jet fighter to enter service with the Soviet air force.
It was followed by the legendary MiG-15 Fagot, which brought lasting fame to the MiG Design Bureau and which served with Soviet and foreign air forces for over 50 years. The hard-hitting MiG-15 had three cannons and won a reputation for its high speed and excellent vertical and horizontal maneuverability.
The MiG-15 soon became the main Soviet air-superiority fighter and also entered service with other socialist countries.
The fighter's finest hour came during the 1950-1953 Korean War. In October 1950, the Soviet 64th Fighter Corps was assigned to defend logistics support and border facilities in North Korea. Chinese and North Korean air forces also received new fighters.
The MiG-15, which was the main Soviet, Chinese and North Korean fighter in that conflict, downed nearly 1,400 U.S. and other UN aircraft. 566 MiG-15s were lost in the war, including 335 Soviet MiG-15 fighters. In all, Soviet fighters downed about 1,100 enemy aircraft at the cost of 120 pilots.
The West, which does not like to discuss that conflict, usually recalls the number of downed MiG-15s and the 200-plus North American Aviation F-86 Sabre fighters shot down during the Korean War.
The F-86 Sabre, which was the best U.S. fighter of that period, could not cope with the MiG-15, which virtually controlled Soviet, Chinese and North Korean air space.
Although the MiG-15 began to be replaced with more advanced aircraft after the war, over 15,000 of these fighters were manufactured, making them the most popular jet-fighter model in history. In fact, the Albanian air force scrapped its last MiG-15 in 2005.
Before the advent of surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, the MiG-15 and its successors, the MiG-17 Fresco and the MiG-19 Farmer, formed a vital element of Soviet air defense throughout the 1950s.
Large fighter units, which had won a formidable reputation in the course of intensive dogfights, became a highly important deterrent at a time when Soviet nuclear weapons were still in the experimental stage and when Soviet long-range bombers were unable to reach the United States on two-way missions.
U.S. military planners realized that strategic bomber groups would be sitting ducks in Eastern Europe and Soviet air space, and that a hypothetical nuclear strike was highly unlikely to inflict unacceptable damage on the U.S.S.R.
The MiG-21, which first took off in 1958 and whose production was launched in 1959, is still in service. The MiG-23 Flogger fighter and its modified version, the MiG-27 Flogger-D/J, the MiG-25 Foxbat and MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors, as well as the MiG-29 Fulcrum, now being converted into the MiG-35 Fulcrum-F, continue to fly today.
MiG-29 tests conducted by the NATO air force revealed that, given equal pilot training, this fighter has an advantage over similar Western aircraft during close-range dogfights, a traditionally strong feature of Soviet warplanes, and during medium-range combat involving air-to-air missiles with a range of 20 to 30 km.
Although the MiG Design Bureau faced major problems after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the situation is now improving. The company now repairs and upgrades previously manufactured aircraft for the Russian and foreign air forces.
The MiG Corporation continues to sign additional contracts. Federal funding has allowed it to develop the state-of-the-art MiG-35 which, as experts say, has good market prospects.
The company is also developing a fifth-generation fighter, due to appear in the next decade.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik)
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
On December 5, 2009, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), one of the key arms control treaties ended. This carefully developed agreement, which included a wide range of mutual monitoring measures, was signed before the collapse of the Soviet Union, but came into force only in December 1994.
According to the START I treaty, Moscow and Washington pledged to reduce their nuclear arsenals during seven years to 6,000 warheads. Part of the agreement was the Memorandum of Understanding, which defined the rules for counting warheads for every type of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) and heavy (strategic) bomber.
In January 1993, the Russian Federation and the U.S. signed an additional treaty on the limitations of strategic nuclear forces (START II). This treaty was mostly based on the procedures and provisions agreed upon at the signing of START I, enacting only new quantitative limits (up to 3,000-3,500 warheads until January 1, 2003) and some new procedures.
The U.S. Congress ratified the START II treaty in January 1996, but in Russia the ratification process dragged on until April 2000. The formal reason for this was the lack of sufficient funds in Russia's federal budget. The real reasons stemmed from the worsening of Russian-U.S. relations given NATO's military intervention in the Balkans. Unfortunately, in June 2002, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972), which prevented START II from coming into force. Nevertheless, both sides fulfilled the START II provisions that corresponded to their national interests. Among other things, Russia stopped destroying its heavy missiles and refitting ICBMs with single warheads.
One month earlier in Moscow, the framework Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) was signed. The only thing that the sides were able to agree on was the minimum levels of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads (1700-2200). According to the treaty, reduction of the number of warheads must be concluded by the end of 2012.
The signatories determine the sequence of the process of nuclear disarmament and the content and structure of each nation's strategic nuclear forces independently of one another. All of this was no problem during the validity period of START I, but could be a problem now if a new treaty on a reduction of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) is not signed.
All of the above demonstrates that in the last 20 years, only one basic agreement was in effect - the START I treaty. All other nuclear disarmament agreements were fully or partially based on this agreement, which was the culmination of many years of difficult Russian-U.S. negotiations on reduction of strategic nuclear forces.
The negotiation process was practically rolled back in the mid-1990s and resumed only in 2009.
In July 2009, the presidents of Russia and the U.S. agreed to conclude a new legally binding agreement on replacing the still valid START I treaty. Negotiators determined the reduction levels for strategic delivery weapons (500-1100) and warheads installed on them (1500-1675). However, at the time, they were not able to agree on a considerable reduction in the number of delivery weapons, rules for counting warheads, or the use of conventionally-armed strategic delivery weapons. But mutual interest in the process of nuclear disarmament was expressed.
The subsequent negotiation process was rather bumpy. Nevertheless, according to some reports, both sides were able to reduce the ceiling for strategic delivery weapons (to 700) and group them with conventionally-armed strategic delivery weapons. In this case, the number of strategic delivery weapons with nuclear warheads is reduced to 600, which suggests a considerable convergence of negotiating positions. Russia responded by agreeing to count only the actual number of warheads installed on delivery weapons, which allows their eventual dismantling (removing the additional number of warheads). In addition, Moscow has agreed to limit the regions where strategic guided missile systems (Topol and Topol M) are based.
If this information is confirmed, then most of the difficult issues in reduction of strategic nuclear forces have been overcome. It would then be easier to agree on a system of mutual checks and inspections.
Such a document could be signed in December 2009 - in a European capital, for instance. Of course, it will not yet be a full-fledged agreement since there was no time to develop one, but it could be amended with corresponding protocols and memorandums in the near future.
Vladimir Yevseyev is a Candidate of Science (Engineering) and senior researcher at the International Security Center of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
MOSCOW. Vladimir Yevseyev (Institute of World Economy and International Relations) special to RIA Novosti
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - The global United Nations conference on climate change finally began in Copenhagen today. It will be held from December 7 to December 18.
It is already clear what the conference will be like. It is enough to imagine hundreds of irritated scientists unable to agree on anything, overwrought presidents, prime ministers, ministers, experts and governments. Some of these governments are convinced that their countries will be flooded in 20 years, whereas others dismiss such predictions as paranoid.
The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be attended by envoys from 192 UN countries. Heads of state and prime ministers from the world's leading countries will also come to Copenhagen for a few days.
The conference was supposed to produce an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Nevertheless, it does not matter much when the Kyoto Protocol expires; the United States refused to abide by the signed protocol, neither China nor India assumed any commitments to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane or other pollutants, and Japan signed the protocol but did not observe it.
The main difference between the anticipated Copenhagen agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is that the former would establish a fixed ceiling for global warming and outline measures to keep warming below that ceiling. The 124 countries that signed and comply with the Kyoto Protocol have already agreed that this limit should not exceed an average of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050. In principle, almost all countries share this view. However, they are still unable to agree on specific measures to bring down the temperature by limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases.
Americans maintain that they have already agreed to an unprecedented commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020, and the European Union has done the same. But the devil is in the details. America has taken the year 2005 as a starting point while Europe has taken 1990, which means that in real terms the United States will bring down its emissions only by 7% as compared to Europe.
Finally, participants in the Copenhagen conference are planning to consolidate the cap-and-trade legislation system under which the governments agree on the overall limit of global carbon dioxide emissions that will be released into the atmosphere and establish quotas for each country. The worst pollutants and the cleanest countries can trade their unexhausted quotas. For instance, Tuvalu or Fiji, which will never exhaust their quotas, can sell them to Germany or Britain, thereby entitling them to the right to release more industrial waste. This does not help to make the Earth cleaner.
It goes without saying that the Earth's "lungs" are very different from their human equivalents in their ability to preserve and clean themselves. Nevertheless, the principle is the same: the Earth should be given less to smoke, and then it will be able to do much on its own. To do this, Copenhagen must produce an agreement on the ways to do this, how much "medicine" is needed, what sort of "diet" should be followed, and how the planet should be purified of its pollution. The recovery was not supposed to begin before 2020. Only preparations for it are to be made, and Copenhagen was to become what the UN called "a mandatory stage" of this process. To use a pilots' expression, it was viewed as a "point of no return" - either take off or prepare for trouble.
However, Copenhagen is not likely to achieve much. James Hansen is the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and was one of the first scientists to elaborate the theory of anthropogenic climate warming in the early 1980s. He is pessimistic about the Copenhagen conference: "What's being talked about for Copenhagen is a strengthening of Kyoto [protocol] approach, a cap and trade with offsets and escape hatches which will be guaranteed to fail in terms of getting the required rapid reduction in emissions." Hansen added that "[t]his is analogous to the indulgences that the Catholic Church sold in the Middle Ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what's happening."
In brief, Mr. Hansen's opinion is as follows: the governments are still refusing to acknowledge the main problem, notably that fossil fuels are the main source of the trouble. Their use must be reduced, countries should switch to alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy, and carbon emissions should be subject to heavy taxes. He thinks that instead of going to Copenhagen it would be worth taking a time-out for a year to elaborate at long last truly effective measures, or it will be too late. Mr. Hansen has decided to boycott the Copenhagen conference altogether.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
The celebration of the Lame Horse nightclub's anniversary ended in tragedy. Out of nearly 300 guests, 113 have died, and some who could have been there, escaped death by a miracle. There were some who had been planning to go, but were prevented at the last minute because of a spouse's illness, others couldn't get tickets, and others left the club shortly before the fire started.
Prophetic song
Perm's residents heard about the celebrations planned a week before the Lame Horse's eighth anniversary. The organizers had planned three days of celebrations, on December 3, 4 and 5, and had sold 285 tickets for the fireworks show planned for 1 a.m. on Saturday.
The group that was to perform that night, Chocolate Victoria, did not get their paperwork done in time and had to cancel the performance, life.ru reported.
"Our group performed in the club a year ago," said the group's lead singer, Sergei Khizhnyak. "We liked its atmosphere, and we were supposed to be there the night of the tragedy. But God saved us."
Khizhnyak, who has recently moved from Perm to Moscow, composed a song especially for the club's celebrations. There was a phrase in it, "Life is not over, the horse gallops on bathed in flecks of light."
"Nobody thought the fireworks would end so tragically," Khizhnyak said. "When I composed the song, I thought about starlight, but we are not the masters of our fate."
The Lame Horse club had often put on firework displays, but organizers excelled themselves on the night of the tragedy. Even as the fire spread along the club's ceiling, nobody believed it was real fire, business daily Kommersant reports.
The video recorded by Alexander Popov, a cameraman with the local Uralinform TV station, shows people clearly under the impression that the fire was part of the show. "Ladies and gentlemen, to the club's jubilee!" the smiling host shouts, before shrieking several moments later, "There is a fire, leave the premises!" The tape shows the room already filled with smoke.
"We were sorry to miss our performance in Perm," Khizhnyak said. "But now we thank our lucky stars we escaped that fiery hell. I still shudder at the scale of the tragedy: over a hundred people dead."
The musician said he had phoned all his friends who were regulars at that club as soon as he heard about the tragedy. Happily, they were not there that night.
Carried outside
"I learned today that an incredible number of people did not go to Lame Horse that night because their spouse was ill, or because they missed a flight, or for some other reason," Nikita Belykh, governor of the Kirov Region and former deputy governor of the Perm Territory, wrote in his diary.
He wrote that one of his friends, Viktor Suetin, a member of the Perm territorial legislature, miraculously escaped death that night. He "entered the club 10 minutes before the fireworks were about to start and was near the doors when the fire began. The crowd simply carried him outside, and he later helped save people from the fire. He told me about this at five in the morning Perm time, when I was trying to establish the victims' names," Belykh writes.
Incredible luck
Irina, a graduate of Perm State University, would have been in the club if not for her father, who banned her ever going there.
Her diary reads: "Last time I was in the club was last summer, after which my dad expressly prohibited me from going there. He said I should think about my reputation. Although it is Dad's favorite club, it's a not a very savory place."
Irina said her father left the club 20 minutes before the fire.
"I was sitting with friends in a cafe when one of the guys got a call from his dad asking him where he was. 'There has been an explosion at the Horse,' the boy's father said. 'I don't know what happened but people have died.' I immediately phoned my dad. I called him three times and he did not answer. When he answered the fourth call, he said he was in a taxi going home. Where from? I asked. 'From the Horse,' he said. It was incredible luck, as he usually stays there as long as he can, and never leaves until four in the morning."
No tickets
"Just think, my mum could have been there that night," writes Pa Go in the LiveJournal. "But her man did not manage to get tickets in time. And one of my mum's friends changed his mind just before going into the club and decided to go somewhere else. My wife was a regular at the club, when she was a dancer, but she stopped going there after we met. And also, I could have been hired to work at that corporate party."
Not all Perm residents have learnt from the tragedy.
"You won't believe it, but I still see people lighting fireworks even now in the courtyard," writes a user.
Relieved
Lessons in Perm's high schools began with a moment of silence. Some only heard about the tragedy from their classmates.
"One of the girls called her friend who worked as a waitress at Lame Horse. It turned out she had a night off that night and it was sheer chance she lived," writes poduska.
"We love Perm's nightclubs but have never been to Lame Horse, although we planned to go there for a retro party, which they say are really cool. But then, it doesn't matter to us where we kill time. [What happened at Lame Horse] could happen anywhere to anyone," writes a LiveJournal user.
***
Prepared by rian.ru using information from RIA Novosti and taken from open sources.
Prime Minister: Cooperation in the field of defence has been a very important aspect of our cooperation with Russia. We have been able to get equipment and technologies from Russia which were not available to us from any other countries. Simultaneously, Russia has played a very important role in helping India to develop its nuclear energy programme, helped us in developing our space programme, and in many areas of science and technology we have actively collaborated with Russia to the enormous advantage of our economy and our polity. When I go to Russia naturally we will review our relationship in its diverse fields, including defence relationship, how we can strengthen, how we can develop new technologies in the field of defence. Of course, Admiral Gorshkov will figure in my discussion and I am confident that we can find practical solutions to the problems that have arisen. Collaboration between our two countries in the field of defence is a very vital aspect of our development. It will stay that way for many years to come. Cooperation in the field of nuclear energy has been a very important pillar of our cooperation with Russia and we have identified now new sites for collaboration with Russia for nuclear power projects. I see enormous opportunities in defence, in science and technology, in atomic energy, in space programme and in the development of our trade and investment relations which have not grown as fast as we both would like them to grow.
Question: Prime Minister, I would like to draw your attention to a smaller problem but because of this it is not less important for my people. President Medvedev is very much particular nowadays about pushing forward new programmes of production of good quality and cheap medicines for our people. We have a very good cooperation with India in this field. What can you say about the prospects of Indian investment in technology and in finance for creation of plants for producing drugs in the territory of Russia?
Prime Minister: Indian pharmaceutical firms have built up enormous capacities in the field of medicines and pharmaceuticals. World over, in generic drugs Indian companies have acquired a name for themselves. I sincerely hope that Russia and India can explore avenues of cooperation whereby Indian pharmaceutical concerns can help to expand the quality healthcare in particular in the supply of generic drugs to the Russian public at affordable costs and prices.
Question: Since the year 2006, in India the programme of national human space flight is being implemented as was proposed by you. How do you estimate the current results of that programme? Is India is cooperating in this field with other countries except Russia?
Prime Minister: Russia is the foremost co-operator and collaborator with India in the development of our space programme. In the spacecraft of Chandrayaan our two countries collaborated. Now we are planning a human space vessel. That also will provide enormous opportunities for cooperation between Russia and India. As of now the cooperation that we have with Russia, or the way we want it to grow with Russia, I think is far in excess of any cooperation that we have or we plan to develop with other countries.
Question: The issue of visas between the two countries still remains difficult to many people from the Russian side and the Indian side. Are you looking at working on this during your trip or in the near future to increase the validity of the visa making it a ten-year multiple visa.
Prime Minister: We are in favour of developing closest possible business and people- to-people contact between our two countries. Whatever obstacles exist in the development of these people-to-people contacts, they should be discussed and effective remedies should be found. If visas are a problem, I think the visa regime needs to be liberalised. We will explore all possibilities to expand cooperation on people-to-people basis.
New Delhi
4 December 09
Prime Minister: Such multilateral groupings represent the growing interdependence of the world we live in. It is becoming increasingly clear that today’s global challenges can only be addressed by cooperative effort, with the full and equal participation of major and emerging powers and economies. Such groupings are in many ways the building blocks of the emerging global architecture. India and Russia cooperate closely within the UN systems. The similarity of our views on most global issues enables us to also coordinate closely within the newer multilateral formats like BRIC and G-20. I believe we contribute significantly through these bodies in providing balanced responses to global issues like the economic downturn and climate change and indeed, in working towards a system of global governance that corresponds to the realities of the 21st century.
Question: It is not your first visit to Russia. What thoughts and emotions flash through your mind while you are preparing for the trip? What is the most vivid personal impression after your numerous visits to Russia?
Prime Minister: This will be my sixth visit to Russia as Prime Minister. For me, every visit has been a journey in consolidating and cementing the historic bonds of friendship that exist between us. There is complete mutual understanding between our countries, and a mutual stake in the success of the other.
In all my visits to Russia, I have been struck by the openness, warmth and friendship with which I have been received. I feel perfectly at home, and no stranger. I attribute this to the personal commitment of the Russian leadership to relations with India, and the strong mutual empathy that exists between our peoples.
We have seen this over the decades, beginning with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s first visit in 1955. I would feel most gratified personally if the new Russia and the new India can sustain this long-standing partnership by harnessing the tremendous goodwill our peoples have had for each other in the past.
Both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are great friends of our country. I sincerely hope that this visit of mine will further develop bonds of friendship and that our strategic partnership with Russia will get deeper, broader in content.
Question: Indian economy is showing a very impressive growth. Quarterly figures have proved it. When do you expect the economy of India to rebound, recover from the global crisis which has affected it and to reach the desired level of nine per cent annual growth?
Prime Minister: Indian economy has been affected by the global slowdown. Before the global slow down our economy in the previous four years was increasing at an annual rate of nine per cent per annum. Last year, because of the global slowdown the growth rate declined to about 6.7 per cent. This year we expect the growth rate to be 6.5 to seven per cent. In two to three years’ time, I am confident that the Indian economy can bounce back to the growth rate of about nine per cent per annum. I say this for many reasons. Our savings rate is about 35 per cent of our GDP. Our investment rate is about 37 per cent of GDP. With these savings rate and investment rates, we can sustain a growth rate of nine per cent without difficulty. With an investment of 37 per cent and the capital output ratio of four is to one we can easily attain the targeted growth rate of nine per cent per annum, which I expect we will do in the next two to three years.
Question: How do you see the situation in Pakistan? In this context what can be done by India together with Russia and other friendly nations to effectively contain international terrorism in your area?
Prime Minister: Russia has been a great friend of our country. It has stood by us through very difficult times. We face in the subcontinent the onset of terrorism aided, inspired and instigated by our neighbour. Russia and India can work together to devise effective counter-terror strategies through coordinating our intelligence and information system. We can help each other because Russia like India has also been the victim of terrorism. We also believe that Russia being a great power can influence the conduct of Pakistan. Our hope is that Russia’s influence will be utilised to convince Pakistan that the strategy of using terror as an instrument of state policy is counter-productive, it runs counter to a policy of good neighbourliness. On our part, if Pakistan territory ceases to be used by terrorists, we see immense opportunities for our two countries to work together in cooperation. There are immense opportunities of expanding trade, investment and technology flow between our two countries.
Question: Mr. Prime Minister, Russia and India have in the past had very large deals but mainly in the defence area. Today we have certain problems, especially with Admiral Gorshkov and other areas, with the defence deals. Are you going to be discussing these and also looking at newer businesses perhaps in the nuclear domain to build nuclear power plants and also enhancing the civilian business between the two countries? >>>
In my talks with President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, I hope to have an indepth discussion on all aspects of our relations. For several years now trade and investment ties between India and Russia have lagged behind. The trade target of US$ 10 billion that we are likely to achieve in 2010 is well below our potential, given the size of the Indian and Russian economies. We need to widen our trade basket, and promote greater investments in each other’s countries. Pharmaceuticals, Information Technology and diamonds can become areas of future growth.
During the recent meeting of our Inter-Governmental Commission in Moscow, the energy sector was identified as a thrust area of cooperation. We would in particular like to see further progress in the hydrocarbon sector, which has been under discussion for sometime. Indian companies have developed world-class capabilities and can work with their Russian counterparts in both upstream and downstream sectors. India’s energy needs are vast, and this area offers huge potential for win-win cooperation.
India and Russia have a history of close collaboration in the area of civil nuclear cooperation. New opportunities in this sector are opening up, and we would like to see greater Russian participation in our nuclear energy expansion programme. We must revitalize our cooperation in the cutting edges of science and technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and transfer of high technologies. Defence cooperation is a key pillar of our relations. We would like to strengthen it, and move towards joint design, research, development and manufacture.
We will also be discussing regional and global issues, particularly the situation in Afghanistan, terrorism, climate change and measures to revive the global economy.
Question: Your visit to Russia will coincide with the closure of the Year of India in Russia, which gave many Russians a chance to learn more about the rich Indian cultural heritage. What do you think about the role of culture as well as people to people contacts in general in building relations between our two countries?
Prime Minister: The Year of India in Russia this year, and the Year of Russia in India last year provided the people of both countries an opportunity to better understand modern India and modern Russia.
India and Russia enjoyed a strong tradition of people-to-people exchanges until the late 1980s. Russian thinkers, writers, painters, and artists have had a profound effect on India, just as our scholars and artists have had on Russia. We are keen to revive this tradition by promoting greater number of exchanges between our parliamentarians, media personnel, academics and scholars. We must in particular focus on promoting exchanges between our youth, who need to have much greater exposure to the achievements of each other’s countries. In my view, this is extremely important because both our countries are undergoing rapid transformation, and we should not be bound by old stereotypes.
Question: India actively participates in such formats as RIC (Russia-India-China), BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China), G20 etc. what is the significance of such multilateral mechanisms in the new global architecture? >>>
Transcript of Indian PM’s interview
Question: For many decades, Russia and India have enjoyed friendly and strong relations while the whole world has witnessed drastic changes. Do you feel that there is the need for adjustment in international relations in order to meet the challenges of modern times? And what could be the role of Indo-Russian relationship in this context?
Prime Minister: The India Russia bilateral relationship has been growing from strength to strength ever since we first established diplomatic relations in 1947. We view our relationship with Russia as an enduring friendship that has stood the test of time. Our relations with Russia enjoy a strong national consensus in India. The people of India can never forget the help and support we have received from Russia in difficult moments of our history.
India, like Russia, has sought to respond to the changes in the international system through different ways, including by broadening our engagement with the rest of the world. Our objective in India is to create an external environment that is conducive to meeting the developmental aspirations of our people, and to address the key challenges of our times - the global economic and financial crisis, energy security and climate change, terrorism, and reform of global institutions of governance. We are however clear that our growing engagement with the rest of the world cannot be at the cost of our time tested ties with Russia. Russia is an important factor of peace, stability and security in the world.
An effective response to the regional and global challenges we face demands that both India and Russia further intensify their Strategic Partnership. As two large pluralistic democracies undergoing rapid economic transformation, we share many common interests and have similar viewpoints on global issues. During my visit to Russia I propose to discuss with President Medvedev the steps we can take to raise our Strategic Partnership to the next level.
Question: Our countries are strategic partners with an already broad range of cooperation lines. Which new spheres, to your mind, should be explored from the point of view of cooperation opportunities? What are the priorities of our relationship for the nearest future that you are going to discuss with the Russian leaders?
Prime Minister: The India-Russia Annual Summit is the principal vehicle to advance our Strategic Partnership. Every such Summit has contributed to this process. It involves discussions on a broad range of subjects from bilateral cooperation to collaboration in international fora and discussions on global issues of common concern. >>>
Incidentally, Putin had previously asked that punishments not be overdone. But in his opinion, some people had received their just deserts. Putin did not avoid a question about Khodorkovsky and instead made a sensational announcement. He was the first to publicly announce that the money from the sale of Yukos assets was used to create the Fund for Reforming Housing and Public Utilities, and added that "already tens of millions of people have benefited by having their houses and apartments renovated and that 150,000 people will be relocated from slums into new buildings." In other words, ill-gotten gains were used to help the poor.
Putin steamrolled over the "richies" in response to a question about the scandalous occurrence in Switzerland in which a Russian citizen crashed a Lamborghini and seriously injured a local pensioner. Putin reminded the audience that there are such phrases as "nouveau riche." And then he came out with another aphorism - "...in Soviet times some tried to show off their wealth. Some people would put golden caps on their teeth, preferably the front teeth, to show their level of their prosperity. Lamborghinis and other expensive bric-a-brac are the same as golden teeth."
Finally, Putin decisively refused to share his plans for the future with the audience. He answered a question from a student about whether he would run for president in 2012 with a question: "How about you?" The young man was at a loss for words and shook his head. Putin would not confirm his candidacy and limited his answer to an indeterminate observation: "I'll think about it, there's still time." He even gave some advice to politicians: "You cannot tie everyday work to election campaign interests, since this binds your hands and feet and renders you incapable of making unpopular decisions.
By the way, in answer to the direct question of possibly quitting politics, Putin answered tersely but eloquently - "Don't hold your breath." Judging by the telecast, nobody is holding their breath.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Nikolai Troitsky) - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin spends more and more time interacting with the Russian people with each passing year. He set a record in 2008 - three hours and eight minutes. On December 3, 2009, he surpassed this record by conversing with people for four hours and two minutes.
Over 2 million questions were sent to the prime minister via telephone, text message and e-mail through the website www.moskva-putinu.ru. Obviously, not even one in a hundred could voice his or her question. Natural selection was necessary.
The organizers of the event are absolutely wrongfully accused of using pre-groomed people to ask the questions. It does not matter whether people off the street would ask an "inappropriate" or "wrong" question. Many years of practice have shown that the prime minister has a repartee for even the most pointed remarks. Unfortunately, most of the citizenry are generally incapable of formulating their own questions. Even with coaching, time and time again people lose their composure, stammer or get their words confused.
At the same time, Putin was asked harsh and hard-hitting questions. He answered these calmly, in a philosophical and pensive manner, even somewhat phlegmatically. He is not given to populism. He did not make any vociferous personal promises such as offering to help fix a roof or lay a gas pipeline to a village. He also did not pledge any extravagant gifts such as an invitation to the Kremlin's Christmas celebrations. He only wished one Tatyana Romanenko a happy birthday at her own request.
Russians have been known to request such trifles. Everyone knows that Russians prefer going straight to the top, over the heads of local government representatives. However, Putin has carefully and even elegantly rerouted such petitions, solicitations and applications back to the regional and municipal level. But more often than not, he did promise to confer with the governors of the region in question, but about the problem in general and not individual cases. He had a "talking-to" with the head of the Irkutsk Region about the low salaries of kindergarten employees, with the governor of Chelyabinsk about hospital closures in Magnitogorsk and with the head of the Leningrad Region about the troubles with social organizations in the town of Pikalevo. In addition, he admonished people that "not all problems can be solved from Moscow" and half-jokingly admitted that he was willing to travel to any region of Russia if it would help resolve a situation.
Putin spoke out on nationwide issues. For example, he let it be known that he is categorically opposed to any excessively radical reform of the police. He brought up the fact that Ukraine dissolved the traffic police and "nothing good came of it." He said that bribes increased and driving conditions worsened.>>>>
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - The Russia-NATO Council will still hold its meeting on December 4 despite Canada's intrigues and the super energy of Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin.
This is the first foreign minister level meeting since NATO suspended contact with Russia after last year's Caucasian conflict. Russia did not mind the pause, considering that previous council discussions were not particularly practical. Even now they tend to be sluggish although the fiery Rogozin does his best to heat up the proceedings.
The current meeting was almost stillborn because Rogozin demanded that the council discuss a draft of the new treaty on Euro-Atlantic security, which has already been dubbed in the West as the Medvedev project, and even to produce a document based on the discussion.
NATO believes that some of the draft's provisions are aimed at clipping its wings or even encroaching on its very existence. Although President Medvedev said during his visit to Italy that this is far from being the case, some of the said provisions could be interpreted in this way, which is always possible with any broad treaty on a new European security architecture.
The draft should first be analyzed by the foreign ministries and capitals of the countries involved. It is too early to discuss anything at this meeting. The Russian delegation started talking about a possible failure of the first Russia-NATO ministerial meeting.
In a bid to stop Rogozin's offensive, Canada's envoy announced on NATO's behalf that if Russia continued to insist on discussing the draft, Ottawa would block the adoption of any related documents at the council's meeting. The United States and the European countries were simply not comfortable with setting this demarche.
Good news came from Athens where Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his OSCE counterparts. Surprised to hear questions from journalists about the meeting, he said that to his knowledge it will take place as scheduled. NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen confirmed this on the same day.
In general Rogozin is right. The council was established in May 2002 to discuss many issues, including confidence- and security-building measures in the Euro-Atlantic region. Until recently Russia's communication with NATO has not been very good. Mostly, the parties simply informed each other about their opinions. Very little practical work has been done. So, there is nothing wrong in Russia telling NATO what it thinks about European security.
Moreover, Russia can expect a fundamental change in NATO's stance after the Caucasian pause now that President Barack Obama has announced his decision to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 34,000.
At today's meeting the Europeans promised to add 5,000 troops to this number. After the announced increases the U.S. contingent will be almost 100,000-strong. The contingent of NATO and countries which are not part of the alliance (42 countries, including Georgia and Kazakhstan, have combat and non-military units) will grow from 38,000 to about 43,000. Counting the Afghan army and police, the anti-Taliban front will have about 300,000 troops. This is ten times the Taliban's tentative strength.
This force has to be supplied, and it is easier to do this through Russia, which is interested in allowing NATO and the United States to use its southern corridor because the coalition's military presence is restraining the activities of militants at Russia's southern borders.
Every year, the United States alone saves about $180 million by using this channel to supply its troops in Afghanistan with ammunition, food and medicine and to transfer troops and equipment. When it increases its contingent, it will be saving over $200 million per year.
Russia was not happy to open its territory to the coalition last year because this automatically turned it into a target of Islamic extremists. For this reason, it has the right to demand from NATO at least political "reciprocity" and at least some semblance of real partnership. For the time being, NATO seems willing to revive its partnership with Russia on a limited basis and with the only goal of facilitating efforts in Afghanistan.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Q: Could you describe Russia’s position on climate change in more detail?
A: Russia recognises the need to counter anthropogenic climate change, because 90% of climatic change is man-made. All countries, except for the poorest ones, should contribute funds and work to reduce emissions. Therefore, the United States, Japan and European Union countries should dramatically reduce their emissions. Russia is working on this as well, and will soon decrease emissions by 25% compared to the 1990s. China and India should commit to lower their carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP, and all other developing countries should also follow suit. However, these countries need money for this. This is a catch-22 and will be the main issue in Copenhagen.
Q: You have already mentioned the financial aspect. What else can we expect from this conference?
A: I think they will make a decision on providing immediate aid to the poorest and most vulnerable countries. I believe they will also formulate the general provisions of the new protocol, and will specify where and when it will be signed. But I don’t think it will be signed at this meeting.
MOSCOW, December 4 (RIA Novosti)
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20091205/157103926.html
Ahead of the Copenhagen international conference on climate change, Alexander Kokorin, the head of the Climate and Energy Programme of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Russia, spoke to RIA Novosti.
Question: An international conference will begin on Monday in Copenhagen to discuss climate change and a new Kyoto Protocol. What issues will be discussed at the conference, and what issues will be the most problematic?
Answer: The main issue will of course be a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and the most problematic issue will be the financial part of the future agreement, the details of which have simply not been worked out. At their meeting in Scotland, G-20 finance ministers agreed that this issue was very important during the crisis, but admitted they were not ready to make specific commitments. Tens of millions of dollars will have to be spent in the next ten years, and the ministers have to adopt a schedule of spending these funds during this period. The largest developing countries will be unable to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions without a schedule. China will certainly be able to do this, but India, Brazil and Indonesia will not, in which case the efforts of Europe, the United States, Japan and Russia to reduce their emissions will become pointless.
Therefore, the conference is not likely to produce a financial agreement. One more year will be required for that, and we will most likely see an agreement in 2010. It is very important for the conferees in Copenhagen to make a political decision on where and when the new protocol will be adopted next year. The word &ldquo
rotocol” is very important here because it implies that the document will require ratification. Experience shows that financial commitments to UN resolutions that do not require ratification are often not met. But financial issues are the issues that matter the most.
Q: What about Russia?
A: Russia has become a world donor. It gives money to the Global Environment Fund, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, although at present its contributions are very small. Russia has less money than other G8 countries, and this is an objective fact. Therefore, this is almost a zero-sum game for Russia. President Dmitry Medvedev confirmed that Russia gives some money and will continue to do so, but it no longer receives anything from international financial organizations or other countries. I don’t think it is very important for our president to go to Copenhagen for this reason. The meeting will be attended by the leaders of the 80 poorest countries, which need immediate aid. Climate change will not be disastrous for Russia. These leaders want to ask Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy or Taro Aso to postpone signing the protocol but give them money immediately. This will be the main issue at the meeting.>>>
Ha ha ha
Gala, Gardian approves also, that it was made by Russian hackers!
Dmitry Kosyrev, RIA Novosti political correspondent. Strictly speaking, it is not clear why Barak Obama needs to disclose his long-awaited new strategy for Afghanistan, why he needs to travel to West Point to do so, and so on. After all, everything down to the minutest details is already public knowledge.
Right down to the way he’ll be dressed (in an ordinary suit instead of camouflage, the White House announced – it was George W. Bush who loved playing soldier). It goes without saying that the time of his appearance is also known. And the content of his speech, of course, which the leaders he phoned beforehand know, including Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the leaders of Germany, the UK, India, China and others. And it is clear that the American public has also been informed beforehand.
The number of additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan is also known –34,000 (there were disputes within the administration over a “range” from 10,000-40,000).
But it is not a matter of numbers, and the significance of Obama’s decisions is not only in that military presence will be increased. Obama’s main objective is to state the goals and purpose of the entire campaign – goals with an exit strategy that will leave behind a normal country for the Afghans themselves. In order to accomplish this, with U.S. help the Afghan army and police will be enlarged to the proper strength (from 90,000 to 134,000 next year alone). The Afghans will also have to gradually bear the burden the war themselves.
The next item on the agenda is possibly the most important. This is the role of Afghanistan’s neighbors in the coming events. The U.S. is asking them (Obama is smart enough not to demand) to create a “new system of relations” in the region, based on the principles of non-intervention and with growing economic and cultural ties with Afghanistan.
Pakistan is not simply a neighbor, but a key participant, if not the object of the entire military operation. Therefore, Pakistan is being offered expanded strategic partnership on the condition that the Pakistani military play a key role in military operations against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or whatever it is they’re calling it this week.
This is really interesting, because it will take herculean efforts on the part of the U.S. in the large region of South and Central Asia, and will require an active U.S. military presence there, which broadly speaking, means a sea change in global politics. And then, if we follow Obama’s military logic, the U.S. will evidently stay in the region – even though the military may leave. But the U.S. will have to learn to work differently than it has recently in places such as Iraq or Uzbekistan.
In general, if the U.S. wants to succeed, it will have to learn a great many things.
Therein lays the specific significance of the entire event, and of all of these months-long mental contortions within the U.S. administration, which are now coming to a close with an almost ritualistic speech by the President at West Point. The U.S. will need to re-learn how to behave on the world stage, or else it will fail again. The political class and the country’s educated class in general understand that these subjects urgently need to be discussed. And such discussions are already taking place. For example, The Washington Post has listed previous examples of “nation-building” (and this is the specific thinking on what is being done in Afghanistan – that a new nation needs to be built from scratch). And it lists Kosovo and East Timor as models of such “nation-building”; in other words, the most wretched and disastrous stories of the ‘90s. However, the discussion is only beginning.
Of course, traditionalist Americans and Conservatives are for the moment setting the tone of the discussion, trying to prove that the U.S. was, is and always will be right, and that failures happened because of coincidences and trifles. If such-and-such hadn’t happened, we would have won the Vietnam War and the Korean War before it… Well, if the debate is not suddenly ended, then it will go on for a long time and, we hope, change the U.S. after all.
But nobody is expecting the U.S. to restrict its activities to within its own borders. Somalia, where the U.S. decided to cease operations after 18 servicemen died (in 1993), is currently being mentioned often. Now the veterans of that operation are saying that if efforts equal to today’s Afghan campaign were applied, something could have been achieved. After all, there’s no way to hide from the fact that the 1993 operation was necessary and that Somalia should have been dealt with earlier rather than later, just as Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be left to their own devices.
In these efforts, the U.S. is irreplaceable. The changed, grown-up U.S. will be supported by many countries and forces in the world, which must only be ruled jointly.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Moscow. (RIA Novosti political correspondent Andrei Fedyashin) – Starting today, December 1, Greater Europe will live under a new Constitution. It took eight years to adopt and nobody dares use the term “constitution” officially because it was so difficult to adopt it. They prefer to call it the “Lisbon Treaty on reform.”
The Lisbon Treaty, which has changed the decision-making process inside the European Union (EU), granting more authority to a Euro Parliament, has ardent supporters and no less ardent opponents. The former believe that it promotes the process of European integration whose voice will be heard from Beijing to Washington. The latter think the treaty does not resolve what its critics call a “shortage of democracy” in the EU.
The introduction of the new charter will make life easier for the bureaucrats in Brussels. They started working on it in 2001 and in the process made drastic changes to the charter documents on the structure of the EU and its institutions, and on EU membership. Ireland twice held a referendum on the treaty. Last year it rejected the treaty but this year it approved it by an impressive majority on October 2.
To understand the reasons behind the new standards and rules of conduct in the EU, we must recall that the need for reform became urgent in 2004. Since then and through 2007, the number of EU members increased from 15 to 27. The biggest wave of EU expansion included Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Estonia, that is, almost the entire communist bloc. Two former people’s democracies -- Bulgaria and Romania -- also joined the EU in 2007.
The new members were eager to partake of European prosperity. They brought a lot of manpower but failed to understand the Western way of life in the EU, and displayed too much arrogance using the opportunity to vote and block any decision inside the EU. The new members received much more from Europe than they gave it, excluding actual territory. They had a strange interpretation of the correlation of their rights and duties. They demanded a political voice, which did not correspond in any way to their economic, financial, demographic or territorial weight, not to mention their service record.
Brussels makes all major decisions on the basis of consensus and the EU veterans, primarily France, Germany, Italy and Spain felt that they were no longer perceived as such. The fact that countries with as little as four or even two million people can block any decision in a community with more than 500 million people began to appear absurd. This flaw of European democracy had to be corrected.
Today, the new EU officials assume office: former Belgian prime minister Herman Van Rompuy, was chosen EU president and Catherine Ashton of Britain the EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (foreign minister). The latter said instantly that she will conduct “quiet diplomacy.” Well, neither Paris, Berlin nor London (where the Tories are bound to come to power next year) will let her conduct a “loud diplomacy” (Lady Ashton is a staunch Labour supporter).
The new EU leaders are not likely to change much in Russia’s relations with the EU. Our problems with the EU can only be resolved on the national level, through talks with any of the 27 member states. Neither Mr Rompuy, nor Baroness Ashton can do much in this respect. Mr Rompuy’s first responsibility is to balance the complicated relationships within the EU.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Next year, in accordance with a decision made at the 15th OSCE Ministerial Council in November 2007, Kazakhstan will preside over the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Thus, a former Soviet republic will occupy this position for the first time. Under the circumstances, it would be natural to expect Kazakhstan to do all it can to consolidate its positions on the world arena. Its officials have already announced their intentions to include illegal immigration and drug trafficking on the OSCE agenda, problems that are particularly relevant for all CIS countries.
In 2002, the OSCE established political stability and economic development in Central Asia as one of its priorities. The OSCE has paid close attention to this region over the last few years for a number of reasons, the most important being the war in Afghanistan and the persisting threat of destabilizing neighboring countries.
A second, no less important reason for the growing European interest in the region is its energy resources, most of all in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.
For this reason, the European Union views Central Asia as a single political, economic, historical and cultural region characterized by high instability.
During his visit to Kazakhstan in late March 2006, the then OSCE Chairman Karel de Guht from Belgium described Central Asia as a vital region for the OSCE and Kazakhstan as a very important country within that region. In April 2007 the subsequent OSCE Chairman from Spain Miguel Angel Moratinos visited five Central Asian countries and also placed special emphasis on Kazakhstan. The fact that every new OSCE chairman visits Astana shows the importance the Organization attaches to relations with Kazakhstan.
What advantages does Europe hope to gain from such cooperation?
Economic issues occupy the first place. Europe is trying to diversify its energy supply channels, and is thus very interested in gaining access to Kazakh oil and Turkmen gas. This affects such projects as the Trans-Caspian pipeline, Nabucco and further development of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
However, Kazakhstan is ready to cooperation with Europeans on a whole number of different issues. Thus, Astana suggested establishing a special agency in the region to counter illegal immigration. This proposal was made by the then Deputy Minister and now Executive Secretary of the Kazakh Foreign Ministry Rapil Zhoshybayev, who stated that “Central Asia could become one of the OSCE outposts in dealing with global threats and challenges, such as illegal immigration.”
Indeed, it is possible to achieve tangible results in this area with assistance from the Kazakh government. Channels of illegal immigration into Europe and the rest of the world originate in Asia. A considerable number of illegal immigrants from South and Central Asia arrive in Russia and Ukraine.
Countering drug trafficking is the second European problem which Kazakhstan can help resolve. Drug-trafficking routes are similar to those of illegal immigration: Afghanistan – Central Asia – Kazakhstan. International experts believe that Afghanistan has accounted for 96% of the global heroin production over the last few years.
High-ranking OSCE officials have repeatedly discussed this problem with Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. They agreed that the OSCE will do everything it can to help Kazakhstan suppress this social evil, in particular, by establishing special centers for treating drug addiction in the country.
An agreement on setting up a Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Center for combating the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs (CARICC) under UN auspices in Alma Ata was signed in September of this year at Nazarbayev’s initiative. The Center’s aim is to organize, facilitate and coordinate international operations to suppress illegal drug trafficking, and to ensure the collection, storage, protection, analysis and exchange of information on the issue. The agreement was signed by the presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.
All these initiatives attest to Kazakhstan’s attempts to make the most of its year in the OSCE presidency in order to consolidate its positions as a regional leader, to say the least. Astana also wants its presidency to produce concrete results rather than be a mere formality. In particular, Kazakhstan is planning to use the presidency to carry out its initiatives on international security.
It should be emphasized that this approach is receiving an equally warm response in Europe. After a ten-year break, Europeans particularly like the idea of convening an OSCE summit. France, Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Russia and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly have already backed this proposal.
During his recent visit to Kazakhstan, OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut called this proposal a very good idea. “The summit can give the Organization new momentum and contribute to a strengthened stability in the region. Kazakhstan can serve as a model for many other nations. This particularly concerns the Kazakh leader’s policy in an area of interethnic and interfaith relations,” he said. Brichambaut expressed hope that Astana’s forthcoming OSCE presidency would open up new prospects for the Organization and contribute significantly to its development.
Leonid Gusev, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies at the Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations, for RIA Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20091202/157067548.html
The first phase of the ongoing military reform to overhaul the structure of the Russian Armed Forces as well as its troop control and recruitment processes officially ended by December 1, 2009.
The reform, which covers all fighting services, remains controversial in terms of necessity and effectiveness.
The army is the first service to be overhauled.
Despite previous reforms and troop cuts, the Russian army has remained a scaled-down version of the Soviet Army, which was primarily intended to conduct a large-scale war with prior general mobilization. Except for some postwar changes, the Russian army's structure has also remained virtually the same since 1945-1946. Four-regiment divisions were the main tactical units, while the recruitment system aimed to swell troop strength in wartime. But, a hypothetical large-scale non-nuclear conflict remains far-fetched. Besides, any local conflict can be won without resorting to mobilization.
So, what will the Russian army look like after the current reform?
The entire chain of command is now being revamped. The previous system comprising military districts, armies, divisions and regiments is giving way to another system that will consist of military districts, tactical commands and brigades.
The brigade structure seems to be more flexible and better suited for local conflicts because divisions are too cumbersome and regiments lack the required weaponry and equipment for conducting independent operations. Army brigades are supposed to be used as mobile permanent-readiness units capable of fighting independently with the support of highly mobile task forces or together with other brigades under joint command.
Moreover, each military district will establish rapid-deployment brigades from the airborne force's units.
The results of the reform are not yet very encouraging. A check of military units conducted by the General Staff shows that 60% of army brigades received C grades, 33% of units got B grades, and not a single brigade was given an A grade.
The inadequate readiness of military units can be explained by the transitional period's problems, insufficient personnel training levels, the lack of modern military equipment and other factors. All these problems should be tackled at the same time as the army's conversion to a new recruitment system to promote the latest in the training process.
The armed forces' personnel structure will also be overhauled. At the beginning of the reform, officers accounted for over 30% of military personnel. In fact, over 400,000 out of the 1.2 million men and women in uniform were officers. The post-reform armed forces will total a million men and women, including not more than 150,000 officers (15%).
Officers serving with logistics support units, headquarters of various levels and generals will be affected most of all, while the number of lieutenants and senior lieutenants will increase from 50,000 to 60,000.
At the same time, professional sergeants and sergeant majors will be trained, playing a far more important role than they do today. Career sergeants with a long service record will make it possible to quickly and effectively train contract soldiers and conscripts. Unfortunately, professional sergeants are currently being trained at a rather slow pace.
The new armed forces structure calls for gradually reducing the number of positions held by conscripts. However, this objective has not yet been accomplished. Most army units have a mixed recruitment system stipulating 12-month service commitments for conscripts. This does not enhance combat readiness either.
The Russian air force will also be restructured. In 2010, the air force will comprise seven tactical commands to replace the four operational air armies.
Four tactical commands will control tactical aviation and army aviation units, while the remaining three will be given authority over strategic aviation, military transport aviation and aerospace defense units. These commands will control air bases and brigades of the air defense force. The above brigades will receive various air defense squadrons (units) depending on specific objectives.
Although this approach implies an enhancement to the air force's tactical and strategic flexibility, the success of this concept remains in doubt, especially if we consider the ageing air force fleet and its slow modernization pace.
Many other specifics should be clarified including the level of up-to-date equipment, combat training standards and confirming that armed forces armament needs are met.
At the same time, the Russian Defense Ministry does not prioritize media coverage for the reform's concepts, progress and prospects. Consequently, the reform remains a mystery to most Russians, including military personnel.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik)
-
-
- George Monbiot
- guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 21.00 GMT
- Article history
It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists
Pretty hard to do, Ken, when the news is manipulated in such a way as to produce results contrary to the actual events as they occur. Most of those so-called media reporters seem to forget that their job is to report the news, in an unbiased fashion, and instead of that they make a strong bid to create the news. Just listen to the way Katie Kouric interviews people and you'll know what I mean. I don't trust the press from any country, and I certainly don't trust the television news journalists. As for Obama not being qualified, he is exactly the president that we and the world need right now. It was Bush and his shenanigans that got the world and the USA into this pickle. People should back off and let Obama try his best to get us out of it. If John McCain and Palin had won instead of Obama, we'd probably be bombing Russia right now instead of talking with them. Same goes for China. Right now, the USA, Russia, and China are in agreement on Iran; do you still admire that maniac in charge of Iran, even after the wicked way he dealt with the protestors over his corrupt re-election process? If you do, then I guess you think Hitler was a pretty good guy, too.
It's like failed marriages Dana. Instead of any effort being put into concentrating on what constitutes a successful marriage constant communication is focused on fearing what makes marriages fail. Spiritual leaders and other leaders in the past faced the same dilemma we face today. Usually they were killed for attempting to make sense to societies. Our current president did not have the leadership abilities for the job which showed during the campaigns. Right now people in this country wait in long lines for a former VP candidate who probably is game playing to run for the next president. She only wrote a book and the public makes choices with that mentality which is the identical mentality that our current president got voted into office with.
Of course if people are kept fighting they don't unite for a better way to live. Myself I see the news similar to being a father where I paid attention to behaviors so I could reason in a manner of making decision to lead the directions of behaviors to better behaviors.
Primarily, I just wish that both reporters and politicians, all over the world, would just shut up and keep their opinions to themselves, instead of feeding the fears and frenzies of people who neither have a hand in what is going on or have any way of controlling it. Eight plus years of bad policy and horrendous miscalculations were inherited by the present government and people expect immediate results. That is unrealistic, and there are so many loop holes in the laws on the part of Congress. Pork barrel ear-marked spending should be ruled illegal; lobbiest' who work for special interest groups should be made illegal as they are a huge part of why Congress functions as it does, which to this observer is mostly politic as usual: if I'm a Democrat and you're a Republican, and vice-versa, well then, my party comes before the interests of the American people, unless of course you want to pay me a large sum of money to vote in favor of your interest or to kill the other guy's bill. That is the secret government operating in this country and that is why nothing positive ever gets done. The last administration was totally corupt; at least this one is trying to do the right thing. If they fail, it is not for lack of trying. The deck was already stacked against them before they took office and any swearing of oaths was taken. I have seen much to admire on the part of our President that barely gains mention in the press. Instead, they focus on his popularity rating and how it has slipped since the election. TO HELL WITH THAT! Start looking at the facts and stop reading the stupid press and their opinionated biases. Nobody is perfect, least of all heads of state, but at least let us give credit where credit is due.
This post was modified from its original form on 01 Dec, 22:33
"in anticipation of the new strategy old American officials are discussing Afghanistan with their Russian counterparts as if George W. Bush were still in the White House."
This line from the article concerning Afghanistan, India and Pakistan has similar lines showing up in other news articles also. I've formed the opinion that we might've changed people in office in this country but kept the same old agenda.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev) - During a parade on the embankment of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) on the anniversary of last year's hideous terrorist attack, the police showed new weapons and armored vehicles.
The parade followed the route of the terrorists, passing by the city's two best hotels and the famous railway station, which looks like a huge Catholic cathedral.
Last year ten young people, well-trained and armed to the teeth, arrived by boat from neighboring Pakistan and killed 166 people in the course of 60 hours.
It was a unique act of terror, which called into doubt our ability to stop such actions as a seizure of a city center by a small group of people.
This terrorist attack did not affect India's domestic policy. The ruling Indian National Congress has won the general elections. Surprisingly, no major changes have taken place in India's foreign policy but the reason for that is simple: any attempts to counter the threat emanating from Pakistan seemed pointless.
During this anniversary Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh paid a visit to Washington D.C. He told the American audience that when Pakistan was ruled by the military leader Pervez Musharraf, who was not an ardent champion of democracy, it was at least clear whom to call. This is no longer possible now that Pakistan is ruled by President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, who are not on very good terms.
Needless to say, India broke off political dialogue with Pakistan. After an exchange of letters between New Delhi and Islamabad, which lasted for months, Pakistan finally charged seven people with "complicity" in the events in Mumbai. One of the ten terrorists (others were killed) will go on trial in India.
However, there is no guarantee that these actions will help the world reach its main goal, which Singh described as "the destruction of the infrastructure of terrorism."
It appears that nobody knows how to attain this goal. The unprecedented 9/11 attacks in New York and the massive act of terror in Mumbai originated in the same barely controlled part of the world. For all the reservations about their names, Al-Qaeda, which was in charge of 9/11, and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was behind the Mumbai attacks, are links of the same chain. It is believed that this chain was set up by Pakistani secret services, and not without participation of their American colleagues.
Indians maintain that the Pakistani military could easily destroy the infrastructure of terrorism and should be encouraged to do so. The weak Pakistani government should be given some guarantees of survival after doing this.
Americans were much more radical in their moves. They simply occupied Afghanistan after the war in the winter of 2001-2002. The results were negligible in both cases. There is no guarantee against new major raids in any part of the world. There are places like Somalia, where people limit their activities to such trifles as piracy on one of the world's busiest routes by sheer accident. Nobody knows how to cope with these problems.
At any rate, nobody knew this in the strange transitional world which emerged in the 1990s - an uncontrollable world of illusions about the "only super power" and globalization under one and the same pattern. It is obvious now that this world will never come back but it is not clear what system of global management will replace it. It is being created by test and trial before our eyes.
The anniversary of the act of terror in Mumbai is an excellent illustration of this process because on that day U.S. President Barack Obama met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington D.C. Their conversation primarily revolved around Mumbai, Pakistan and terrorism. Obama is expected to announce a new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan on December 1, and it will have nothing to do with retreat or withdrawal. India, a key country in the region, did not take part in U.S. policy before, but this absurdity had long been obvious.
It is not yet clear what the two leaders agreed on in Washington. Obviously, the United States is no longer on Pakistan's side. Now Americans and Indians are fighting terrorism together. India is grateful to Obama for his role in putting the Pakistani "suspects" on trial. The United States alleviated India's discontent after Obama's visit to Beijing, where some statements were made about China's role in the Afghan-Pakistani context. India still distrusts China, which is a weakness on its part, and had to be reassured on this score.
Singh is going to visit Moscow in the near future. It will be interesting to see whether his negotiations in Russia will concern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moscow is seriously concerned about Washington's vague position on Afghanistan. Americans are making some general statements about cooperation, but in anticipation of the new strategy old American officials are discussing Afghanistan with their Russian counterparts as if George W. Bush were still in the White House.
For the time being we do not see any outlines of regional or global policy on what is the main source of the universal threat. Nor do we see anything similar to a precedent, which would help us deal with this threat. Should it be countered with peace, war, occupation or reforms? But something is happening. And that is the difference with the desperate stalemate a year or two ago.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
However, the issue of the “new development model” is certainly a central one. President Medvedev rightly made it a core point of his speech. But he probably erred when he bluntly attacked state corporations. That their management can be improved is an obvious fact. But their privatization is not the solution.
First, one has to wonder why Russia has developed these state corporations after having privatized most of its industry in the previous decade. The reason is obvious. Private investors have been unable and/or unwilling to develop these industries. One can discuss the reason why, but it is a fact. The development of some key industries has to be done by the state or not at all.
Second, one has to reckon with a simple fact: in Russia only the state has the financial power to develop some sectors. We can understand why we ended up in this situation. People’s savings were destroyed twice in the 1990s. They could not support large investment funds. Savings are made only through export revenues, which are either channelled directly to the state budget through taxes or indirectly through state enterprises.
Third, the possibility of floating state corporations looks very remote today. Foreign investors will be much more interested by short-term investment. By the way, some of these corporations are far too strategic to be left to foreign investors.
What Russia is now facing is a form of the “Dutch Disease.” This explains why private investors are reluctant to invest outside export sectors. The main clue is the exchange rate of the ruble. In real terms, according to the Central Bank, it increased by nearly 50% from January 2005 till June 2008. The crisis brought a sharp devaluation, but not an enduring one. We are now again at more the 35% than the January 2005 value. In such a situation, it will be very difficult to develop industries other than in the raw-materials sector.
This overvaluation is directly the result of the liberalized currency exchange system, and a strong state sector is an attempt to compensate for this exports-induced overvaluation.
Actually, only a return to a current-account only convertibility system, with some exceptions for long-term foreign investment but also the creation of a special exchange sector for exporters, is able to support the modernization policy on the scale and scope envisioned by President Medvedev. But, he has been silent on this issue…
Jacques Sapir, Professor of economics and Director of the CEMI Research Center at EHESS (Paris)
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
President Dmitry Medvedev’s speech of November 12, 2009, has attracted a lot of interest. He spoke out for a “modernization” drive of the Russian economy. This was not the first speech on this topic, either by Medvedev or by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and this speech was an elaboration on his “Forward, Russia” article. Even so, delivered during the solemn “Address to the Nation,” it was a very significant event.
President Medvedev’s made “modernization” the spinal chord of his whole intervention. It is beyond doubt that the modernization issue is a vital one for Russia and certainly there are a lot of very positive things said in this speech. There is no doubt that production and exports of commodities have assumed too large a role in the economy. There is no doubt that the process of innovation, and the process of bringing innovation in the productive sphere, is not developed enough in today’s Russia.
There was too a focus on energy efficiency. The Russian economy is wasting energy on a giant scale, and the president rightly acknowledged this. The shift toward a true energy-efficiency strategy is an important one for Russia and, to the contrary to what is frequently thought, is certain to be much profitable. Energy wasted today could be sold tomorrow. By the same token, nobody can deny that corruption is widespread in Russia. Certainly, the time when the ugliest crimes were related to the economy is a past era. But corruption has been and still is a burden for Russia.
However, for all its positive content, there are many points unanswered and many questions left open.
First of all, the speech embarked onto the now fashionable opposition between “old” and “smart” industries. But things are much less clear-cut. There are considerable opportunities for innovation and high-technology processes in so-called “traditional” industries. In the production of steel or aluminium one can introduce modern and even high-tech technologies. The development of biotechnologies does not take place in isolation from agricultural production. Biotechnologies are extremely important in the development of new ways of processing food, but also in deriving new products from traditional ones like combination of alimentation and medicine. It is also obvious that in some industrial sectors, like carmaking and aerospace, the application of new technology is extremely important.
As a result, the necessary drive toward new, high value-added, technologies will not take place in isolation with the development of “traditional” industries, but much more complementarily with them. By the same token, it is not true that Russia’s industry has been stagnant in recent years. The rise in labour productivity is actually proof of the contrary. In the non-extractive industry, from 2003 to 2008 we have seen a rise of 148%. In construction, the increase was 169.6% and in transport and communications, 152.4%; as a whole, global economic productivity increased by nearly 145%. There has been progress outside the oil and gas industry.>>>
No one questions the importance of good personal relations between national leaders. The challenge is not letting international relations depend entirely on the personal relations between the respective leaders.
Putin did not go to France to build contacts between Moscow and Paris. Foreign policy is in fact the president’s prerogative. He has come to lay the economic foundations for the smooth development of political relations between the two countries.
International relations should not depend on a specific person sitting in the Kremlin or the Elysee Palace. They should develop consistently and independently of any individual leader. The term might sound undiplomatic, but presidents and prime ministers should in fact become “hostages” to the positive changes achieved by their predecessors, as has always been the case with France.
Russian-French relations have never been all that smooth. On the other hand, since Charles de Gaulle (who was always a friend of Russia), they have seen no major ruptures either. He never believed any idiotic rumors about Russia, even in the Soviet era. When he was in Moscow in 1966, his wife, Yvonne, told him at dinner that Russians could add some mysterious poison to meals which would kill a person in five years rather than immediately. He told her, laughing, that at their age it was a risk they could afford to take, he was, after all, 76 years old.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti
>
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is meeting with his French counterpart, Francois Fillon, in Paris to lay the economic foundation for political relations.
The Rambouillet Palace, where the two heads of government will meet, is having a “Russian day.” Vladimir Putin has brought a series of commercial proposals from Russian businesses, and Fillon is expected to respond with proposals of his own. By the end of this day, the talks will have resulted in a dozen economic agreements. All this would have sounded much less special had it not been for the scale and potential consequences for their economies and foreign relations alike.
Reports that one possible subject under discussion could be the French helicopter carrier ship deal, have already worried Georgia and the Baltic states. Mistral-class assault ships are truly exceptional; without going into too much technical detail, the French navy calls them the “Swiss army knives” due to their wide range of functions.
The Baltic states are concerned that Mistrals could be used against them, and Georgia certainly has no desire to see the ships near its waters. Meanwhile, the Russian navy’s top officials are well aware, without openly admitting it, that Russian shipyards will not be able to equal the Mistral for quite a long time to come. They also know that they need to replace their old warships.
While Mistrals will not be the prime focus of Putin’s visit, they will be its highlight. They alone do not justify flying to Paris. Nor would it have been appropriate to take such a large group of business leaders to France just to buy one helicopter carrier. The delegation includes the heads of nearly all Russia’s oil, gas and energy producers, automakers, aircraft builders, banking and finance institutions among others. The complete list would take up a whole page.
This visit is expressly commercial; it could be likened to Peter the Great’s Great Embassy to Europe, only it is purely commerce-oriented. They are expected to sign around 25 major agreements in various areas of business. Renault will agree to patch up AvtoVAZ; France will become a partner in South Stream; Total may get access to Russian energy markets, etc.
Most importantly, all the agreements signed will be for the long term. In previous meetings, Russian and French leaders have repeatedly talked of “coinciding strategic interests.”
However, all these noble thoughts of developing areas of mutual interest will mean nothing unless real action follows. This may sound contrived and dogmatic, but which of the two counties’ interests could really coincide? The answer is none, except probably their efforts on climate change. The rest is a myth, unless we consider fighting marine piracy a coinciding interest.
Even after the election of new EU leaders, Russia-Europe relations will not change. There are no big problems between Moscow and Brussels. There are some problems between Russia and particular EU countries that need to be resolved bilaterally, rather than on a supranational level. Similar issues have been successfully tackled with Germany and Italy, the same process is underway with France.
This does not mean that Russia wants to split the European Union. Moscow supports the EU’s ambition to speak with one voice, but only wishes that this voice could also consider our interests. Until it does, we have no choice but to protect and further our national interests through bilateral contact.
France is one of the leading countries in the European Union; therefore, many of the EU members, especially in Eastern Europe, are concerned by our bilateral approach.
Before France’s most recent round of presidential elections, Russia again tried to decide which outcome would better suit its interests. The conclusion then was that Nicolas Sarkozy was the worse option, because of his pro-NATO orientation. However, it soon became clear that things were not all that bad and that Sarkozy was not, after all, so NATO-oriented.
Then the questions became more complicated and daunting: which combination is better, Putin-Chirac or Medvedev-Sarkozy? The names and titles could be changed or swapped here, the essence will not change.>>
MOSCOW. (Andrei Fedyashin, RIA Novosti political analyst) - It has finally happened, something the Swiss government so feared, something that made all European governments apprehensive: in a national referendum, the people of Switzerland backed a ban on building new mosque minarets.
Although, at 53%, voter turnout was not all that high for Europe's only direct democracy where all decisions are taken through nationwide voting, its repercussions are bound to thunder across Europe.
The paradox is that the people of Switzerland didn't forbid Muslims praying in mosques (or prayer houses, of which there are about 150 in Switzerland). The ban only affects the construction of new minarets in addition to the current four.
In 2005, a publication by Danish Jyllands-Posten of a series of 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad sparked protests in Muslim nations and a boycott of Danish products, which stripped the country of $1.2 billion worth of trade with Muslim countries.
However, the Danish case differs from the Swiss one, even though they might seem similar. The Danish government and people stood up for the freedom of press to represent a variety of opinion, whatever form that might take. The Swiss case looks more like a blow to freedom of conscience and religious freedom.
Switzerland annually earns over $10 billion from business with Muslim countries. Around 170,000 people from the Gulf visit the country every year. It would be naive to think that these guests would take this attack on their fellow believers calmly. After all, Denmark didn't get away with it.
What is most surprising about the news is not the fact that it happened, but where it happened. Switzerland is the most cosmopolitan country in Europe. It has given refuge to political and religious outcasts for decades: a paradise of neutrality and the utmost political correctness.
The "minaret riot" in Switzerland is on the other hand is in alarming alignment with the pan-European spread of populist protests against "Muslim expansion" to Europe.
According to estimates, Switzerland is currently home to 350,000-400,000 Muslims, or 3.5% of the country's 7.7mn population - mainly immigrants from Turkey and the Balkans. This is not unusual in Europe. According to the EU data from June 2009, around 20 million Muslims lived in 27 countries of the European Union, where the total EU population is 500 million.
European analysts, however, admit that it is impossible to determine the accurate number of Muslims in the EU. Since this is usually done through questionnaires that are filled out voluntarily, many may or may not admit their relation to Islam. There have been rumors in Europe that its Muslim population could grow to 40% or even 50% by 2025.
Many analysts question these forecasts: the birth rate among Europe's Muslim population is falling steadily. Perhaps because they adopt European habits.
After the high-profile minaret referendum, many European governments are thinking hard how to prevent the "Swiss syndrome" from spreading to the part of their population which do not yet think Muslims are a threat. No one now doubts that Switzerland was a bad example for the rest of Europe.
The outcome of the referendum is evidence of significant changes underway in the European political stage and attitude to religious tolerance. But Europeans alone are not to blame for it.
One should bear in mind the statements that are often made on the other side of the line: some not only leave the audience dumb-founded, but also make one doubt whether these politicians themselves are aware of their potential consequences.
The anti-immigrant Swiss People's Party, or SVP, which sponsored the initiative, carried outrageous pro-ban posters, showing a black-veiled figure of a woman standing next to a Swiss flag (with white cross on red background) poked through with missile-like minarets. This was supposed to demonstrate what awaits Switzerland. The party did not pluck this idea out of thin air. A few years ago, the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, made statement saying that minarets were the bayonets of Islam. How does that fit with the concept of religious tolerance?
Finally, if one small but powerful right-wing party in a direct democracy so skillfully maneuvered the Swiss through the referendum, essentially by substituting the minaret issue with the attitude toward religion and race, then isn't something awfully wrong with that democracy? If one party can easily insert a primitive populist idea in the nation's minds, and stir them into action, then where is Europe going?
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Iran has again shocked the world by sanctioning the construction of ten more uranium enrichment plants, five of them immediately.
The decision confirmed the general fear that Iran is carrying out secret nuclear development programs. If not, it would have needed more time to select construction sites and prepare project documents.
Iran made the fateful decision after the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) approved a resolution on November 27, 2009 according to which Iran violated several crucial provisions by starting the construction of a second uranium enrichment plant at Qom.
The resolution reads, in part: "Iran's declaration of the new facility (...) gives rise to questions about whether there are any other nuclear facilities under construction in Iran which have not been declared to the Agency."
It further reads that "Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol (1997) nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues of concern," such as the Green Salt Project involving uranium processing and the designing of a ballistic missile warhead, as well as the testing of high explosives and high-voltage equipment for activation of HE detonators.
The IAEA resolution is not a binding document, but its approval is evidence of Iran's growing political isolation. It was supported by 25 of the 35 countries represented on the Board of Governors. Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted against it, while Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Brazil, South Africa and Egypt abstained.
Tehran's reaction to the resolution was clearly exaggerated for several reasons.
First, Iran thought it could act with impunity because the lead countries do not have a majority on the IAEA Board of Governors. This is why in the past Iran insisted that its nuclear file be returned to the IAEA, thinking that this would protect it from "Western pressure."
Second, Iran has been stealthily working for several years to complement its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz with several other such plants, including the nuclear facility near Qom. The IAEA inspectors who visited it wondered if its construction began earlier than Iran claims it had, and suggested that Iran likely has other such facilities.
Now Tehran has deliberately decided to aggravate its relations with the IAEA. While formally agreeing in October to remove 80% of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) in exchange for fuel for its nuclear research center in Tehran, Iran started impeding the implementation of that presumably advantageous deal.
The IAEA did its best to take Iran's interests into account and proposed compromise solutions. Therefore, only a deterioration in relations with the Agency could allow Iran to keep the accumulated LEU reserves. The resolution was a good excuse for doing this.
Tehran is clearly working consistently to develop a full nuclear cycle as the technological basis for producing nuclear weapons. It so far wants only to have the ability to create nuclear weapons, but will it stop when it gets it? This is a question of fundamental importance for the neighboring countries, including Russia.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that Tehran will stop at the red line. In the past, it did not create nuclear weapons because the United States and/or Israel threatened to physically liquidate its nuclear facilities. But now the U.S. is busy planning its gradual withdrawal from Iraq and trying to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. As for Israel, external political influence has become unfavorable in terms of using military force against Iran.
Therefore, the international community can only encourage the UN Security Council and other groups of countries and individual states to approve sanctions against Iran.
There is still hope that Iran will not sever relations with the IAEA because it does not have enough natural uranium for its projects, it is badly short of modern technology (especially in the gas sector), its aircraft and physical plant have long become obsolete, and social problems are growing in scale.
Given these conditions, the international community should demonstrate flexibility with the right timing and start to gradually integrate Iran into the international economic system and subsequently into international political relations.
Vladimir Yevseyev, Ph.D., is a senior researcher at the International Security Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO).
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Vladimir Yevseyev for RIA Novosti)
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The Japanese government has approved a document declaring the South Kurils an occupied territory.
On October 17, Seiji Maehara, Japan's transport minister and state minister in charge of Okinawa and the Northern Territories, said Japan should continue its demands that Russia return the Kuril Islands and called their seizure an "illegal occupation."
"The Northern Territories" is Japan's term for the four South Kuril Islands - Kunashir, Iturup, Shikotan and Habomai - held by Russia.
The Russian Foreign Ministry immediately issued a note saying that Japan's position on the issue is unacceptable to Russia.
The South Kurils are a crucial economic asset because the seas around it are swarming with fish and other biological water resources, and Russia will never give up tens of thousands of square miles of its exclusive economic zone.
Also, it is a matter of national prestige to Russia, which received the islands as a winning country after World War II (1939-1945), which was a kind of revenge for losing the 1904-1905 War with Japan.
The islands are also crucial for Russia's defenses because their straits give Russia's Pacific Fleet access to the high seas. The Tsushima and Sangar straits are controlled by other countries, while the straits of the central and northern Kuril Islands, located farther north, are mostly underdeveloped.
If Japan takes over the South Kurils, Russia will lose the ability to control the entry of foreign surface ships and submarines into the Sea of Okhotsk, the combat service area of its Pacific Fleet's strategic submarines. This would give a potential enemy an opportunity to mount equipment to monitor Russian submarines and sink them in case of a military conflict.
The Kuril problem looks slightly like the problem of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, which came to a head in 1982 when Argentina and Britain started a war over the disputed islands. Argentina has always used the Falklands and the fight over them as a trump card allowing to distract public attention from internal problems.
The current situation in Japan is fundamentally different from the situation in Argentina in the 1950s-1980s, although the South Kurils could theoretically be used to redirect public wrath to an external enemy.
The situation will persist until Russia modernizes and expands the military and economic infrastructure of its Pacific regions, which need new warships, bases, airfields, aircraft and other equipment. More than that, they need human resources, people who would live there permanently instead of going there to work in shifts.
Japan is building up its armed forces. Its conventional forces are now bigger and stronger than the Russian military group in the Far East, and Japan's air force, army and navy have considerably more cutting-edge weapons and equipment.
On the other hand, Russia has a group of almost invulnerable nuclear submarines and long-range aircraft in the Pacific area, which, together with nuclear weapons, reliably protect Russia's Far Eastern regions from potential attacks. However, their influence is not unlimited.
A military potential means nothing without a strong political will, and if Japan - or any other country - one day understands that Russia does not regard any of its territories as sufficiently valuable to fight for them, the result will be dramatic.
The problem of the South Kuril Islands could be made an issue of peaceful talks - for example, talks on cooperation in developing natural resources - if Russia says unequivocally that Japan can gain sovereignty over the islands only if its starts and wins a war against Russia.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
On November 23, gold hit $1,174 per troy ounce in morning trading in New York before December contracts fell back but still added $18 on the session to $1,164.80 per troy ounce.
The previous record-breaking $1,164 per troy ounce, posted by Hang Seng, the leading index for shares traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, did not last a week.
Gold prices have soared by 32% since early 2009. The greatest increase was posted in the third quarter. Since early fall, gold prices rose by 24%. A troy ounce may cost over $1,200 before the year is out.
According to analysts, current gold-price hikes imply that the bottom is about to fall out of overheated speculative markets.
Economic problems or fears are always followed by frenzied precious metals demand. The previous "gold fever" began just over a year ago when the global financial and economic crisis was in full swing. In September 2008, global gold sales skyrocketed, as scared investors and private individuals rushed to buy gold bullion, coins and jewelry. The United States Mint even doubled gold coin production.
This is hardly surprising because gold becomes the bulwark of stability and an attractive investment option when the banking system is unstable, and when stock markets bottom out almost every day.
A year ago, analysts predicted that investment in gold would remain the most reliable short-term option, and that a troy ounce would cost over $1,000 by late 2009.
Although the economy differs from that of last fall, this forecast has now come true and analysts predict further gold price increase.
The economic crisis is receding, and analysts claim that the downturn will end soon and the global economy will start to recover. A barrel of oil has cost at least $60 in the past six months.
However, there are several reasons for buying gold. First, the jewelry industry needs more gold than before. The World Gold Council (WGC), an industry association of the world's leading gold mining companies, established in 1987, estimates that third quarter demand has increased by 17%. However, WGC statistics imply that the investment demand of private and institutional investors, including banks and investment funds, is a major factor affecting rising demand.
What are speculators afraid of? Some analysts are confident that an increasingly weaker dollar and predictions that it will continue to sag are forcing them to buy gold. Moreover, inflation is bound to increase as the recession ends.
Other analysts believe that speculators want to diversify their investment fearing further economic upheaval, all the more so as a second wave of the crisis has been predicted.
According to Yevgeny Fyodorov, chairman of the Russian State Duma's economic policy and business committee, the global economy will be hit by another all-out economic crisis, rather than a second wave in this recession, in the next three to five years because global economic problems that caused the current downturn remain unsolved.
Igor Nikolayev, director of the department for strategic analysis at FBK, one of the first private auditing firms in Russia, said rising gold prices heralded the upcoming crash of speculative markets.
Most countries decided to invest in the financial sector, viewing this as a core anti-crisis measure. Those banks which received budgetary funding placed surplus liquid assets on commodities and stock markets, thereby inflating new financial bubbles. According to Nikolayev, such bubbles will start bursting in the next three to four months.
"Speculators are becoming nervous in the run-up to stock market crashes and start investing in more reliable assets," Nikolayev said, explaining investors' interest in precious metal.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Vlad Grinkevich)
You mentioned Georgia. Is there still a potential threat coming from the Saakashvili regime?
Yes, the unfriendly political regime led by Mikheil Saakashvili stands at the helm in Georgia and its army has been working with combined NATO assistance to strengthen its muscle after its failure in August 2008.
Over 22 NATO and several other countries helped arm Georgia before it attacked South Ossetia. For example, Israel supplied unmanned air vehicles. It later asked forgiveness from the Kremlin and promised never to supply UAVs again. However, the chief of Israel’s main intelligence agency recently admitted officially that Israel is again supplying UAVs.
But they are acting within the framework of international law, aren’t they?
Certainly. When I analyzed the issue of Ukraine’s military supplies to Georgia, and when we found documents of the Ukrainian parliament’s special commission which undeniably showed that Ukraine supplied weapons and specialists to Georgia, Ukrainian politicians said: “Sorry, but Ukraine has a military technical cooperation agreement with Georgia.”
And this is true. The supply of weapons to a country adjacent to Russia immediately sets into motion other mechanisms – mechanisms of political morals. The Ukrainian air defense missiles supplied to Georgia were used to kill Russian servicemen, down Russian aircraft, and murder peaceful South Ossetians.
Russia has nothing against military technical cooperation between Ukraine and Georgia, but it also understands the meaning of this cooperation. These two countries have been working hard to get into NATO, and are doing their best to prove their worth. Everyone can see this. Intelligence data, unofficial information and statements all point in this direction.
What has Moscow done in this situation? The Russian president said we should draw proper conclusions, thereby hinting that Russia could apply economic sanctions. I can understand this – when the United States dislikes a country where Russia supplies weapons, it immediately uses sanctions against that country.
Which types of weapons is Russia relying on now?
Russia is using every achievement in the world that could be interesting and expedient in the military sphere. The Russian S-400 air defense missile system is certainly one of the best in the world, and we are now completing the S-500 system. Although the process is very difficult, the much-lauded U.S. Patriot can’t hold a candle to the Russian system.
This also means that Russia’s military technical potential is very strong even though 8,000 Russian scientists have emigrated in the last 18 years. Not all of them are working for the military, but some 20% are surely strengthening other countries’ defenses.
As for new types of weapons, we are now actively using tank protection systems. When an enemy missile is fired at a tank, the tank protection system intercepts and destroys it. Foreign intelligence services have been watching our efforts closely over the last 18 years, buying one bit of the project after another. This is evidence that Western military highly value Russian achievements.
Our guest today is Colonel Viktor Baranets, a military commentator from Komsomolskaya Pravda daily. Welcome, Mr. Baranets.
Global security is a key issue today. How has the world changed? How have weapons needed to guarantee security changed? Which weapons should we rely on if we abandon a policy of nuclear deterrence?
Globally, the temperature of confrontation of Russia and its allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization with NATO has been falling. However, the only practical step taken by the United States within the “reset” policy is its refusal to deploy ballistic missile defense systems in Europe.
It was a positive signal, yet we have likely been too optimistic about it. Barely two hours after President Obama announced the decision, it was said that we had misunderstood him, and that the United States would do it, but a bit differently.
Moscow is closely monitoring the situation, but still, the decision not to deploy ABM systems in Europe is a very serious positive signal.
As for nuclear confrontation, you know that the global trend was to gradually cut nuclear weapons within the START-1 and START-2 treaties. We are now working hard on a new treaty, which will cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,200-1,500 per side.
This move could be interpreted as both nuclear parties’ decision to lower the nuclear threshold – theoretically. However, in practice we cannot reach an agreement with the U.S. on the rules of the game. Secretary of State Clinton made a statement during her visit to Russia which could interest only professionals, or which only professionals could notice. She said they would allow Russian officers to inspect U.S. nuclear arsenals.
What does that mean? Under the treaty, an American commission inspected Russian arsenals, and a Russian commission went on a similar mission to the United States. And it turned out that Russia liquidated warheads in compliance with the treaty, while the sly Americans stored the scrapped warheads, which created the serious problem of “return potential.” The U.S. can take warheads from storage and mount them on a missile, which puts Russia at a big disadvantage.
The negotiating teams are now focused on rapidly drafting fair rules for the game because we are tired of being duped.
A few words about the latest Russian statements on nuclear weapons. Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council, recently made a series of high-profile statements, one of which frightens our foreign partners. He said that since Russia has nuclear weapons it also has the right to use them as it deems necessary, and also that it reserves the right to deliver preventive nuclear strikes.
Some Western critics immediately said this means that Russia will deliver blows at whomever it wants. But the idea is that Russia has not only intercontinental missiles but also other types of nuclear weapons – tactical missiles – as well as weapons that interest other countries the most, small nuclear charges. I believe it was these nuclear weapons Mr. Patrushev was referring to.
It was a hint to Georgia that if Russia fails to repel another potential aggression it may consider delivering a nuclear strike. It would not be a strike that pulverizes half of Georgia; it would be a strike delivered within the limits of expediency, only to stop the enemy.
In general, nuclear bargaining has never stopped, and nuclear weapons have always been the core of the Russian armed forces. Nuclear weapons are the umbrella giving Russia a historical chance to reform its armed forces. If not for nuclear weapons, Russia would have been treated quite differently in the world especially since foreign intelligence services are not sitting on their hands. They cleverly analyze the real situation in the Russian armed forces, which are halfway to a new destination and are undergoing radical change.
The main thing is that possession of nuclear weapons allows Russia to restructure its armed forces. Taken together with petrodollars and mineral resources, this allows Russia to advance progressively, even though it is making some mistakes in the process. Military reforms have provoked contradictory views in the expert community both in Russia and abroad.>>>
Vladimir Chizhov, the Russian envoy to the European Union, expressed cautious optimism about the future of Russia's relations with the EU, which will begin its administrative reform on December 1.
Commenting on the results of the recent Russia-EU summit, Chizhov noted that Moscow does not want a specific energy agreement with the EU right now because it hopes for a new treaty that would "reflect the principles of cooperation in the energy industry."
This means that Moscow has not given up its hopes of a new partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA) to replace the 1994 treaty between Russia and the EU, both of which have since changed significantly. All attempts to work out a new treaty have been in vain. In 2007, Poland used its rights as an EU member nation to veto talks for a new treaty, and new problems have since come up in Russia-EU relations.
Moscow apparently believes that now that the EU administrative structure has changed, it will be impossible to block progress on the treaty. This assumption is most certainly based on the new decision-making process stipulated by the Lisbon Treaty. After December 1, a decision will be adopted if supported by 55% of EU member states that account for at least 65% of Europe's population. The fact that the countries that want to work with Russia are mainly the big powers of Western Europe, such as Germany, Italy and France, gives Russia hope that progress will be made on a new PCA with the EU.
However, I'm afraid these hopes are doomed to failure. First, this new decision-making process will replace the current one only in 2014. Second, a new treaty, if signed, will need to be ratified by the parliaments of all 27 EU members, at least four of which, namely the Baltic states and Poland, have always been Russia's inveterate opponents.
Russia can hardly rely on the assumption that Herman Van Rompuy, the new EU president, and Catherine Ashton, the EU's first High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, will be able to persuade the obstinate EU member nations. Van Rompuy's function is to coordinate these governments' interests rather than give orders to them or, heaven forbid, their parliaments.
To avoid even the slightest abuse of the new officials' modest powers, European power brokers deliberately chose colourless people to the posts of president and foreign office chief, namely the little-known Van Rompuy and Ashton, and passed over the charismatic Blair. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso even emphasized his displeasure at calling Van Rompuy president after the latter assumes office on December 1.
It is most likely that Gunnar Wiegand, the European Commission's Director for Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Central Asian Republics, will again represent the EU at the talks over a new PCA agreement with Russia. True, his directorate will probably be incorporated into the supreme foreign policy body of the EU that will be headed by Ashton. But it will be the European Council (that is, the governments of EU member nations) that will shape the policy of this body for the most part, while the European Commission will retain certain functions.
Real progress on a new PCA will be possible when EU bureaucrats change their perception of Russia, and cease to regard it as a hazardous country and economic rival that must be kept out of Greater Europe. In other words, the EU must revaluate its entire ideology in relation to Russia, rather than replace a few high-ranking bureaucrats.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Dmitry Babich)
www.rian.ru
On the night of November 20, something unusual happened on board the Alrosa, a B-871 submarine that served in Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
According to the available information, the submarine's propulsion system malfunctioned during a training exercise, causing it to break down.
The exact circumstances of the breakdown and its consequences are still unknown; however, the incident with the B-871 submarine once again draws attention to the critical situation developing in the modernisation of the Russian navy's Black Sea Fleet, in particular regarding its submarine forces.
At present, the Black Sea Fleet nominally has two submarines - the B-871 Alrosa from Project 877B, which was commissioned in 1990, and the B-380 Svyatoi Knyaz Georgy, built in 1982 and currently undergoing long-term repairs. In reality, taking into account that the B-871 is now out of commission (for how long is another matter entirely), the Black Sea Fleet does not have any operating submarines.
The situation can justifiably be called critical. There are three Project 677 diesel subs currently under construction for the Russian navy. The prototype Project-677 submarine, Sankt Peterburg, was launched in 2005. The submarines of this project were intended to replace the Project 877 submarines, which are Warsaw Pact relics manufactured in Soviet times.
But there were problems with the commissioning of the new submarine. The submarine was supposed to be launched back in 2007, but the navy has not approved it yet. A number of experts hold that this is evidence of serious problems with both the submarine and the project as a whole.
The critical nature of the situation has allegedly led the Russian navy to look into augmenting the fleet by buying Project 212 German submarines. It is hard to say how realistic this scenario is, but even talk of possibly buying foreign submarines clearly shows that there is a crisis in submarine building in Russia, which had always been a leader in the field.
A similar situation is developing with the surface fleet. Extremely long construction times are compounded with the small number of units being built. There are currently three Project-20380 corvettes being built, as well as one Project-22350 frigate and a number of ships of other classes. Construction times for the ships reach, and often exceed, 10 years. If construction of new ships continues at this rate, Russia may be left entirely without a surface fleet by the early to mid-2020s.
There is currently much talk about the possibility of buying a Mistral-class, amphibious assault ship from France and building several more of this type of ship at Russian shipyards. Certainly, new amphibious assault ships would be very useful for the fleet and would expand its capabilities considerably. Aircraft carriers would be even more useful, and there has also been much talk about building them.
Nevertheless, it should be understood that neither the amphibious assault ships, the aircraft carriers, nor the nuclear missile cruisers, that are planned to be reintegrated into the fleet with new weaponry and equipment, will be able to perform in combat without support. This support needs to come from both warships of other classes and the large number of auxiliary vessels and costal services, without which the fleet is merely a paper tiger.
The situation with implementing state defence orders is objectively better than it was 10 years ago. The army is getting new tanks, infantry combat vehicles and armoured personnel carriers. New helicopters are being manufactured and old aircraft are being upgraded. Contracts have been signed for the delivery of new aircraft and many other items. But the navy remains the most underfunded branch of the Russian armed forces. It is experiencing an acute lack of funds both for building new ships and other necessary hardware and for supporting its very existence.
That being said, even a sudden infusion of the necessary funding will not enable the situation to change for the better in the short term. Updating the navy will require sustained and considered efforts by various industries over several decades. Only then can we hope for tangible results. And finally, implementing such measures will require a distinct manifestation of an unwavering political will.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik)
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (Andrei Fedyashin, RIA Novosti political commentator) - Greater Europe still has a week before December 1, when the Lisbon Treaty takes force and its so-called new life begins. The newly-elected full time president and foreign minister of the European Union now have only a few days to get adjusted to their new roles.
Nevertheless, the bureaucratic machine in Brussels is running so smoothly that Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton, who start their work today, will hardly have any problems with that.
As is often the case with important European political decisions, the results of the Lisbon Treaty have only begun to show after the initial euphoria has faded. After all, it took the Europeans nearly four years to ratify the treaty with all its amendments and additions. Nevertheless, many questions remain.
"Who is the happiest person in Brussels today?" journalists asked a high-ranking official from the European Commission in Brussels on Monday. "[Manuel] Barroso is the happiest guy in Brussels," said one EU official. "He can't believe his luck."
Mr Barroso, chairman of the European Commission, was re-elected for another five-year term in 2009. Mr Barroso's position in the EU is equivalent to that of prime minister, and he will keep all of his executive powers, including control over the large European bureaucracy, its financial and staffing decisions, and preparations for all important meetings and negotiations. He will also remain responsible for the talks on climate change, trade and economic issues, and relations with the G20.
It does not require much imagination to guess as to why Mr Barroso is so happy. His team is not even trying to hide their glee. Many years ago, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger asked the rhetorical question "Who do you call if you want to call Europe?" Mr Barroso's supporters have provided an unequivocal answer: "Manuel."
But this certainly does not mean that former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy will be a mere talking head with a big salary. He will simply be responsible for different goals.
He was not elected to increase Europe's influence in Washington, Moscow or Beijing. One shouldn't delude oneself on this account. His election will not change Russia's relations with Brussels in any way. There are issues between Russia and Europe which can only be addressed at bilateral talks with each of the 27 EU members. Neither Mr Van Rompuy nor even Baroness Ashton of Upholland will be able to do much here.
Mr Van Rompuy was elected to resolve so-called internal issues. He is known in Belgium for his ability to overcome differences and negotiate compromises. Thanks to him, Belgium was able to maintain balance and stability during its interethnic tangle between the Dutch-speaking Flemish population and French-speaking Walloons. His departure will leave Belgian politics with a gap the country will find difficult to fill anytime soon.
Now Mr Van Rompuy will help to bring together the 27 governments of the European Union, which are constantly arguing on just about everything. This does not mean that all the internal disagreements within the EU will disappear on December 1; they will more probably still be there on December 1, 2010. However, with Mr Van Rompuy at the helm, there is hope for faster and less painful resolutions.
The new triumvirate in Brussels will still have many relations to build, of course. But both Mr Van Rompuy and Ms Ashton are considered very competent in their respective fields, even if they are not widely known outside their own countries. Mr Van Rompuy may have spent only one year as Belgian prime minister, which is not long. But he has not made a single political enemy outside his small country during this time, which is a great accomplishment for any politician.
The country that will benefit the most from the new appointments is Germany. It was Chancellor Angela Merkel who convinced her main European ally, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, to focus on internal European politics rather than on the international arena. Merkel could even be called the godmother of the post-Lisbon EU configuration.
This does not mean Europe is becoming more isolationist. But it does mean that from now on the EU will focus on resolving internal problems and disagreements between members. Chancellor Merkel was also the one who insisted on electing these obscure politicians, who also happen to be neither German nor French. European officials are now beginning to fight for EU commissioners' posts, and both Berlin and Paris will certainly want these positions for their representatives.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev) - Hamid Karzai's second presidential inauguration took place as planned, with tough security measures and in the presence of high-ranking officials from the United States, Tajikistan, Iran, Russia, Germany and Lithuania, among others.
Importantly, at a meeting with the re-elected president a couple of hours before the ceremony, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke about Moscow's readiness to render economic and moral support to Afghanistan.
During Karzai's first presidency, the majority of Russian analysts described him as an American puppet whose power was limited to Kabul. Cooperating with a country which thrived on drugs and was actually occupied by U.S. troops was considered pointless. Like in Iraq, Americans were the only ones who could get contracts.
However, now the situation has changed or is about to change. Russia is only just beginning to work in Afghanistan. For example, it is planning to rebuild the once famous House of Science and Culture, which will incorporate a health center for children.
Change is in the air because during his second term Karzai may be a different president. He has suddenly become a more influential figure with all due reservations.
This change was caused by the mistakes made by the Obama administration. The August 20 elections were followed by hysteria of the majority of the European and American public. They were seen as fake elections of a corrupt president due to Washington's failure to ensure certain standards. However, the voters in Afghanistan and their neighbors had a different view of these elections.
Under Karzai, a relatively prosperous urban community was restored in Kabul and some other cities. These people understand what elections are all about. The majority of other Afghans live in conditions of tribal democracy. It was important for them to see that Karzai was the strongest candidate. Hence, he should remain in power, despite the position's limitations. This is how the public reasons in dozens of countries, primarily in the Greater Middle East, regardless of whether the elections there are "real" or not.
Moreover, foreigners, above all Americans, were trying to challenge the elections and compel Karzai to hold a second round, which is humiliating and intolerable for any leader. But Karzai defeated America. It looked small when his rival Abdullah Abdullah refused to take part in the second round. This victory enhanced Karzai's prestige.
The facts, which surfaced on the eve of Karzai's second inauguration, largely explain why the Obama administration is so confused. It cannot decide what to do about Afghanistan, especially after the elections. By and large, American analysts say that the Karzai regime is corrupt, and for this reason nothing can be done about that country. Europe's attitude is pretty much the same.
Americans are charging Ibrahim Adel, Afghanistan's mining minister, with accepting a $20-million bribe for awarding a contract for a copper mining project to the wrong party, which means to somebody other than the United States.
The contract is worth $3 billion. Copper and other natural resources can well replace the opium poppy as the foundation of the Afghan economy. And yet Afghanistan has sold one of its key industries to a Chinese company.
Kabul insists that China left America behind in an honest tender, by offering better terms. The Americans claim that the Afghan minister tacitly told the Chinese about the American proposal, and they immediately proposed better terms. Everyone who has experience of taking part in tenders can imagine this situation.
Now it is easier to understand why America is so critical of the corrupt Afghan regime, and why Transparency International has ranked it as the second most corrupt nation of the world (after record-breaking Somalia).
It transpires that Karzai is an astute ruler, who is trying to gain a foothold abroad. Incidentally, this happened during the last months of George W. Bush presidency.
Now it is more obvious why the Obama administration has found itself in a difficult position and cannot decide whether it should send 10,000 or 40,000 of American troops to Afghanistan.
Should American soldiers lose their lives there for the Chinese to be awarded key contracts? But, on the other hand, why should they sacrifice their lives in Afghanistan at all?
When Bush said that in a similar war in Iraq America was fighting for democracy and honest elections, his words were perceived as utmost cynicism, all the more so considering how the elections were held there. But even Obama's officials cannot say out loud that democracy is not an absolute answer to all problems in Afghanistan and the rest of the world.
Unless Americans and Europeans learn to be rational about their democratic religion and stop dismissing any discourse on this subject as sacrilege, they will increasingly lose their influence in the world, like they are now losing it in Afghanistan.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
RIA Novosti interviews Andrey Dyomin, President of Russian Public Health Association, on international No Smoking Day.
Question: November 19 is international No Smoking Day. Has any progress been made over the past twelve months with regard to the no-smoking policy? What’s new in this area?
Answer: We have been implementing the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Also, in Russia, there has been an important shift in the public discussion of smoking, as officials as well as the general public wish to know more about tobacco producers: who they are, what they want and what goals they have.
Russia’s Public Chamber has published a report that emphasized the need to monitor tobacco producers, insisting on their transparent operation and on tobacco industry denormalization.
This is an important shift from the earlier focus on smoking as a social phenomenon without considering the manufacturer’s role in the tobacco epidemic.
Smoking’s hazards to human health have been in the public focus since the 1970s. Later smoking was highlighted as a major risk factor, then it was tied to demographic problems. The idea of blaming the producers as those who make huge profits on smoking emerged only recently – Russians have now realized that the only side benefiting from smoking is the foreign tobacco industry, as 95% of tobacco production in Russia is controlled by foreign companies.
Q: But why is this so? What are the reasons?
A: The reason is that foreign tobacco companies have strategically taken advantage of two major crises in modern Russian history – the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 1998 default. They reinforced their positions in Russia during those periods. More than half (66%) of the foreign investment in Russia’s tobacco industry went to St. Petersburg, the Leningrad Region and Moscow. These three areas account for 80% of the profits from tobacco sales.
Q: Can you cite any statistics on how many smokers there are in Russia? Is their number growing or decreasing?
A: About smoking in Russia, I can give you the following figures. According to various reliable estimates, smoking is seriously affecting the demographic situation in Russia: 350,000-400,000 people die annually from smoking related disorders. According to WHO data, 72% of men are smokers, 30% of women, and 50% of children and teenagers. This year, a small downward trend is possible. But this does not mean that the problem has been resolved or that our efforts have been successful.
I would say the Public Chamber’s new focus on the impact of smoking on the country’s demographics is a positive step.
Q: Why is the number of smokers decreasing in other countries, and more people support a healthy lifestyle?
A: This is directly linked to the resistance put up by tobacco producers, who lobby their own interests. In Russia, for example, tobacco excise taxes are one-seventeenth of European or American rates. This is why our country is seen as a threat to many adjacent countries, because of cheap cigarette smuggling.
Another reason is advertizing. Foreign companies spend $1 billion a year to advertise their products in Russia, while the social advertizing budget is only $20 million. These figures are not comparable.
Q: Can you suggest a solution?
A: I think the only policy which could check tobacco industry growth is Russia is nationalizing the industry. It should also be subject to tight public supervision. The excise tax should be raised and tobacco advertising restricted.
Another useful policy would be to discredit the tobacco business as a career. As of today, many young people consider employment in this industry a good career opportunity. Salaries at tobacco companies are high – for example, a PR vice president at a large company can make 500,000 rubles ($17,500) a month.
In fact, many government officials are aware of the problem. But tobacco companies scare them with social unrest if people cannot buy their cigarettes.
Personally, I think the best idea is to nationalize the industry, and put it under the Healthcare Ministry’s control, the way it is done in Finland. As long as tobacco producers call the tune, we cannot do much to remedy the situation.
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - Russia still knows how to surprise the world. This was true long ago and is still true today.
At the Stockholm summit between Russia and the European Union on November 18, Russia promised European officials that it could reduce CO2 emissions by 20-25%, but only by the year 2020 and compared with 1990 levels. This may seem insignificant if one does not know that Russia previously promised to do the same thing, but only by 10-15%.
This promise was made only two weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which will be attended by 192 countries. What does it mean?
Let us recall that way back in the 1990s, Russia's industry was on the verge of total collapse. At the time, we could fulfill any emission reduction plans, and we promised to do so by signing the Kyoto Protocol. Reducing emissions at the time was not difficult.
And now a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012, must be found in Copenhagen.
But if we make such promises today, it means that either Russian industry is not at the level reported at the weekly meetings of the Ministries of Industry and Economic Development, or we do not understand the most basic laws of economic development very well. Our economy has become so energy-intensive that slashing emissions by a quarter will not only be very difficult but absolutely impossible. Or is our economy, on the other hand, so perfect that we can reduce emissions without negatively affecting its development?
China, for example, still refuses to make commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Up until recently, Chinese leaders have not even pronounced the words "carbon dioxide" and "reduction of industrial emissions" out loud.
According to the predictions of Chinese economists, the share of "mineral energy" in the country's overall energy balance will not fall below 70% in the next 10 to 20 years. But for such a large country, 10% is a considerable achievement.
It would be good to compare those figures with the Russian ones.
Incidentally, not many people know that currently China is not just one of the top polluters of the planet's respiratory system, but it is also leading the way in the search for alternative energy sources and technological solutions to clean up its coal power plants.
Russia cannot boast anything like that.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
Interestingly, and Ukraine has restored such trust. Or Ukraine not ðàññìàòèâàëàñü in this question also is guilty again Russia at once for all?
That is why that so conveniently and favourably!!!
The EU-Russia summit on November 18 is expected to take place in a positive spirit.
The European Union (EU) and Russia, which have endured energy discord for some time, have finally found a point of contact, notably, the Memorandum on the Early Warning Mechanism. On November 16 in Moscow, both sides signed a document which is designed to guarantee a failsafe supply of Russian gas to the EU countries.
At the Russia-EU summit in Khabarovsk six months ago, the energy dialogue between the partners seemed to have deadlocked. After the January gas conflict between Ukraine and Russia left many European countries without Russian gas, Moscow believed that the EU actually sided with Ukraine. European Commission authorities criticized Russia for unreliable gas supplies and Ukraine for questionable transit.
Both the EU and Russia drafted their own proposals for the May summit in Khabarovsk. Russia proposed a conceptual approach to the new legal foundation of international energy cooperation, which was designed to seal a provision on the predictability of energy sales. The European Commission presented a document, which mentioned the early warning mechanism for dealing with transit risk for the first time.
The sides failed to coordinate their proposals in Khabarovsk. In his concluding speech at the May summit, President Dmitry Medvedev emphasized the need to draft new agreements on energy security.
The EU and Russia continued their energy dialogue. Now, having cooled off from last year's gas conflict and in an effort to prevent a recurrence, they drafted the afore-mentioned memo.
They signed it only two days before the regular EU-Russia summit scheduled to take place in Stockholm on November 18. Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko and EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs signed it in Moscow on November 16.
The early warning mechanism is a package of measures aimed at providing advanced estimates of the possible risks in the supply of and demand for energy products. It provides for prompt response to emergencies, and is designed to prevent an interruption in gas, oil, coal and electricity supplies.
Piebalgs explained that the new document lays out a warning system, procedures for experts, measures to prevent potential supply interruption and a vehicle for implementation.
Shmatko praised the document: "It envisions bilateral measures by Russia and the EU to warn each other about possible risks and apprehensions, and launches a mechanism for coordinated action."
"This is our bilateral document but the transit countries are well aware of it. It is not directed against them, but indicates our consolidated position on preventing interruptions in energy supplies," he said.
Shmatko explained that the document does not stipulate any sanctions against third countries but provides for a coordinated joint action to prevent interrupted supplies. Piebalgs believes that timely payments for Russian gas by Ukraine are the only outstanding problem but that this can be resolved.
Indicatively, Ukraine responded to the memo on November 17. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pyotr Poroshenko said Ukraine is planning to follow suit and sign an agreement on preventing energy crises with the EU.
Despite references to numerous technical measures, the memo is sooner a diplomatic document, and points to an improvement in the relationship between the two biggest energy partners, none of whom needs a new gas conflict this winter. By and large, Ukraine does not need it, either.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic correspondent Oleg Mityayev)
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic correspondent Maria Selivanova) - The struggle against corruption in Russia is, more often than not, fictional. There is practically no real progress, which is borne out by the results of the annual report published on November 17 by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International.
Instead of comprehensive efforts against corruption, there are occasional "token" court processes, exchange of mudslinging and endless anti-corruption rhetoric. Meanwhile, the situation with corruption is only worsening. According to data from the Russian Interior Ministry, the average amount of a bribe has increased by 250% in the past year.
Transparency International uses the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) to calculate the level of corruption among state officials with the values "0" (a high level of corruption) to "10" (almost no corrupt officials). In 2009 in Russia, this index was at 2.2 points versus 2.1 points the previous year. As a result, the Corruption Perceptions Index put Russia in 146th place out of 177 countries. Last year, it was in 147th place.
"These results cannot be called respectable," said Yelena Panfilova, director of the Transparency International Center in Russia. "Russia also had the worst result among G20 countries, a group of which Russia is a full-fledged member.
The INDEM Foundation estimated that in Russia $318 billion per year is paid in bribes to officials. Kirill Kabanov, chairman of the National Anti-Corruption Committee, came up with a similar figure of $300 billion per year. The loss of such amounts makes modernization of Russia's economy or any scientific and technological breakthroughs quite problematic.
It is no wonder that in last year's address to the Federal Assembly, Dmitry Medvedev said, "Corruption is modern society's Public Enemy No. 1."
Panfilova insists that it is time to move past the embryonic stage of fighting corruption when anti-corruption laws are enacted, and actually apply these laws. Moreover, corrupt officials should be punished regardless of rank or position - after all, corruption spreads from the highest corridors of power.
Non-governmental organizations need to actively participate in counteracting corruption. But none of the Russian laws describes the concept of civil oversight in and of itself.
"And the reality is such that non-governmental organizations are perceived as enemies," added Panfilova. A significant portion of such structures is occupied with problems of simple survival. The officials themselves, regardless of all their corruption-fighting slogans, are really hindering this fight.
For example, on November 13, 2009 in Doha, at a meeting of countries party to the UN Convention Against Corruption, Russia blocked the adoption of a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Convention by countries that are parties to it. The mechanism that frightened Russian officials so much entailed conducting independent inspections of the level of corruption by countries that had signed the convention. It also prescribed the participation of civil society institutions and public discussions of findings.
"The Russians used the terms 'protecting sovereignty' and the 'inadmissibility of interfering into internal affairs' in order to block these procedures," said Panfilova.
"Why is civil oversight of corrupt officials that are robbing the country a threat to its sovereignty?" she asks. "This is a terrible shame."
Let us note that 125 countries were ready to sign the preliminary version of the document.
In the end, a compromise was reached - mutual inspections will still be conducted, but not once every five years as was initially planned, but only given the consent of the country to be inspected. The report on the inspection results will be published, but only in "excerpts," and only "talking points" will be prepared for other countries. Participation of NGOs in the inspections is stipulated in terms of "it would be good if they participated." Consequently, public discussion of the situation with corruption in Russia would be impossible.
All of this together means that most likely in the near future the fight against corruption in Russia will be limited to showy "tokens," puff pieces on the Internet and endless pledges and plans to fight corrupt practices.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine intend to create a combined military unit: a Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade.
Ukraine believes a joint formation can help its armed forces meet NATO standards. The agreement was reached at talks in Brussels, attended by Ukraine's acting Defense Minister Valery Ivashchenko, Lithuania's Minister of National Defense Rasa Jukneviciene and Poland's Undersecretary of State for Defense Stanislaw Komorowski.
Combined units are a common practice in military cooperation. Within NATO, for example, a joint Franco-German brigade was organized in 1987. This alliance marked a milestone in cooperation between France and Germany, formerly enemies and later partners in post-war Europe.
In 1992, a rapid response force was established, consisting of troops from France, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg. Now the unit is seen as one of the building blocks of the EU combined armed forces.
In 1999, Denmark, Germany and Poland set up a corps now known as Multinational Corps Northeast (MNC NE). Initially, it included Polish, Danish and German units and was later joined by the Baltic countries, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United States. The core, however, is still made up of troops from the three founding nations, with headquarters in Stettin. In its ten years, its personnel have taken part in many drills and operations, including NATO's Afghanistan operation.
So, the Baltic military has cooperation experience with Polish troops. The Ukrainian military, too, has cooperation experience with NATO within the Partnership for Peace program.
There is also the Polish-Ukrainian peacekeeping battalion set up in the late 1990s, which includes units of the Polish 14th Tank Brigade and Ukrainian 310th Mechanized Regiment.
Establishment of a permanent brigade-class joint unit is expected to improve teamwork, allowing Ukrainians to grow into NATO's command, staff, tactical and logistic culture.
What are the aims and strategic objectives of the joint unit? Ukrainian NATO membership does not make much sense as an objective. The decision to accept a new member is a question for all NATO members, and the stand taken by Germany, Italy and some other bloc members makes it doubtful that Ukraine will soon join the North Atlantic Pact. Another key requirement for candidates is upgrading their armed forces to meet the bloc's standards. Ukraine, which is going through a deep economic and political crisis, has nothing to boast of in this respect. Ukrainian participation in the new brigade will not change this.
Nor it is likely that the purpose is to step up the peacekeeping efforts of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. Considering the situation in these countries, they cannot improve much over their current contributions to international operations.
Yet the new brigade may have a political objective. It is meant to set up an alternative center of military consolidation for West European projects, a center which could embrace former Soviet republics (above all Ukraine), now outside NATO. There is no doubt who will control this process, considering U.S. influence in Poland and the Baltics.
Such a unit would allow the U.S. to preserve and strengthen its influence in Eastern Europe, even if West European countries follow through with their project of establishing joint EU armed forces, which would weaken the U.S.'s role in NATO. Also, this formation would fit into the strategy of establishing a "cordon sanitaire" involving some East European countries and former Soviet republics, which would serve as a barrier to closer contacts and cooperation between Russia and Western Europe. True, the original intent of the strategy was to oppose Communist ideas, but this makes its present mission appear less than clear.
What's interesting about the report is that other countries can join the agreement reached by Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (Dmitry Babich, RIA Novosti commentator) - The November 15 municipal elections in Kosovo can be seen as a turning point in the region's history.
This was the first vote since Kosovo unilaterally declared independence in February 2008, still unrecognized by Russia and a number of other countries. Moreover, these elections were also the first to be held by local authorities alone, without any help from the UN Mission in Kosovo or the OSCE, which virtually ran the place for a long time.
The elections took part with a fairly large turnout of local Serbs at the polls. This by no means eliminates the totally unfair situation in Kosovo, which Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pointed out during his recent visit to Belgrade. When a breakaway region - a self-declared independent state - is given the green light to international recognition by none other than the United States and the EU, this region knows it is as good as being recognized by the whole international community. But this also creates a dangerous precedent.
Last Sunday's vote did not have to approve Kosovo's independence. The voters had to decide whether it will be further run by Kosovo Albanians alone or local Serbs will preserve some political influence at least on the local level, by having seats on city halls.
With regard to the national level, the Serbs' chances are close to zero. With the Albanian and Serb populations ratio of over 10 to 1 (120,000 Serbs out of the nearly 2 million Kosovo population), the Serbs in parliament have practically no possibility of setting up a party which would have at least some minor influence.
At the November 17, 2007 parliamentary elections, the seats were split between Albanian parties. However, the situation is slightly different at the municipal level - Serbs have a majority in five city governments out of 38.
Two of them are in the north of Kosovo, adjacent to the Serbian border: They have been living virtually independently of the Albanian Kosovo for a while now. They did not even hold elections last Sunday. The remaining three - Gracanica, Klokot, and Ranilug - are "Serb enclaves" in the center and south of Kosovo. Their population had to make a choice: either skip the voting and see hostile Albanians as their city council members and the city mayor, or take part in the illegitimate elections. According to reports, the majority of the local Serbs did go to the polls.
Incidentally, most of the pressure on Serbia to finally choose the lesser of two evils comes from the European Union - which Serbia is so keen to join. The EU officials are the ones forcing the Serbian government to accept several very unpleasant decisions - recognition of the municipal elections in Kosovo, dissociation from Russia and pullout of joint energy projects with Russia. They are using the good old stick and carrot policy, the stick (the tight visa policy) being very real, while the carrot (the much-desired EU membership) a far-fetched and remote possibility.
Ever the most ardent EU supporter in Serbia, or in Russia for that matter, cannot claim that the EU is pursuing some abstract humanistic or democratic goals. Due to its tight visa policy, 70% of young Serbs (who, incidentally, were too young to take part in the ethnic wars during the breakup of Yugoslavia), have never been to any of the EU countries.
According to a survey, the repeated delays of the much-craved EU accession have led to a drop in the number of EU-enthusiasts in Serbia from 72% in 2007 to 63% by the end of 2008. These data are quoted by Pavel Kandel, a research associate of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the collection of articles "Crisis in Kosovo and International Security." These figures reflect "the Serbs' last hope pinned on Moscow and their outrage at Brussels' anti-Serb policies," he comments.
As for democratic values in the EU policy with regard to Serbia, they are hard to believe in, given the EU officials' open sympathies with the Albanian militants of the Kosovo Liberation Army. Incidentally, the supporters of two KLA leaders, former "prime minister" Ramush Haradinaj and his successor Hashim Thaci, caused a violent clash in one of the Albanian enclaves.
It is worth reminding here that Haradinaj was allowed to leave the Hague occasionally "to rule" Kosovo during his trial, while Thaci was eventually cleared by the Hague Tribunal of all charges of genocide of Serbs.
All the above gives Russia more tools to pressure Belgrade. True, the Serbs were disappointed by Boris Yeltsin's Russia, which promised them support in 1999 and then proposed they give in. But today, EU and NATO officials are in fact doing what Russia would have failed to do even if it had supplied the Serbs with the S-300 anti-aircraft weapons they were asking for in 1999.
Russia can regain influence in the Balkans not because it is so good, but because European bureaucrats have proved far worse.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - NATO has been actively discussing the possibility of establishing a joint European army for a long time. The latest discussion was triggered after The Times published an interview with Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on November 15, 2009.
In his interview, Frattini said Italy would push for the creation of a European Army after the "new Europe" takes shape at this week's crucial November 19 EU summit following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.
According to Frattini, the creation of a European Army would serve as a logical continuation of EU integration and would become an essential step in preserving the EU's status as a global power center.
He warned that "there is the risk that Europe will become irrelevant," and that it would be bypassed by a hypothetical U.S.-Chinese alliance.
Although a Chinese-U.S. alliance seems far-fetched, many analysts say mutual strategic rapprochement can make it a reality in the foreseeable future.
Frattini's statement is probably the most interesting aspect of discussing the European Army issue and the EU's future as a political entity. Although various formats of a joint European Army have been discussed since the 1970s, a hypothetical political threat from the U.S. has been cited as a possible motive for the first time.
"If we do not find a common foreign policy, there is the risk that Europe will become irrelevant. We will be bypassed by the G2 of America and China, which is to say the Pacific axis, and the Atlantic axis will be forgotten. We need political will and commitment, otherwise the people of Europe will be disappointed. People expect a great deal of us. After Lisbon (The Lisbon Treaty - Ed.) we have no more alibis," Frattini said.
Apart from these apprehensions, Frattini used traditional arguments, including the need for more effective coordination of joint European military operations.
Instead of establishing more effective joint organizations, the EU involves independent national units under joint command in such operations.
Frattini cited Afghanistan as an example, where units from many European nations currently operate, and reiterated the need for deploying a joint naval fleet or air force in the Mediterranean or other areas crucial to European security.
According to Frattini, a joint European Army would allow EU nations to cut back on military spending.
In reality, financial and administrative arguments in favor of saving resources and boosting management efficiency have far more profound implications.
The United States currently dominates NATO military operations. The U.S. military potential either equals or frequently exceeds the forces allotted by all other NATO countries. Consequently, Washington dictates the pace of most operations, appointing most commanding and staff officers. In effect, NATO operations amount to operations involving the U.S. Armed Forces and their allies.
Such U.S. domination will be seriously impaired, if the EU creates its own armed forces. The Pentagon would then have to deal with an equal partner, rather than a disunited community of political clients. The EU's contribution would allow it to demand an equal say in charting long-term priorities and methods of operation.
Even such undisputed EU military leaders as France, Germany and Italy still cannot claim the right to have an equal say on such matters.
At most, Washington's European allies can refuse to take part in specific operations. Still this is no problem because the United States easily recruits the required forces from among new NATO members siding with Washington to a greater extent than Brussels, or from its own reserves.
The United Kingdom, another European leader, has supported all U.S. initiatives in the past few years, providing substantial military, headquarters, intelligence and intellectual support.
Although it is hard to predict the result of the new Italian initiative, it will both be supported and rejected. Germany, Spain and France advocating European independence on the issue of strategic choice and its implementation are likely to support this initiative.
The governments of Eastern European countries and former Soviet republics, which prioritize NATO's traditional anti-Russian bias and the NATO-U.S. alliance, rather than an alliance with Germany and Italy, will definitely oppose Italy's proposal.
Naturally, such disagreements do not imply that NATO will soon disintegrate; nor do they highlight the beginning of this process. However, the seemingly indestructible monolithic NATO is obviously losing its homogeneous nature in new conditions.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
RIA Novosti interviews European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana ahead of the November 17 EU-Russia summit.
Q. What are your expectations from the summit?A. I look forward to a good summit. We have a lot to talk about, not only our bilateral relations but also a number of critical issues on the international agenda, such as climate change, energy security and European security. Both the EU and Russia have important responsibilities on these issues.
We will also share our views on the latest developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the situation Middle East and the latest events in Iran and its nuclear programme.
The Western Balkans and the South Caucasus will also be on the agenda. I am sure that on all those issues we will have a fruitful discussions.
Q. How do you assess EU-Russia relations? Do they need a restart?
A. I think EU-Russia relations are good, and I do not see a need for a restart. Of course there are issues where we disagree and where we would like Russia to do things differently, but Russia is a key partner on the international scene and we have a deep, multi-faceted, far-reaching relationship with your country.
We have now had six rounds of negotiations on a new cooperation agreement and the seventh round is due to take place before the end of the year. Throughout these rounds, we have acquired a good view of each others' positions and expectations.
Given that the new Agreement is to cover all the aspects of our relationship - ranging from trade and energy to external relations, from visa questions and fight against terrorism to education and culture, one needs to be realistic and expect the negotiations to take some time and that we progress faster on some issues than on others.
Q. Will the Lisbon Treaty bring some changes in EU-Russia relations?
A. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will bring greater coherence to the EU's external action and greater continuity. Whether this will lead to fresh momentum in EU-Russia relations will depend on the political will on both sides to move our relations forward.
I would like to say that Russia had a very positive attitude towards the Lisbon Treaty from the very beginning. As a strategic partner of the EU, Russia will no doubt be among the main beneficiaries of the improvements that the Lisbon Treaty brings. I am happy also that this change coincides with a clear improvement in the atmosphere of our relations, which I think results from a very pragmatic, business-like approach on both sides and among the many actors involved.
www.rian.ru
MOSCOW. (Yuri Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - Recently there have been several news announcements from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) mostly associated with the planned restart of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is scheduled to power up November 19, give or take a few days.
The succession of previous unsuccessful attempts to start the collider has not hindered scientists in attempts to reproduce the so-called Big Bang in miniature. It is expected that this will help answer the question of why 90% of the blast's energy created anti-matter and only 10% matter.
Scientists also hope to be able to create particles, the existence of which has only been proven theoretically, in experimental conditions, including the so-called Higgs boson, sometimes called the "God particle." In the context of today's knowledge, this particle is responsible for the mass of elementary particles.
An important feature of the collider is the ability to simulate conditions that occur within black holes in space.
In their search for the truth, scientists are not worried about the hypothetical risk of creating microscopic black holes that could swallow surrounding matter in the accelerator tunnel.
CERN's Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer holds that the LHC is absolutely safe, no matter how much opponents may say to the contrary. Hundreds of theoretical calculations point to there being no danger, he emphasizes.
One can only hope that these calculations are born out in practice and that the experiments in the collider do not get out of control. Still, the power of the 27-kilometer accelerator is so great that it was buried at a depth of more than 100 meters underground.
Thus far, CERN experts have completed the cooling of all eight sectors of the collider to operating temperature, which is minus 271 degrees Celsius, after which the magnets, which become superconductors in the low temperature, energized.
The strength of current will gradually increase until it reaches the values necessary to control the particle beam "traveling" through the accelerator.
Additional tests of the electrical resistance of the contacts connecting magnets are being conducted. It was specifically because of a defect in one of these contacts that an accident occurred several days after the first activation of the accelerator. As the result of a breach in the insulation of the cryogenic cooling system, six tons of liquid helium spurted into the tunnel. It took 13 months to clean up the consequences of the accident and repairs cost 40 million Swiss francs.
The collider will be restarted only at a fourth of its design capacity, which is considered to be enough to achieve the main objective of creating the most powerful accelerator in the world - detection of the Higgs boson.
After activating the system and bringing it to design capacity, it will become the most powerful high-energy accelerator of elementary particles in the world, exceeding its nearest American counterparts - the Tevatron proton-antiproton collider, located at the Fermilab in Illinois, and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven laboratory - by almost one order of magnitude.
It should be noted that the LHC will perform a wide range of research projects which the American colliders are simply incapable of.
The collider is expected to provide physicists with a literal avalanche of information. It is estimated that in order to record all of this information, more than two million ordinary compact discs (CDs) will be needed, and processing the information will require no fewer than 70,000 computers connected in series and with CERN.
Some experts think that the technology of building high-energy accelerators has reached its limit. Nevertheless, the International Linear Collider could be next and an even larger facility. The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna near Moscow claims it will be able to build it. A 40-kilometer tunnel will be located 10-15 meters below the Earth's surface and its construction will be much cheaper than other proposed projects.
The costs will be distributed among organizations participating in the project. At the same time, there is be an unwritten requirement - the country hosting the internationally important facility will have to foot 35% of the bill. This will be a very sizable sum, but the construction of such a facility will be prestigious for any country.
There are other contenders besides Russia. For example, the U.S. has announced that it is willing to pay for 50% of the costs if the collider is built in the U.S.
Yuri Zaitsev is an academic adviser to the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
www.rian.ru
They may get a boost from the November 10 and 11 talks in Moscow between Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. At the talks, the three leaders discussed a potential agreement between the two countries on South Stream.
While its backers still face the problem of finding gas supplies for Nabucco, South Stream is guaranteed to be filled with Russian gas. Thus, Vienna will not miss out on the chance to have two pan-European pipelines on its territory.
According to the recently signed agreement, Slovenia will transport Russian gas directly to the border with Italy, which is the main target market for the pipeline. Now all the elements for the implementation of the South Stream project are in place, according to a source in the Russian government. Access to the Italian border opens up the possibility of Gazprom expanding its operations on the Apennine Peninsula and in Europe as a whole.
Slovenia will emerge as the clear winner, because becoming a partner of the world's biggest gas exporter, the Gazprom Group, offers extra security for its energy market.
South Stream, which is intended to diversify energy supply routes to Europe, in the long run will make energy deliveries to Europe more reliable, ensure the unobstructed transit of Russian gas to European consumers, and free Russia and the European Union from their dependence on the Ukrainian transit monopoly.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Oleg Mityaev) - On November 14 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his Slovenian counterpart Borut Pahor signed an energy agreement giving the green light to the construction of a section of the South Stream gas pipeline through Slovenia to northern Italy.
This was the last detail to be worked out on the ambitious pan-European project. Russian gas will reach northern Italy not through Austria, as originally planned, but through Slovenia.
In a bold last-minute move, Bratislava agreed to allow part of South Stream to pass through Slovenian territory on its way to northern Italy, thus turning Slovenia into a major gas transit country. In time, other countries, Austria, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, may also be connected to South Stream, though only through secondary branches of the main pipeline.
Now that the agreement with Slovenia has been signed, the route of South Stream has finally been determined.
It was not for nothing that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that this was the last agreement that remained to be signed with European partners. The prime minister stressed that South Stream has truly become a major, pan-European energy project.
The South Stream project will carry gas from Russia, and possibly Central Asia, under the Black Sea to southern and central Europe. The participants in the project are Russia's Gazprom and Italy's ENI. According to a recently signed agreement between Russia and Turkey, the gas pipeline will pass through the Turkish and Russian exclusive economic zones.
Because Bulgaria has recently been pressing for the Russian-Bulgarian oil and gas agreements to be revised, it is impossible to rule out the possibility that the section of the pipeline in the Black Sea will run from the Russian to the Turkish coast bypassing Bulgaria.
From there South Stream will split: one branch will run through Greece to southern Italy under the Adriatic and the other will also run through Greece but then turn north and pass through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and, as of November 14, Slovenia, to northern Italy.
The pipeline is to begin transporting gas in 2015. The design capacity is 63 billion cubic metres of gas a year.
Russia has not abandoned its efforts to bring Austria into the project. Austria is the location of Europe's largest gas transport hub in Baumgarten. The negotiations with Austria on South Stream were the most difficult. And no wonder. Austria was one of the first countries to propose the alternative pipeline, Nabucco, which the European Union hopes would make it less dependent on Russian gas supplies.
The Russian-Austrian energy dialogue was somewhat complicated by the recently strained relations between long-time partners Gazprom and the Austrian gas company OMV. The companies failed to fulfil their cooperation agreement due to differences over dividing up the Austrian gas market. However, talks continue between the two companies on further cooperation.>>>>
(Vladimir Sazhin, senior fellow of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, speaks with a RIA Novosti correspondent about the talks on Iran's nuclear programme).
"I think that Russia has adjusted its position on Iran's nuclear programme for two reasons - Iran's conduct at this point and change in the U.S. stance after Barack Obama came to power. I would like to emphasize that the Six have never had any discord on Iran as far as strategy is concerned. All of them are convinced that Iran should not have the opportunity to build a nuclear weapon. Differences were in the details.
"Iran's recent intractability and occasional provocations have gradually caused a change in the Six's position. Over the past year Western Europe has toughened its attitude to Iran as compared to the year before. The same is true of Russia. Iran's refusal to accept the Six's plan to process the available low-enriched uranium, first in Russia and then in France, was the last straw. This was a good solution for Iran's nuclear issue, but it did not evoke a positive response from Tehran.
"Saying 'yes' and 'no' is Iran's permanent policy. Today it says 'no,' then 'maybe' and then 'you don't quite understand.' In my opinion, Tehran is simply trying to drag out the whole process. During the talks over the last six years, Iran has increased the number of centrifuges in the country from several dozen to 7,000, and opened a second uranium enrichment plant. This policy of Iran has largely prompted Russia to change its position. At the same time, Moscow continues to insist that Iran's nuclear issue should be resolved at the negotiating table.
"[President Dmitry Medvedev's] recent statements amounted to a warning, and Tehran greatly dislikes this. Over the last few years Tehran has tried to divide the Six. This was Iran's main goal, and it was successful from time to time. Now Tehran realises the patience of the Six is running out, and that they are becoming increasingly united. This change is cause for concern for Iran.
"I think that the unity of the Six may prompt Tehran to compromise, but the problem is lack of unity within the Iranian political elite. They do not agree on a course of action. This is a problem for future developments."
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
There are currently seven state-owned corporations in Russia, specifically the Deposit Insurance Agency, Vnesheconombank, Rusnano, Rosatom, Russian Technologies, the Housing and Utilities Reform Fund and Olimpstroy. The United Aircraft Building Corporation, the United Shipbuilding Corporation, and the Federal Road Agency (Rosavtodor) have functions similar to those of state corporations.
Prosecutor General Yury Chaika reported to President Medvedev on November 10 that over the past two years, state-owned corporations have used only ten billion rubles of the 130 billion rubles allocated to them, and half of that sum has gone to pay for recurring expenses. Mr. Chaika added that audits of state-owned corporations revealed cases of improper use of funds and property, as well as violations of the process of placing state orders and holding auctions. Twenty-two court cases have been initiated based on the results of these audits.
The president promised that all government expenses will be strictly monitored to maximize their efficiency, and that the quality of government services will be increased. Tough control over expenditures inspires hope that economic stability will persist and that budget parameters will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future, says Anton Struchenevsky, senior economist at the Troika Dialog investment bank.
"Should budget revenues fall, for example due to a decrease in raw materials prices, one cannot exclude the possibility that funds will be borrowed from state-owned corporations to avoid printing more money and borrowing domestically and internationally," Mr. Struchenevsky told RIA Novosti.
The president offered a plan for improving the situation in communities dominated by a single industry. There are over 400 such one-industry towns in Russia, which are home to 16 million people. The president's main objective is to prevent a precipitous deterioration of living standards in these towns. In the next six months the government will adopt a program to assist the development of these communities. Thus, either conditions must be created to apply the abilities of local residents in different economic sectors and attract private investment for the purpose, or the people should be assisted in moving to more promising areas.
"On the whole, the economic focus of the address is on development after the crisis. The president didn't say a word about ways to overcome the economic crisis," concluded Yaroslav Lissovolik, chief economist of Deutsche Bank in Russia, adding that the president should have covered in more detail plans to improve state expenditures, since this is a key factor in implementing the modernization program.
The issues the president avoided
Businesses were frustrated to hear the president's confession that the government is not ready to invest in infrastructure, although infrastructure is currently underfinanced.
"As far as there is no order in this industry, and the costs of construction are hugely overstated, I consider it impermissible luxury to spend more funds for these purposes," said the president. In order to reduce thefts, the president charged the government with phasing in online government auctions in 2010 and bringing the construction costs of roads and other infrastructure in line with international standards.
The state's abandonment of heavy investment in infrastructure has discouraged businesses. "One cannot carry out modernization on the basis of obsolete infrastructure," Boris Titov, the leader of the Delovaya Rossiya public organization, told RIA Novosti. "We are in the stone age stage in terms of infrastructure development. There are modern highways in Africa, and here in Russia one can hardly drive from Moscow to St Petersburg without breaking a wheel," Mr. Titov said.
According to him, the transition to a "smart" economy requires an effective strategy that must contain practical measures to attract investment, carry out tax reform, etc.
Taxes indeed were given too little attention in the address. The Government has been charged with drawing up a fiscal draft law in the first quarter of the next year to create favorable conditions for the development of high-tech businesses. Such companies will be obliged to pay insurance premiums after a five-year transitional period. For other companies, this insurance premium rate will be raised from 26% to 34% in 2011.
The president warned non-high-tech businesses that the tax reform is not over yet, although he did not unveil any actual plans.
"The crisis has certainly made it difficult for us to ease the tax burden, and discussion of these issues will be resumed in the near future," stated President Medvedev.
"It is necessary to shift the tax burden from producers to consumers to make production profitable," Mr. Titov insists, pointing to the necessity of reducing the VAT and the Unified Social Tax.
Charitable and non-profit organizations were the only entities to which the president promised tax cuts. Non-profit organizations' services to provide support and care to patients, the disabled, the elderly and orphans will be exempt from VAT. Also, no profit tax will be paid from grants to develop healthcare and mass sports.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economics commentator Marina Selivanova) - President Dmitry Medvedev devoted the first and longest part of his address before the Federal Assembly to the long-term economic prospects. His main idea is that it is no longer possible to delay structural reforms; it is necessary to start the modernization and technological re-equipment of industry without further delay. Now it is a question of Russia's survival in the modern world.
Five Priorities
In his address, Medvedev listed the five priorities for economic modernization that had been endorsed by a special presidential commission - introducing latest medical, energy, and information technologies, and the development of the space industry and telecommunication systems.
"Our nation's economy must finally re-orient itself to the needs of the population, and today these are primarily security, better health, and access to energy and information," emphasized the president.
Development of medical equipment and technology and pharmaceutics will make it possible to provide people with quality medicines at affordable prices and new technologies for preventing and curing diseases. Experts have already compiled a list of 50 major medicines that have an affect on the country's death rate and should be produced in Russia. The list includes the most expensive preparations for the treatment of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. The government has promised to purchase new preparations to support the companies that produce them. The goal is for Russian companies to produce a quarter of medicines consumed domestically in five years, and half by the year 2020.
The second priority of modernization is higher energy efficiency and the smarter use of natural resources. Meters will be manufactured and installed to enable residents to pay only for the energy and utilities they actually consume, rather than for losses due to worn-out infrastructure. A program for upgrading utilities will be launched, and a new system of payment will adjust existing rates depending on the level of consumption and family income. Energy-efficient contracts will be introduced. The use of energy-saving lighting will also help reduce electricity costs considerably.
The president demanded that mining companies should make better use of new technologies and stop burning associated gas, which is polluting the environment and wasting tens of billions of rubles. Extracting energy from biological resources, such as timber and peat, is another promising avenue.
The nuclear energy development program is ranked as the third priority in the modernization project. By 2014, Russia should have new generation of nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel. Nuclear technologies will be actively used in medicine, hydrogen fuel production, and the construction of a spacecraft for flights to other planets.
The fourth strategic priority is the development of space technologies and telecommunications. At present Russia ranks only 63rd in the world in terms communication infrastructure development. In this context, Medvedev set the following objective: "It is necessary to secure a broadband Internet access, and to switch to digital television and fourth-generation cell phones in Russia's entire territory in the next five years." He added that prices for such services should be reduced for the residents of Siberia and the Far East.
The introduction and use of space technologies, including GLONASS, will allow Russians to use modern navigation equipment in their cars, help ensure the transportation safety and the security of technologically sophisticated facilities, and enhance coordination of emergency services. By 2015, Russia should match global standards for the capabilities and active service of its communication satellites, which should be capable of "seeing" the whole world.
The fifth priority is to develop strategic and information technologies. The president said that it is essential to use the capabilities of supercomputers connected by high-speed data transfer networks to design state-of-the-art aircraft, spaceships, automobiles, and nuclear power plants. In two years, the development of electronic communications will make over 60 government services accessible to population over the Internet, including taking qualification exams, applying for driver's licenses, registering property, and accessing government archives. In the future, social welfare cards may be combined with credit or debit cards. Information technologies will also make it easier to combat corruption.
Russia should make better use of its scientific potential in order to modernize successfully. It is necessary to attract prominent Russian and foreign scientists to work in Russia. The same applies to businesspeople who have ample experience in marketing new technologies. Those who develop new technologies will receive grants, and innovation-based small companies will receive financial support from the government.
The state to tighten its belt
In addition to the points mentioned above, the president promised to reconsider the role of the state in the economy. In particular, the list of strategic enterprises will be overhauled, and the seven state-owned corporations will be liquidated. Those of them that were supposed to exist for a specified period of time will be closed after fulfilling the purpose for which they were created. The others, which operate as commercial, competitive businesses, will be restructured as state-controlled joint stock companies. These companies overseen by the state will be subject to independent audits, and their top executives' salaries will be linked to their success in cutting costs, introducing new technologies, and boosting energy efficiency and labor productivity.>>>>
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Nikolai Troitsky) - The Constitutional Court, Russia's highest legal body, should have its say on capital punishment. But while the Court has paused to negotiate, this issue remains a subject of heated public debates.
The main arguments against capital punishment are well known. Sociologists and historians have definitively established that the death penalty has no effect on the crime rate. Even an ideal legal system (which does not exist in Russia) is not immune to wrong verdicts; and because death is final, there is no way to correct a mistake.
No mechanization of the process will prevent a person appointed by the government from flipping a switch on an electric chair or carrying out a lethal injection. Hence, the government employs executioners, which seems out of place in the 21st century.
There is also a moral aspect. There is also a moral aspect. If a group of people kills one of its kin - even legally - how does this differ from murder? Even the savage Cossack Taras Bulba tried to justify himself by saying he had the right to kill his own offspring. But when life-or-death issues are decided by a heartless government agency, even this justification does not apply.
Classic Marxists use the term "machinery of violence" to describe the state. And the state is no longer influenced by religious morality because it has been separated from the church. However, ethical categories have not been abolished. Only in the Third Reich did government officials try to rid themselves and their subordinates of the burden of conscience.
Death penalty advocates' main arguments are also clear and understandable. Even life in prison is not sufficient, because in theory a criminal can flee from any prison. In the event of a change of power, the most surprising amnesties may be announced.
Moreover, the destruction of a cruel monster, such as a serial killer, a pedophile, or a cannibal, is an act of justice. The state must get rid of these people in the interests of the majority.
In reality, execution is an act of revenge rather than justice. Widespread support for the execution of a cruel killer is rooted in an atavistic manifestation of the lex talionis (the law of retaliation), best expressed by the Bible's formula of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
However, even in the Code of the Babylonian King Hammurabi (1700 BC), lex talionis was used on a limited scale and with reservations. Even in ancient times the rulers and lawmakers did not consider it fully justified.
Much time has passed since then, but the same ancient principles have survived up to the present day in the form of Corsican vendetta or blood feud. It is sufficient to recall the tragic story of Vitaly Kaloyev, who stabbed in Switzerland an air traffic controller whom he held responsible for the death of his wife and children.
It is possible to understand and forgive Kaloyev. Who guarantees that they would not have done the same? I cannot, but this does not mean that we should give official approval to this kind of conduct. However, this is exactly what happens when prosecutors and judges administer revenge.
Incidentally, the existence of the death penalty as such does not reflect society's level of civilization and culture. During the last 300 years, there were long periods in Russian history when it was not applied.
Empress Elizabeth imposed a full moratorium on executions, and Catherine the Great violated it only once because of Yemelyan Pugachev's insurgency. After five Decembrists were hanged, Nicholas I refrained from executions. Under Alexander II (the Liberator), the gallows again started being used on a large scale.
Capital punishment was introduced by the Provisional Government and cancelled by the All-Russian Congress of Soviets in 1917, though for a very short span of time.
After the Great Patriotic War, even Stalin showed a scintilla of humanity, and nobody was executed in the U.S.S.R. starting from 1947. Nevertheless, Nikita Khrushchev reimposed it retroactively (which was against basic laws), and a group of currency dealers was shot.
Does this mean that Nicholas I was more progressive and humane than his son Alexander? Or that the Soviet government proved to be more humane than the capitalists? Did Khrushchev outdo Stalin in being cruel? These are academic questions.
In 1996, President Boris Yeltsin tried to put an end to the mess and imposed a moratorium on the death penalty and executions. This was a temporary measure, but in Russia many temporary things have become permanent. However, this may not be the case. Before the end of this year, the Constitutional Court should decide on the death penalty once and for all.
Most likely, it will be abolished. This is not purely a political or legal issue, but also a matter of honor. It is simply inappropriate to go back.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev) - A new scandal over leaked confidential information has shaken Washington. It is not in every country that confidential messages to top government officials are published in the leading media within a week.
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, who once commanded forces there, has told President Barack Obama that bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan would not make the country more reliant on the U.S. unless President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates willingness to fight corruption and other vices, which are only strengthening the Taliban.
Obama was considering four options for sending between 10,000 and 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, which will cost between $33 and $50 billion annually, and wanted to know how long it would take to see results and be able to withdraw. It was at that time that newspapers published the ambassador's opinion.
Eikenberry thinks that the U.S. will not attain its goals in Afghanistan without replacing Karzai's government.
It is not surprising that the press has published information about the confidential messages because Afghanistan is the biggest problem of the United States and, in general, the Western civilization. The point at issue is not just billions of dollars but human lives. Britain has lost 200 servicemen there, but was it worth it?
It has also become clear that the August presidential election in Afghanistan organized by the United States has seriously undermined American aspirations there.
The Obama administration regarded the Afghan election as a key element of the efforts to solve the Afghan problem. But when Karzai and his supporters were accused of framing the election results, they opted for the worst possible scenario: vote recounting.
When it turned out that a second round of the election was needed, U.S. diplomats did their best to wrench an agreement from Karzai. And then they looked like idiots when the Afghan president's opponent withdrew his candidacy.
Karzai took it unkindly and is now openly speaking his mind about the U.S. policy in his country, which explains Eikenberry's disappointment and messages. But Karzai was bound to speak up after the U.S. had done its best to show the Afghans - as if they did not know this - that their president is a puppet with many American masters who cannot even agree in which direction to pull his strings.
One can rule Afghanistan without elections, but never without respect.
While that black comedy was still playing out, President Obama said at the UN: "Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path ... rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions."
This sounds fine, but the United States and the Western civilization as a whole have not yet found a way to encourage Afghanistan to pursue such a path.
In a word, the agony can last long, and the United States will either find a new style of behavior in Afghanistan (and worldwide as well), or it will lose everything (Europe is a separate issue).
Meanwhile, many countries have become more active in the Afghan affairs, thereby creating an alternative to the U.S. policy there. The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution on Afghanistan unanimously and at the initiative of Germany, which is an unprecedented occurrence. The resolution reads that Afghanistan's presidential election was both credible and sound.
Then Japan decided to increase its aid package to Afghanistan from $3 billion to $5 billion within five years. Other donor countries are currently negotiating in Istanbul, Turkey, which means that the international community is not going to curtail aid to Afghanistan.
And lastly, India, China and Russia's foreign ministers added several interesting paragraphs to the final document of their meeting in Bangalore declaring willingness to develop a collective strategy in Afghanistan jointly with other countries.
The reason for all of the above is simple: The United States wants to review its operations abroad, first of all in Afghanistan and near it, but when it needs to do something in a new way, in particular with Russia's assistance, it becomes completely paralyzed.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti
DREAMS ABOUT FUTURE Russian students can be met at the most diverse programs offered by British universities from art, design, fashion, communication and performing arts at University of the Arts London to those developing their professional skills at MBA programs at the University of Manchester. Nikita came to Aston University in Birmingham from Moscow where he studied for a time at the Higher School of Economics. “I would not be able to come here for an undergraduate programme unless I studied in Anglo-Russian school in Moscow, which gave me an opportunity to take A-levels in Russia and where my desire to study in Aston was formed”, he states. A teenager from an ordinary family having two sisters and a younger brother besides him, Nikita has at once approved himself in studying, social activities and elective courses, a necessary part of British universities’ life. He is a member of the university water polo team and takes part in international competitions. He also graduated from a musical school and plays the saxophone in the University Orchestra. “I would like to return to Russia, but with some work experience gained here at Aston University during a placement year as part of my degree, because there are no such program in Russia”, Nikita comments on his future plans. Kristina is a Management student at Royal Holloway, University of London. Having previously attended a school in South East of the country, she has been living in the UK for the past seven years. “I came to study in the UK at a very young age and consequently had to learn how to be independent. I think Surrey is a great place to live. It is peaceful, quite and beautiful, yet only 40 minutes away from central London.” Proudly speaking about the university, this young lady willingly answers questions about her studies. Talking about Russia and future plans, Kristina says, “At times I miss my friends and family, which makes me want to move back to St-Petersburg. However, I think I will follow my sister’s footsteps and join the UK finical sector after completing my degree. I believe that starting my professional career the UK will give me the best prospects in my future undertakings, weather I decide to stay in the UK, work in the EU or move back to Russia.” For a 23-year Vladikavkaz resident Yury the Brunel University master’s program in design and management became logical development of his education in Milan where he studied industrial design. Yury used to work at a prestige designer company in Moscow. Now he dreams about his own projects and already has certain ideas and developments in website design. By half, Yury’s studying is paid by his parents. The second half he pays with self-earned money. “If my project is a success, I’ll move to London, it is more cheerful and there are more opportunities there. I promise, you’ll hear about me”, he says with a smile.
www.rian.ru
LONDON/ BIRMINGHAM/ MANCHESTER (Alexander Smotrov) - The global economic crisis hasn’t affected Russians’ wish and opportunities to study at British universities, famous for their traditions, quality and relative accessibility of education compared with other foreign educational institutions. .
“The financial crisis didn’t deal a serious blow to student recruitment and universities on the whole. For Russians, as far as I understand, it is not a big problem as well, as many who had saved money specifically for education still intend to spend it for studying”, representative of Royal Holloway International department Paul Woods told RIA Novosti.
According to Mr Woods, the period of recession is considered by some as a good time to get a new education or a further academic qualification that may help career progression in the future..
On the whole, the number of applications from foreign students has risen this year, in some countries by 20-30 per cent, according to Michael Gibbons, Head of International Department at the University of Manchester. “We don’t know yet why it happens – maybe, because of the crisis, maybe, someone wants to secure oneself and apply to several universities”, Gibbons said. The university does its best to process all applications in time without making bureaucratic barriers to those who really wishes to study in Manchester, he added.
MANAGERS AND HUMANISTS
In spite of conventional stereotypes, there are not too many Russians among all students of British universities. Many of them take active part in university life, successfully win grant contests and choose, to their view, the most prospective professions.
Now, about 30 per cent of 7,500 students of the Royal Holloway, which is a part of the University of London, are from overseas. There were 58 Russians enrolled this academic year. The most popular subjects among Russian students remain Management and Economics, although some students are now opting for less traditional subjects, such as Media Arts.
The University of Manchester, one of the biggest and most prestige educational institutions in the UK, has 34,500 students, about 7,000 of whom are foreigners from 162 world countries. Last academic year there were 49 Russians among them, with 34 graduated with bachelor degree, 12 got master’s degree and 3 engaged in research. The most popular option is Manchester Business School, chosen by a third of all Russian students. 10 students study social sciences.
The University of Birmingham, another institution taking rather high positions in educational ratings, has 26,000 students including 4,000 students from 150 countries all over the world. There are 53 Russian students, both British and EU residents and as well as those who came directly from Russia. The most popular subjects among students receiving bachelor’s degree are foreign relations, international business and languages. Master’s degree students deal with scientific and computing research as well as study business administration.>>>>
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Alexander Peslyak) - The spacecraft Rosetta, designed by the European Space Agency (ESA) and launched five years ago, completed a high-orbit "flyby" of Earth on November 13, taking advantage of our planet's gravitational energy to catapult it towards its destination.
In May 2014, Rosetta will rendezvous with the Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet in the vicinity of Jupiter and attempt an unprecedented mission - landing on a comet.
Rene Pischel, the head of the ESA office in Russia, said that for the first time in the history of space exploration, a man-made object will land on a comet, study its surface, take a "soil" sample, and transmit data back to Earth. It is not by chance that the ESA's flagship project in deep space is named after the Rosetta Stone, which first enabled scholars to decipher Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. In the same way, modern scientists hope to decipher the origin and evolution of the Solar System, and perhaps even unlock the secret of the origin of life on Earth.
Comet nuclei consist of primordial elements formed billions of years ago in pre-planetary times at the edge of the Solar System. Comet nuclei are of great interest to researchers because these elements have remained unchanged, notes planetary astronomer Alexander Basilevesky.
"Just like a paleontologist reconstructing the image of a prehistoric pangolin, geochemists and astrophysicists will analyze the comet's composition to hypothesize about the source material that for many epochs was pressed, heated, compacted and mixed until it turned into, among other things, the minerals that make up Earth," said Basilvesky.
In other words, by studying the comet and its tail of dust and gas, it is possible to discover the material from which the Earth and other planets were formed.
"We think that the Earth went through a period of intense comet bombardment," said Gerhard Schwehm, the ESA's head of planetary science. "But we don't know what role comets played in forming the atmosphere, and whether they facilitated the formation of large bodies of water."
The Rosetta project is unusual for its sophisticated use of ballistic technologies. The spacecraft took advantage of the gravitational energy of planets - using Mars three times, Earth once - to orbit the Sun for five years. Mikhail Marov, a member of the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that this gravitational acceleration saves onboard energy and allows the spacecraft to take advantage of the forces of nature.
Pischel said that the calculations of ESA experts, which use data from stations in Australia, Spain and the U.S., turned out to be so accurate that no additional maneuvering has been needed after the trajectory was corrected on October 22.
"The actual flight path differed from the calculations by only a few kilometers," he said.
The three-ton Rosetta spacecraft has two objectives. First of all, it will intercept and accompany the comet in its trajectory towards the sun. Collecting data on the comet will become easier as it approaches the sun, because it will then quickly start to shed the material of its nucleus and its icy body will sublimate into a comet tail. The second objective is to put a landing module on the comet's surface. As the nucleus of the comet is small and its gravitational pull is quite weak, a strong anchor will be needed in order for the mission to be a success.
Rosetta's instruments will be switched off for nearly two years, but the spacecraft will "wake up" as it approaches the comet. Schwehm said that this is necessary because the low-temperature solar batteries (two solar panels with an area of 32 square meters each) are incapable of providing enough energy to power the spacecraft.
"Thankfully, we've already been successful with Giotto, which was shut off for four years on its way to Halley's Comet," he said.
Incidentally, previously launched Soviet interplanetary probes helped the Giotto spacecraft bring its trajectory in line with its destination, noted Basilevsky. And the very first research on comets using a flyby trajectory was conducted in 1986, when the Soviet unmanned spacecraft Vega 1 and Vega 2 took around 1,500 photos of Halley's Comet and its nucleus, and also collected large amounts of data, including on the ice's rate of sublimation (40 tons per second).
Basilevsky added that as soon as the European project was announced, the Americans rushed to design and launch several light spacecraft of their own for comet exploration. In general, Basilevsky considers this method of rapidly copying what has already been done counterproductive.
"And so everybody rushes to repeat the same thing with variations," he said. "It's not a breakthrough, it only confirms that they can also do such a thing. We don't need to spread ourselves thin. We have the Phobos-Grunt project, two lunar missions and a lunar rover mission. We are adept at landing on planetary surfaces and bringing back rock samples. And we are also good at joining major international projects."
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Oleg Mityayev) - November 5 was a major milestone in Nord Stream AG history. Both Sweden and Finland authorized the construction of this seabed gas pipeline in their waters.
There are now no serious obstacles in meeting the deadline to bring the pipeline on line by 2011. The plans to diversify Russia's gas supplies to Europe are beginning to take shape.
The 1,200 kilometer long Nord Stream gas pipeline on the Baltic seabed will link the Russian town of Vyborg with the German town of Greifswald. The first trunkline, with a projected capacity of 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas annually, is due to be completed by late 2011, with the second trunkline of similar capacity planned for 2012. The project operator is Nord Stream AG, in which Gazprom owns 51%, the German Wintershall and E.On Ruhrgas 20% each, and the Dutch Gasunie 9%. In the near future, the French GdF SUEZ may also enter the project.
The Nord Stream pipeline will pass through the waters of Finland, Sweden, Russia and Germany.
It took Nord Stream AG four years to receive construction permits from the countries concerned. The project operator spent 100 million euros on environmental analysis over the entire route.
Nord Stream AG took into account the interests of all parties concerned, changing the pipeline route twice and abandoning its initial plans to construct a compressor station and to lay fiberglass cable.
Denmark was the first country to endorse the pipeline construction in its waters, announcing this decision on October 20. On November 5, Sweden authorised the pipeline installation as well. Stockholm was one of the most obstinate negotiators in the Nord Stream talks, thoroughly reviewing any potential environmental damage for 23 months. The Swedish government placed strict requirements on the project to preserve the fragile environment of the Baltic Sea, but in the end Stockholm stated that Nord Stream AG presented the necessary environmental guarantees.
Upon Sweden's demand, the project operator gave up its plans to construct a compressor station in close proximity to the Swedish coast. The underwater gas pipeline will thus operate without a pumping station which maintains pressure in the pipe, a technically challenging but practicable task.
On the same day, November 5, Nord Stream AG reported receiving a construction permit from the Finnish government. However, permission is only half the battle. According to Finnish law, Nord Stream must receive one more permit, but there is no doubt it will be granted by the end of this year.
The project now needs to be endorsed by Russia and Germany, which is obviously a mere formality.
The northern countries' approval is a great success, which gives grounds for optimism that pipeline construction will start in April 2010 and its first leg will be launched in 2011 in accordance with the schedule.
Russia applied much diplomatic effort to receive the green light from the governments of northern Europe. Zero export duties on round timber for Finland were extended for two years. Russia promised Denmark to sign an agreement at the climate conference, which Copenhagen will host in December. Every Swedish requirement regarding environmental safety was met. For example, Stockholm compelled Nord Stream to terminate the pipeline construction in the cod spawning areas from May until October.
That said, Russia's plans to diversify its gas supplies to Europe, which would increase the energy security of the Old World, and to abolish Ukraine's gas transit monopoly are about to come true.
Russia and its partners dismissed Nord Stream alternatives, which were considered less beneficial. These include the Yantar/Amber line, which was supposed to be laid across the Baltic states and through Poland, and the Yamal-Europe-2 project, a route through Belarus and Poland.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Oleg Mityaev) - On the eve of the November 18 summit between Russia and the European Union in Stockholm, the Russian Energy Ministry prepared and sent to the European Commission a memorandum outlining the creation of an early warning system for energy affairs.
The memorandum calls for joint actions if Russian energy supplies to Europe are suspended, including if the interruption is caused by transit countries. Apart from improving energy dialogue with the EU, this document is designed to prevent Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko from unleashing yet another gas war with Russia.
The Russian Energy Ministry has announced its readiness to work with the EU to finish the memorandum by November 18 and sign it at the summit. The memorandum defines an "emergency situation" as any considerable decline in the amount of energy transported, stored, distributed or consumed, as determined by international law and bilateral agreements between Russian and the EU. Its "early warning mechanism" is a series of measures for anticipating potential energy problems and risks and responding promptly to any threat of an "emergency situation."
The agreement will focus on Russia-EU bilateral energy relations. The position of transit countries may be considered only if both the consumers and the exporters agree to do so.
The memorandum has more to do with diplomacy than the details of maintaining gas transit systems. For example, it describes what should be done if Ukraine stopped paying for gas and started illegally siphoning it off, and Russia shut off gas supplies in response.
However, it is the memorandum's diplomatic nature that may compel Ukraine to pay for gas. The EU has recently become one of the main sources of credit for the Ukrainian economy. EU officials are capable of exerting pressure on the Ukrainian president, which they demonstrated over the past weekend.
This time, a new gas war may be provoked by the Ukrainian presidential elections, which are scheduled for January 17, 2010. Gas contracts with Russia have already become a bargaining chip in the struggle for power between Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko.
In late October, Tymoshenko even complained over the telephone to her Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin that Yushchenko had not allowed her to pay for the gas supplied to Ukraine in October.
In response, Yushchenko demanded that his government revise contracts for the purchase of Russian gas and its transit to Europe. He suggested cutting the amount of gas his country purchased by half and increasing the price of transporting 1,000 cubic meters of gas for 100 km from the current $1.70 to $2.60-$2.80. In his opinion, Ukraine's commitments are fixed more rigidly than those of Russia.
Yushchenko is suffering from low approval ratings and may benefit if Moscow shuts off gas supplies. This would help him unite his voters in the struggle against the artificially created enemy, Russia.
In theory, a new gas war could have started this week. November 9 was the deadline for Ukraine to pay for the Russian gas it consumed in October, and Kiev paid for it only at the last moment. Representatives for the Ukrainian president emphasized that their boss was not the cause for any delay in payment for Russian gas.
Apparently, Brussels also played a major role. Over the past weekend, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso asked Yushchenko by phone not to obstruct payment for Russian gas. He reminded the Ukrainian president that his country is not only a purchaser but also a link in supply of Russian gas to Europe, and Europeans should not suffer from thwarted supplies.
Now, even if the European Union does not accept the Russian memo on an early warning system for energy affairs in full, its sheer appearance will play into Russia's hand as it is trying to share with Europe the risks implied by gas transits via Ukraine.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Interview with Natalia Toganova, Ph.D., a researcher at the Center for European Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations
On November 9, 2009 the world marked 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. What is the importance of that event?
Today we regard the fall of the Berlin Wall as a signal event of historical importance for the German people and Germany as a state. However, its historical importance overshadows its economic significance.
What do you mean?
[Chancellor Helmut] Kohl promised that the reunification of Germany would create a prosperous economy, but his promise has not materialized, and the German press now publishes fewer economic commentaries than for the event’s tenth or fifteenth anniversary.
Why is that?
The economic convergence proceeded quite well in the first five years [after reunification] and the results were still optimistic ten years later. But 15 years after the event convergence slowed down, and now relations between regions in the former East Germany are noted by polarization rather than convergence.
Has the gap between the living standards in the western and eastern parts of Germany grown rather than decreased?
No, but its size has not changed for the past five years. There are successful regions, and they are becoming more successful with each passing year, for example in Saxony. When they speak about success, they mostly refer to Saxony.
Has the gap between mentality in the eastern and western parts of Germany disappeared?
No, and it will not disappear for a long time yet. There are fewer owners in the eastern regions and their businesses are smaller. Only 3% of companies with a turnover of more than 250 million euros are registered in the eastern regions, which means that unemployment is higher and incomes are smaller there.
What were the political consequences of the fall of the Berlin Wall for Europe and the world?
It was a signal event but not a turning point for Europe, because the turning point was the mutual opening up of Eastern Europe and Western Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall was breaking news broadcast by the global media, but contrary to expectations the role of Germany after reunification has not increased in Europe or the world. This became evident already in 1992. Germany was busy trying to resolve domestic problems, primarily in the economy.
But Germany is a leading European economy, and its political role has been growing, hasn’t it?
Yes, this is true, but the predictions of 1989 and the early 1990s, when some feared that Germany would become the leading player in the world, have not come true.
Do you agree that Mikhail Gorbachev played a big role in the fall of the Berlin Wall?
In my opinion, it was a historical process that was bound to happen, and it happened. At that time, Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the Soviet Union. What is important is that the process was not dragged out, and that Gorbachev made the decisive step. But it would have happened anyway. The Soviet Union lacked the funds to maintain the status quo in Europe. The reunification of Germany was inevitable.
www.rian.ru
Moscow tried to protest against Germany joining NATO, but its partners in the U.S. and the European Economic Community, the forerunner of the more powerful and inertia-driven European Union, refused to listen to its arguments. It was at that time that the U.S. and its European allies found a hypocritical formula for appeasing Russia.
The NATO expansion will actually expand the zone of peace and security, they said, and the closer that zone approaches Russia the better for it. Nobody thought then that the "peace and security zone" would bomb Serbia, Belgrade and Podgorica in the former Yugoslavia.
During the roundtable in the Gorbachev Foundation, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union's first and last president said: "We asked our American partners why they feared Germany and why they wanted it to join NATO. They replied that Germany outside NATO could be expected to do anything. We hoped that Germany could become a member of the common European security structures, which were stipulated in the Charter for European Security adopted in Paris in 1990. But the Western countries forgot about that Charter as soon as the Soviet Union disintegrated. They said they made their promises to a different country."
So, the actual situation differs dramatically from the benevolent statements currently made in Washington and Berlin. It can be said that German reunification was a forced and undemocratic decision that could be expected from Bolsheviks rather than Western democracies.
The winner is always right, one could say, and Chancellor Kohl got what he wanted, and who cares how he did it. But cultural and economic losses from such decisions often become apparent only years or even decades later.
This is probably why debates about that event have not stopped in Germany 20 years later, and old wounds refuse to heal at the intellectual and economic levels.
In the mid-1990s, the Spiegel magazine asked East Germans what was better and what was worse in their former country compared to reunited Germany. The answers provided by the Ossis, as West Germans call East Germans, shocked many. East Germany won on all counts, including personal security, healthcare and education, and excluding only living standards.
This could be the "material" foundation for the current popularity of the democratic socialist Left Party, the successor of the Party of Democratic Socialism, which has won a considerable share of the Social Democratic electorate.
There is also an intellectual reason for the Left Party's popularity. In the 1990s, the West painted black not only East Germany and its history but also Germany's radical social tradition.
Christa Wolf, the most interesting and mysterious East German writer, contributed one of the deepest and merciless stories about Nazi Germany in 1976, "Patterns of Childhood." But she was victimized in the 1990s because she was a member of East Germany's Socialist United Party. Nobody listened to her explanation that she joined the party to be able to popularize anti-fascist leftwing ideas.
The current Berlin politicians may not like it, but the history of East Germany is part of the German identity, and attempts to bury it as undemocratic and unwanted can only undermine the idea of democracy.
According to the Washington-based nonpartisan fact tank Pew Research, the number of Germans who support the idea of transition to democracy dropped from 91% in 1991 to 85% in 2009.
The situation in Ukraine is much worse, as the share of Ukrainians who support multiparty democracy has plummeted from 72% in 1991 to 30% in 2009.
The reason for this public disappointment could be not democracy as such, but its specific interpretations by some politicians. In Germany, the victory of Kohl's Alliance for Germany was proclaimed as the final choice of the German people in 1990. In Ukraine in 2005, the questionable victory of one man, Viktor Yushchenko, was celebrated as the Ukrainians' final choice of NATO, the EU and so on.
No nation likes this kind of "unconditional" democracy.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Dmitry Babich) - The border between East Germany and West Germany was opened 20 years ago, on November 9, 1989. Germany's reunification became inevitable that day, although Germany now celebrates it on October 3, the day when the two states reunited in 1990.
The majority of the world's media today present that event simplistically. They write that East Germans, who could no longer tolerate the Soviet occupation, embraced their rich western brothers, which made the free West happy. Subsequently, reunited Germany was invited into NATO to protect it from the potential encroachments by the unreformed "Russian bear."
They say little, if anything, about the role of Mikhail Gorbachev and Russian democrats.
Was it a clear victory of the Western civilization over the Eastern barbarians?
The situation was much more complicated. The reunification of Germany in 1989-1990 would have been impossible without the good will of the Soviet Union's leadership and the people who could influence the country's policy through the first freely elected Congress of People's Deputies in 1989.
In the early autumn of 1989, the leaders of West Germany and East Germany could not imagine that their countries would reunite so quickly. Even the East German government's decision of November 9, 1989 to allow Germans to travel to West Germany and West Berlin without special passes was effective only "until the adoption of a new law on foreign travel," which was never adopted.
In September 1989, the East German authorities expressed their disappointment to the government of Hungary through which East Germans were then escaping to Austria and on to other Western countries. The East German leaders even complained to Gorbachev, who never responded.
So, it was Moscow who initiated democratic change in Germany in 1989, including the reunification of the two German states. Moscow's role was at least as big as that of Western Europe and the United States. It was not the East German authorities who allegedly wanted change but feared Russia's reaction, but Russia, where Gorbachev had launched perestroika, that encouraged East Germans to start democratic reforms.
In short, it would be wrong and unfair to present the history of Russian-East German relations as a period of Soviet occupation and unbearable pressure.
"It became clear to me during the celebration of East Germany's 40th anniversary in October 1989 that German socialism was doomed," Mikhail Gorbachev said at a recent roundtable, titled, "1989-2009: Europe at the crossroads."
"Erich Honecker missed the time when a reform was still possible without breaking the system," Gorbachev said. "However, many people in the West feared German reunification. French President Francois Mitterrand came to Moscow to discuss this issue several times. [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher was openly against the reunification, which she thought would threaten the principle of the inviolability of the post-war borders in Europe sealed in the Helsinki Agreement."
Initially, many Western countries did not want the two German states to reunite or were wary of the possibility. For example, the United States approved the idea only when it had become clear that its allies would rule the united Germany.
Central European countries, above all Poland and Czechoslovakia, actually feared the reunification of Germany because they still remembered what the Nazi Germany did to them, and also because they had seized parts of Germany following its defeat in WWII in 1945.
American historian Mark Kramer wrote in The Washington Quarterly in April 2009: "In Poland, Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki and other leading political figures across the spectrum were so alarmed about the prospect of a reunified Germany that they publicly called for the Warsaw Pact to be bolstered and for Soviet troops to remain indefinitely on Polish (and East German) soil until the status of Germany and of the German-Polish border could be resolved."
At that time, Mazowiecki, an anti-Communist politician, headed Poland's first non-Communist government.
In late 1989, the leaders of the new East European regimes did not consider withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact or joining NATO. The West European and American leaders' conservatism was also buttressed by uncertainty as regards the East Germans' choice. Many Western newspapers wrote that East Germans, who for 40 years lived amidst anti-capitalist propaganda, would again vote for the Communists or their reformed successor, the Party of Democratic Socialism.
The situation changed overnight on March 18, 1990, when the Alliance for Germany, an opposition coalition, won the parliamentary elections. It consisted of the Christian Democratic Union, Democratic Awakening and the German Social Union, all of which demanded immediate reunification with West Germany, and was supported by West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.
However, the coalition won only 48% of the vote, which is not an absolute majority. Social Democrats, who were still wary of reunification, won 21.8%, and the Party of Democratic Socialism 16.3%.
But Kohl and U.S. "hawks" were unconcerned about those "insignificant" details. They had the majority in the East German parliament and could disregard the opinion of the minority. Their policies were determined that day - they would work to accelerate German reunification and integrate the new state into NATO.>>>>
- What was the most difficult in preparing for the Winter Olympics? Building facilities?
- I said it in 2003 - when we were rewarded the games - that we won the first gold medal for the 2010 Winter Olympics. And the second gold medal has got to go to all the workers, the men and the women, who actually built the facilities. This is the first Winter Olympics in the history, where all the facilities are built a year before they were needed for the Olympics.
We have some spectacular facilities. The speed-skating oval has the largest wood-made roof, a million board feet of pine. When people walk in there, they are just awestruck by the beauty of the building.
It wasn’t the venues as much as taking full advantage of what the Olympics offers us. It does offer us an opportunity to think about what we have in common, it does offer us a way to inspire young people who have all the way to do better. It inspires all of us to raise our games, just as athletes raised their games, artists raised their games – it’s really a unifier between what we call first nations or aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people. Our organizing committee over-exceeded expectations, it set high goals and exceeded. And we hope to do that for February 2010.
- Are you going to share some of your Olympic technologies and your experience with the Sochi Games?
- Oh, we would be glad to! One of the really encouraging things about the Olympics is that it does encourage you as a part of the Olympic family… Sochi is part of the Olympic family. So, I talked to the members of your Organizing committee – anything I can do to help them to be the best, to break the record of the Vancouver Games. This is about all of us – being better. Although I’m going to cheer for Canada in the hockey game, but I want every team to be the best they can be. I’m going to cheer for Vancouver to do the best Winter Olympic ever but that is the case. Then we’ll also be cheering for the next games to be even better than this one. It’s not something that stands still, it’s something we all have to strive for. And that’s for me what the Olympics are about – striving to be your best: reaching higher, being stronger, going faster. Doing this together and seeing that there’s a common purpose behind us.
New York
The Premier of the Province of British Columbia, which will host the Olympics-2010, headed the Canadian delegation in the United States presenting the upcoming Winter Games. He shared his forecast of the ice-hockey final in Vancouver, talked about other Canadian Olympic bets and pledged his support for the next Games in Sochi - in an interview with Dmitry Gornostaev, RIA Novosti New York Bureau Chief.
- Mr. Campbell, the Olympic torch is traveling across Canada these days with British Columbia being the final destination of the relay. Indeed, the Olympic Games have already started for your country. So, what do you consider to be the most important event of the Olympics?
- The most important event is the opening of the Games. And the reason for that is that it’s when the people suddenly realize what the Olympics can do. It brings the whole world together around common goals and common objectives. It brings down barriers that tend to separate us. It says “We’re all one! We’re all going to strive to be the best we can be in the Games!” I think the opening is the most important event.
- As a Canadian, you will probably be cheering the most for your own hockey team at the Games. What do you expect from the ice hockey tournament?
- If you’re asking me “Do I hope Canada wins hockey gold?” the answer is “Yes.” I met with Alex Ovechkin in Turin, and after they already had been awarded the Sochi games. I’m sure that Alex will be an important part of your Olympic team. We’ll have Sidney Crosby as part of our team. Both have great teams, so do the United States. So, I think it will be a very good hockey tournament this year.
- Who do you predict to play in the final?
- I don’t know what the draw will be. My bet is that it will be Canada and the United States, or Canada and Russia, or Russia and the United States. That would be my bet right now, but I don’t follow the international, I don’t know how the Finnish team is doing this year or where the Swedes are. Swedes won gold in 2006, Canada was a little disappointed in 2006. There will be four or five narrow-horse teams. That’s why we expect a great tournament. It’s always better when it’s a great tournament among the best.
And in women’s hockey I think the final will likely be between Canada and the United States. And of course, I hope that Canada will win in women’s hockey. I want everyone to come to the Games, I want all of them to do their best. I want Canada to win as many gold medals as possible.
- What are your other bets for Canada?
- Speed-skating. We have a very good speed-skating team in Canada. Cindy Klassen was a multiple medalist in Turin. And of course, Denny Morrison, who is from our province. He has been moving up the world records and we’re hoping for him to get a gold for his team. Generally, it’s a very good team in speed-skating.
I think we have a chance to get some medals in skiing. The ski team has really improved. Both of our hockey teams. In curling, I think, we have a very good chance. And cross-country skiing, we have very good strong cross-country skiers.
As soon as you get awarded at Games, the talent rises to the top. And I’m sure that’s what you’ll find in Sochi. You will find a whole new batch of incredible athletes, they will inspire the new generation of athletes. And that’s of course, we all hope.>>>
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - An attempt to add a bit more warmth to the relations between Russia and Britain during the visit of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to Moscow and his talks with Sergei Lavrov on November 2 seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot. From all appearances, Russian-British relations will remain in limbo until next summer.
This summer, Britain will hold parliamentary elections, which the Conservatives are likely to win, and Moscow will then have to build new relations with the British Cabinet. Strange as it might seem, the diplomatic tango between Moscow and London does not necessarily become more complicated or awkward when the Conservatives come to power. One can hardly conceive of anybody more conservative than Margaret Thatcher, but she was the first western leader with whom Mikhail Gorbachev started building new relations with the West.
The current situation is paradoxical in that Vladimir Putin, as president, and now President Dmitry Medvedev have developed sincere and business-like relations with most of Europe's main governments with the exception of Britain. These governments can be labeled: conservative (French President Nicolas Sarkozy), right (Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi) or center-right (German Chancellor Angela Merkel).
Moscow is least successful in developing relations with the U.K.'s (socialist) Labor Party. During the past five years relations between Moscow and London have been characterized by diplomat and spy extradition, government and semi-government office closure, court hearings, sanctioned officials (including visa denials) and a number of fallen oligarchs choosing London as a place of residence. It should be noted that France, Switzerland and Spain have their share of expatriated Russian oligarchs, but they seem to behave differently in these countries, being somehow less overt. This is difficult to explain; maybe the environment differs from that of the British Isles.
Mr. Miliband is the first British foreign office chief to come to Moscow in five years. The last time was Jack Straw's visit in July 2004. It's hard to contemplate a worse "reagent" for a Russian-British thaw than Mr. Miliband.
Ironically he arrived in Moscow on November 1, the day when former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko was ostensibly poisoned with polonium-210 in London three years ago. The Litvinenko case has been a key irritant in Russian-British relations, and one cannot speak about it without mentioning Mr. Miliband. He was appointed Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in June 2007. One of his first Russia-related cases was the expulsion of three Russian diplomats in response to Moscow denying London's request to extradite Andrei Lugovoi. Mr. Miliband had demanded the extradition of supposedly the only culprit in the Litvinenko murder. Sergei Lavrov replied that it was impossible since: A) Russia is not going to change its Constitution and 
British evidence was insufficient. This situation mirrors the controversy over Russian asylees. Moscow has demanded the extradition of Boris Berezovsky and Akhmed Zakayev more than once, but Britain says the Russian Prosecutor General's Office hasn't submitted the requisite documents allowing an extraction.
The personal relationship between Mr. Miliband and Mr. Lavrov could not be worse. The British even assert that last September Mr. Lavrov allegedly lashed out at Mr. Miliband saying he would not listen to his preaching and reprimands in a telephone conversation initiated by his British counterpart right after the war in South Ossetia started. Moscow asserts this never happened. Knowing Mr. Lavrov as a diplomat, this hardly seems likely. In the diplomatic community, he is considered experienced and skillful. However, knowing Mr. Lavrov as a person, it's very easy to believe.
All in all, something has to change in relations with Britain. This applies to both Moscow and London, since they are equally responsible for this conflicted relationship.
The fact is that the British secretary didn't need to come to Moscow to reach these agreements with his Russian counterpart on November 2. The declarations on non-proliferation support, stabilization in Afghanistan and support for the plans to enrich Iran's uranium in Russia could have been released without the visit.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Alexander Peslyak) - Early in the morning of November 2, a Rokot carrier rocket, which is a derivative of the SS-18 ICBM (NATO reporting name SS-19 mod.2 Stiletto), was launched into orbit from Russia's Plesetsk Space Center. It carried two European Space Agency (ESA) satellites: the SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity) and PROBA-2 (PRoject for OnBoard Autonomy).
As ESA representative in Moscow Rene Pischel told RIA Novosti during an interview, the simultaneous launch of these two satellites marks a new chapter in the history of studying the Earth from space and the ESA's Living Planet Programme.
According to his colleague Volker Liebig, the SMOS satellite is the most important spacecraft in the Earth Explorer series and will be used for research into two aspects of Earth's complex climate system. Over the next three years, it will record soil moisture and the salinity at various locations in the world's oceans.
The latest space-based remote sensing technologies can use electromagnetic waves to help study the Earth's water cycle, make weather forecasts more precise, simulate climate situations, and obtain useful knowledge for agriculture and water resources management.
The data obtained from this line of research will allow scientists to create the first continuously updated, high-precision map of the salinity of the world's oceans and enrich their knowledge of the principles of oceanic flows and their influence on climate systems. Exact data on the Earth's hydrologic cycle will help scientists understand phenomena causing climate change, as well as predict extreme weather conditions and the sources of storms and hurricanes.
"We are very interested in monitoring the North Atlantic: it is there that we have the highest average water temperature, salinity and density," says Vladimir Sokolov, a department head at the State Oceanographic Institute. "It is the 'birthplace of weather' for the entire Eurasian continent. Although the North Atlantic receives a large portion of the entire fresh water influx, including fresh water from rivers, it maintains the highest salinity in the World Ocean because of a high evaporation rate." The evaporation transforms into energy producing an average thermal anomaly of up to 10 degrees, which affects Europe as well.
The scientist says the SMOS will help test the theory of antiphase temperature oscillations in the land-ocean cycles, and thus allow us to see more clearly what is in store for us in the near future. It will also shed light onto the question of whether Western Europe will turn into Magadan, a city in north-eastern Russia, if heat transfer from south to north is disrupted.
The PROBA-2 satellite will serve as a platform for testing 17 new technologies to be used in future spacecraft. Additionally, the Belgian engineers who designed the satellite will stage two experiments in different frequencies to measure the solar radiance and the solar corona, and, at the initiative of Czech scientists, two experiments on space weather.
In total 10 European countries and Canada contributed to the satellite program. The PROBA-2 is the smallest of the ESA's spacecraft, and is shaped like a cube with one side measuring a little more than 0.5 meter and a weight of 130 kg. The agency says cheaper satellites could allow smaller companies to gain experience in satellite construction, which is vital for European companies to be competitive.
The Mission Control Center outside Moscow, along with stations in Norway, Spain, France and Sweden, will control the satellites and oversee the collection of data.
Russian engineers took the satellites' specifics into account when planning the launch. Firstly, the Rokot is the only Russian space launch vehicle (SLA) whose nose cone can be installed when the rocket is already in a vertical position at the launch pad. Secondly, according to Andrei Novikov from the Khrunichev Space Center, the satellites are attached to the SLA via an adapter system that is similar to a "kind of a Matryoshka nested doll that serves both as a fastener and a protective cover."
The nose cone is fitted atop the Briz-KM upper stage, thus allowing a design formerly used for ICBMs to be adopted to that of a carrier rocket. Equipped with a set of instruments and control systems, the Briz launches satellites into their prospective orbits. According to ESA specifications, the heavier SMOS will be launched into a 760 km-high orbit first, and then the Briz will carry the trial PROBA-2 down to a lower orbit altitude, releasing it at an altitude of 725 km to prevent a collision between the two spacecraft.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Anatoly Korolyov, member of the Russian Pen Club for RIA-Novosti) - In 2009, Europe and Russia celebrate 100 years of the Diaghilev Seasons in Paris, named after the brilliant Russian ballet impresario Sergei Diaghilev. The echo of the bygone event still rocks the world of global culture, and here's why.
One hundred years ago, the tacit capital of culture was Paris. It set trends in painting, music, ballet and stage design. Paris was the center of the world and all the young geniuses of the world strove to move there to learn their craft. Bringing an unknown Russian ballet there in 1909 was a great risk. Nevertheless, Diaghilev decided to do it. What is more, not did he plan to overwhelm, captivate and conquer the capricious global cultural elite, he envisioned knocking Paris off its pedestal.
The only theater he managed to get in 1909 was Theatre du Chatelet.
This was a cramped, uncomfortable theater that was not amenable to sensation, and Diaghilev proceeded to renovate it. He ordered the theater's old floor to be replaced; he enlarged the stage and changed the audience space. Diaghilev turned the worn down and provincial Chatelet into a newly fashionable Paris theater.
In addition, Diaghilev took to taking his ballet company to Larue restaurant for dinner, together with all of the Paris journalists, who soon filled the newspapers with reports of the Chatelet renovation and interviews with Diaghilev. Having given countless interviews, Diaghilev orchestrated Paris's anticipation to a fever pitch and gouged sky-high prices for the boxes, while keeping the balconies and galleries cheap.
Diaghilev's charm was so great that he was befriended by the entire Paris elite of the time, headed up by the kings of esthetic trends, Jean Cocteau and Jacques-Emile Blanche.
But one thing was to orchestrate great PR, and quite another to prove one's claim to fame.
In the first fateful day of the tour, Diaghilev showed Paris and the world a never-before-seen spectacle - the ballets "Le Pavillon d'Armide," "Prince Igor" (with scenes of Polovets dances) and the ballet suite "The Feast." On stage at the Chatelet, Tamara Karsavina, Alexandra Baldina, Vera Caralli, Sofia Fyodorova and the genius who overwhelmed everyone, Vaslav Nijinsky, danced with Asian splendor and icy perfection.
The following evening was devoted to opera, with the great Feodor Chaliapin singing, and then ballet again - the premiere of "Les Sylphides" with Anna Pavlova and "Cleopatra" with the phenomenal Ida Rubinstein, carried by slaves dressed in topaz and emeralds out to the podium, sprinkling rose petals onto a vast blue carpet.
The words "success" and "triumph" could not even begin to describe the excitement that gripped the French public, press and elite 100 years ago. The power and beauty of the Russian ballets was in stark contrast to the miniature world of Parisian marionettes of the time. The French ballet of the time was a tedious flurry of pale rags and scenery made out of painted cardboard. Painted cardboard dolls in wigs jumped around this grayness, imitating the esthetics of Versailles from 200 years ago.
It had no blood, no passion, just wall-to-wall powder and chalk.
And suddenly there was celestial scenery, the costumes designed by Alexandre Benois, the baroque bacchanalia of Leon Bakst, the monumentalism of Nicholas Roerich, the refinement of Alexandre Golovine and, of course, the music by Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Glazunov and Mussorgsky.
The critics, enraptured by the Russians, admitted with some embarrassment that French ballet, as it turned out, had become hopelessly out of date: "We don't know how to dance," "That's a nice kettle of fish," "Our theater is ridiculous," "There now - we're in decline."
Conclusions were made about the decline of Europe from the triumph of the artists from St Petersburg.
Here, for example, is what critic Abel Bonnard wrote at the time: We no longer know what dance is. We are no longer savage enough for that. We are too cultured, too civilized, too threadbare. We have lost the habit of expressing our feelings with our entire body. We barely let them appear on our faces and shine through in our words...
Everything Russian - from dances to feather hats - became fashionable. Fashion-conscious women on the Champs Elysees dressed like Ida Rubinstein and fashion-conscious men wore monocles like the maestro Diaghilev. The prices of sapphires spiked when it became known that Nijinsky collected them.
In short, the epicenter of European culture moved to St Petersburg in 1909, and the wave of Russian Art Nouveau created a constellation of names and phenomenal manifestations in music, painting, ballet, poetry and literature. The Revolution of 1917 intensified the supremacy of the Soviet radicals, and it was in Russia that Constructivism, Abstractionism and Suprematism were born and it was Russians who shared the glory of founding Futurism with the Italians.
And only the reincarnation of a free country into a Stalinist dictatorship stopped this wave of flowering and Russia became the world's cultural wasteland for many years. And after all, Paris has long since been superseded by New York.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Mikhail Rostovsky for RIA Novosti) - Relations between Russia and the European Union remain an uphill struggle. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev thought hard before agreeing to attend the Russia-EU summit in Stockholm on November 18.
"It was a difficult decision for Russia. Moscow was not sure this summit would be productive," said presidential aide Sergei Prikhodko.
His skepticism could be explained by the Swedish foreign minister's recent and alarming statements about Russia, but this is most likely only the tip of the iceberg. More to the point, Russia and the EU have nothing to talk about now.
Differing values are not the only root of the evil. The EU countries have agreed on the new structure of the European Union, but they are still divided over their policies regarding Russia.
Karsten Voigt, coordinator of German-American Cooperation at the German Foreign Ministry, said at a roundtable in Berlin in June 2009 that 87% of the German elite had a negative attitude toward Russia's policies. At the same time, 61% of the respondents said Russia was a crucial partner, and 76% admitted that the proposed Nord Stream gas pipeline would strengthen their energy security.
To some Eastern European politicians, these figures are like waving a red cape in front of a bull. One would think that time would have softened the bad feelings from the socialist bloc years. Unfortunately, these feelings are only growing stronger and for psychological rather than political reasons. Confrontation with Russia has become a source of a national unity for the political leadership of countries like Poland.
If you want to find common ground with a German diplomat or politician, throw him a couple of lines about how "absolutely impossible" Poles are. Both us and many of Warsaw's allies in Western Europe have long been fed up with its ambitions and increasing demands.
Russia thinks nothing of public quarrels with its CIS partners, while the leaders of the old EU countries, although they may be furious, still prefer to search for compromise. No matter how contentious Poland can be, it is still a better partner for the other EU countries than Russia.
As Jack London said in one of his stories, "A boat divided against itself won't float." Russia sometimes benefits from the EU's inability to coordinate a common policy toward it. European politicians threatened Russia with hell and damnation after the August 2008 war with Georgia, but they did nothing in the end.
On the other hand, the EU's inability to punish Russia also means that it cannot do anything nice for us either. Moscow has no choice but to rely on bilateral cooperation with individual EU member countries. This is not bad, but it cannot be regarded as a cause for optimism either.
One can speak at length about the decline of Europe and the unlikelihood of the EU accepting new members in the foreseeable future. But where there is a will, there is a way, and in 20 or 30 years the EU's external borders may well run close to Russia's Smolensk and Belgorod.
Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych, Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko very seldom agree with each other, but they are equally enthusiastic about "European integration." Belarus' high-level politicians behave likewise. When Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko eventually leaves, we may see Belarus march happily toward the West.
The only issue on which the EU and Russia engage in a dynamic dialogue is energy. Moreover, describing their interaction as dialogue is stretching the point. It is more a classic conflict between a monopoly buyer and a monopoly seller, with Russia always on the defensive. The EU acts on the premise "Russia is dangerous and unreliable; we fear you" in trying to hobble the Russian bear and deprive it of even a theoretical opportunity to teach Europe what's what.
Playing with pipelines and counter-pipelines may be interesting. To Russian leadership, it has become the kind of Big Game Russia and Britain played for domination in Central Asia in the 19th century. But if Russia limits its activities to pipelines, it may eventually become the "raw materials appendage" of the world.
The perennial Russian question "What is to be done?" is not imperative for Russia-EU relations. Russia's long-term strategic interests call for developing a close partnership with the European Union. Only in this way can we continue to live as good neighbors with Ukraine and Belarus and develop a modern economy.
The new Russian question should be "How can this be done?". Unfortunately, neither Moscow nor Brussels have the answer.
Mikhail Rostovsky is a commentator of Moskovsky Komsomolets.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Russia is ready to provide NATO with helicopters for its war in Afghanistan - on commercial terms.
Dmitry Shugayev, general director of the state-owned corporation Russian Technology, made this announcement last week at a meeting in Brussels with officials in charge of logistics for NATO forces.
During its operations in Afghanistan, the alliance has faced an acute shortage of helicopters. In Afghanistan's extremely harsh conditions, helicopters often break down and need replacements even in non-combat situations. And the need for military hardware grows with continued increases in troops.
Soviet or Russian manufactured aircraft play a significant role in supplying NATO forces. Today Russian hardware is used both by commercial airlines working for the military and directly by the militaries of some NATO member states, generally Eastern European countries. At present, Eastern European countries have at their disposal around 400 Russian-made transport helicopters, most of which are slated for use in Afghanistan or are already deployed there.
Such widespread use could hardly go unnoticed by the Russian manufacturers of the aircraft, who at the very least intend to get their share of the orders for equipment repairs. And finally, taking into account the Russian helicopters' ease of use, lower cost, and higher reliability in the harsh conditions of Afghanistan as compared to their Western equivalents, Russia can count on orders from countries involved in Afghanistan and airlines serving the forces deployed there. Apart from direct orders for helicopters, it is possible that Russia could also train pilots and technical experts at Russian training centers.
Which models do Western militaries use? Primarily transport helicopters from the Mi-8/17 series, which are used extensively by many countries, along with their "heavier" counterparts - Mi-26s. The Soviet Union used all of these aircraft in its own Afghan war, but even today they meet all of the requirements for military transport helicopters, and are on a par with the best helicopters in the West. The fact that they are extensively used to transport NATO command personnel, not only in the Afghanistan conflict zone but in other wars, speaks to the reputation of Russian helicopters. For example, in 1991 a Syrian Mi-8 served as the "personal transport" for General Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the Coalition Forces in the Gulf War.
How beneficial is this situation for Russia, and is it really worth it to be involved in the Afghan war, even in such an indirect way?
Here we must return to the history for a moment, and remember that Russia has never really been in a position to benefit from any wars. In most cases, either Russia itself was involved in the war, and thus paid for it in blood and weapons, or it bore considerable material expenses to support one side or another against an enemy it could not fight directly, for political, economic, geographic or other reasons.
A unique situation has now emerged in Afghanistan. NATO is waging a difficult and increasingly senseless war there. However, if there were no coalition forces there, it is quite possible that Russia would have had to wage this war itself - at the very least in order to prevent a sharp destabilization of the neighboring Central Asian republics if the Taliban were to achieve total victory in Afghanistan. In addition, the war would probably be fought within Tajikistan, or perhaps even closer to the Russian border than the Soviet-Afghan war, for example, in the Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan.
For the time being, Russia can remain outside of this war, limiting itself to providing transit services, and perhaps even make a profit - for example, by selling helicopters.
At the same time, it is obvious that Russia should refrain from direct involvement in the conflict by, for example, sending helicopter units of the Russian air force to Afghanistan. The Afghan people do not support the NATO operation and most of them are against the alliance's forces, which can explain the Taliban's advances in recent months.
If NATO is unable find a solution to the current situation that is acceptable to most of the country's population in the foreseeable future, then the alliance will be forced to leave Afghanistan in the coming three to four years. Although the consequences of such a withdraw are unknown, it is most likely that the Taliban or another decidedly anti-western power will come to power. And in this case, it would be much easier for Russia, as a country that did not participate in the war, to negotiate with the new leaders of Afghanistan than it would be for the recently expelled occupiers.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - History repeats itself every November after a U.S. presidential election: Barack Obama, like every other American president, is facing problems with the polls.
According to the latest polls from early November, 52%-53% of respondents approve of Obama's performance as president, while 38%-40% disapprove of it. It may be hard to believe, but judging from these polls, no other U.S. president has lost popularity as quickly as Mr. Obama in the last 50 years. On inauguration day, his approval rating approached 82%, and has fallen by almost 30% since the 2008 election.
Although it staggers the imagination, even George W. Bush's ratings increased from 60% to some 78% by November 2001, a year after his election. The Republicans assert that Mr. Obama has been losing popularity since summer, and this process is irreversible. Ultra-right Republicans and Conservatives believe that Mr. Obama is approaching his end.
The Left also seem to have turned their backs on the president who hasn't lived up to their hopes. Guantanamo hasn't been closed down, troops haven't been withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress hasn't passed legislation to prevent climate change, healthcare reform hasn't started, and there have been no limits put on FBI and CIA abuses. The anti-Obama sentiment that was once confined to the fringes is likely to become more mainstream, a typical trend in the United States.
The famous ageing American intellectual and writer Gore Vidal, who switched camps from Hillary Clinton to Mr. Obama, announced this autumn that he was mistaken, that "America has no intellectual class and is rotting away at a funeral pace," and "we'll have military dictatorship soon on the basis nobody else can hold everything together." Mr. Vidal even anticipates Obama's assassination (Heaven forbid).
From all appearances, things are going poorly. There is something wrong with America, and no politician from the Left, Right or Centre seems to be able to fix it. America's troubles include politics, the economy, finance, social services, and healthcare. It has been unsuccessful in handling the financial crisis, the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan run by President Hamid Karzai, the Iranian nuclear problem, the Russia of Putin and the Russia of Medvedev, climate change, Guantanamo, START, the Middle East, the missile shield in Europe, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, banks, the automobile industry, political correctness, and its reputation in the world, to name just a few issues.
Such a list of problems would have eroded the approval rating of George W. Bush as early as his first term. However cynical it may sound, even the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which unified the nation in the face of a major external enemy, wouldn't have rescued Mr. Bush. However, it would be unwise to draw conclusions from polls without taking into account the background against which they emerge. One will be able to judge Obama's performance as president no sooner than next autumn, when his initiatives begin to take shape and bear actual fruits.
It is worth mentioning that most Americans voted for Obama not because they were suddenly enamored with the Democrats or the well-established capabilities and experience of the former senator for Illinois. The nation simply got sick and tired of the Republicans and Mr. Bush, and transferred that weariness onto the Republican candidate John McCain, who, with his gerontological image, was not seen as someone able to cure America of its fatigue. Mr. Obama's victory was a triumph of hope over experience, and such sentiments quickly become less appealing as one grows up. The U.S. is growing up and learning to live with its first African-American president.
By the time they reach their first major milestone, which comes a year after their victory in the election or nine months after assuming office on January 20, all U.S. presidents have seen their approval rates drop. This comes as no surprise since America tends to wake up to reality a year after its presidential election. Mr. Obama's falling approval rating is in line with this common trend. Mr. Obama is also waking up to reality with the nation, which is hardly a unique phenomenon either, since every president usually goes through it. A lot of remarkable events have taken place during this process of waking up to reality, and more are still to come.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Oleg Mityayev) - The board of directors at General Motors surprised the world on November 3 by announcing that it "has decided to retain Opel and will initiate a restructuring of its European operations in earnest."
Months of negotiations between the U.S.-based auto manufacturer and a consortium including Canada's components manufacturer Magna and Russia's largest state lender Sberbank has produced zero results. GM is not selling.
The deal was first announced in May this year, and in September GM gave its tentative agreement to sell a 55% stake in Opel to the Magna-Sberbank consortium (27.5% each). The buyers promised to invest 500 million euros in the ailing German company. The deal was to be financed by Sberbank, which was expected to eventually sell its stake to a Russian automaker, most likely the GAZ Group, Russia's second largest automaker.
However, GM has restructured its business through voluntary bankruptcy and received billions of dollars in state assistance, which placed it under state control.
The GM managers who attempted to liquidate loss-making assets several months ago have left the company, and the new top directors appointed by the White House have more ambitious plans. They do not want GM, once the world's largest automaker, to degenerate into a scaled down regional company working only in the North American market.
The probability loomed large several months ago, when several other contenders apart from Magna-Sberbank sought to buy Opel. One of them was Italy's Fiat, which was prepared to buy GM plants around the world if they were sold cheaply.
However, state assistance has helped GM grow stronger, and the global automotive market has in the meantime resumed some growth. In this situation, GM voted against selling its technology to potential rivals. It said the sale of Opel would give its rivals access to intellectual property GM wants to use in its own new projects.
This is GM's primary reason for reconsidering its decision to sell Opel.
It will now have to pay to restructure the unprofitable German company because the U.S. administration will not finance its European division. In addition, next year's European market sales estimates are quite weak.
GM will also have to "work with the European labor unions to develop a plan for meaningful contributions to Opel's restructuring."
The GM decision has come as a hard blow to the German government, which sponsored Opel's sale to the Magna-Sberbank alliance. Ironically, German Chancellor Angela Merkel heard the news aboard her plane while departing Washington, where she had addressed the U.S. Congress and met with President Barack Obama.
The German government pledged the 4.5 billion euro ($6.7bn) aid only if the preferred buyer for Opel was the Magna-Sberbank alliance. In response, Magna promised to keep as many workers at Opel's German plants as possible.
Also, the deal was one of several mutually beneficial German-Russian investment projects.
The German government has expressed its official regret over the GM decision and said it would demand the repayment of the 1.5bn euro loan it had issued to save Opel.
Magna will not become a major independent European producer, while Russia will not receive cutting-edge technology together with Opel.
The Russian automotive industry will continue to comprise assembly plants from GM, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen and other foreign automakers, as well as several traditional Russian models whose future looks unpromising amid the global economic downturn. The opportunity to take advantage of state of the art automotive technology has been postponed indefinitely.
On the other hand, Russia will not have to deal with the potential risk arising from Magna's attempts to create a new European automotive company based on Opel. The Canadian producer planned to increase Opel sales in Russia to one million cars annually, a plan that looked overoptimistic since only 2.4 million cars were sold in Russia's best year, 2008.
GM said on November 3 that it "hopes to build on its already significant business in Russia and to resume work directly with GAZ to contribute to both the modernization of its operations and the joint development of the Russian vehicle market on a mutually attractive basis."
It was announced last month that GM would increase production not only at its St. Petersburg plant but also at the Avtotor's assembly plant in the Kaliningrad Region.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - The UN conference on climate change, to be held in Copenhagen on December 7-18, is unlikely to seal anything more than routine pledges to address the problem of global warming.
The United States broadly hinted on November 5 that it is not ready for the conference. China has made public its dissatisfaction with the current principles of sharing responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. African countries boycotted this week's UN climate talks in Barcelona to demonstrate their protest against the Western attitude to the problem.
The conference in Copenhagen was expected to discuss instruments, medicines, their doses and diets for cleansing the Earth of the baneful results of human activity. The process is to start in 2020 and the Copenhagen conference was to become the most important, mandatory stage toward its beginning. It is like a decision-making point, when you must either start doing something or prepare for big problems.
Todd Stern, President Barack Obama's top climate negotiator and envoy to next month's international climate summit in Copenhagen, said the United States was unlikely to complete the legal procedure for determining emission cuts in time for the Copenhagen conference.
He said a climate deal was not possible sooner than in 2010, which could give some countries more time to consider the challenging issue.
"What we need to have happen is for China and India and Brazil and South Africa and others to be willing to take what they're doing, boost it up some, and then be willing to put it in to an international agreement," Stern said.
The 15th climate change conference in Copenhagen planned to agree a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Although it was signed in 1997, the protocol has not been overly effective. For example, the United States signed the protocol but refused to honor it. China and India have not promised to cut the emission of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases.
The Kyoto Protocol cannot be described as an effective global mechanism controlling greenhouse emissions, even though European countries are honoring it. Russia signed the protocol and ratified it in 2005, but has not enforced it.
The agreement to be reached in Copenhagen should determine the ceiling of the global warming and ways to ensure compliance with it. The 124 countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol and adhered to its provisions have agreed that the ceiling should not exceed 2 degrees by 2050.
Americans claim that they have made unprecedented commitments under the climate bill that has not been adopted yet. They pledged to cut greenhouse gas emission by 20% by 2020, and the European Union has made a similar commitment. The trouble is that the U.S. set the 2005 level as the reference mark, while Europe's mark is 1990, which means that the U.S. will cut its emissions only by 7% compared to Europe.
One more headache of the Copenhagen conference will be compensations to developing countries. The EU, the U.S. and Japan are prepared to allocate up to $100 billion annually to them to develop new energy saving technology, build environmentally friendly power plants, cut their dependence on coal and fuel oil, and the like.
However, independent analysts have calculated that Asia, Africa and Latin America need as much as $400 billion for stable development.
Most scientists say that since CO2, CH4, fluorhydrocarbons and perfluorhydrocarbons, N2O, SF6, methane and other emissions tend to accumulate in the atmosphere, we are reaping a harvest of "dirt" that was sown 10-15 years ago. If the world's nations postpone signing a binding agreement in Copenhagen, we will only continue to accumulate such "dirt."
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
