"I am concerned that Belarusian economic and foreign policies may not be offered enough protection or given enough consideration at the stage of negotiating the rules of the Customs Union ... Will the Customs Union resolve the challenges that we were faced with when we created the Union State?” said Aleksandr Lukashenko.

He noted that, in customs matters, the interests of Minsk differ from those of Moscow and Astana because, unlike Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia are producers of raw hydrocarbons. "Our economy is quite different. For example, if Ukraine was included in the Union, it would have been much simpler because our economies are similar. In the current scenario, however, we stand alone,” explained the president.

Minsk agreed to join the Customs Union this summer, hoping to get favorable terms for Russia's raw materials and to market its products in Russia. "Belarus needs to solve the problem with energy supply, as well as to get access to the Russian market, equal to that of Russian enterprises. In return, the authorities would be willing to make some compromises. So far, however, there have been no guarantees that Belarus will have something to gain from the Customs Union,” Irina Tochitskaya, deputy head of the Research Center of the Belarusian Institute for Privatization and Management, told Vremya Novostei.

Belarusian authorities are hoping that the creation of a single customs space will lead to a withdrawal of import duties on Russia's oil, which were imposed in early 2007 and deprived Belarusian oil refineries of a part of their export margins (before, they had received cheap raw materials while the processed product was sold at global prices). However, last week, Belarusian Prime Minister Sergey Sidorsky said that Minsk and Moscow have not yet agreed on this issue; experts will continue discussions until July 1, 2010.

Neither has Belarus managed to agree on the supply of Russian gas according to Russia’s domestic prices.

"The arguments that these issues will be resolved within the framework of a single economic space are not convincing. No assurances, oaths or promises will be accepted… We know just how these assurances are implemented," said Aleksandr Lukashenko. Belarusians are specifically concerned that if local enterprises receive energy resources at higher prices in the framework of the Customs Union, it may reduce the competitiveness of their products compared to their Russian counterparts.

The president noted other problems: "Will we be able to compensate for the profit losses by cooperating with third countries, while being a part of the Customs Union, formed mainly under Russia’s conditions? By being a part of the Customs Union, Belarus loses a part of its economic sovereignty in matters of trade relations with third party countries”.

Minsk and Moscow established a bilateral customs union in mid-1990s, however, it still operates with certain exceptions. In particular, the allies have not been able to agree on import regulations for cars. Unlike Russia, Belarus does not produce passenger cars. Increasing tariffs to Russian levels would lead to a sharp decline in imports. In this case, according to the State Customs Committee of Belarus, the country’s budget will lose $200 million on car fees alone.

Irina Tochitskaya believes that “an incomprehensible haste, followed by miscalculations” appeared in the course of negotiations of the Customs Union: “No one can say how tariffs will be determined, how the accession into the Customs Union will be reflected in the state budget, or how we will profit from trade”. According to the observer, it is, at the very least, careless to join the Customs Union without having clear guarantees or detailed calculations.

Read the article on the newspaper's web site

“We will once again be discussing the issue of optimizing natural gas prices for Ukraine, and optimizing our relations,” Ukraine’s news agency UNIAN quoted the prime minister as saying. Moscow is not planning on discussing the price issue because its calculation formula, along with other supply conditions, has been detailed in the long-term contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz of Ukraine.

For the Russian side, the preservation of all supply and transit contracts as is is an absolute priority in its gas relations with Ukraine. They not only fully protect the commercial interests of the Russian concern, but in the current crisis conditions, have created a powerful lever of pressure on Kiev in the form of fines for deficiency gas.

Two supply and transit contracts were signed on January 19 and 20, which put an end to the gas war. Tymoshenko assumed personal responsibility for their implementation before Putin. The price of gas is being calculated for Ukraine in accordance with the formula adopted by European consumers (however, Naftogaz received a 20% discount for 2009). The transit rate is also calculated by this formula, and the price of fuel gas and the European inflation rate are taken into account. Gas is supplied to Ukraine based on the principle of “take or pay.” Naftogaz is to pay for the monthly selection no later than the seventh day of the following month.

Ukraine has been using much less gas than it should be according to the contract, for which Gazprom may present a bill as early as the beginning of next year.

“By year end -- I stress, when the year is over -- we will sign an act according to which we will pay for the natural gas received, and there will no longer be any penalties,” said Tymoshenko. “This is a firm agreement with the Prime Minister of Russia. He has never withdrawn from our agreements, and I too am trying to keep my word with confidence. I think everything will turn out well.”

Putin will keep his word, but only if Ukraine's leadership abandons its idea to review supply and transit contracts after the presidential elections. The draft of Russia and Ukraine’s intergovernmental gas agreement, published in the Ukrainian online edition of The Economic Truth, is further proof of the fact that Moscow does not need anything else but for Kiev to uphold its contractual obligations – including the intergovernmental agreement. The document had been drafted in such a way that Kiev will be forced to refuse even negotiating the idea of signing such an agreement.

Most of its provisions are absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine, and Russia does not have the slightest reason to make any concessions. Not to mention that the intergovernmental agreement must be approved by a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, which is now virtually impossible. For example, Article 2 says that Ukraine guarantees the inviolability of Russia’s property, including the gas and gas transmission infrastructure. The wording on the gas transmission network sounds strange -- as if the authors wanted to emphasize Moscow’s claims to ownership of the Ukrainian pipelines, which are owned by the state, in order to reinforce the negative political sentiment around the draft agreement.

On the other hand, one cannot exclude the possibility that the agreement implies the gas-distributing networks, which Russia may well purchase from Dmitry Firtash. Currently, Gazprom and the Ukrainian businessman are in the final negotiation stages regarding the division of inheritance of the Swiss trader RosUkrEnergo, and amortization or reciprocal liabilities. The document stresses that the inviolability not only applies to Gazprom’s gas and assets, but also to the property transferred by Russia's concern to third parties.

In addition, Article 7 contains provisions offensive to Kiev on the necessity of voluntarily abandoning the judicial sovereignty of the controversial situations that have arisen during the course of the implementation of this agreement -- that is, a claim cannot be filed in a Ukrainian court. Conflicts are to be resolved in an international court according to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; meanwhile, sessions will be held in Moscow and in the Russian language.

The Ukrainian version of the intergovernmental agreement, on the other hand, provisions the opportunity to review the terms of the contract. That is the reason Kiev had been insisting on the signing of the gas document at the level of heads of governments.

Read on the newspaper's web site

In late 1970s, Mojaddedi led the National Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (NFSA). This was one of the movements that united the Afghan Pashtuns against the communists who came to power in 1978. In 1982, in Peshawar, Pakistan, Mojaddedi became a member of the famous Peshawar Seven – an alliance of various Afghan Mujahideen fighters united in the fight against the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan.

Ten years later, in April 1992, after the last communist leader of Afghanistan, Najibullah, had been overthrown, the “warriors of Islam” declared Sibghatullah Mojaddedi to be the first leader of the Islamic State of Afghanistan. It is believed that the few months in which he held this position were the most peaceful in the 30-plus years of modern Afghan history. After his temporary presidency came to an end, and the Mujahideen agreed to appoint another professor-theologian, the head of the Islamic Society of Afghanistan, representing Afghan Tajiks, Burhanuddin Rabbani, a bloody civil war began in the country.

The 51-year-old Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is 30 years younger than Mojaddedi, whom he regards as his teacher. When they meet, he respectfully kisses the hand of the professor. In the mid-1980s Mojaddedi became the first political supporter of Karzai, who headed the NFSA. This endorsement led to Karzai’s first public post in the government of President Rabbani, where he was the deputy minister of foreign affairs. Due to his authority, Mojaddedi was indispensible when, in 2002, after the fall of the Taliban regime, the time came to convene the loya jirga (all-Afghan council of elders) in order to create a new system of government of Afghanistan. In 2005, Mojaddedi was elected chairman of the Senate of Afghanistan.

The arrival in Moscow of the influential Afghan politician, second only to Karzai in the official hierarchy and considered to be the president’s confidant, is perceived as a kind of gesture toward the West, hinting at the possibility of changing Kabul’s foreign policy guidelines. This is the opinion of the head of the Russian Center for the Study of Modern Afghanistan, Omar Nessar, who noted in his interview with Vremya Novostei that the speaker of the Senate’s trip is only the second foreign visit made by an Afghan leader immediately after the presidential election and before the formation of a new government. The first official trip was made by Karzai to Turkey. According to the expert, the visit of such a respected figure of the Islamic world will increase Russia's credibility among Muslims.

Before leaving Kabul, the professor met with Russia's new Ambassador to Afghanistan, Andrey Avetisyan, who assured him that “Moscow is prepared to continue actively participating in rebuilding the Afghan economy as well as providing support and assistance to Kabul directed toward strengthening the Afghan nation and combating terrorism and drug trafficking.” Today, the guest will be received by his Russian colleague, Sergey Mironov. And already tomorrow, he will head back to his homeland.

In Afghanistan, the behind–the-scenes struggle for the distribution of governmental posts among various clans continues. Meanwhile, it is accompanied by the pressure of the Western leaders on Karzai to increase his efforts in eradicating corruption among the country's ruling bureaucracy.

“Who the personalities are [in the government] is not as big a concern as having competent, effective, honest members of the government,” US State Secretary Hillary Clinton said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel. Washington is letting it be known that President Barack Obama’s decision regarding the dispatch of additional troops to Afghanistan depends on Karzai’s determination in the fight against corruption. According to diplomatic sources, the replacement of the head of Kandahar province – the president’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, who is considered to be one of the major drug barons in the country – will serve as evidence of Karzai’s determination.

However, in his interview with Der Spiegel, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that increased international presence in Afghanistan will not be successful until “the Afghan people decide to create their own government and manage their country as a united state. The important thing is that the Afghan people get a taste for creating their own political system, a taste for the creation of their own state based on their beliefs about the power of the people. It is important that this is not imposed upon them with bayonets.”

Read the article on the newspaper's website

Teitel, originally from Florida, made Israel his permanent residence in 2000. He owned a house in the West Bank settlement of Shvut Rachel. His father is a dentist who works on a US naval base. Teitel is a father of four who works from home as a programmer. He committed the killings of Palestinians in July-August of 1997, while visiting Israel as a tourist. His victims were an East Jerusalem taxi driver and a shepherd near the Palestinian city of Hebron.

Since 2000, having already become an Israeli citizen, Teitel has committed at least five terrorist acts. They include a September 2008 attack on a 73-year-old leftist professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Zeev Sternhell. An explosive device exploded near the professor’s home in Jerusalem; he sustained leg injuries. Police note that some of the terrorist’s explosives are particularly brutal. In February 2008, he sent a package to a family of Messianic Jews that was opened by a 15-year-old boy. The package contained a bomb made of nails and scraps of metal. The boy survived, but had to undergo nearly a dozen surgeries.

During the interrogation, the terrorist confessed to the August 1 attack on a gay club in Tel Aviv, in which 17-year-old Liz Trobushi and 26-year-old Nir Katz were killed. However, the police suspect that Teitel decided to take the blame while these killings were, in fact, committed by someone else.

Hatred toward sexual minorities is what gave away Teitel. He was arrested while hanging flyers directed against homosexuals and justifying the bombing of the Tel Aviv gay club. During his arrest, he tried getting rid of two bags in which two guns were later found. If proven guilty, Teitel faces life in prison. The suspect's lawyer claims that his client is mentally ill and “considers himself to be a messenger of God, who, at His request, is clearing the Earth of infidels.”

Yesterday, Israel gave permission to publish information on another criminal who, on October 17, brutally murdered a Jewish family that came from Tajikistan. This crime shocked Israel. The killer delivered multiple stab wounds to the six victims, including a six and a four-month-old child, after which he set fire to their home. The perpetrator was 39-year-old Dmitry Lakin, who, in Israel, changed his last name to Karlik (according to other sources – Kirilik). In Russia, he is wanted for other crimes, allegedly for outstanding loans. However, Israel did not extradite him to Russia. Israeli police said that Russian law enforcement agencies did not provide enough information for extradition. He came to Israel in 2004 from Chelyabinsk.

The motive for the crime was his dismissal from his job at the restaurant “Premier,” where he worked as the head waiter. The restaurant belonged to two members of the murdered family – 56-year-old Eduard Usherenko and his son, 32-year-old Dmitri (they both, including their wives, are among the victims). The suspect’s daughter also worked at the restaurant as a waitress. He was arrested in the Israeli resort city of Eilat, where perhaps he and his wife were planning on fleeing Israel by crossing the Egyptian border.

Read the article on newspaper's website (in Russian)

The general public was puzzled by this statement. The transition to a system of network-centric warfare has already been done by the armies of the US and NATO countries. Seventy percent of their armaments are up to date. On the contrary, according to Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, of Russia's weaponry, only 10% can be considered modern. Naturally, the following question arises: how could we be talking about transitioning the Russian army to a system of network-centric warfare, when it is currently equipped with weaponry and military technologies that were created in the 1970s-1980s?

The analysis of the current armament systems of the Russian army, which took into account the August 2008 peacekeeping operations in Georgia, identified its shortcomings. They are: weak intelligence and communication capabilities, poor management of troops and weaponry, lack of information support for the troops, and a low level of protection for certain models of weaponry and ground forces. The tendency of the Russian armed forces to lag behind the armies of leading countries in the development of means of armed combat is often overlooked. It is naïve to believe that all these shortcomings can be overcome in just a little over a year.

But back to the network-centric warfare, which has recently been the thesis of numerous scientific papers. By comparing their content with the progress and the results of the Zapad-2009, Ladoga-2009 and Kavkaz-2009 exercises, it is difficult to imagine a transition to a new system of control of the armed forces, at least one similar to the network-centric warfare control system. What do military scientists mean when they say “network-centric war”?

“Network” implies a series of new weapons with various applications, the use of which is based on information superiority, which allows one to be fully aware of the enemy and his actions. In addition, it is the ability to effectively measure one’s forces and armament systems. The term “center” (centric operations) implies the ability of the combat system to focus its military efforts on any area, region or battlefield in the world – centrally and rapidly. In other words, the network-centric operations require an extensive network of well-informed, dispersed military units that are capable of rapidly concentrating their forces.

To understand the transition of the Russian armed forces to the system of network-centric warfare, it would be useful to compare the nature and results of the US and NATO military operations against Yugoslavia with our recent operational-strategic military exercises, Zapad-2009. The 1999 Yugoslavia strikes were a test, conducted in combat conditions, of the US global informational control system of the armed forces used in network-centric warfare. The test was conducted for personnel training and to work on troop coordination. As was demonstrated, this system provides centralized real-time control to the US armed forces in large-scale wars as well as regional conflicts.

The US and NATO created a powerful group of space instruments including 50 satellites, of which eight to twelve were positioned over Yugoslavia. They continually conducted optical and radar surveillance, and were used for management, navigation and communication. Air and sea-based cruise missiles hit targets at a range from 200 to 800 kilometers. These missiles were directed at economic facilities with the help of the GPS space navigation system. Moreover, the missiles operated in electronic silence. At the final stage of flight, the optical system on the head of the missile allowed accurate targeting on specific critical points of a facility.

The US and NATO precision weapons were not aimed at the destruction of the Yugoslav military soldiers or their weaponry, but on military facilities as well as those vital to the economy. The Yugoslav army was not able to act in non-contact warfare, which is the continuation of network-centric warfare, nor was it threatening or of interest to NATO. Approximately 1,200-1,500 high-precision cruise missiles were used to strike about 900 Yugoslav economic facilities. During the war, air and sea-based missiles destroyed the petrochemical industry, half of the ordnance industry, 70% of the aviation industry, 40% of the tank and automotive industries, 40% of petroleum storage facilities, and 70% of roads and railways.

Yugoslavia’s Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system was helpless in the fight against the massive use of cruise missiles operating at low altitudes in a geographically uneven terrain with mountain ranges, gorges and forests. Moreover, Yugoslavia’s BMD was fully suppressed by electronic warfare – while NATO’s anti-radar missiles destroyed all sources of radio transmission.

The US, for the first time, tested the global control system of military actions directly from the Pentagon: commands to strike vital targets in Serbia and Kosovo were issued directly from Washington.

Currently, the US continues to build global information-navigational systems, which will be on 200 satellites and can conduct intelligence, manage military forces, and guide precision weapons. The stockpile of cruise missiles is quickly increasing. They allow, without the use of nuclear weapons, to not only damage the economy and the armed forces, but also to inflict a severe blow to nuclear deterrence capabilities, which Russia possesses.

The military exercise Zapad-2009 took place ten years after the war in Yugoslavia. The majority of weapons and equipment that was used in the training were those from the Soviet era, created in the 1970s-1980s. One could see on their TV screen artillery preparation using old ordnance systems that use shelling to combat attacks and require a large number of low-performance, high-explosive shells and overall take a long time to perform a combat operation. T-80 tanks were used, the reactive armor of which is easily pierced by foreign anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) with dual warheads.

The tanks were accompanied by Mi-28N and Ka-52 helicopters, and Su-24M and Tu-22M3 bomber aircraft, which are equipped with outdated weaponry that, in order to hit its target, requires the aircraft to enter the zone of the enemy’s BMD. Following the exercises, an automated targeting system that can be used with bombs from the WWII era was issued for the aerial bombardment. The multiple launch system “Tochka-U”, which is capable of firing missiles at a distance of 52 km, was considered a unique achievement in the training.

According to the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Vladimir Boldyrev, during the Ladoga-2009 exercises, many options for armed forces command were examined: from the General Staff to platoons. This statement somehow misses the idea of arms control. Alas, no matter how outdated arms are commanded – they will not be victorious against a modernized opponent.

So how does the “Decisive Force” military exercise compare with Zapad-2009, Ladoga-2009, and Kavkaz-2009?

The US and NATO already have an intelligence-attack system that meets the requirements of the network-centric warfare. This system is continuously being improved. New methods of controlling the US armed forces give rise to new forms of organizational combat and support units, as well as new combat methods. Russia’s armed forces are 10-15 years behind the US and NATO in the development of network-centric methods of warfare.

The course and outcome of the recent military exercises – Zapad-2009, Ladoga-2009 and Kavkaz-2009 – clearly have not demonstrated anything that resembles a transition to network-centric warfare.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

“If this project is successful, it will be a positive momentum for the efforts on resolving the situation around the Iranian nuclear program,” Andrei Nesterenko, spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said yesterday. According to Nesterenko, uranium enrichment outside of the territory of Iran “will be an important and a practical step in restoring confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear activities.” However, the US and Great Britain are developing new sanctions against the Islamic republic in addition to those that have already been imposed by the UN Security Council.

On Thursday night (Moscow time), the US House of Representatives adopted a bill designed to complicate the operation of the fuel and energy sectors of Iran’s economy. The initiative prohibits US state and municipal authorities from owning stocks of companies that have invested more than $20 million into Iran’s energy sector. Moreover, US financial institutions must demand the repayment of credits from individuals and organizations if these funds had been used to fund Iran’s energy projects. The draft legislation, which is yet to be approved by the Senate and signed by US President Barack Obama, states that these measures are designed to stop “the financing of Iran’s illegal activities.”

On October 12, the British government also made an announcement about its new anti-Iran measures. London introduced a ban on any and all transactions with Iran’s second largest state-owned bank, Mellat, and state transport company, Shipping Lines. The US has already sanctioned both companies.

“The US and Britain decided to impose tough, targeted sanctions on Iran, which deliver a blow to the key sectors of Iran’s economy – the banking and energy sectors,” Vladimir Sazhin, expert of the Institute of Oriental Studies, RAS, told Vremya Novostei. “The banking and energy sectors call for a significant amount of investments. Moreover, they are controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). So, imposing sanctions against these sectors can threaten the interests of the Iranian ruling elites.”

The IRGC is an elite Iranian force designed to guard the achievements of the Islamic Revolution. Many representatives of the Iranian elite, including ministers and, according to some experts, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been involved in the IRGC.

The introduction of new sanctions by the UN Security Council may be met with Chinese resistance.

“Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has already made it clear that Moscow, in a certain situation, will be ready to support tougher sanctions. But China is too dependent on energy supplies from Iran (where it gets nearly 15% of its oil) to support tougher sanctions,” said Sazhin. Yesterday, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, while hosting Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi in Beijing, said that his country intends to “strengthen cooperation with Iran.”

The increased American and British pressure on Tehran comes amid yesterday’s reports about the sudden deterioration of health and even death of Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. An online Israeli publication, the Cursor, citing sources from the Iranian opposition and bloggers, reported that the 70-year-old Ayatollah was taken to the hospital on Monday, where he allegedly died without having regained consciousness. Later, similar reports came from the London newspaper Daily Telegraph and the Israeli Haaretz.

Iranian officials called the reports on the death of the spiritual leader “slander” and “false allegations.” However, these comments do not refute the reports of a serious deterioration in the ayatollah’s health that have surfaced in Iran and other countries.

“This isn’t the first time there have been reports about the death of Ali Khamenei,” noted Vladimir Sazhin. Similar reports, citing American experts, appeared in 2007.

“Given the closed nature of Iranian society, it’s hard to say what is really happening with Ali Khamenei and his inner circle,” Sazhin said. “After July’s massive anti-government protests in Tehran, the Iranian authorities have restricted the foreign media.”

From 1981 to 1989, Khamenei served as the president of Iran and was close to the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini. After the death of Khomeini, he took his place. Iran’s spiritual leader is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, comprised of representatives of the higher clergy. The chairman of the assembly is Iran’s former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani.

“During the presidential elections and the protests that followed, Rafsanjani was supporting the moderate reformers, which gave a reason for many to assume the possibility of removing Ali Khameini from office,” Sazhin told Vremya Novostei.

Read this article on newspaper's website

In September, for example, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Mr. Berdymukhamedov in New York at the UN General Assembly meeting. Then, journalists asked Ms. Clinton’s aide, Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake, whether or not human rights in Turkmenistan were discussed during their meeting. He replied that while such issues are always on top of the agenda during talks with Turkmen representatives, this time there was too little time and too many other issues. Blake noted that Turkmenistan's human rights situation isn’t worse than in some neighboring countries.

The aide to the top American diplomat clearly knows what he is talking about when he compares the countries of the region. Moreover, it appears that he knows that the Turkmen president is extremely sensitive about this delicate topic. He begins to stutter, his charisma seems to disappear, and it becomes difficult to have a discussion with him on important issues related to assistance for the diversification of supply routes of Turkmen gas to the world markets. Incidentally, other Western diplomats, who have had the honor of communicating with the Turkmen leader, often mention this in private conversations.

Therefore none of them, including their Russian colleagues, question why hundreds of Turkmen students have not been able to leave the country to study abroad. Or, why have those who had been in the Sapamurat Turkmenbashi the Great Airport in Ashgabat, been included on the black list of those restricted to travel abroad? And, why universities in Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria and Russia, where they had been legally accepted, suddenly been restricted to them?

So, what are the Turkmen students guilty of? After all, due to the recent ban, some of them even attempted suicide -- fortunately, unsuccessfully. What is happening in Turkmenistan – a country that not so long ago was the state of the “Golden Age of Turkmenbashi”, which enlightened Europeans together with representatives of the UN Development Program just recently presented with a new three-year project entitled: “Strengthening the capacity of Turkmenistan in promoting and protecting human rights”.
Turkmenistan is in the midst of another wave of paranoia. It began this summer with Mr. Berdymukhamedov’s statement to the Turkmen chiefs of education: “Many people are leaving, and you don’t know who or where to. Take care of that!” A special commission was created to address this issue. It studied student cases, conducted interviews, stamped permits for exit out of the country, which, according to some witnesses, cost up to $1,000. About 3,000 people applied for permission to leave – new students and those visiting the country for the holidays. The first students who were prohibited from leaving were those studying in private universities abroad.

The most scandalous situation happened with students of the American University of Central Asia (AUCA) in Bishkek. They were not allowed to continue their studies there because it was suspected that their education has a revolutionary “orange”, and seditious character. No wonder so many of them were sponsored by scholarships from the Soros Foundation. The Turkmen Ministry of Education, allegedly wishing to clarify the situation, asked the U.S. Embassy in Ashgabat: How many of our students study in Bishkek? The Americans simple-mindedly wanted to help and issued a list with 160 students residing in Bishkek. Authorities immediately blacklisted all of them.
Then, the compassionate sponsors who paid for the Turkmen students’ education, transferred their money to one of the Bulgarian universities as well as to St. Petersburg, and the Smolny Institute for Liberal (oh, what a dangerous word for the Turkmen authorities this is!) Arts and Sciences. It seemed that the problem was solved and, at the end of last week, students were preparing to fly to Bulgaria (65) and Russia (48). They had already received their visas.

However, on the night of October 3 they were not allowed to board the airplanes: turns out they were all, once again, “restricted from traveling abroad”. As it happens, Turkmen officials who were carefully following the emigrant Turkmen press read on one Internet site that the Soros Foundation scholarships will be given to students even in St. Petersburg. And, the Turkmen mousetrap shut once again. It seems that Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov is genuinely frightened by the country’s possible explosion of the “orange virus”. Rumor has it that even Ashgabat’s desire to sell its gas to customers on the border of Turkmenistan is also due to fear, so as to avoid contamination from the other side of the border…

Read the article on the newspaper's site

Generally speaking, the global scientific community was not surprised by their victory -- all winners are distinguished scientists. However, Russian biologists believe that the award should have been shared with Aleksey Olovnikov, a well-known gerontologist. In 1971, he created a hypothesis which was later proved in practice by researchers overseas.

John Hopkins School of Medicine published a message that says that Blackburn, Greider and Shostak’s work had greatly influenced other researchers and extended their understanding of cell functioning, human aging process and the development of cancer. The suggestion that Olovnikov, now a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Biochemical Physics, should be regarded as a pioneer in this field was made to Vremya Novostei by Vladimir Skulachev, the dean of Moscow State University’s Faculty of Bioengineering and Bioinformatics.

It was Olovnikov, argues his professor, who practically “on the tip of a pencil” -- which in molecular biology is considered to be a unique case -- proved the possibility of “completion” of DNA chromosome cells with virtually unlimited division. Earlier, American biologist Leonard Hayflick proved that cells of a living organism can divide no more than 50-60 times. After the “Hayflick limit” of the maximum number of divisions the cell ages. But the molecular mechanism of this phenomenon has not been fully understood.

In the early 1970s Olovnikov suggested that cell death is associated with shortening of telomeres -- chromosome protective parts located on the end of chromosomes. With every division telomeres become shorter, and eventually a cell dies. So-called apoptosis occurs in one particular cell. The more cells die, the less will remain in an organ, thus worsening its function. That is the process of aging.

The award-winning US researchers already in the 1980s proved the validity of such assumptions. Their other achievement is the discovery of enzyme telomerase, which can form new telomeres. This enzyme works only in certain stem, embryonic and cancer cells. But this is enough to consider their discovery fundamental.

Skulachev stressed that this discovery will stimulate further research and will be useful in practical medicine, specifically in cancer treatment and even in attempts to stop aging. Of course, further studies are necessary to identify the real clinical potential of the discoveries.

Without disputing the merits of the American researchers, Skulachev notes that the Russian researcher has been undeservedly forgotten.

“This is unfair. Especially because three people were awarded -- not only Blackburn, but her students as well,” he said. Vladimir Skulachev says that he nominated Olovnikov this year.

“Many others nominated him as well, but the Nobel committee hadn’t noticed,” he added.

Olovnikov himself has not made any comments. Skulachev noted that his former student is a very modest man and it is unnatural for him to promote his discoveries.

“He is still a PhD student,” said Skulachev. “He believes that time should be spent on science and only on PhD research. This is his principle.”

Read the article on the newspaper’s site

According to her, in the next three years the specialized life-improvement centers will reduce annual alcohol consumption by three liters per person. Also, the number of obese people will be reduced by 3% and the number of smokers will drop by 15%. It is expected that even the number of drug addicts will fall by 2%, although there will not be any special rehabilitation programs provided by the new centers.

Nurses at the more than 500 health centers (every center is capable of treating 200,000 people) will be working on achieving the ministry’s target figures. Each center will employ eight specialists (therapist, cardiologist, urologist, physiotherapist, sports physician, pediatrician, functional diagnostics specialist and a physician’s assistant) as well as four mid-level health professionals.

At the first glance, the fact that the new health centers will not only be opened in hospitals, which are now being funded by compulsory health insurance, but also in fitness health centers and preventative clinics, which are sponsored by local budgets, seems complicated. So far, it is not clear how the money will be transferred and how much funding will be needed to compensate the personnel and buy modern diagnostic and fitness equipment.

“So far, only preliminary estimates exist; no one is naming the exact figures just yet,” representatives of the Federal Fund of Compulsory Medical Insurance (FFOMS) explained to Vremya Novostei. However, while considering the attendance rate of the future centers, it is possible to make some estimates.

“It is assumed that each center will serve 72 people daily,” Vladimir Zelensky, director of the Department of Medical Insurance Development of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Development (Minzdravsocrazvitiye), said during the meeting.

“Healthy citizens are often unable to get into the regular clinic, because doctors are overwhelmed with paperwork and taking in patients,” Olga Krivonos, director of the Department of Organization of Medical Aid and Healthcare Development, explained to the assembled representatives. According to her, the health centers are needed first to compile more or less accurate statistics on the number of smokers and alcoholics, and second the centers are designed to “identify risk factors for the specified illnesses.”

To do this, health centers will need to only purchase diagnostic equipment outlined by the ministry. In this respect, they are not allowed to make independent decisions. And last but not least, they will constantly replenish their collection of billboards promoting a healthy lifestyle, and videos recommended and developed by Minzdravsocrazvitiye.

Moreover, popular and music television channels, billboards, park benches and fitting rooms will be, as conceived by the PR staff of the ministry, covered with stickers calling on people to lose weight, lead an active life and abstain from using any substances.

“We are talking about building a new culture of attitude toward health,” said ministerial aide Sofia Malyavina. “Your body is you. You are judged by your body and loved for your body.”

All propaganda material has been permeated by this ideology, which had been designed by the department of Tatiana Golikova and aimed at all risk groups. Thus, a comical cartoon called “Hands” had been prescribed for children (of course, with the implication that hands need to be washed). And for those slightly older, some domestic rappers and some unknown dancers incite kids to participate in a graffiti contest instead of “damaging their health.” And for adults, film director Andrey Konchalovsky and singer Valeria talk about mentally handicapped children being born to alcoholic parents, the number of which is greater in Russia than in other country.

Read the article on the newspaper’s site

At the end of last week, the president announced that he would not be deploying the Iskander missile systems in Kaliningrad as a response to the U.S. reversal to deploy missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland. But he, nevertheless, traveled to the place of the proposed deployment. “I want to emphasize that the purpose of our training is defensive in nature. And, while we are not threatening anyone, our armed forces should not be reduced, but in an operational state,” said the president.

“The crisis has created problems, but they are not grave. I hope that the situation will not deteriorate further because the world economy, as well as the Russian economy, are undergoing some favorable changes,” said Dmitry Medvedev, apparently still being in a state of mind from the G20 summit where this topic was of interest to the participants. “Despite the economic problems that have emerged in the last year, we will carry out the military training program that was previously scheduled,” Mr. Medvedev told the military officers. “We have the funding, and, most importantly, the governmental will, in order to carry out such exercises and maintain the armed forces in an operational condition,” he stressed.

However, the homeland defenders were more interested in less global issues. For example, why border guards are fully compensated for housing while other military personnel are only partially compensated. And, does it make sense to retire from the military if the unemployment rate in the country continues to rise. Though, when it came to future career planning, private and public issues became one.

“Today we are faced with a large-scale goal -- to rebuild the Navy, because a significant number of our ships - surface and underwater – are in their final years of service. This does not mean that they are non-operational. Nonetheless, new ships have to be introduced. Today, we have a backlog of ships and submarines,” said Mr. Medvedev. Also, the total reduction in public spending will not affect this ambitious project. “There are pre-allocated state funds that already exist for this project. These funds, despite the financial problems, have been almost fully preserved for the difficult periods in 2009, 2010 and 2011. In the future, they will increase,” said the president. “So, not to worry. There will be a place to serve,” the head of state assured the military.

The president, with great interest, looked over various types of military equipment and even touched some. He controlled a joystick, tested the capabilities of manipulators of the “Panther Plus” mobile complex, which is used to assist drowning and emergency vessels and is capable of descending to a depth of up to one kilometer. Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov explained that the body of the apparatus is English, while the control system and software are domestic. “As far as I understand it, the ‘head’ and the ‘brain’ of the machine are ours. That's good. All that’s left is to adapt the GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System),” said a delighted Dmitry Medvedev. Hard diving suits allowing one to descend to a depth of 365 m. were also presented. The president decided not to test them.

The president was presented with another gift – a new knife that, unlike the “Panther”, is an entirely domestic development. The knife can be used under water and on land, noted the soldiers. “It can also cut, chop, and fits in the hand perfectly,” said the president.

At the end of his visit, he held a meeting on the “Zapad 2009” training. Today, the head of state will continue his participation in these exercises, which are being held on the territory of Belarus.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

The world simply is not aware about many of the new creations – the designers closely guard their secrets, which give their military the upper hand over the enemy. But a general knowledge will suffice, which becomes available once a product becomes a market commodity and needs advertising. Majority of new products go unnoticed for those who are not directly involved in the defense sector. Vremya Novostei’s military columnist, Nikolay Poroskov, by using non-classified information of defense firms and open sources, attempted to make a kind of a catalog of weapons of tomorrow. Today we are publishing its first part.

Laser gun

Boeing Corporation has conducted successful laser gun trails. Though the novelty was placed on board a modified Boeing 747 (C-130H), the testing was conducted on the ground. The megawatt-class high-energy chemical laser is capable of destroying ballistic missiles. The “shooting” at the ballistic missile simulator took place from a turret installation located on the nose of the aircraft. The fire was directed and managed by a Boeing cabin crew. Air “shooting” of real missiles is scheduled for 2009. That is, of course, if the new US President, Barack Obama, does not curtail the work on a national Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system.

Boeing laser guns are to become one of the major components of US anti-ballistic missile defense. They will be capable of destroying ballistic missiles at a distance of up to 460 km, while they are still in the boost phase of their flight trajectories. In its final trials, the laser beam passed a ten-second threshold of operational capacity, which is necessary for missile destruction.

Earlier, seven shots (each lasting no more than a second) were made from the turret. Specialists refer to this as the “first light”. The “shooting” of the simulated air targets should be completed this fall with the destruction of a short-range ballistic missile. The Pentagon has expressed a desire to have seven Boeings with military lasers at its disposal. According to initial estimates, each aircraft will cost $1.5 billion.

Russia began working on the development of tactical laser weapons before the United States, and its arsenal includes developmental prototypes of high-precision combat chemical lasers. The first similar design was tested by Russian scientists in 1972. Even then, the domestic mobile laser gun was capable of successfully hitting aerial targets. Since then, Russia’s capabilities in that sphere have significantly increased, and the US has had to catch up. However, the Boeing Company, being the Pentagon’s contractor, is allocated significantly more resources.
The laser weapon, which Boeing has been developing for the Pentagon, will destroy targets with minimal collateral damage; in other words, it will destroy only those targets that it strikes. The new weapon will be used in combat operations as well as in urban areas.

To see a “suicide bomber’s belt”

America’s Science Engineering Technology (SET) Corporation has created a device that detects suicide bombers - called Counter Bomber. The device includes a camera that operates in normal or infrared spectrums and is connected to a low-powered radar. According to the developers of the Counter Bomber, it is able to determine whether or not a person is hiding something under his clothes at a distance of 150 meters (outside of the active zone of an explosive device – also called the suicide bomber’s “belt”). The device monitors approaching people and gives off a sound as soon as it has spotted something suspicious. One Counter Bomber costs about $300,000. Eight of these devices are undergoing field testing in Iraq, and four in Afghanistan. The results of their application in practice are not yet known.

Electronic fortune-teller

A unique computer model has been developed which is able to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, the outcome of a military operation or an armed conflict. This was announced by the University of Georgia. The model showed that the Soviet Union, essentially, had no chances of winning the 1979-1989 war in Afghanistan. The probability of victory for the Soviet troops barely reached 7%. Meanwhile, the chances of US victory in the current war in Iraq, even with the continuation of the American military campaign for the next ten years, amounted to only 26%.

The model is based on detailed analysis of 122 global armed conflicts that took place after the Second World War, in which the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France and China fought against an enemy that was less powerful. According to the study, having a clear military superiority, the major powers were able to hold victory in 61% of total military operations, while not being able to reach their military goal in 39% of operations. By taking all factors of victories and defeats of the last 50 years into consideration, the new computer model allows policymakers to calculate the probability of success in current and future conflicts. The accuracy of the model is about 80%.

Binary metals

The US Office of Naval Research (ONR) is developing a new type of weapon, based on so-called reactive materials. These are metals that are safe when isolated from each-other, but the aluminum powder and titanium explode upon contact. Oxidizer is used as a detonator. Two metals can be separated by an insulating layer, such as Teflon, for example. The insulating layer may be destroyed externally, after which a chemical reaction occurs, and the two metals create an explosion.
This technology can be used both for defensive and offensive operations. For example, the shrapnel from the reactive materials is capable of destroying missiles or ammunition as they are approaching. It is assumed that the reactive materials will be applied both in the destruction of equipment and manpower of the enemy. The US Air Force is working on a missile called Battle Axe, which will employ the new technology.

This is not new to military affairs. In the 1970s, the US produced samples of binary weapons - missiles and bombs which contained two chemical agents that, separately, were harmless, which allowed them to be safely stored and transported. Upon contact, (in an explosion), they turned into a poisonous gas.

In 1987, the US Army adopted the artillery shell M687, which, when exploded, produced a highly-toxic cloud of poison gas - sarin. During the 1989 UN Conference on Disarmament, a decision to destroy chemical weapons was adopted; in 1993, an international conference dedicated to this issue was held, and binary weapon development was curtailed. Meanwhile all remaining stockpiles were destroyed.

To be continued

Read the article on the newspaper’s site

George Bush’s idea to establish anti-ballistic missile defense facilities in Central Europe had nothing to do with the Iranian threat, but was, without a doubt, an important part of American strategy in Eurasia. Having realized, after the Iraq War, that it cannot rely on its traditional Western European allies, Washington placed its bets on the “new” Europe, which, for historical reasons, had more reason to trust America than its continental neighbors. Both priorities of the previous administration – AMD in Central Europe and NATO's eastward expansion – assumed an increase in the role and authority of the pro-American post-communist countries in transatlantic relations. Thus, the US did two things: it strengthened its position along Russia's borders, and – this is probably more important – received an effective tool that enabled the “regulation” of the degree of Europe’s consolidation and their independence.

For Poland and the Czech Republic, freezing NATO’s expansion and the rejection of AMD means an actual revision of such concepts. This can only be welcomed, because the previous course of action resulted in increased tensions across the European periphery and damaged relations with important players in the European security sphere. But a new approach is still unclear, there are various possibilities.

First emerges the question of how Prague and Warsaw are compensated. Even if Central Europe is no longer Washington’s priority, the power that claims world leadership, cannot allow itself to simply push aside an ally that had lost its relevancy. Of course, Poland and the Czech Republic were not looking for protection from the mythical Iranian missiles, but another security assurance that they would have gotten if the US strategic facilities were to be stationed on their territories. The new NATO countries, in fact, don’t trust the current security assurances because they don’t believe that in an event of a threat (the threat is understood to be Russia) France, Germany, Spain, Italy and other partners will be ready to fulfill their obligations.

Now, Warsaw and Prague will have to either get some sort of a substitute for the AMD from the US, which would confirm Washington’s commitment to the former socialist countries, or an attempt to breathe new life into NATO as a capable military alliance. Both options could be implemented in various ways, including in ways that may worry Moscow even more than the AMD plans. For example, deployment of US military bases in the region or, while working on a new NATO concept, launching a new mission that will direct the organization toward its original mission – the containment of the Kremlin. In any case, as Central Europe’s importance to the US decreases, the activity level of these countries in persuading NATO and the EU that they should be more cautious when dealing with Russia will increase.

Another key theme that arises from this decision is this – the prospect of anti-ballistic missile defense in general. While he has eliminated the most provocative element, Barack Obama has not renounced the idea of a universal shield. This is understandable – potential threats have not disappeared; all the while the spread of nuclear and missile technologies continues. This brings us to a crossroads.

If the work on a US national AMD – that is, a project, that aims to create a defense for America its military and political allies – continues, then, in the near future, we will return to the same confrontation that existed only a year ago. Because, if one were to forget about the symbolism (placing military facilities on the territories that were recently controlled by Moscow) he would realize that the problem does not lie in the location of the system, but its general presence.

Even though two decades have passed since the end of the Cold War, in practice, the main principles of its strategic stability have not been repealed. The confidence of countries, which possess nuclear weapons, in their security, is based on the possibility of a retaliatory strike that stops the hypothetical aggressor. If one nuclear power gains the ability to neutralize a retaliatory strike, the others will perceive it as a threat, no matter how improbable the use of nuclear weapons may be. The possibility of such a situation, at the very least, provokes a strategic weapons race, because countries that will perceive this situation as dangerous (especially Russia and China) will try to take all possible measures to find the “antidote”.

The only way to avoid this scenario is to create a joint anti-ballistic missile defense system, which would involve all responsible nations. This has been discussed since the 1990s. And, in the midst of the dispute with the Bush administration, Russia had even put forward some concrete proposals. At that time, Washington had simply brushed them aside, even though not that long ago US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates publicly complained that Vladimir Putin’s intriguing ideas about the use of Russia’s facilities that were presented at a meeting with US ministers in 2007 were, without any discussion, tossed aside by the White House.

Now, AMD cooperation is being discussed in Moscow, Washington and in Brussels. If their statements are addressed, their relations might take a fundamental turn. The strategic security sphere – is the most delicate part of interstate relations, the core of the problem with mutual trust. If they were to conduct some real work in this sphere, many barriers of understanding between Russia and the West would not seem quite as unsurpassable as they do today.

Even if the emerging detente is serious, the most important element is not present in current discussions – China. When, two years ago, Vladimir Putin proposed George Bush to use Russia's facilities in Gabala and Armavir, it alerted Beijing. It had the same question as Russia did in regards to the radar in the Czech Republic – whom will the system be monitoring? Since China possesses a compact nuclear arsenal, which plays an important role in ensuring its security, China, of course, does not wish to be monitored by the two nuclear superpowers.

If the discussion on a joint AMD resumes, China should be included from the start. It’s likely that Washington would not be opposed to, at least, reducing the level of cooperation between Moscow and Beijing by drawing Russia into the system that may cause it to reject China. Russia, however, simply cannot afford to increase the level of mistrust with China. Besides, stability in Eurasia cannot be achieved without the involvement of Beijing.

Barack Obama’s step opens the possibility for new relationships between leading global powers. Unfortunately, the experience of the past fifteen years shows that it is easy for international actors to ignore such chances by acting out of self-ambition and selfishness.

Read this article on newspaper's website (in Russian)

Although the summit is by no means insured from the “tossing” of new ideas (after all, it will be attended by the French president), the idea of continuing what has already been initiated can be heard, in different variations, throughout the capitals of the G20 countries. For example, US President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper discussed this in Washington on Wednesday. ITAR-TASS reports that, in their joint statement, they noted that the “unprecedented measures helped stabilize demand and prevent a more serious recession and rising unemployment,” but, despite the signs of recovery, “it’s important to remain vigilant.”

Meanwhile, the difference between the issues that leaders of the various countries consider a priority, and those that are secondary, is clear. Obama and Harper stressed the importance of freedom of trade and investment, as well as the need for “decisive measures to combat climate change.”

Others are more worried about bankers' bonuses. Even British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the eve of the summit said the words that one is more accustomed to hearing from Chancellor Angela Merkel or French President Nicolas Sarkozy. “I will insist on creating bonus ceilings for top managers around the world. And I think that everyone should make a contribution [to combat the crisis]. For this reason, I will insist on creating a blacklist of territories that are considered to be ‘tax havens’,” RIA Novosti quoted Brown's Tuesday speech. But perhaps the mood of these statements was set by the event where Mr. Brown made his speech – at the British Trade Unions Congress meeting in Liverpool. Naturally, union leaders were pleased to hear about salary restrictions for top managers. And, of course, Gordon Brown promised his audience, before anything else, to speak about the creation of new jobs while in Pittsburgh.

Yesterday, in Moscow, Arkady Dvorkovich said that he disfavors the loud, but clearly populist statements about the imposition of restrictions on bonuses. “There will be some sort of a decision made regarding bonuses, but, of course, no numbers will be mentioned,” said the presidential aide. He believes that, in this case, only general principles are applicable, and they will be worked out gradually. “We believe that there should be general rules regulating the compensation system of bank executives. But the establishment of specific rules, we believe, should be left to national governing structures. There shouldn’t be some sort of a universal reward measure, established internationally. This is a prerogative of state leaders,” said Mr. Dvorkovich. The presidential aide added that “it isn’t for the leaders to establish bonus percentage rates for bank executives.” Instead, they should set a “clear example”. In his opinion, Russia has already set such an example: “We have many companies where boards of directors refused to pay bonuses to managers, and, in some companies, bonuses have been reduced.”

According to his aide, Dmitry Medvedev will specify in Pittsburgh the ideas already expressed by Russia concerning the reform of international financial institutions, the establishment of new energy market rules and a new form of the global monetary system. It’s also noteworthy that Mr. Dvorkovich elaborated on Moscow’s position regarding the reserve currency system yesterday. Russia’s initiating this discussion is often perceived as a kind of a promotion of the rouble. As a rule, Russian officials who talk about the modification of the reserve currency system – which a natural, and not a forced process – are quoted less frequently than those who criticize the dollar. “We are talking about developing the reserve currency system and not the replacement of the US dollar with another currency. I think that that would be irrational,” Mr. Dvorkovich said yesterday while stressing that it’s impossible to “set” any one currency to be a reserve currency.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

The Chamber was established in 2005 in accordance with the federal law, “On the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation”. According to the document, the Chamber is responsible for facilitating communications between citizens and public authorities, as well as protecting public rights and interests. Members of the Chamber are elected for two-year terms. The term of the current, second convocation will expire in January 2010.

The Public Chamber is composed of prominent human rights activists, lawyers, and cultural figures, all of whom are working for not-for-profit organizations. They can also participate in the lawmaking process, but their opinions are only to be recommendations.

According to the VTSIOM poll, 57% of Russians do not know that the Public Chamber exists. 37% of those surveyed said that they “heard something about the Chamber”. And only 5% of citizens were “well informed” about its activities. 1% had a hard time answering the question.

However, of those who claim to know that the Public Chamber exists, 46% have a hard time understanding its functions. Of those who are in the know, 17% said that the Chamber “has a mediating role between the people and the government, and promotes civil initiatives”. 12% said that its function was “the independent control over the activities of the authorities”, 9% said that its main function was participation in the discussion of important public issues. 7% of respondents noted: evaluation of bills, protection of citizens’ interests and rights, working with appeals. 1% of citizens are convinced that the Public Chamber exists “as a distraction and for money laundering”, and the same number of people called it useless.

1600 people from 140 villages and 42 oblasts, krais, and regions of Russia participated in the survey. Statistical error does not exceed 3.4%.

“The functions that are today being carried out by the Public Chamber have to do with responding to various conflict situations involving society,” Mikhail Vinogradov, president of the Petersburg Politics Foundation, told Vremya Novostei. “The involvement of the Public Chamber in the South Butovo events at one time was resonant. While, for example, its interference with the Natalia Morar case was ineffective - the Public Chamber was ignored. A lot is determined by thematic direction that is led by a special commission of the Public Chamber. It is possible to attract attention to individual cases. At the same time, however, the population has not developed the understanding that if something goes wrong, they should address the Public Chamber where they will get help.”

“The government created what it wanted to create. The Chamber was created when the authorities began to expand their capacities – direct gubernatorial elections were abolished, as were single-mandate electoral districts. So, the authorities needed to somehow compensate the public,” Aleksey Makarkin, vice president of the Center for Political Technologies, noted in his interview with a Vremya Novostei correspondent. “Besides, it was necessary to find a place for those politicians and cultural figures, for whom there wasn’t a place in the United Russia. The reaction of the citizens is understandable. Everyone knows that there is a parliament that passes laws and a government that makes the most of these laws. And, there is a president who signs laws. But what is the Public Chamber, what does it deal with and what does it effect? Citizens are lost. Besides, it was originally conceived as purely consultative.”

Read the article on newspaper's website (in Russian)

Law and Justice deputies insist that Soviet troops entered the eastern part of Poland “as aggressors, and were planning to destroy and loot the country”. The USSR allegedly “set an example for cruelty and disregard for human life and dignity, disdain for fundamental values and hatred of the Poles.” The draft resolution, introduced by the Kaczynski brothers, states: “Fascism and Communism – are two totalitarianisms of the 20th Century, and their leaders carry the responsibility for escalating the situation to the point of the Second World War and its aftermath. The Red Army brought death and destruction to the Polish territory. Genocide, murder, rape, and robbery were commonplace.”

Many lawmakers feel that such assertions are unacceptable - especially after Russia's Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin - during the September 1st international events that were held in Gdansk to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Second World War - avoided categorical assertions, and even described the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as “immoral”. Deputy Speaker of the Sejm, Stepan Neselovsky, said that the “draft law proposed by the Law and Justice Party is very radical, anti-Russian and aggressive”. Chairman of the Parliament, Bronislaw Komorowski, proposed a softer version of the resolution. Moreover, several deputies recalled that on August 28, the Sejm unanimously passed a resolution titled “70th anniversary of the Second World War”, which provides a detailed and balanced assessment of the historical events. Yesterday, in Warsaw, representatives of the factions discussed the situation surrounding the resolution behind closed doors, but a decision on the passage of the resolution has not yet been made.

In the meantime, Warsaw newspaper “Polska” published some sensational information: it turns out that the debate on the role of the Soviet Union in the outbreak of the Second World War, which gripped the Polish political elite, could have led to the scandalous cancelation of Vladimir Putin’s visit to Gdansk. On the evening of August 30 - only 24 hours before Putin's visit - Polish President Lech Kaczynski allegedly telephoned the head of the Polish government, Donald Tusk, and urged him to cancel Mr. Putin’s visit. According to “Polska”, President Kaczynski reminded the prime minister about the promise made by Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service to publicize documents that shed light on Poland’s role before the outbreak of the Second World War. Because these materials accuse some Polish leaders of that time in conspiring with Germany, Mr. Kaczynski, according to the newspaper, told Prime Minister Tusk: “In this situation, I expect you to cancel Putin’s visit.”

The presidential administration has publicly refuted the information published by the newspaper, though the refutation of the information more resembled its validation: “During a brief telephone conversation with the prime minister, which took place on August 30 of this year, President Lech Kaczynski - concerned about the statement made by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service regarding the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Second Republic, Jozef Beck’s alleged work as an agent in favor of Germany - asked Prime Minister Donald Tusk to assess the validity of the Russian prime minister’s visit, given the circumstances.” Remember that, when referring to the Second Republic, Poles are talking about their state after the results of the First World War. The head of the prime minister’s political cabinet, Slawomir Nowak, told reporters that he is “not authorized” to discuss the details of the phone conversation between Kaczynski and Tusk. It should be noted that, according to opinion polls, up to 86% of Poles welcomed the arrival of Russia's prime minister.

Read this article on newspaper's website (in Russian)

It was reported that the air interceptor pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Osipovich, launched two missiles at the plane trespassing over Russia’s national borders, after which the airliner “disappeared in the direction of the Okhotsk Sea.” A while later, the chief of the General Staff, Marshal Ogarkov, admitted during a press conference that the plane was shot down by one of our antiaircraft defense fighter jets.

But it was only a deceptive maneuver. The maneuver, of course, cast a shadow over the country, yet it created a distraction that allowed for the concealment of much more significant events that, under different circumstances, could have resulted in a global scale catastrophe -- a third world war.

At that time, I was working for a newspaper for the 10th air defense division. Some officers, who were informed of the incident by their colleagues from other divisions, shared their understanding of the events, as they often did. As professionals, they saw numerous inconsistencies in the official description of the Far East events, such were the logical gaps and technical absurdities. At the same time, they were afraid to so much as think this, not to mention say such thoughts aloud.

Everyone remembered an incident that had recently occurred with one captain who served on the Kola Peninsula in a unit where airborne nuclear warheads were stored. He was careless enough to hint about the nature of his unit, after which he was expelled from the party, dismissed from “all units” and was pursued by military counterintelligence. My friends, too, did not discuss everything, but they all unanimously believed that it wasn’t our fighter jet that brought down the Boeing.

I recalled everything when I recently came across a book by a French researcher, Michel Brun, titled, “Third World War over Sakhalin, or who shot down the Korean airliner?” Beside his name is the name of another author, Yuri Mukhin, the famous publisher of the newspaper Duel and a man known to be bold and “says it how it is.” But this should not distract the reader, as Mr. Mukhin only wrote the preface. It includes a lot of resentment about the “betrayal of the Central Committee” and not much else.

But Michel Brun truly put in some effort into his work. It’s immediately obvious that it is very difficult to read the report. It even seems like a chore ;; the author is very particular about all the details. But after the reader gets into the book, after he has the map of Kamchatka and Sakhalin before him, and traces the routes proposed by the author, the reader is captivated to such an extent that he forgets time and the many technical terms are no longer disturbing. Quite the contrary; he wants more details.

Mr. Brun studied and compared all global press publications, including Russia’s press, where Izvestia’s Andrey Ilesh’s many articles were most notable. He studied records on the search for the aircraft debris by surface vessels (Russian and American), which indicated what was found on the bottom of the sea and in what location. He completed the piece with interviews with rescuers from various countries.

The independent researcher (Brun’s work was sponsored by a foundation) listened to the recordings of the radio-communication tapes and compared the graphic impressions of the pilot’s voices. These recordings show when and who was traveling along what course, the descending angles, and what was said and in what language.

While wandering along the coast for miles, he, in various places in Japan, studied the debris of the aircraft that was brought ashore by the waves – they included pieces that were unlike any others and consisted of comb cells of the pieces from Boeing 747. Moreover, by knowing the prevailing currents and their speed, he was able to determine the location of the aircraft remains. Anyone who wishes to learn the fascinating details can read the book.

Based on this wide array of diverse information, Brun was able to draw some amazing conclusions, which will without a doubt change the way many people, including the author of this article, view this incident. First, it can be stated unequivocally that Soviet fighter jets did not shoot down Flight KAL 007. The Boeing 747, which was actually participating in a massive U.S. intelligence operation, turned off its identification equipment and could have been shot down within 400-500 km of the Japanese city of Niigata by either the Japanese or American fighter jets that were on a mass-alert and were flying in the area.

This can be proven by the fact that news of Flight KAL 007 was aired on television 44 minutes after it was “shot down” by a Soviet fighter jet. The pilot, Osipovich, who was freed from his previous statements regarding the Boeing 747 during the years of perestroika, repeatedly told reporters: “I did not shoot down the Korean passenger plane!” He acknowledged that he did not operate a Su-15 but the latest MiG-31; he took off twice and made two attacks. Attacks on what? The most convincing evidence to Osipovich’s claims has been the fact that among the wreckage that was found at the bottom of the sea where Boeing 747 allegedly fell, not a single body has ever been found.

What was found, however, was military equipment and various objects from shot-down planes (that’s plural). It would take a long time to list them all. Brun counted nine impact locations of planes that were shot down that night and in the morning. The tail of an American air-to-air missile was found in the wreckage of only one of those locations, which suggests that only one of the nine planes that went down was a Soviet aircraft -- the others were American. This truly was a massive operation, a full-scale aerial attack on Soviet territory. This operation could have led to World War III. 

Nikolay Poroskov

Read the article on the newspaper's website (in Russian)

The signatories claim that by scheduling various activities near the Mayakovsky monument, specifically on the 31st day of the month, authorities are trying to prevent any political protests from taking place there. In fact, human rights activists explain that several opposition groups have long ago declared their intent to hold monthly assemblies there, precisely on the last day of each month. “Before, in order to refuse access to the requested site, we were issued fake, and often unenforcable, notices from pro-government organizations. Now, it is apparently municipal officials who have taken it upon themselves to ‘book the site’,” assure authors of the statement.

During a press conference held yesterday, Valentin Gefter, director of the Institute of Human Rights, said that he had repeatedly asked for a reason for the prohibitions and denials from the prefecture of the Central Administrative District, Moscow authorities, and the head of the Moscow City Directorate for security coordination, Valery Kadatsky, but “did not receive a clear answer”. And, the head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alekseeva, called the pretenses, based on which officials denied rallies, “fraudulent”; including the latest meeting scheduled for August 31.

Firstly, according to Ms. Alekseeva, the authorities said that on that day, a cultural sporting event will be taking place at Triumphal Square. “We decided that we will go there after all, to see just what kind of a sporting event this is that takes place on a Monday evening in the polluted center of Moscow,” said Ms. Alekseeva. Then, according to her, the officials devised a new way to object – they said that another meeting of 20 people was scheduled at exactly the same time and the same place. “These are fictitious reasons,” assures Lyudmila Alekseeva. “I absolutely don’t care who is planning to hold a meeting at Triumphal Square and for what reason,” added the activist. “What’s shocking is the behavior of the authorities. I will continue to defend my rights, without concerning myself with what kinds of organizations are holding their meetings there.”

Member of the Coordinating Council of Youth Human Rights Movement, Dmitry Makarov, recalled that “many legal documents – in our Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, as well those of the guiding principles of the OSCE Freedom of Assembly - stress that holding meetings, rallies, demonstrations and picketing are all a legitimate use of public space”. Political rallies “are as legitimate as various city holidays, sporting and cultural activities, etc.”, said Mr. Makarov. However, he noted that, based on the logic of the city authorities, athletes are in a more privileged position than other citizens. “Moreover, if one carefully reads the law,” said the Youth Human Rights Movement representative, “then they will see that the very notion of an approved or an unauthorized rally is incorrect. Authorities don’t issue sanctions or grant permissions, we have a notification procedure.”

Generally speaking, the current legislation on the conduct of public events is rather liberal, noted the press conference participants. According to Lyudmila Alekseeva, sub-legislative regulations and instructions, which explain to law enforcement agencies how they should behave during such rallies, “contradict both the Constitution and the active liberal law.”

“Our law enforcement agencies have learned since the Soviet era to follow instructions and not the laws and the Constitution,” she added. According to Dmitry Makarov, the law too has flaws. In particular, there is no detailed explanation of the procedures for co-ordination with the authorities on the time and place for rallies and marches. “Though currently, this procedure involves discussion,” emphasizes the human rights activist. “The authorities, on the other hand, interpret the law as their sole right to determine the location of where public events can and cannot be held.”

Read this article on newspaper's website (in Russian)

According to the builders, more than just mechanical components of the station were replaced. During the restoration of the lobby, which lasted more than a year, thorough work on the recreation of the “Kurskaya” station’s historic appearance was conducted. Sculptures, lamps, decorations, floor and stairs were all made to look as they did when the station was originally built. Director of the Moscow Metro, Dmitry Gayev, at the opening of the station, said that the builders were able to provide modern Moscow residents and visitors with a “lobby that is exactly the same as it was seen by our fathers and grandfathers in 1950”. “There are, of course, small changes. For example, a statue of Stalin, which stood here in the first years of the station’s operation, is no longer here,” complained Mr. Gayev.

According to the Moscow Metro’s press service, they decided not to look for the monument, which was dismantled in the late 1950s during the exposure of the leader’s cult of personality. But the new-old arch inscription got all the necessary approvals without any serious objections. According to subway representatives, it was “during the struggle against Stalin's personality cult” when the last name of the Father of Nations was chipped off. And, prior to the current restoration, the center of the arch was decorated by another line of the USSR anthem, which was adopted in 1943: “The sun of freedom shone onto us through the clouds of the storm, and Lenin, the great, led the way”. According to the subway administration “In fact, it was the same inscription, except it was about Lenin,” while they stressed that the change does not contain any ideological subtext. The only thing that restorers had in mind was reconstruction of the exact original image.

The Moscow City Duma Commission on Monumental Art shares the same opinion. Lev Lavrenov, chairman of the commission, told Vremya Novostei that “all original work needs to be restored.”

“Restorers are always geared toward reconstructing the period when the building was originally created and not ‘inventing’ anything extra,” explained Mr. Lavrenov, recalling that churches and, say, king’s chambers, are restored according to the same principle. However, the architects do not deny the peculiarity of the restoration of the Moscow subway, which initially seemed to carry an ideological subtext. To the question of whether or not the return of Stalin’s name on to the subway walls represents the struggle of the authorities against the falsification of national history, Mr. Lavrenov replied: “whether it’s good or bad, it's our history. And it should be remembered. If we continue hiding our history, it will be overwritten, especially by those abroad, just as is already occurring with the events of the Great Patriotic War.”

The city’s communists embraced the new “Kurskaya” subway station interior as a gift to the 130th anniversary of the Leader of Nations’ birthday and the 65th anniversary of Victory Day. According to the leader of the Moscow City Duma Communist Party faction, Vladimir Lakeev, despite the ambiguity of Russian society’s perception of Stalin, the communists have recently been noticing less negative sentiments. According to Comrade Lakeev, today, a reassessment of Stalin is occurring in the public consciousness. He is transforming from a man who abused power to a “statesman, who made the Soviet Union a great power.”

At the same time, if those who consider Stalin to have been a tyrant do not see in the subway renovations a restoration of a totalitarian regime, then they surely see its rehabilitation. The opening of the subway station, on the arches of which read a line of the first version of the anthem, triggered surprise and resentment among residents of Moscow. “I’m against the destruction of architectural monuments - I’m definitely for their restoration - but it's hard to imagine that in Germany, for example, they could restore Hitler’s words by carving them into stone,” noted Alla Gerber, president of the Holocaust Foundation, in an interview with Vremya Novostei. In her opinion, the historical appearance of the “Kurskaya” station lobby could have been restored without this conspicuous inscription.

Read this article on newspaper's website

The Canadian Prime Minister’s annual trips to the north, as well as the Nanuk (translation – polar bear) training exercises are the result of the intensified competition for the Arctic. “We are going to explicitly state that the Arctic is an important part of our country and our presence here will continuously be increased,” Canadian Defense Minister, Peter MacKay, recently stated. These words were primarily addressed to Russia; after all, Moscow's increasing activity in the Arctic region is causing Ottawa to be nervous.

On February 18 of this year, two Russian strategic bombers, Tu-95MS “Bears”, flew near the Canadian border. Moscow stated that they were carrying out a standard training flight. But Defense Minister MacKay saw “an indicial coincidence” that it happened on the eve of the US President Barack Obama’s visit to Ottawa. Moscow categorically rejected such parallels, and a staff member of the Russian Embassy in Canada, Dmitri Trofimov, was made to explain things before the Canadian Parliament. In mid-July, Canada expressed concerns about the ballistic missiles that were released from Russian submarines from the North Pole region. And at the end of that same month, the Defense Ministry of Canada was worried about plans by Russian airborne troops to carry out a 2010 symbolic landing in the North Pole on the 60th anniversary of the first landing in the Arctic. “Canada is ready to ‘meet’ all those who come near its borders,” said Peter MacKay.

One Canadian expert, Michael Byers, is confident that the Arctic has become the “hot button issue” of Russian-Canadian relations. His book, Who Owns the Arctic? - will be released this fall. “Domestic political overtones are noticeable in the ‘polar bear’ dispute,” Mr. Byers told Vremya Novostei (VN). “After all, the two countries generally have a good relationship. And, one couldn’t really call Russia’s actions in the Arctic provocative.”

On August 2, 2007, the Russian bathyscaphe Mir-1 anchored at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean; the geographic seabed of the North Pole carries a Russian flag made of titanium. Peter MacKay, who at that time served as the Foreign Minister of Canada, took this as a challenge: “This is not the 15th century where a country can hoist a flag somewhere and declare the territory as their own”. Michael Buyers believes that following that Russian Arctic expedition, Canada “tripled” its attention to the Arctic: “This includes both scientific expeditions and military programs”.
Today, Canadian military groupings are permanently stationed in the region, which will receive several new patrol ships in 2014. “Canada has positioned itself as a superpower over the Arctic and has clear objectives in the region. The United States did not. For this reason, we do not particularly rely on the support and interest from Washington,” Franklyn Griffiths, leading Canadian International Council (a non-governmental organization studying foreign policy issues) expert told VN.

PM Harper’s government developed a national strategy for the north, based on the “four whales”: the environment, development, self-government and sovereignty. The slogan of the Canadian prime minister is: “explore or lose” the Arctic. But Russia, too, considers this territory, which is potentially rich in oil and gas resources, to be its area of interest. In September 2008, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev approved the national strategy in the Arctic for “the period up to the year 2020, and beyond”. According to the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, Nikolai Patrushev, the United States, Norway, Denmark and Canada “are conducting united and coordinated policies to prevent Russia from reaching the riches of the Arctic shelf”.

Michael Byers does not agree with this assessment. He told VN that it’s out of place to talk about “united policies” of the West, including those due to “serious internal contradictions”. According to the expert, the U.S. is still refusing to recognize Canadian sovereignty over the Northwest Passage, which is the water way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean through the Arctic zone over North America. He believes that Canada and Russia should avoid “tough rhetoric and planning of gimmicks” in the Arctic. Instead, it is better “to focus on cooperation and respect” for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and other international documents: “The final answer to the question: who owns the wealth of the Arctic shelf, will be received only at the international legal level”.

Read the article in Russian

Born in Guinea-Bissau, he has been living in Russia for 20 years, and currently sells watermelons. It was previously reported that he, allegedly, intended to run for the position of the head of the Akhtubinsk Region, but it turned out that the African-Russian is so far only claiming a place in the local parliament. Mr. Krima will try to test his electoral luck in the Akhtubinsk Region single-seat electoral district number 7.

According to the chairman of the territorial electoral commission, Victor Sapozhnikov, three independent candidates are running for a single deputy seat. And, while Mr. Krima is running as an independent candidate, he pointed out that he is registered in the ranks of the United Russia Party. Now, in order to successfully register as a candidate, the African-Russian will have to collect no less than 609, and no more than 670 signatures, from his supporters. His election competitors will include temporarily unemployed resident, Yevgeny Pomomarev, and sales manager, Vladimir Bogachev. The vote will take place on October 11, 2009.

The election will also fill 15 regional Duma deputies, the head of the region, 12 heads of urban and rural settlements, as well as deputies of representative bodies of the urban and rural. The deadline for submitting the documents to participate in the local election is today by 6:00 p.m., Moscow time.

Deputy General Director of the Center of Political Technologies, Aleksey Makarkin, believes that there is nothing exotic about the participation of a Russian-African in the election, but his color does not diminish his chances of winning. “Representatives of national minorities can, of course run in a local government election. Such cases exist,” the analyst told Vremya Novostei.

“For example, Koreans are from time to time elected in the Far East, and why not? They have prominent communities there. At the local level, voters support a candidate with whose work they are most familiar. They vote for a well-known family name, or a prestigious job - school, firm, hospital, university. It would be much more difficult for someone with an eastern last name to pass in a large city; although if he proves himself on a local level, then his reputation will be the deciding factor.”

Moreover, according to the expert, this could easily happen at the federal State Duma elections – after all, they move up party lists, and everything depends on which candidates will hold passable seats. Large organizations are guaranteed to overcome the percentile threshold and there is nothing that prevents a black candidate from passing into the parliament.

Yet in our presidential election, we are far from having a Russian Obama. “Even America was moving towards this for many years, and the crisis played a deciding role, without it, the election could have had a different result such as Clinton – McCain,” says Mr. Makarkin. “The US had previously elected black senators, congressmen, governors, there have been films where the role of the president was played by an African American. The US was deliberately promoting representatives of national minorities to power positions, whereas, our society is very much so accustomed to the fact that the president should be Russian.”

Aleksey Makarkin believes that If Russia is compared to America in terms of candidates with exotic last names, then we correspond to the US of the 1960s or at least the. He also noted the difference in attitudes towards these issues in comparison with Soviet times: “Then was a time of official internationalism, and national problems and issues of migration were not as prominent, but most importantly - it was not appropriate to discuss race issues, and now the taboo has been lifted. In terms of tolerance, we made a step back, and perhaps not a single one.”

Read the article on the newspaper’s site

In April of 2002 Turkmenbashi said those words during a meeting with the, now also deceased, President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev. This phrase ruined relations between the two neighboring post-soviet states for a long time. The reason for these words were mutual territorial claims of oilfields in the middle of the Caspian “Kyapaz”, “Chirag” and “Azeri” (in Turkmenistan, they are called, respectively, “Serdar”, “Osman” and “Khazar”).

Only after the death of the former soviet leaders, and then the presidents of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan – Niyazov and Aliyev senior respectively, began the restoration of relations between Baku and Ashgabat. Both exchanged diplomatic missions once again, and resumed their bilateral talks on border establishment between Turkmenistan and the Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea. Mutual visits of presidents of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan – Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov and Ilham Aliyev, have already been made. Both countries were considered to be key participants in a serious geopolitical game between the United States, the European Union and Russia, dealing with new routes of energy supplies from the Caspian region to Europe. It seemed that old resentments and grievances were long forgotten and buried, and mutual phobias gave way to fresh economic calculations, allowing to profit from the realization of joint projects.

However, the “axe of war” was not buried deep enough.

On July 24, while speaking at his governmental meeting, the Turkmen president, Berdymukhammedov, after having heard a report on the already 16th inconclusive round of the Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan talks regarding the seabed division, instructed his diplomats to thoroughly examine this issue by engaging specialists in the Law of the Sea to prepare documents for the International Court of Arbitration (ICC) for its fair decision. In addition, Mr. Berdymukhammedov emphasized that Turkmenistan will accept any decision of this court, no matter what it may be.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan complied with the orders, and on August 4 issued a lengthy statement, in which it substantiated its position. In short, Ashgabat agreed that the delineation of the Caspian seabed, as defined by international law, should be done by constructing a median line based on the principle of equal distribution of its points from coastal baselines. However, the Turkmen side is firmly opposed to the construction of a median line based on its considerations of the eminent Absheron peninsula and Zhiloy Island. After all, if one were to consider their shapes in the sea, then the median line between the shores of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan will be shifted towards the latter. Therefore, most of the oil fields would be in Azerbaijan’s economic zone.

Officially, Baku responded quite calmly: “We are ready to defend our interests by all means available, including diplomatic,” said Khalaf Khalafov, deputy minister of foreign affairs of Azerbaijan. “If it becomes necessary, we will be willing to consider judicial procedures.”

Other comments from Baku were less diplomatic: “Behind Turkmenistan’s claims stands Iran, which is trying to pit Ashgabat against Baku at a time when important decisions regarding the Nabucco pipeline construction are being made.” Indeed, the territorial dispute between Baku and Ashgabat won’t allow for the laying down of the trans-Caspian gas pipeline, which would allow connecting Turkmenistan’s hydrocarbons to the export of gas to Europe via Nabucco, without which the Nabucco project is meaningless. According to other versions, the scandal that erupted on the shores of the Caspian Sea is extremely advantageous to Moscow. Therefore, it was Moscow that inspired it.

Of course, there is some logic to such conspiracy theories. However, according to Vremya Novostey’s knowledgeable sources from Turkmenistan, everything looks somewhat prosaic. Recently, in Turkmenistan, where a long time ago the “witch hunt” in search of “spies” who were trying to ferret oil and gas secrets of the country began, some Azeri “intelligence networks” were discovered. Its “cells” turned out to be research or analytical institutions that have representation in Baku. Some employees of these institutions, who previously worked in the oil and gas sector of Turkmenistan, were sent behind bars. Others, meanwhile, were dismissed, and some managed to leave to Russia to get out of harm’s way. The “grievances” with Baku that arose due to these events seem too small to trigger an international scandal; but here, other matters peculiar to Turkmenistan’s leadership needs to be taken into consideration.

Of course, Ashgabat has other reasons. They expect that the West, which invested so much money and lobbying efforts into the promotion of Nabucco, will try to put pressure on Baku for it to meet the requirements of its Caspian neighbor. After all, saving Nabucco is worth it, especially when the project is close to becoming a reality, and Turkmenistan’s authorities are taking a big risk.

Read the article in Russian

On Friday, August 7, Naftogaz of Ukraine will be expected to pay for Russia’s July supplies. The company must pay Gazprom around $650 million for 3.2 billion cubic meters of fuel, injected into underground storage (UGS) in anticipation of the heating season. Naftogaz does not have its own means to pay for this. The result of negotiations with international financial institutions, mediated by the European Commission, for a loan which is supposed to pay for injecting the UGS with gas (for which Kiev has high expectations), has been ambiguous. The issue is that the money promised by Europe is clearly not enough to settle accounts with Gazprom.

The joint statement by the European Commission, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World Bank and European Investment Bank (EIB), states that an agreement on the reform of the Ukrainian gas sector has been reached. The document, as acknowledged by the parties, opens the way for the financial support of Kiev. The amount of this assistance, provided under the sovereign guarantee of the Government of Ukraine, could reach $1.7 billion.

Only $300 million from the EBRD will be used to pay for the imported gas. The rest must go towards investments in upgrading the gas transmission system and the gas industry of Ukraine. With the $300 million grant, Naftogaz can only buy 1.5 billion cubic meters of gas. Even conservative observers believe that in the third quarter, no less than 10 billion cubic meters of gas must be sent to Ukrainian UGS, which will cost about $2 billion. This means that in the beginning of September and early October, Naftogaz will need budget assistance or help from the National Bank of Ukraine in order to settle its Gazprom accounts. Kiev has recently received another tranche of the IMF’s $3.3 billion credit package.

However, the agreements on the willingness of international banks to provide $1.7 billion should not let anyone be misled. And neither should the announcement of the Chairman of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso: “The agreement must guarantee the stability necessary for the reduction of a risk of any future gas crises between Ukraine and Russia, and thus the necessary for the EU to secure the level of gas supply.” The banks have stressed that it won’t be long until Naftogaz receives the majority of the money, and it will be used for specific investment projects. The EBRD is ready to issue another $450 million for the implementation of the investment program in 2010. The EIB will provide the same, but only for specific projects, which will be according to the standard agreement procedure. The World Bank will provide another $500 million to Ukraine for the support of socially vulnerable consumer groups.

Earlier, Yulia Tymoshenko’s Cabinet expressed a willingness to raise the price of gas by 20% in September, and in October, to carry out the indexing of prices for housing and communal services enterprises. The government is not revealing the package of reforms promised to Europe. The only thing that is known is that, in addition to price increases, it specifies the guidelines of the declaration signed between Kiev and Brussels in March.

With regard to the inadequate amount of money for the injection of the UGS, the European Commission and bank statements say that work with the Ukrainian side “to find a viable solution to the problems of gas transit and payment for gas” will continue.

Naftogaz asked for a loan for $4.2 billion. A similar assessment of the needs of the Ukrainian gas transport system for the smooth passage of the fall-winter maximum was given by Gazprom and Russian leaders, who strongly lobbied the EU to divide transit risks through the territory of Ukraine. During the weekend, there were no comments from Russian officials regarding the decision between Brussels and the international banks; but it is highly unlikely they will satisfy Moscow.

It’s enough to remember what response was elicited by the bilateral declaration between the European Commission and the Government of Ukraine to modernize the transmission system of this country, which was signed in March. The document included Kiev’s commitments to reform the gas sector according to the European model, including the restructuring of Naftogaz (transferring of the pipeline to an independent operator) in exchange for European investment in the Ukrainian gas pipelines. The Russian delegation then defiantly left Brussels; Prime Minister Vladimir Putin threatened Brussels with a revision of the approach to the partnership, and President Dmitry Medvedev declared a suspension of economic consultations with Kiev.

Then, the passions subsided. Naftogaz began its period of gas injection into the UGS (from April to October) and Russia hit upon a new idea – to engage the EU in financing the fuel purchases to fill the Ukrainian storage. As you know, with the onset of the heating season, gas consumption in Ukraine and Europe dramatically increases - the demand surpasses the daily transit ability of the system. At that time, Naftogaz takes part of the Russian gas transit flow, which is destined for farther abroad, to supply the eastern part of the country, and the missing amount of fuel is supplied to the western border from the UGS. During the injection, the Ukrainian gas company is forced to buy a lot more than it sells, which causes a significant cash gap. Meanwhile, according to the long-term contract, which was signed between Gazprom and Naftogaz in January, an account for gas supply which is unpaid by the 7th day of the month will lead to an automatic transition to a 100% advance, termination of the flow of gas and, consequently, the disruption of pumping into the UGS.

In May, Naftogaz managed to pay for Gazprom’s prepayment for transit. In June, it paid the money only due to foreign loan reserves. A month ago, everything was quiet, simply because the Ukrainian company stopped injecting gas in June while waiting for the price of gas to drop from $270 to about $200 per 1,000 cubic meters in the third quarter. And now, after a few days have passed, a new pay period has arrived. As did the European financial promises, which are, in fact, symbolic. So too a possible new surge of discontent from Russia, for which the EU-Ukraine agreement does not actually solve the problem of payment, but does increase the political tension between Moscow, Kiev and Brussels.

Read on the newspaper's site (in Russian)

The idea of creating a new generation of supercomputers and GRID-based systems (geographically remote computers merging into one system to solve problems that require significant computing power) is of great interest to Russian authorities. Just one week ago, the development of advanced computer technologies in Russia was discussed in detail in Sarov at the session of the commission for the modernization and technological development of the economy. And just yesterday the authorities again revisited this idea. Even Prime Minister Vladimir Putin came to the Kremlin to discuss it. Moreover, while usually entering meetings one minute after the president, this time, though Putin didn’t wait for the beginning of the meeting with the other members of the Security Council, he came a full six minutes earlier.

In the next month and a half, proposals for the development of supercomputer technology will be prepared by a working group headed by the Minister of Education and Science, Andrei Fursenko. The not-yet-existent Russian supercomputer with the one petaflop (thousand trillion floating point operations per second) operational power, which requires approximately 22,000 processors, is expected to be unveiled in one and half years. According to Arkady Dvorkovich, Assistant to the President, the digital breakthrough won’t require any additional budgetary spending. Several billions have already been included in the budget and federal programs.

But besides finding ways to create 21st century computer technology, the state is faced with another task that is no less difficult – the interest of new entrepreneurs and government officials. “Everyone says that they favor the use of supercomputers and GRID-based technologies; however, at the same time, very few are mastering the new technological space, and thus very few use these computers to create digital models of various processes – in the air or on the ground,” said the president.

According to Medvedev, great number of entrepreneurs, not to mention government officials, don’t know what supercomputers are. “For them, they are these exotic machines, similar to those that were used to catch up with and outdo America in the 1920s. We only have one aircraft model that is drafted on a supercomputer. Everything else, just as in the 1920s and 1930s, is being created on Whatman paper by using old and well-known approaches,” Dmitry Medvedev said, criticizing some businessmen who were not curious.

Meanwhile, the use of new technologies can lead to dramatic improvements of product quality and significantly reduce costs. “This includes development of aviation, rocket and space technology, geological exploration, development of new materials, medicines and vaccines,” explained the president. “When using the joint GRID-based system supercomputer capabilities, for instance, the duration of the solution to the problem about the “study of blood circulation of the brain” can take one and a half months (24 hours a day), instead of 55 months on a computer with an output of 10 teraflop,” Igor Shchegolev, Minister of Telecommunications and Mass Communications, explained.

In order to create and intelligently operate supercomputers, members of the meeting decided to use something that made a lot more sense for them - sticks and carrots. Mr. Shchegolev proposed to provide state support for companies that use supercomputers, aimed at improving their competitiveness where necessary. And Mr. Dvorkovich told reporters that leading entrepreneurs would be provided with tax relief.

In the list of the 500 most powerful computer systems, 476 belong to the Americans. Of the top ten supercomputers, eight are located in the United States. According to June 2009 data, the most powerful supercomputer system is located in the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US. Its peak performance is 1.46 petaflops, or 1,000 teraflops. Russia's most powerful supercomputer is the MVS-100K, installed by the Interagency Supercomputer Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Its peak performance is 95.04 teraflops, and is rated in 54th place. The SKIF supercomputer at Moscow State University comes in second place among Russian machinery (82nd place in the ranking). Its peak performance is 60 teraflops. In third place comes the Kurchatov Institute supercomputer with the power of 32.2 teraflops (223rd place).

Read at newspaper's website (in Russian)

The time for the final press conference was well chosen: Russian politicians and officials, relaxed by the July heat, were not particularly active this weekend in regards to commenting on this story. However, the silence of the Russian political establishment may be interpreted as a perplexity - head of the legislature of one of the regions of the Russian Federation met in a European country capital with a man who Russia is demanding to extradite for trial on charges of violating about a dozen articles of the Penal Code.

“We have carried out consultations on the finalization of consolidation of Chechen society and total political stability. This is consistent with President Ramzan Kadyrov’s program to revive the Chechen Republic, after the realization of which, he will receive the support and understanding from the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin,” Dukvahi Abdurakhmanova explained in his official statement based on the meeting’s outcomes. “No matter where the Chechen people may be living, they must have a common, unifying goal - peace, stability and prosperity of the Chechen Republic. This is the basis for our joint actions. It’s time to gather stones. There aren’t so many of us, Chechens, in the world (only 3 million) that we should divide to “political apartments”. Everything that divided us is now in the past. The President of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov managed to bring an age-old dream of the Chechens to life. That is freedom of religion and complete unity between the Chechens living in Chechnya. I am confident that Ahmed Zakayev with his friends, and other Chechens living outside of the Russian Federation, will find their place on the path of further revival of the Chechen Republic. This is the desire of President Ramzan Kadyrov; this is the desire of the Chechen people.”

Taking into account Akhmed Zakayev’s procedural status in Russia (he is charged in absentia in several harsh crimes, including kidnapping and murder, terrorism and participation in illegal armed organizations), a meeting of this size could have been considered sensational. But even on the Chechen Government's official website, Mr. Abdurakhmanov’s concluding statement, by Saturday, was already moved into the shadow of the news about law enforcement officers’ successful operations in Goity, where six gang members have been eliminated. Such “loss of interest” can be related to, first, clear understanding that Grozny’s dialogue with Ahmed Zakayev could not but irritate the law enforcement officials in Moscow. And second, to partial disappointment: in Chechnya, more could have been expected from the meeting.

It’s most likely that Grozny was counting on the main outcome of the negotiations to be the announcement of Mr. Zakayev’s willingness to return to his motherland. That would have been be the highlight of President of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov and his team’s effort to bring in important figures of the Chechen separatist movement of the 1990s - 2000s to their side. Such a return of the “former” is understood in Grozny as part of the consolidation of the post-war, divided Chechen society. The emergence of separatist leaders in the background gives the young Chechen president more authority to speak on behalf of all Chechen people – since the people who were ready to shed their blood for the sake of the Chechen people are now with the president.

The Federal center, as a whole, knowing that this is the price to pay for the current Chechen stability, is willing to close its eyes at such contacts. Indeed, Chechen nationalists, who a few years ago were in Moscow the first and most dangerous “demons of the parade of sovereignties”, are now the backbone in the region. Center and nationalists are interested in a joint fight against the branching diversionary underground networks, which since late 2007 abandoned the nationalist and separatist slogans and declared their war a religious battle for the establishment of Shariah Law in the Caucasus.

The first serious success on part of the return of former separatist leaders was made under the current Chechen leadership in March 2004, when ex-Defense Minister of the separatists Magomed Hanbiev sided with Kadyrov. Hanbiev was one of the most active participants in both wars, the commander of the legendary fighter force named after Baysangurov Benoevsky. Then, there were many talks about Hanbiev’s surrender was conditioned by taking several of his relatives hostage. Mr. Hanbiev later confirmed in an interview that when he headed to “surrender”, he was ready for the worst. But in just a few weeks, he found himself among most notable figures of Kadyrov’s circle. In November 2005, he was listed “second” in the Union of Right Forces (SPS) list during the first Chechen parliamentary postwar election and later became the de facto chief curator of the program for Chechen emigrants return from abroad, those who were forced to leave Russia for the years of both wars.

Several weeks ago, Chechen republican television channel was broadcasting a program included several former leaders of Ichkeria and the President of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov, which lasted for several hours. It’s not difficult to guess that Ichkerians praised Ramzan Kadyrov for his achievements in post-war reconstruction of the country, and blamed President of Ichkeria Aslan Maskhadov (elected in 1997, killed in March 2005) for the second war with Russia that began in 1999. Perhaps this version had irritated someone who was close to Maskhadov at the time of the Basayev’s militia invasion in Dagestan, and who knows that Maskhadov tried to avoid continuing war with Russia. But, at least this version is quite clear in the account of former separatists who took Kadyrov’s side.

Then, in 1999, many of them were dissatisfied with Maskhadov precisely because of his inability to confront Islamic radicals and their Middle Eastern friends who crowded Chechnya. Islam played (and continues to play) a very important role for both peoples. But it is precisely this conflict – between the nationalists, committed to traditional Chechen religious movements, and religious radicals with their “pure Islam” and demands of establishment in the Caucasus a single Shariah Emirate – replaced the conflict between Russia and Chechnya in the 2000's and continues to this day.

This is a clear point of contact between Ramzan Kadyrov’s leadership in Chechnya and that part of the Ichkerian emigration that is focused on Ahmed Zakayev. Mr.Zakayev, who for many years was considered to be the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Ichkeria, in the fall of 2007, declared himself the prime minister when in when Aslan Maskhadov’s actual successor, in the position of underground Ichkerian president, Doku Umarov recounced his presidential capacity. Umarov proclaimed “Emirate Caucasus” instead of Ichkeria, declaring all the democratic institutions as being heretic and infidel and welcomed “brothers in faith”, who battle with the enemy in Iraq, Afghanistan and other "stages of the global jihad."

Ahmed Zakayev, for whom the image of Chechen resistance in the eyes of the international community was always important, could not accept a Umarov’s de facto declaration on ideological alliance with al-Qaeda. Mr. Zakayev announced that deputies of Ichkeria’s parliamentary convocation of 1997, being in exile, told him on the phone about their decision elect him as prime minister – in other words, the first person of Ichkeria at the time of absence of a legitimate president. In response Doku Umarov stigmatized Akhmed Zakayev as apostate, and announced that Muhabarat (special service) of his “Emirate” is starting the persecution of the prime minister – the emigrant.

At that point the Doku Umarov paradoxically became in questioning about Akhmed Zakayev along with federal law enforcement agencies. In the fall of 2002, they for the first time demanded his extradition from Denmark, where a week after the hostage crisis in Moscow's Dubrovka Theater Center, Ahmed Zakayev was participating in the World Chechen Congress. Danish police arrested Mr. Zakayev on the request of Russian prosecutors, but did not consider materials that were sent from Moscow as sufficient for extradition.

Since then, Moscow requested to extradite Mr. Zakayev from Germany and the UK. But in the fall of the 2003, British court conclusively rejected Rusian claims, and Ahmed Zakayev obtained a refugee status in the United Kingdom. Despite the international search declaration, this status allows him to freely move about all countries that support the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office regularly renews the request for Mr. Zakayev’s extradition, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers this issue one of the major problems hindering the development of Russian-British relations.

During his quarrel with Umarov, Ahmed Zakayev who became the central figure in the emigrant camp - supporters of Chechen independence, for the first time allowed himself praising comments addressing Ramzan Kadyrov. For starters, he called on militants not to fire at Chechen police officers and noted that “created by the authorities structures will strengthen in two, three, four years, become even stronger and become a factor in the Chechen freedom”. At the same time, Mr. Zakayev argued on the Internet with Islamist ideology, saying just about the same things that are customarily discussed in formal meetings of Muslim clerics: Islam, in his point of view, doesn’t require a deadly battle with the infidels, with whom a mutually peaceful coexistence is possible.

Ramzan Kadyrov, initially did not let it be known that Ahmed Zakayev could be more interesting to him than anyone else from those “capable of negotiations” with separatists. The president of Chechnya did not get tired of repeating that the exiled were, in a certain sense, “forever yesterday's”, because they lost their connection with the real situation at home, he also did not tire himself repeating that no matter how desirable their return would be, they are responsible for the tragic events of 1990 - 2000.

Although several months ago, it became clear that talks with Akhmed Zakayev, which Ramzan Kadyrov announced publically several times, have a high a high degree of importance for him. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the president of Chechnya would have continued to have these talks despite constant unambiguous signals from the federal powers. For example, in January 2009, the FSB announced the elimination of Dagestan’s militant, Isa Hadiev. Hadiev allegedly collaborated with a well-known field commander, Arbi Yavmerzaev while trying to fulfill Akhmed Zakayev’s orders to restore the “Armed Forces of Ichkeria” (apparently in spite to Umarov’s “Mujahedin Emirate Caucasus”).

Grozny’s reaction, where up to this point no one missed the opportunity to joke about the former actor’s, Ahmed Zakayev’s, ongoing theatrical career, was unexpectedly sharp. Chechnya, in fact, announced that it considers the message about the elimination of Hadiev and his ties to Ahmed Zakayev a special attempt to derail an important peace process. In spring 2009, one month prior to the abolition of counter-terrorist operations in Chechnya (April 15), Ramzan Kadyrov, in the presence of a delegation of the State Duma Committee on Safety, confirmed his contact with Akhmed Zakayev, and considers his return desirable.

The return, however, has not yet occurred. After the Friday meeting in Oslo, Ahmed Zakayev said that his return was not discussed. According to him, on the agenda there were no personalized questions or prospects of employment at home, but the general situation in Chechnya. But the prime minister of Ichkeria announced that recognizes Ramzan Kadyrov’s legitimacy, “behind whom stands a great country”. “Thanks to Ramzan Kadyrov’s personal qualities, good beginnings are taking place in Chechnya, and not to see this, does not mean that it’s not true,” said Ahmed Zakayev. He said he welcomes all steps “aimed at achieving stability, security, respect for human rights and the rule of law and in Chechnya, and Russia”.

While Akhmed Zakayev’s military involvement in the two wars in Chechnya was not particularly significant, and, in the government of Djokhar Dudayev he was only the minister of culture, his “official” recognition of Ramzan Kadyrov is comparable to the recognition of Chechen president by the worldwide Islamic community.

When Ramzan Kadyrov was honored to take part in the ablution ritual at the Kaaba, together with the King of Saudi Arabia, though not all, but a large part of the Ummah saw in Kadyrov an Islamic leader who is concerned with his compatriots being able to freely practice their religion. Similarly, after Ahmed Zakayev declared his legitimacy, there will be a part of the supporters of independent Ichkeria who will toss all doubt to the side and gather under Kadyrov’s banners.

When the second war has just begun, residents of Chechnya said that it involved three parties – federal troops, Wahhabis and “honest militants”. Many of these “honest militants” are now working with the authorities. And, Ahmed Zakayev, with all the Chechen humor regarding his theatrical career that he, according to many, is trying to continue in politics, it is associated with the “honest militants”.

Perhaps this will be the “the last call”. Remember, when a month after the cessation of KTO (Chechnya’s counter-terrorism operation)a suicide bomber blew himself up in front of Ministry of Internal Affairs; Ramzan Kadyrov, announced the suspension of any amnesty for the intransigent and firmly promised to destroy all those who did not surrender. Successful negotiations with Akhmed Zakayev is a signal to everyone who values Chechen interests, and who does not associate them with radical Islam and is willing to accept Ramzan Kadyrov as the main spokesperson for these interests. One can find many of these people among mature Chechen men, to whom belong 50-year-old Zakayev, and 32-year-old Kadyrov. Contact between them, two people who were just recently irreconcilable enemies, shows that, for Chechens, ethnic solidarity is often more important than political disagreements, which seem insurmountable from the outside, but are actually superficial.

But precisely for this reason, the question arises as to whether this post-conflict achievement will be noted by Moscow, where international non-governmental peace-keepers are regarded with suspicion. Ahmed Zakayev’s meeting with Dukvahoy Abdurakhmanova occurred under the aegis of a human rights fund Chechnya Peace Forum, chaired by Ivar Amundsen. In addition, the procedural status of Ahmed Zakayev hasn’t changed since the last request for his extradition. General Prosecutor's Office is not sympathetic to the “honest militants”, it believes that Ahmed Zakayev is involved in a series of serious crimes.

In Chechnya, the charges are not considered to be very well-founded- Zakayev, for example, is known as one of the few participants in both wars who did not kidnap people. In Grozny, the federal center is hoping that some sort of a way that the accused could return home. But for Moscow to abandon the idea of seeing Akhmed Zakayev handcuffed and trialed would mean to accept that it’s in the wrong. To accept a mystified attitude towards a great part of charges against him. And most importantly - to recognize that Ramzan Kadyrov is stronger than the Prosecutor General and the FSB.

The latter is particularly problematic. Especially because Ahmed Zakayev is an invaluable witness who is familiar with many details of negotiations between the federal troops and Maskhadov, carried out with his involvement until the fall of 2002. At the time of the Beslan tragedy in September of 2004,Zakayev acted as an intermediary between the operational headquarters and Maskhadov, who declared his willingness to personally come and rescue the hostages. Ahmed Zakayev is able to write about these episodes in his autobiography in London, but if he did that in Grozny, the effect would be significantly stronger. It’s clear that there are people in Russia who will do everything to prevent Zakayev from returning. On the other hand, it’s difficult to assume that the president of the Chechen Republic had negotiations with Ahmed Zakayev before his joint press conference with the speaker of the parliament, without having somebody’s principle approval from Moscow.

Read this article on newspaper's website (in Russian)

The Iranian economy is in need of peaceful nuclear development. But, at the Natanz plant, uranium enrichment is in full swing. In other words, they are creating highly enriched uranium with the help of laser centrifuges, not vital for peaceful purposes, but necessary for the creation of a nuclear bomb. It seemed that Russia would be able to persuade Iran to agree to uranium enrichment on Russian territory. That would place the entire process under control and eliminate the opportunity to work on the bomb, but this did not happen. Iran is still rejecting the joint proposals of Russia and Western powers, who are promising, in exchange for the cessation of uranium enrichment, to assist Iran in the construction of nuclear power plants, admit the country into the WTO, and so on. What else does Iran need, if all it wants is to create peaceful nuclear energy? It refused all offers, and more than 7,000 centrifuges are spinning in Natanz.

Recently, a US-Russian joint report of experts, working on behalf of the independent international organization, EastWest Institute, was recently published. The report, titled “US-Russia Joint Threat Assessment Study on Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Potential”, indicates that in one to three years, provided that the uranium enrichment will reach a military level, will be enough to produce a nuclear bomb. Another five years may be needed to create nuclear warheads capable of reaching their target with the use of ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, Iran tested at least four liquid fuel rockets including: “Shahab-3”, which has a radius of up to 1100 kilometers. “In six to eight years, Iran will be able to create a ballistic missile, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, weighing one ton, over a distance of 2,000 kilometers,” say experts.

Does all of this mean that Iran is determined to create an atomic bomb? Not necessarily. They wouldn’t have anyone to drop it on: if it were indeed Israel then the victims, for example, would not only be over six million Jews, but also the Arabs who live on the Israeli and Palestinian territories. This is unacceptable for Iran, which is striving to be the leader of the Islamic world. It’s most likely that the hypothetical Iranian atomic bomb is a political weapon. Physically having the bomb isn’t as important as reaching a state of readiness where they could say: “We never wanted to have the nuclear weapon, but we have already made such strides in creating peaceful nuclear energy that, if necessary, to counter security threats, we are able to protect ourselves by using these means as well. For that, all we have to do is take one more step”. This is a matter of strength, blackmail, if you will “North Korean style” (although, Pyongyang went beyond mere blackmail).

But even if, in several years, the bomb is born, perhaps nothing terrible will happen after all. Europe could “live with a nuclear Iran” and especially America, which the Iranians simply won’t be able to reach. Perhaps Iran is counting on them to make a commotion and, after a while, calm down. Yes, everyone can calm down, except for Israel.

One could only imagine the state of being of people living in a small country that people actually call the “one-bomb country”. Near this small country is a great power whose leaders clearly indicate that Israel will eventually be wiped off the map. Moreover, these leaders are on the path towards creating a nuclear weapon. Israeli public pressure on the government’s leadership to do something before it’s too late will continue to grow, and the pressure of these leaders on their only ally – the United States – will continue to grow accordingly. In May of this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his visit to Washington, got President Barack Obama’s promise that America will continue to monitor the Iranian situation until the end of this year, and if it becomes apparent that diplomatic efforts were not bearing fruit they will again review the issue. This promise is vague, but in Israel it was understood as in the event of failure of diplomacy, the option of force will once again return to the agenda. Sooner or later, if Iran's nuclear program will continue to function as it currently is, it will give rise to the worst assumptions. Israel, then, will carry out a preemptive blow.

It is in the interests of the United States to deter Israel from such a step, which will be a disaster for American policy in the Islamic world. Of course, there will be people who consider that all of this, especially the inevitable weakening of US influence, is in Russian interests. But this is a very short-sighted view. In case of a new Middle East war, Russia will be faced with some difficult choices. And then, it will be impossible to just “sit on the fence”. So, it’s probable that the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages.

The policy, which is based on laissez-faire views, that one shouldn’t dramatize the situation, that it’s possible to ensure that Iran won’t become a nuclear power, and that we won’t be in conflict with any one, would be short-sighted and irresponsible . In reality, nothing will change for the better. If it’s not confident that there is unity within the international community, Iran won’t meet its wishes. This isn’t the kind of unity that assumes positions of those who propose military solutions or tightening of sanctions. On the contrary, world powers must act in unison while applying “soft pressure” on Tehran, when looking for a compromise between the extreme positions of the US and Iran.

Iran’s leadership wouldn’t lose anything if they met the requirements of the leading world powers, and agreed to stop uranium enrichment work in exchange for aid, which can be a key factor in lifting the Iranian economy. They wouldn’t “lose face” in front of their own people. The Iranian people aren’t burning with desire to go to war with America. They would be only happy if, by making a successful nuclear program, their country would be able to affirm its greatness and dignity, and meanwhile avoid a war. The leadership’s credibility would reach new heights.

Such an option of dealing with Iran has a chance for success, especially given the recent internal political events, which showed the limits of power of Iranian rulers. A division within the Ayatollah “corporation” is also possible. The regime isn’t strong enough to act with the same intransigence. Both Moscow and Washington are interested in the same things: for Iran not to have nuclear weapons, for it to make full use of its right to develop peaceful energy, for those who are fearful of it to no longer have reasons to make “preemptive strikes”, and for the global oil industry to develop in a stable manner. Whatever controversies may exist between Russia and the United States on other issues, including level or armament, they won’t necessarily affect the prospects of reaching a coherent position on the Iranian issue. However, coordination of actions should be declared firmly and clearly and the sooner the better. After all, time is passing, the clock is ticking, and the centrifuges are spinning...

Read the article on the newspaper's site

According to official reports from Ashgabat, on July 21, the Day of Healthcare and Medical Industry Workers in Turkmenistan, President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov “personally performed an operation on a patient from the Balkan Province to remove a lipoma, a benign tumor.”

“The patient, a resident of the Balkan Province, in May of this year came to Turkmenistan’s Scientific Clinical Center of Oncology with a complaint about the recent pain caused by a tumor behind his right ear. His examination showed that the lipoma, which began as a soft, elastic growth, in 20 years had grown to an enormous size and called for an immediate surgical intervention,” explained Turkmenistan’s government information agency.

To reassure all those concerned, the operation allegedly “took place without any complications, and was acknowledged by everyone as successful.” It couldn’t have been any other way, because the operation was done by a certified specialist, a doctor of medicine who at one time personally treated the Great Saparmurat Turkmenbashi himself.

He was assisted by a team of German doctors, Professor Johannes Senk and Klaus Tchaikovsky. By chance they arrived in Ashgabat on the day of the 14th anniversary of Turkmenistan’s state health program. And, can you imagine, they were immediately escorted to the operating room! They were assisted by the Turkmen anesthesiologist and candidate in medical sciences Musa Ismailov.

Turkmenistan’s official message says nothing about whether the surgery was performed under a local or general anesthesia. Personally, I think that it was done under general anesthesia for two reasons: one relates to national security. The other to the patient’s personal safety.

First, the patient was not supposed to know that his surgeon was being replaced with his German colleague. This could have happened if the head of state was forced to suddenly get distracted by some urgent public matter that required his personal attention. Second, I’m sure the patient had to be asleep to know that the surgery was being performed by the president himself. After all, he could have been so frightened that his disease was so out of control that it had to be taken care of by the leader of the “era of Turkmenistan’s new rebirth” himself. And this fear is obviously stronger than the fear for the patient’s life at the sight of a dentist holding a scalpel.

On the other hand, the patient could not praise the president’s “royal concern” about his citizen selected for the exemplary operation. Imagine that Dr. Berdymukhamedov decided to remember his past and sit a patient with some sort of tooth decay that had been neglected for 20 years into his dental chair. This kind of problem could not be put to sleep – he would have to dig in his mouth, after all. And so, the patient opens his mouth and sees, with boron in his hands…well, you know who…

What a horror! It’s frightening to even imagine what could have happened to him…

For this reason, the most harmless method of displaying governmental concerns about the health of Turkmen citizens was chosen. As one knowledgeable dentist told me, he could cut out a lipoma himself, if it was an external one – in other cases, there are surgeons, he said. Common health education is enough for this procedure. To do it, a small skin incision needs to be made at the clogged oil gland (basically the lipoma itself). Then the contents need to be carefully, as from a soft-boiled egg, enucleated, and the cut carefully stitched. That’s all!

My friend Gennady Malkin (as it happens with many doctors, he is also a writer and well-known author of aphorisms), after learning about Turkmenistan’s “high-level” operation and the kindly treated patient with lipoma behind the ear, nodded with understanding: “With a surgeon, if he is an emperor, no one can argue…” He remembered historical accounts about Peter the Great, who was known for his curiosity about everything and anything alive that lived in his entrusted empire. If he was told that some soldier was having stomach pains, he himself would pick up a knife and began examining the causes. Mortality in imperial medicine, as they say, reached the absolute 100% rate.

Since then, medicine hasn’t progressed too far ahead, but personal “royal concern” about their subjects remains incredibly high. However, some doctors believe that this concern doesn’t persist in all “royal territories.” For example, the provost of the Moscow University of Medicine and Dentistry Yuri Vasyuk, who recently presented Berdymukhamedov with an honorary degree in Ashgabat, stated the following: “The Russian medical community is deeply convinced that Turkmenistan was lucky twice. First, it’s headed by an effective public figure, and second, the president of Turkmenistan has been educated as a doctor.”

If Mr. Vasyuk is correct, then Russia was clearly lucky two times less…

Read the article on the newspaper's site (in Russian)

In the history of the WTO, there have never been any negotiations with the organization of a customs union. Moreover, at the end of last week during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, first Vice President Igor Shuvalov and Minister of Economic Development, Elvira Nabiullina informed of the initiation of a negotiating process regarding WTO after their consultation with European and US trade representatives. At the beginning of this week, the concept had changed.

The host of yesterday’s summit, Russian Premier Vladimir Putin, upon hearing the results of negotiations, made a sensational statement on the behalf of heads of governments that are ready to enter the new customs alliance:

“The leaders of the governments of our countries, while carrying out the decisions of the heads of state regarding the formulation of the Customs Union, underlining their adherence to joining the WTO, and highlighting that during the past years the process of joining the WTO became a factor in slowing down processes of integration, and while underlining the high economic potential of our countries and advantages of their deep integration, they have decided first: to approve a uniform customs tariff and submit it for approval to the Interstate Council of EurAsEC on the level of heads of state, meaning the uniform customs tariff coming into effect on January 1st, 2010. Second: to approve offers on stages and terms of formation of a united customs territory proceeding from the beginning of the functioning of Customs Union starting January 1st, 2010. Third: to notify the World Trade Organization of the intention to begin the discussion process regarding the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation’s joining the WTO as a unified customs territory.”

Mr. Putin focused on the main point of his statement: “There is an article that states that governments of the countries will notify the WTO that they will terminate negotiations regarding the joining of Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.”

With that, the Premiers of all three countries highlighted that their main priority is joining the WTO in form of a united customs union and not separately as individual states.

Journalists did not have a chance to ask the heads of state the most important question on this new “customs trio”: how will this be achieved? For this reason representatives of mass media attacked first the Vice President, Igor Shuvalov, with their questions. “Do these decisions imply a time-out in negotiations with WTO for at least two years?” asked a correspondent from newspaper Vremya Novostey. “What are you saying”, he replied, “the United Customs Union begins to operate as a legal entity from January 1st 2010 and as an infrastructure, from July 1st 2011.”

Mr. Shuvalov confirmed that the “customs trio” won’t be hesitant. In the near future, the three countries will withdraw their applications from WTO on the level of national delegations. After which, they will address WTO with the request to join as a new “tripartite alliance”.

“So, nothing will change in communicating with WTO?” asked a correspondent from Interfax. “It hasn’t changed for 15 years”, Shuvalov answered, “they kept telling us: this year you will join, and this year you will. But it never happened. Do you want to include this year too?” However this year will indeed be included, as will the one after that.

On the other hand, who knows what will happen with the confirmation of United Customs in the former USSR. In the end, they probably won’t agree on trifles that, if one were to believe Mr. Shuvalov, still exist. There has been a transition period planned for the participant countries of United Customs Union for tariffs on especially sensitive groups of merchandize.

Overall, while there is a relative clarity in the Customs Union for the period from January 1st 2010 until the visit of the presidents of the three countries legal existence of a new international economic union will take place. One thing isn’t clear, however and that is this: what will happen not in the three years when “especially sensitive groups of merchandize” will cease to exist, but in two years when the united customs infrastructure is to take effect?

Read the article on the newspaper's site (in Russian)

VN: To what extent have the provisions of the UN Security Council 1244 resolution regarding Kosovo been fulfilled?

Petr Iskenderov: The resolution hasn’t been fulfilled. The western countries entitled to fulfill it had implemented its provisions very selectively with emphasis on their own priority matters. The key principle of any contractual legal document, i.e. its fulfillment in full force and effect, was violated. The 1244 resolution came as a result of a very difficult compromise, and its provisions were a package deal. The refusal of fulfilling the entire package caused the problems we are facing today.

VN: Do you mean violating the principle of enabling the democratic standards in Kosovo first and then resolving the status problem?

P.I.: I mean many aspects. First of all, it’s the principle specified by the resolution of the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), and now Serbia as the legal successor of the FRY. I mean maintaining the settlement in the international legal framework. The negotiations were supposed to determine the level of autonomy for the Serbian province of Kosovo while preserving the state’s integrity. This main provision hasn’t been fulfilled.

VN: Supporters of Kosovo independence insist that the UN Security Council 1244 resolution doesn’t hinder the province’s independence when identifying Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia, since the FRY hasn’t existed since 2006. Is this interpretation feasible?

P.I.: This deduction is absolutely wrong, just like the statements made by some of our western partners and international lawyers. They insist that FRY’s territorial integrity and that of Serbia consequently was fixed only at the moment of signing the resolution. Thus they believe all the other options, including Kosovo independence, are acceptable.

VN: In 2006-2007 Russia was acting as an intermediary at the negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina on the status of Kosovo. Was a compromise between the Serbs and the Albanians possible, or had the self-proclaimed Kosovo independence been predestined?

P.I.: Russia wasn’t acting as the intermediary. And the negotiations hadn’t really taken place. At that time I was working in Belgrade. I remember that on the eve of the negotiations (at the end of 2005) Martti Ahtisaari (the UN Special Envoy at the Kosovo status process in 2006-2007) arrived and stated bluntly that the decision had been made and that Kosovo would become independent. In other words, the schedule of the negotiations and their results had been outlined back then. How could we have talked about compromises in such conditions?

VN: At what stage did you realize the independence of the province had been predestined?

P.I.: I have an impression that the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia which had started in March 1999 was caused by the fact that the West had already made its decision regarding Kosovo. Judging by Ahtisaari’s words, all the issues had been settled in 1999 while all the rest were just stage sets. The bombing of Yugoslavia and all the further activities in Kosovo were aimed at enabling the independence of the province.

VN: What factors determined the choice of the West for the independent Kosovo?

P.I.: The West was pursuing an entire range of tasks using Kosovo as an example, and this had played its role. They included the split of the Serbian space, consolidation of the Albanian residence space, and experience of exempting a part of territory from a sovereign state. The only thing I find hard to understand is the EU position. The self-proclaimed state of Kosovo is fully controlled by the United States, but the EU pays for it.

VN: Would it be possible to restart the negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina under the aegis of the UN?

P.I.: Kosovo has been gaining more features of a frozen conflict. The problems of relationships between the Albanian authorities of the province and the Serbs populating its northern parts and other smaller enclaves are not being worked on. The economic development of Kosovo is nil. They will have to negotiate and look for solutions.

VN: Russia had supported the arguments of Serbia in its suit at the International Court of Justice demanding to recognize Kosovo’s independence as a contradiction to the international law…

P.I.: The Serbian lawsuit was a political action. We had supported it. In any case the verdict will be recommendatory only. Nonetheless, a just and objective consideration of this case will be very significant in improving the atmosphere around the Kosovo settlement.

VN: The Albanians often use a humorous reply to the statement that Kosovo is a historical cradle of the Serbian statehood: ‘The cradle may still be yours but the babies in it are ours’. The demographic factor has been becoming more significant in the interethnic conflicts like the Kosovo one…

P.I.: We are facing a fundamental choice of demography versus democracy. Much will depend on what we make our priority. Kosovo is a laboratory in which many procedures had been tried out. These procedures will be used when settling other conflicts one way or another. If we make the demographic factor our corner-stone it will significantly strike the fundamental principles of the European and worldwide security.

VN: Is formation of ‘The Great Albania’ a real threat for the Balkans?

P.I.: This option should not be disregarded.

VN: Can we say that the war in the Caucasus of August 2008 became a consequence of the ‘Kosovo precedent’?

P.I.: I wouldn’t draw such parallels. The events of Kosovo are a result of interference of a brutal force into such delicate matters as the interethnic problems and conflicts within one state. In the Caucasus we were dealing with something different. It was an attempt to revenge for defeats in the previous conflicts. Georgia’s aggression on South Ossetia had been planned in advance. The Georgian army had been receiving massive assistance in form of funds, arms and military training for many years. The Georgian authorities had been preliminarily oriented at reaching their goals this way accordingly.

VN: What are Russia’s positions in the Balkan countries today?

P.I.: Russia has been strengthening its positions on the Balkans on a principally different basis. This is neither an ideology nor an attempt at forming military alliances, but rather an application of the most modern and solid economic foundation. Implementation of such projects as the South Stream (a gas pipeline running from Russia through the Balkans to Europe) will be crucially significant in developing our relationships with the Balkans. Even now this project has been attractive not only for the countries involved in it directly, i.e. Bulgaria and Serbia, but for the states negotiating or preparing for it, i.e. Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia. The South Stream project will have a distinctly Balkan dimension.

VN: Do you look into the future of the Balkans with optimism?

P.I.: I am an absolute optimist as far as the future of the Balkan Peninsula is concerned, under one condition though: they should stop using it as a laboratory.

Read the article on the newspaper's site (in Russian)

The high-ranking NATO representative came to Tashkent in order to conclude talks on the transit of non-military cargoes through Uzbekistan on to Afghanistan. The Uzbek leadership has long given its approval but questions remain about the price and other details. The transit has already started through the Uzbek port of Termez on the Afghan border and then through the famous Friendship Bridge over the Amu Darya River into the Afghan city of Jeyretan.

Vremya Novostey’s well-informed sources in Tashkent believe the US and Uzbekistan may reach an agreement about transit of military cargoes as well. It is expected that the most convenient route will be used, going through the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. However, Ashgabat has not yet agreed officially to open its territory for land transit to Afghanistan.

In addition to the Uzbek route, Washington is also working on the Iranian route for transporting cargoes to Afghanistan. According to Kabul sources of Russia’s Center for Modern Afghanistan Studies (CMAS), representatives of Iran and the US reached an agreement in May to open an air corridor in Iran for NATO planes. Cargoes for the Coalition forces in Afghanistan will be transported through Iranian airspace from an American military base in Qatar. Most probably, cooperation on Afghanistan will not be limited to an air corridor. CMAS experts report that Iran and the United States are discussing the possibility of opening a land corridor across Iran as well.

Also, the CMAS report, a copy of which Vremya Novostey has obtained, says Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is trying to prevent the Allies from setting up a northern transit route to Afghanistan through Central Asia. These attempts were first reported in the spring, when Kunduz Governor Mohammad Omar announced that Pakistani secret services were helping transport groups of Taliban militants to this northern Afghan province. These groups included “a significant number of mercenaries, most of whom were Chechens.” Their goal was to disrupt the operation of the Sherhan Bandar river terminal on the border river Panj.

Over the last few years, after the US and its NATO allies helped build bridges across the Panj River, this transit route has also started playing an important role in supplying the West’s contingent in Afganistan. According to the CMAS report, Islamabad is not interested in losing its “transit monopoly” on cargo supplies to Afghanistan. This monopoly was breached last year when terrorists attacked convoys and cargo terminals in the Khyber Pass in Pakistan and destroyed many cargoes. The US was forced to start seeking an alternative to the southern, Pakistani route.

Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry says security in Kunduz is one of its top priorities. In late April, Afghan security forces launched a major military operation in the province, capturing more than 40 Taliban fighters.

The search for alternative northern routes became particularly urgent after the Kyrgyz parliament in February denounced the agreement with the US on deploying an American military base at Bishkek’s Manas airport. However, as Vremya Novostey has repeatedly pointed out in the past, even after August 18, 2009, when the agreement expires, the Americans will remain in Kyrgyzstan. Washington will not require that Kyrgyzstan extend the term of the lease agreement; the parties will find another, mutually acceptable solution. According to Vremya Novostey sources, Bishkek will get an additional $30 million from the US for this. The story of US-Kyrgyz cooperation over the military base will continue, Eurasianet.org, an American Web site, claims. This is evidenced by the fact that in late May Bishkek announced a tender for base maintenance from July 2009 through June 2010. Today is the last day bids can be submitted.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

This was only natural, because the “progressive” people of the Soviet Union rarely heard any of the church news. But on the other hand it seems unjust that after three centuries of enmity, humiliation, atrocious executions, exiles and other abuse which the Old Believers had to endure, everything was over and done with in a run-of-the-mill way: the New Believers Church adopted a routine decree and immediately sent to the archive.

Another 40 years have passed – nearly half a century, so that today even fewer people may recall that decree of the council, let alone know anything about the Old Belief continuing to be an important and imprescriptible part not only of our national history but also the whole of the Orthodox Christianity.

The tragedy of the Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church began from the innovations of Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexy (Mikhaylovich) Romanov. The inadequacy to the established canons and the destructive character of their “reforms” were fully and convincingly proven by researchers of the Church history more than 100 years ago. Tsar Alexy’s nonsensical dreams of capturing the Tsar City of Constantinople and similarly unbridled reveries of his special friend Nikon to become a universal patriarch can evoke a picture of a stupid old woman’s fads from Pushkin’s poem Goldfish. The outcome turned out even more horrible – Nikon, dethroned from patriarchy died in obscurity and exile, while Tsar Alexy Mikhaylovich was tortured to death. They failed to enjoy even a minute reward of obtaining a washtub, in other words, to reverse the reforms.

The duumvirate of the tsar and the former patriarch resulted in the Schism. Since then patriarchs and tsar came and went in succession, but all of them were unswerving adherents of severe persecution of the popular opposition towards new rite reforms. The most fascinating part is that despite the cruellest pressure from the authorities, both tsarist and church, millions of common people were ready to sacrifice their lives for piety testaments of their ancestors. The crueller the government was, sometimes horribly cruel, the steadier the Old Believers were in defending their old faith.

Neither stakes nor scaffold nor rack could stop their sacrificial heroism in the name of their Orthodox faith.

Vasiliy Rozanov wrote about the Schism: “It’s a formidable and wonderful phenomenon in our history. Should the Russians be ever asked at the Last Judgement: “What did you believe in anyway, what did you never deny and what did you sacrifice with all that you had?” – after initial hesitation and mentioning Peter the Great’s reforms and Enlightenment, they would eventually be forced to say it was the Schism: “Some of us did believe and never betrayed and only sacrificed.”

At the same time, one often overlook the main thing while admiring the staunchness of the Old Believers – that this faith is an ample disproof of the established idea that the people are only a passive and lazy mass, nearly a herd. For centuries the Old Believers, not only deprived of the support from the upper educated and wealthy strata but directly persecuted by the authorities, let be on their own, did not only survive but also managed to defend and preserve their ancient Slav Orthodox rites in every single person.

The evidence of the Old Believers’ having really preserved the pre-reform rites of the Orthodox Church intact – the ones followed by the Fathers of the first seven Oecumenical Councils and St. Vladimir, Alexander Nevsky and Sergius of Radonezh comes not from Old Belief preachers but a state official in charge of the Schism, the prominent author Melnikov (Pechersky). Here’s what he wrote in a report to Emperor Alexander II: «The followers of the Old Believers serve strictly in line with regulations of the Church, but as this kind of service is pretty long, then the New Believers allowed some reduction in it.. According to the Orthodox traditions the holy icons must be painted from so called originals which were made in Byzantium; the saints portrayed in them have strict features without any expression of earthly passions. While the New Believers respect the icons of the Italian school..” The commentaries are definitely excessive to this official testimony of the imperial official.

By the beginning of the 20th century the total number of Old Believers accounted for just one quarter of all citizens of the Russian empire. They included all well-to-do peasants, Cossacks and merchants! They neither drank, nor smoked; they had many children and were self-sufficient. We are still vainly trying to create this kind of “the middle class” in the burnt field of post-Soviet times.

The Old believers irritated the Soviet and church authorities by their independence. In fact, they were a threat to their total supremacy in the country. For almost a hundred years from the church
schism the authorities have been trying to sink “the schism” in blood or to strangle it in unbearable fiscal burden. The desperate efforts brought an opposite effect – entire villages, cities and Cossack communities had been joining “the schism”. Being powerless to surrender popular movement, the power made an attempt to lead it.

In 1800 Moscow metropolitan Platon established the so called one belief where congregations of Old Believers had to make part of an official church of New Believers. The United Believers were allowed to serve by “the old books” if they admitted the power of the Synod and the Synod’s Head, the Russian Imperator. Being an obviously forced move, which had plenty of humiliation for the Old Believers conditions, the United Believes didn’t reach their goals and remained a religious compromise, distrusted by the New and Old believers. The 20th century was tough while judging the ones and the others!

Being aware of his power and the future mightiness of the New Believers, archbishop Antoniy (Khrapovitskiy) in his famous “Address to all the Old Believers”, written in 1912, acted as a missionary and taught “schemers”, not knowing that in a few years he himself would appear in the schism with the “red” church of Metropolitan Sergiy triumphing at the abandoned motherland.

Revolution, Civil war, collectivization, industrialization, millions of victims – and it’s worth considering that in the background of that national crisis, suddenly, in 1929, only two years after his so called “loyalty declaration”, Sergiy (Stragorodsky), the metropolitan of Nizhniy Novgorod Революции, found time to view such a non-actual for the first sight issue as removing anathemas and oaths from the Old Believers! Nevertheless, the issue was presented for the Synod’s consideration in a positive light. But the result of its consideration is unknown.

However, in 1971 at the Local Council Nikodim (Rotov) the metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, raised that issue again. Consequently, on June 2, 1971, its participants unanimously supported that initiative promoted from “the top”- the damnation of the ancient Council of 1667 on those who “maintained the old rites” were removed.

Since then, many orders and decisions of all kinds of Councils and the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church have been aimed at the reconciliation with the followers of the Old Believers. Former Metropolitan of Smolensk and current Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill (Gundyaev) was especially active in that field. Some people are inclined to see in this process a natural desire of archbishops to heal a tragic schism of the church. Others are convinced that behind those magnanimous gestures of the Patriarchate the New Believers conceal their old intention to swallow up the Old Believers.

At least, a distorted view of the Old Believes cannot help being disturbing, and recently it has been insistently introducing into a social consciousness. They try to represent the Old Believers as the ethnographic reservation, almost a society of lovers of historic reconstruction. Too big value is given to the preservation of national traditions and the peculiarities of people’s ways of life. At the same time a true meaning of the Old Believers as preservers of the intact Orthodoxy. All this is dangerous, because occasionally some of the pastors of the Old Believers almost agree with false views of ancient Orthodoxy, they don’t oppose them openly.

In accordance with the church canons the wrongly applied oaths have no force. The Old Believers didn’t consider them as anathemas, because they were convinced in their beliefs. The Council of the New Believers confirmed their rightness, having removed unreasonable anathemas as if “they never happened” and opened arms to the “brothers” who have been prosecuted before. But won’t the friendship with the Patriarchate become a more serious trial for the Old Believers than previous persecution and hostility? Will the Old Believers endure strong embraces of the “brotherhood” and won’t disappear inside the Russian Orthodox Church as “not the former one”?

VN: Are you demanding a monetary compensation?

N.B.: We are demanding Saakashvili’s resignation. In this particular case, we want an apology.

VN: The opposition is planning rallies outside foreign diplomatic missions in Tbilisi. Is that a way of expressing its resentment about the lack of support from the West?

N.B.: I’m resentful and hurt, as I see that the information the West gets is not quite objective. We’ve been labeled radicals, but what is so radical about us? We have been holding rallies for two months, and take a look around: there’s not a single broken window, all the stores down Rustaveli Avenue are open, just like all the hotels, cafes and restaurants. It’s important for us to make the West understand our reasons better. I mean precisely understanding and not interference into our internal affairs. Saakashvili has trampled down all the Western values.

VN: Do you expect tension to escalate?

N.B.: The government is doing its best to make that happen. I declare with full accountability that the authorities are leading our nation towards civil confrontation – that is, a confrontation between the authorities and the citizens. This may result in bloodshed. We are doing our best to prevent it.

But the authorities resort to such extreme measures as sending people with batons and masks determined to cripple the protesters by beating them up. But when the latter fight back, we are told that it was an attack on plainclothes policemen. I’m calling on the international community to pressure Georgia’s Interior Ministry so that its police officers put back on their uniforms. A plainclothes policeman in a mask with a baton is a thug.

We shall continue our rallies until Saakashvili resigns. As long as the Georgian people are unable to elect a decent leader that will at least stay with the nation in times of severe crisis and not fly out to some football game (Mikhail Saakashvili visited the Championship League Final in Rome on May 27 – Ed.).

VN: Are talks between the opposition and the leadership possible?

N.B.: I am skeptical about it. I know that those in power will never meet us halfway. We are being offered local elections, but given the current situation it looks like mockery. However, I’m not blocking the talks. Any result is better than standing in the street.

VN: The opposition has criticized the authorities for the UN Secretary General’s May statement which was the first document not mentioning Abkhazia as part of Georgia. And what if on June 15 the Security Council adopts a resolution not calling Abkhazia part of Georgian territory?

N.B.: It’s absolutely out of the question. This fact alone is enough to bring Saakashvili to justice. Any other country would do so to its president that has lost 20% of the national territory.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

Hardly anybody remembers this but half a year later, another small plane from Finland landed on Soviet territory, albeit far from Moscow. The pilot stepped on Soviet soil and left a bouquet and a note for then-leader Mikhail Gorbachev with words of praise for perestroika. Perhaps even fewer Russian people today remember from history that in 1940 there was another German pilot who easily reached the central part of Russia. That case, as well the Rust story, caused a massive shakeup in the military. Many high-ranking officials were stripped of their positions. Some were even executed. Thus, innocent air trips were precursors to tragic events which called into question the very existence of a great nation.

Today we know it took Matthias Rust a rather long time to prepare for his flight. The SVR and GRU, powerful intelligence services of that time, should have noticed these preparations. But they did not. However, the Soviet leadership did not criticize these two agencies; it blamed the military instead. The Armed Forces took very harsh punishment. Prior to the investigation, Mikhail Gorbachev fired the defense minister, Marshal Sergey Sokolov; the commander in chief of the Air Defense Forces, Air Force Marshal Aleksandr Koldunov; and various generals and officers of lower standing. Two officials – the general who was on duty at the central command of the Air Defense Forces and the officer who was on duty at the headquarters of the Moscow Air Defense District – went to jail. Some historians even compare these events to the purge of the military Stalin carried out in 1937.

For Aleksandr Koldunov, the commander in chief of the Air Defense Forces decorated with two Hero of the Soviet Union stars and who shot down 46 enemy planes during the World War II, these events were particularly tragic. He developed a serious illness, doctors amputated both of his legs, and the marshal died in physical and psychological pain. My good old friend Rasim Akchurin, the former commander of the Soviet anti-aircraft missile forces (and, incidentally, a brother of the well-known cardiac surgeon), used to tell me, “This was not just an innocent flight. This entire situation was planned in order to leave our Armed Forces without commanders.”

In fact, the reckless flight could have been terminated at any point – the USSR had more than enough military might. Russian radars detected the little Cessna while it was still over Finland, approaching the Soviet border. Immediately after it crossed the border over the Gulf of Finland, a Mig-23P interceptor fighter scrambled from the Tapa airfield in Estonia. Radars guided it right to the intruder. The fighter pilot identified the Cessna, slowed down to the minimum speed, and for some time followed the target keeping it locked in his targeting system. The pilot literally begged for a permission to open fire or launch a missile but his requests went unanswered. Later on, air wings from the Khotilovo and Bezhetsk airbases scrambled too, but once again the order to shoot down the Cessna was withheld.

Army Mi-24 helicopters could have also raised for interception, with several deployment points being on the route of the flight. The capacity of a well-armed helicopter is enormous. During the Iran-Iraq war the Mi-24 brought a Phantom F-4 jet fighter, but no helicopters were ordered off ground because there was no coordination between the branches. “At the same time, in the Moscow air defense zone,” an honored navigator, retired colonel Valentin Dudin told this publication, “it was quite possible to scramble any aircraft or helicopter – be it a search-and-rescue, transponder or through board which could have prevented the flight of the intruder with flare pods or an obvious maneuver on that clear-sky day, and force it to the ground.”

Even after the landing on Red Square the whole event could have been presented as a conscientious act of humanism and then have a public trial as it had been in the Powers case – Francis Gary Powers was brought down during his reconnaissance flight over the USSR territory on May 1, 1960, and then in August 1960, was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the USSR Supreme Court and later was exchanged for the Soviet spy Rudolf Abel in Berlin on February 11, 1962. However, Gorbachev, according to the opinion of many then-military leaders of the country, opted to fight a friend to fight a foe. It was something he needed at that time, for he feared the army that he thought would hinder the reforms.

The military well remembered how after the destruction of the South-Korean Boeing-747 in the Far East in September 1983 the Russian media described the anti-aircraft defense as ruthless killers of innocent civilians. The air defense units on duty began to drown in incessant coordination and repeated queries. The main document labeled with two zero, meaning it was top secret, regulating the actions of the air defense units on duty was updated towards double-checking and diluting responsibility.

Nearly by that time, a US anti-aircraft missile launched from the Vincennes aircraft carrier brought down an Iranian airbus over the Persian Gulf, mistaking it for an Iranian F-14 jet fighter. No matter how inappropriate it would be to compare, the human casualties were bigger than the South-Korean Boeing-747. However, neither the General Staff, nor the Foreign Ministry of the USSR would draw any attention to the circumstance that our anti-aircraft defense, even though it brought down foreign aircraft, does this over its own territory, and not thousands of kilometers away.

Matthias Rust came back to Russia once again – in 1996 he traded shoes here. A wealthy Japanese businessman had bought his aircraft. The Rust Syndrome manifesting in hesitation when resoluteness is indispensable, in the fear to take responsibility had long dominated the Soviet and then Russian army. It was obvious during both Chechen campaigns, although much less during the second one. Today, though, the people who have served in the military for long and know its life from the inside say the syndrome has actually been overcome. This conclusion was drawn a year ago, during the South-Ossetian events.

The resoluteness of the order to attack Georgia and force it to peace, the confidence of the troops, became, according to many military experts, a turning point in the army’s history. That happened in spite of certain faults in directing, which had been caused by the thorough reorganization of the General Staff, many departments of which were in the middle of moving to another building, and the lack of new weapons in the war zone. The morale is no doubt the main thing – a soldier has it only if he is fully certain in his commander, no matter the rank.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

Vremya Novostey: Members of the Alliance are reducing budgets allocated for combating piracy, which is understandable. In this situation the BSA money would come in handy. Is BSA going to spend more money in our country than it has been spending so far?

Georg Hernleben: As a non-profit organization, BSA is in a relatively good situation: we have a fixed 2009 budget, unlike other companies who are forced to revise and reduce their budgets from quarter to quarter. After China, BSA invests most in Russia.

V.N.: Does it mean ‘No’?

G.H.: Taking into account the effect and volumes of our investments, I don’t see reasons for their increase.

V.N.: BSA, following the IDC analytical company, sticks to a simple method: software piracy is calculated from certain average normative data. The number of computers is assessed, and a normative is applied: such-and-such number of the Windows operating systems, or Microsoft Office or Photoshop packages are installed on a hundred computers. Then the data are compared with the volumes of legal sales. Don’t you think this method is improper?

G.H.: Research like that carried out by IDC never claims 100% preciseness. However, the program of researching the level of piracy carried out by IDC is the only one that is always there for a long time. And it’s not only analysts in the USA who do this work. They obtain their results based on data from analytical companies that work in respective countries that they research. I would agree that the piracy level indeed depends on a particular situation. For instance, if we take laptop computers, the operating systems installed on them will not be our biggest problem. But the overall level of software piracy must still be researched by some methods. Oh, yes, we do base our work on IDC results. And it’s not only us who believe these results are the best thing available in this sector.

V.N.: But, let’s say, Microsoft Russia does not think so. They say, according to their estimates, the software piracy is not the way IDC presents it. And, incidentally, it’s lower than IDC’s estimate.

G.H.: Each company has the full right to carry out their own calculations and make such statements. As for us, we represent a great number of members of our organization, many of whom say the opposite: software piracy in Russia is higher than shown in IDC reports.

V.N.: Besides Microsoft, there is Adobe. It’s another company that prefers monitoring the piracy level in Russia on its own, thus duplicating the work done by BSA.

G.H.: Let me be absolutely frank: it’s not a problem at all. We welcome such duplication since it is commonly accepted practice. BSA members work within their own programs of counteracting piracy, including their independent contacts with law-enforcement agencies. More often than not, the BSA can’t sort out some situation on its own, and a particular BSA member deals with it, as in the case of piracy in the selling sector, which is a very good help for us.

V.N.: What’s Russia’s image compared with other countries, both developing and European, in terms of software piracy?

G.H.: During the whole period of research we have never seen such a fast decrease in piracy as in the modern Russia – 19% in five years – an absolutely unique result.

V.N.: How was it all in 2008?

G.H.: We are eyewitnessing another 5% fall in piracy, the biggest result in the world. Russia is very different from countries with developing markets, for the better.

V.N.: What would you say about the French Parliament’s ruling that users who download music, movies and software for free should have their internet connection cut?

G.H.: France is doing what it deems necessary, and the BSA will help it in that. It’s obvious, however, that the French initiative is due to be under discussion in the European Parliament, too. It should not be up to Internet-Service Providers to decide, but courts.

V.N.: The BSA’s fight against Internet piracy is rather slack, isn’t it?

G.H.: I would not say so. The BSA does not say so.

V.N.: Saying and doing is not the same.

G.H.: Exactly. That is why we are not discussing items under investigation.
For years, there have been pirate websites on the Internet. Journalists keep asking why the BSA is not doing anything. Sometimes, you know, we have to work silently, so to speak, in order to obtain a result eventually. For five years we were asked why The Pirate Bay (a website that used to spread copyrighted files for free – Ed.)? So there you are – it does not exist anymore [ piratebay.com; thepiratebay.org – are still there].

V.N.: Most servers from where counterfeit software is downloaded in Russia are located in Europe. Russian rights holders cannot do anything with them.

G.H.: It’s not only Russia’s problem. For instance, I live in Germany and know that German citizens download pirate software from servers abroad most often. Large-scale co-operation is needed to fight this – with IFPI [International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], with Interpol and police from various countries. In the long run, it is up to the police force to address the issue. What we can do is only render our assistance.

V.N.: Do you think an author’s copyright over software is essentially different from music and movies?

G.H.: Software manufacturers, at least in the European Union, are in an advantageous position as compared with music and video makers: private copying of software is prohibited. This substantially facilitates the task of revealing piracy cases and of qualifying crimes. What’s more, I am ready to suppose that illegal downloading of music or video is rather what is called street piracy, i.e. illegally sold product rather than fake products, as it happens with software.

V.N.: I meant a broader aspect: software is more an industrial product than a product of artistic creation. It’s like a car that can be stolen by pressing a button. Updating author’s copyright (seemingly inevitable) should affect software and art products differently. What do you think?

G.H.: Indeed, the question is rather broad. We have several aspects here. First, software is stolen because it is possible. As for me, for example, I can’t steal a car even if I’m eager to do so, but it’s very easy to steal software. Secondly, unlike music or movies, software is a business tool, something that can improve our life from a utilitarian point of view. At present what I can see makes me pleased, by the way. Some world-renowned musicians for the first time declared author’s copyright is crucial and piracy was bad. Just a couple of years ago some of them would say that the industry’s fight against piracy does not concern them. Now the situation is different. They have seen something they did not see before.

V.N.: What is the situation with computer piracy in Germany? What are the risks of downloading counterfeit software from the Internet?

G.H.: Some 10 to 15 years ago, software piracy in German was about 40%. In the late 1980s nobody cared about licenses at all. Now it’s totally different. The piracy level has become very low, having gone down to only 27%. However, in the past four to five years it has not been decreasing. That might seem strange to you, but to a certain extent, the situation in Russia is better, because we’ve got dynamics here and things are developing, whereas in Germany and Great Britain we have to think how to make this dynamic return. This worries us. I would have been reckless with the facts if I had said that those who steal software in Germany can’t sleep at night for fear. Very many judges and prosecutors don’t care much about single cases of counterfeit. The police are active though, both towards companies and individual users. Nobody would want to imprison a 17-year-old school student or impose huge fines on his parents as is the practice in the USA. But it’s common to sentence someone to 20 to 40 hours of community service.

Read the article on newspaper's site

Joseph Biden made his first stop in Sarajevo today. He is expected in Belgrade as well, and negotiations will be held tomorrow in Kosovo as scheduled. By analogy with Washington’s intention “to reset” Russian-American relations, the influential British newspaper “Financial Times” believes that Biden “will press the reset button in the Balkans” in order to “to try to overcome Serb nationalist rejection of the region's current borders."

Yesterday Joseph Biden discussed the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina where he arrived accompanied by a leading diplomat of the European Union Javier Solana. The Dayton Peace Accords, which were concluded with the active participation of the US, helped to end bloody civil ethnic war in Bosnia in1995. As a result, a unique country, consisting of two state forming entities of Muslims, Croats, and Serbs, appeared in Europe. It has become a member of the UN, OSCE, the Council of Europe and other international organizations, but now it faces challenges in entering the European Union. European officials want to see Bosnia and Herzegovina as a more centralized state with one police force in particular, but Serbs speak against this as they insist on the immutability of the Dayton Accords.

Joseph Biden confirmed yesterday that the US considers that Serb unyieldingness hinders the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He recalled that last week the United States House of Representatives adopted a resolution on Bosnia, recognizing the historic mission of the Dayton Accords, comprising “numerous compromises aiming at quick actions for saving people’s lives." However, as the document says, at present those compromises “interfere with the efforts to establish efficient and effective political institutions."

Serbs do not agree with revision of the Dayton Accords. Yesterday, protest rallies took place in the Republic of Srpska. Their participants accused the USA of interference in the internal affairs of Bosnia.

“The Dayton Accords, which were also prepared by Russian diplomats and experts, created not a worst model for settling a bloody ethnic and religious conflict," Konstantin Nikoforov, Director of the Slavic Studies Institute, told 'VN'.

"But then the international community began to gradually deprive the Bosnian Serbs of their basic rights, stipulated in the Dayton Accords documents." Nikoforov says that the US and the EU are short-sighted while trying to wash out the foundation of the current state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because “the Dayton model could also be used for settling other Balkan problems, and, especially, in Kosovo."

Today in Belgrade, Joseph Biden will hardly be able to give hope to those Serbian leaders who call for revising the issue of the Kosovo status through negotiations. It means they will still have to set hopes upon Russia. “The issue of Kosovo is already solved for the US: Washington has not only recognized the independence of Serbia’s region, but opened its Embassy there. It concluded several agreements with Priština and supplies it with arms. It is hardly justified to wait for revising these solutions by the US administration,” Aleksandr Karasev, head of the Southeastern Europe modern Slavic studies department at the Slavic Studies Institute, told Vremya Novostey.

In his opinion, future discussions about the Kosovo status will depend not on the US, but the EU, where Serbia and Kosovo’s authorities plan to enter. ”Brussels could try to find such a model which would allow Belgrade and Priština to integrate into the political and economic structures of the EU, and avoid the Kosovo status issue, which is still painful for Serbs. In such a case it would be possible to try to restore relations between Serbs and Albanians in the framework of the European Union using financial support as well”, the “VN” expert asserts.

Read the article on newspaper's site

On Monday, the talks were close to being disrupted. The Abkhazian delegation refused to participate in them before the UN Secretary General released his report, which was due on May 15. Sukhum wanted to make sure the document did not mention that the self-proclaimed republic belongs to Georgia. South Ossetia and Russia supported Abkhazia’s decision. Moscow said it “stopped the watch” at the negotiations table in Geneva. On Monday night the report was released, Abkhazia was satisfied with its title, and yesterday morning the talks resumed.

The much-anticipated report by Ban Ki-moon did not contain the words “Abkhazia” or “Georgia”; it was entitled “The Secretary General’s Report Pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 1808, 1839, and 1866.” Moscow thought the title was acceptable. Grigory Karasin recalled that originally the report was entitled “On the Progress of the UN Mission in Abkhazia, Georgia,” and “this style was unacceptable to Sukhum.”

The next meeting in Geneva is expected to take place on July 1. Grigory Karasin emphasized that Russia was concerned about the Georgian authorities’ intention “to regain control over the territories they lost as a result of their aggression last August and over the peoples living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia at any cost.” That is why it is so important to sign a binding document on the non-use of force. Also, Mr. Karasin said that the town of Dvali on the Georgian-South Ossetian border will soon host a meeting for those who will be involved in the incident-prevention mechanism, which was agreed at the previous round of Geneva consultations in February. The Russian diplomat said Georgia’s attempts to force upon attendees a discussion about deploying an international police force in Abkhazia and South Ossetia were “absolutely unacceptable.”

Western diplomats spoke of the Geneva consultations in a more positive vein. “Despite the difficulties, two working groups, those for security and humanitarian issues, including the problem of refugees, have completed their work,” EU special representative Pierre Morel said. He said the discussion on conflict prevention was “constructive” and added that negotiators reviewed drafts of five documents on various social and economic problems, including the status of refugees, property restoration, and water and gas supply.

Tbilisi did not protest about the title of the UN report, once again putting the blame on Russia. Georgian State Minister for Reintegration Temuri Yakobashvili told Vremya Novostei that “the UN Secretary General’s reports and the expressions they use have no bearing on the Geneva format, because the UN is just one of the mediators.” According to him, Russia “used the Geneva format as a tool to put pressure on the UN.”

Yesterday, Georgian Foreign Minister Grigory Vashadze said that Russia “was trying to legalize the two virtual ‘bantustans’ it created on Georgia’s territory,” i.e., Abkhazia and South Ossetia. According to him, it is important to wait until the UN releases a more important document on Abkhazia, a UN Security Council resolution, which is expected to be adopted on June 15. As for Ban Ki-moon’s report, he remarked that the document was an “intermediary” one and that it contained “elements which were clearly included because of pressure on the part of Russia.” “I cannot say I am satisfied with such a compromise, but on the other hand I cannot say this compromise will make Russia or its puppet regimes happy,” Mr. Vashadze said. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the accusations of putting pressure on the UN as it was preparing its report on Abkhazia were “idle words.”

Georgia’s Ambassador to the UN, Alexander Lomaia, assured the Georgian people that no part of Ban Ki-moon’s report calls in question Georgia’s territorial integrity. Pyotr Mamradze, a member of the Georgian parliament representing the oppositionist Movement for a Just Georgia, told Vremya Novostei, “The UN will never reconsider its position on Georgia’s territorial integrity. This is out of the question. There will be no concessions to Russia. References to previous resolutions is a standard procedure.” According to the parliamentarian, UN officials always avoid harsh formulas to keep the negotiation process going. The deputy lamented that Russia had too much influence on Abkhazia and South Ossetia: “Due to this factor, we can hardly expect much progress to be made in Geneva. But we need to continue the talks in order to ensure security and protect refugees’ rights.”

Nonetheless, the Georgian opposition used the UN report on Abkhazia as a weapon in its conflict with the authorities. Georgy Khaindrava, a former state minister for conflict resolution, speaking yesterday at a rally in front of the parliament building, encouraged refugees to take to the streets in protest. He said the UN document was “the first step towards losing Georgia’s territorial integrity.” He said Ban Ki-moon’s report was “a result of the policy pursued by Saakashvili and his team,” who presumptuously believed the international community was totally supportive of Georgia’s territorial integrity. Georgy Khaindrava warned that “tomorrow we may see a similar report on Tskhinval.”

Read the article on the newspaper's site

“It would be incorrect to mop up everything related to the Soviet period, for there used to be many good and glorious things, first of all about the victory in the Great Patriotic War,” historian Petr Maltatuli said.

“However, if it’s a question of – and let’s call a spade a spade - state criminals, then this question must be solved. It’s impossible to imagine a street in Germany named after Hitler or Himmler, why then do we have streets after Sverdlov, Dzerzhinski or Voykov? They did not build anything but only killed.”

His colleague, historian and TV presenter Konstantin Kovalev tried to explain why a society which responded so enthusiastically to the return of historical names of cities and villages in the 1990s, is not so positive now,

“The revolutionary symbols are regaining their original meaning and are projected to the future, because the issues proclaimed during the 1917 Revolution are very acute, in terms of social arrangement.”

From this point of view, the return to the Soviet symbols during the Putin era should be considered not only as the restoration of the administrative command system, but also as a spontaneous demand from society for social justice on the background of a growing polarisation of living standards between the poorest and wealthiest.

Kovalev appealed for tolerance and reminded that intolerance in historical renaming is shown not only by Communist ideology, “Some Russian emigrants would also say from time to time: We are not going to return unless you remove the stars from the Kremlin.” At the same time, Kovalev suggests that there should be no mechanical renaming, but “a return of the historical memory”.

The Director of the Modern Russian History Museum, Tamara Shumnaya joined the proposal to show tolerance, which sounded from her more like a proposal to leave everything as it is and not stir up the past.

“Every country has blood-stained pages in its history. One should not rewrite history,” she said and recalled both the French Revolution with its terror and the years of fascism in Germany. Although, as Maltatuli said earlier, with the careful attitude of the Germans to their history, it’s hardly possible to imagine a Hitler Avernue in modern Berlin even in the worst sci-fi novel possible. However, while the fascist ideology was officially condemned at the Nuremberg Trial, there is no clarity in the minds so far as to what to do with the Communist past. “Where is the court to determine who the criminal is? – Shumnaya asked. “If we have a ruling, we’ll carry out the renaming,” she added.

The chairman of the Guild of Linguist Experts, Mikhail Gorbanevskiy, added there was no point in trials. “Vvedenskaya Street in Staraya Russa, is now called Khalturin Street (Stepan Khalturin was a Narodnaya Volya [People’s Will] terrorist who staged a bombing attack at the Winter Palace in 1880 causing the loss of human lives).

“Can’t you tell him from an Al-Qaeda terrorist?”. By referring to Staraya Russa, a small Russian town, Gorbanevskiy mentioned some statistics: “Only five names of the 187 streets are historical, only one of them being returned to them – Georgiyevskaya, named after Solomon Uritskiy during the Soviet times. The town mayor says he will not be engaged in returning the historical names, because the voters would not understand him properly!”.

Experts note the question of street renaming does not only concern ideology, but the preservation of historical memory. And it’s not up to politicians to have the decisive word, but scientists. Mikhail Gorbanevskiy recalled that Academician Dmitriy Likhachev proposed to introduce a notion of “historical name” into the “Law on Protecting Historical and Cultural Monuments” which would be equal to cultural heritage monuments. The participants of the round-table discussion agreed such an amendment to the existing law was needed.

Gorbanevskiy quoted an example of a name that could be a historical monument: “There is a street in Staraya Russa, named after Sverdlov, formerly Mostovaya [Cobblestone street] – as it happened to become the first street cobbled in the town. So, there are no cobbles any more, just asphalt instead, but the name is part of the history. And it is not that important whether Sverdlov was good or bad, he just has nothing to do with this street.

Following the results of this round-table discussion, the experts decided to get together once again and to have studied the local legislation concerning the return of historical names – Gorbanevskiy is promising to prepare an analysis. The fate of the streets named after odious Soviet-period figures is relatively clear: all agree that the names of Sverdlov, Kirov, Voykov as well as of terrorists Khalturin and Perovskaya must eventually vanish from the maps of the cities. As a whole, Gorbanevskiy proposed that the “issue should not be brought out to squares”, which would provoke more split in society, but let scientists decide: “We should not dictate, but help local authorities. A commission can be set up with the town council to study place-naming. I used to help with setting one up in Novgorod.”

It’s curious that as one of the participants of the event, State Duma member and member of the United Russia faction, Vladimir Medinskiy, said, renaming streets and even towns and cities would take a huge slice of the budget: “An individual who claims it costs this much of the budget is either incompetent or wants to gain something from that.” Gorbanevskiy explained that maps, reference books and letterheads and fill-in forms are updated together and don’t require any additional financing.

Perhaps the biggest price for historical memory will be paid by citizens who have the misfortune to reside on Stepan Khalturin street – they will have to exchange all their documents – from passports to property ownership certificates.

Read the article on the newspaper's site

”Ahmadinejad still stands the most chance of winning and his main rival is Moussavi” Nina Mamedova said to Vremya Novostey. Mamedova is in charge of Iran studies department at the Institute of Oriental Studies at Russia’s Academy of Sciences. “For Ahmadinejad, Iranian political traditions speak: leadership should be given an opportunity to work for two terms. Besides, the president has offered important economic programmes to overcome the crisis. Not all of them are being fulfilled but here, mainly, parliament should be blamed as it blocks drafts,” said the expert.

Many Iranians take to the charisma of Ahmadinejad, who is 52. He is an ardent supporter of the national nuclear programme and an uncompromising fighter against the USA and Israel, which he even suggested should be “wiped from the world’s map”. The president is also known for denying the Holocaust – the killing of Jews during WWII. His competitors have already been criticizing him for this. Mehdi Karroubi, who is 71, said on the 16th May that Ahmadinejad “tackling the holocaust issue gives a very big favour to Israel, supported by the whole world now.”

“The president’s image is not simple, but his charisma is obvious. Meanwhile, Moussavi has no charisma, though being prime minister he managed to prevent the country from destruction during the period of the Iran-Iraq war in the1980s,” – says our newspaper’s expert.

Ahmadinejad’s re-election could maintain tension concerning the Iranian nuclear programme and the prolongation of international sanctions against Iran. They were introduced for Iran’s refusal to stop its nuclear research programme, which many see as an attempt to create a nuclear bomb. The President of the US Barack Obama in an interview with American “Newsweek” again called for Iran to “observe international laws.” Having reminded about the intention to improve relations between the USA and Iran he immediately observed: “Will it work? I don’t know.”

Teheran welcomes Obama’s reconciliation gestures in words, but it insists that the USA should first change its behaviour towards Iran, the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Both Ahmadinejad and Obama constantly resort to mutual accusations despite all their peaceful statements,” – Nina Mamedova said. According to her, victory for Mir-Hossein Moussavi, who is 67, could help relieve tension with Iran. “It would also be more preferable for Russia if the President is changed, because of Ahmadinejad’s image. From this view, Moussavi is a very convenient candidate. He expresses ideas of various segments of political spectrum. He has good ties in political and economic establishments, he has an impeccable reputation.”

Our expert says: “Russia would be able to cooperate with Ahmadinejad, we can always speak the same language with him, but in the current situation the prospects of cooperation with Iran are limited by sanctions. There is no need to worry that after Ahmadinejad's resignation Teheran would turn away from Russia. Iranian sheikh Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was the best friend of the USA in the 1960-1970s, but at the same time the scope of our trade and economic cooperation with Iran reached its maximum.”

Read the article on the newspaper's site

“It can easily be predicted that if a military conflict breaks out near Russia’s borders, the Polish president will without fail deliver a speech at a rally in the adjacent state,” Alexander Voloshin, the former head of the presidential administration, said plainly, hinting on last year’s visit to Georgia by Polish President Lech Kachinsky to show his support for President Mikhail Saakashvili in the thick of military hostilities in South Ossetia.

“We have a feeling that in some cases Poland, along with a group of other East European states, initiates additional aggravation of Russia’s relations with the European Union and NATO,” Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma, said in an interview with Vremya Novostei. In this sense, Russia’s relations with Poland are becoming “significant as a pan-European factor.” Therefore, “it’s important to clear away the rubble in our relations,” the Russian politician emphasized.

However, the Polish delegates to the forum began convincing the Russians that it was a mistake to perceive Poland as an anti-Russian state. Russia for the Poles is “a challenge rather, than a threat,” they say.

Within the European Union Poland is building an image of a country which is friendly to its neighbors. The Poles claim that the Eastern Partnership program launched in the European Union by Poland and Sweden is “not an attempt to alienate the post-Soviet countries from Russia, but is a way towards their modernization.”

The former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov called for removing problems inherited from the past through mutual trust. After that, Ksistof Zanussi stressed the need to promote human contacts. “We are going to find old friends still yet but our young people don’t know each other at all. It’s vitally important for us to preserve the ties and experience which we have in the process of this change of generations. It’s equally important in art, science, diplomacy and politics,” Zanussi told Vremya Novostei.

“Certainly, there were differences over how to solve thorny issues, but the common opinion was that they should be solved,” Adam Daniel Rotfeld said in conclusion. The hotly debated and painful issue of Katyn is an example. Several thousand Polish officers were shot dead near Smolensk in 1940. The Poles demand declassification of all the documents on that case and rehabilitation of the victims.

“The atmosphere of our relations is unlikely to improve unless this problem is solved. At the same time, it would be wrong to think that the opening of all documents on that crime and rehabilitation of the victims will make our relations cloudless overnight. That won’t end all conflicts, for each of the sides will always have its national interests. Russia, which has a global approach to things, perceives Poland differently than other states because Poland is not a super power and doesn’t claim to be such,” Rotfeld went on to say.

“There are few channels for dialogue so far, though many bilateral ties have recently been restored. Foreign groups and committees have resumed their work and the elites have also renewed a dialogue,” the VN interlocutor said. “But this dialogue should be spread to millions of Poles and Russians. It’s only then that we’ll be able to assert that our relations are improving.”

The Holy See “supports the right of the Palestinian people to have a ‘sovereign homeland’, secure and at peace with its neighbors, within internationally recognized borders,” the Pope said at a meeting with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The Israeli media noted that Benedict XVI, who spoke in English, used the word ‘homeland’ instead of the word ‘state’.

The Palestinians may be pleased with the Pontiff’s visit, but that cannot be said about the Israelis - they expected more from his trip.

“One unsaid word can sometimes be more painful than thousands of uttered words,” the Israeli newspaper HaArets wrote.

The Jewish people hoped that during his visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem Benedict XVI would pronounce the long-awaited word ‘forgive’. The Israelis expected the Pontiff to apologize for the actions of Pope Pius XII who in the years of World War II turned a blind eye on the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazis. Yes, Benedict XVI spoke about the tragedy and the victims whose names will always be remembered. But his speech seemed to be ungenerous for emotions and didn’t contain any tough condemnation of Nazi crimes.

Nir Barkat, the 49-year-old mayor of Jerusalem, shared his views about the Pontiff’s visit and the handover to the Russian religious mission of lands in Jerusalem in an interview with Vremya Novostei. Nir Barkat is a retired major and a paratrooper. He’s a successful businessman and a native of Jerusalem who became its new mayor last November.

VN: In Israel, the attitude to the Pontiff’s visit has been controversial. The talk is about a religious leader who is listened to by millions of people. But the Israelis think the Pontiff’s attitude to the Holocaust is ambiguous. And the fact that a British bishop who denies the mass killing of Jews in WWII has returned to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church proves just that.

Nir Barkat: Our two religions – Judaism and Catholicism – have common roots and, in many ways, common history. But some of its pages leave a bitter impression. Some representatives of the Catholic world would like to forget these “controversial pages.” It would be unwise from my point of view. Today, Israel and the Vatican have reached a consensus on every issue in the development of our relations. I believe that this cooperation will help establish peace on Earth. In this sense, the Pontiff’s visit is of vital importance. It’s also very important for me as the mayor of Jerusalem because Catholics around the world would like to visit the places of pilgrimage of Pope Benedict XVI. Jerusalem is open to them!

VN: The Israeli press describes as “unconvincing” the Pope’s speech at the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem.

N.B.: Yes, I’ve read about that and was even present at that ceremony. However, I didn’t understand everything what Benedict XVI was talking about. But the very fact that he visited the memorial and laid a wreath is evident of the Catholic Church’s attitude to the events of those days. I understand that many of our compatriots expected repentance from the Pontiff for the Vatican’s covering of Nazi crimes but for me the visit itself is much more important.

VN: The Pontiff also visited the territory of the Palestinian autonomy. Arab Christians complained to Him about barriers the Israelis are creating for the emergence of a Palestinian state. The Arabs are outraged by your construction program in Jerusalem. Early in May, the mayor’s office presented an Israeli plan for the construction of about 13,000 dwelling units in East Jerusalem. The Arabs fear that the Jewish population in the eastern part of Jerusalem traditionally occupied by the Arabs will increase.

N.B.: Take a spade and dig in any part of Jerusalem and you will find traces of Jewish presence that are three or four thousand years old. The Jews have the right to live in any part of Jerusalem if that doesn’t break the law. The same is true of the Arabs. They can buy flats in the west of Jerusalem, following a decision of Israel’s High Court of Justice.

VN: This year Israel has handed over to Russia the St. Sergius Church in Jerusalem. At what stage are negotiations on Israel’s returning to Russia of other buildings which, in the past, used to belong to the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society? What do you think about it?

N.B.: Though the mayor of Jerusalem is not directly related to such decisions, which is in the competence of the Israeli government, I’ve never liked the idea. I was elected mayor just a few months ago while the decision was passed under my predecessor. I don’t know whether negotiations are under way on handing over other Russian Orthodox sites to Russia?

VN: But you cannot but know about Russia’s plans to finance the construction of a new building of the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court which currently sits in a building of the Russian religious mission.

N.B.: I’ve ‘inherited’ this issue and as the city mayor I will fulfill any government decision. But I consider this deal with Russia unreasonable, because it ignores the interests of Jerusalem and its residents.

VN: And what, in your opinion, will serve the interests of the Russians and the Israelis?

N.B.: For example, the fact that our two countries have cancelled visas. Since September 2008, when the visas were cancelled, the number of Russian tourists in the city has gone up several times. I am very happy about that. I would like to use this as an opportunity to invite more Russians to visit Israel and Jerusalem through the Vremya Novostei daily. Welcome!

In recent years the Ukrainian authorities have been quite cold to the Victory Day holiday. For example, there was no parade in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev at all. According to official reports, the residents of Kiev gathered for spontaneous meetings and rallies, but Sevastopol is a city of military glory and Victory Day is its main and special holiday. Therefore, for two hours the young and old greeted the veterans and operating military units.

Both sides of Lenin Street and Nakhimov Prospekt, the two main streets in Sevastopol, were overcrowded. It was difficult to push through. They were not just local residents. Those to whom the Victory Day holiday is still dear had come to Sevastopol from all over Ukraine. Moreover, as I looked at the cars driving in the city on the day before the celebrations, I saw the plate numbers from Sevastopol, Kiev, Poltava and dozens of Russian cities such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, Petrozavodsk, Chelyabinsk, Sverdlovsk, Khabarovsk, etc.

Ivan Vechtomov was from Moscow. He stayed with us at the same hotel. He told us that every May 9 he comes to Sevastopol. “This place has a spirit which Moscow lost a long time ago. The marks of time are the same everywhere in the territory of the former Soviet Union. But here the people have a heart. They still respect the armed forces and the war veterans. It’s a pleasure for me to be mixing in one crowd with them. I admire this beautiful sea town,” Vechtomov said.

Like thousands of other onlookers, Ivan Vechtomov occupied a place near the Nakhimov Square at eight o’clock in the morning. Armchairs were put up on the square for those veterans who could no longer stand in line because of poor health.

Columns of war veterans, the Russian Black Sea fleet and the Ukrainian armed forces began lining up near the Suvorov Square, from which Lenin Street starts, at nine o’clock in the morning. The march started at 10:00 AM.

As usual an all–terrain vehicle carrying fleet commanders was at the head. They saluted the city. They were followed by the veterans, members of patriotic organizations and operational troops.

The columns were divided by service arms and places of service. The ‘queen of the fields’ – the infantry – and its representatives – the former infantrymen who stormed Berlin and fought for Sevastopol – marched first. But there were very few of them. After all, Sevastopol is a naval town. They were followed by naval staffers, intelligence officers, communication men and veterans of the hydrographical service. Representatives of naval ships marched after them. The warships included the Sevastopol battleship, the holder of the Order of the Red Banner, the Novorossiysk battleship, the Red Caucasus cruiser, the Voroshilov cruiser awarded with the Order of the Red Banner, the cruiser Mikhail Kutuzov and dozens of others. The grateful crowd welcomed the representative of each warship with a special greeting. The shouts of “Hurray” and “Thank you” reechoed with “Glory!”, “Glory to the sailors of the Dzerzhinsk cruiser!”, “Glory to the sailors of the Admiral Ushakov cruiser!”, and “Glory to the crew of the Nikolayev anti-submarine ship!”

Each of the above-mentioned ships has a heroic history. They committed heroic deeds during both the Second World War and after it. On Victory Day the veterans were again on duty onboard their battleships, cruisers and anti-submarine ships.

It may seem that the cries from the crowd weakened when the veterans of Ukrainian warships were passing by. No, it’s not true. They fought for one single country, they served in one fleet and they forged our common victory. And the people who had gathered to watch the V-Day march gave tribute to them with the same heart and soul as to the veterans of the Russian Black Sea fleet.

The crowd became silent only on one occasion, which was when one solitary veteran walked behind a tablet with the name of a ship on it. That meant that only one member of the wartime crew was still alive. Never forget!

Sometimes, someone from the crowd would throw flowers under the veterans’ feet. It was hard for the veterans to pick them up, but they did. They pressed the flowers to their chests decorated with orders and medals. If it had been to ordinary people, they would have jumped forward to embrace the veterans, but a police cordon wouldn’t allow the breaking of rank. However, what is forbidden for adults is okay for a child. So, the grown-ups made children the messengers of their gratitude. Many ran up to the veterans dozens of times, bringing them a branch of lilac, carnations, tulips, roses and the like. Sometimes, schoolgirls came out of the crowd and embraced the veterans with tears in their eyes.

The VN correspondent couldn’t avoid the embraces when he saw a column of the survivors of the Siege of Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). When the women from the column learnt that a reporter who was running around with a camera was from St. Petersburg, they asked him to march with them for several minutes. They gave him notes with greetings to their friends and relatives living in the Russian northern capital.

The veterans’ march lasted for more than an hour. Representatives of political parties and patriotic organizations marched after the veterans. Young people – schoolchildren, students and cadets of military schools carried their own flags. Of course, the young marched faster than the old guard, so they had to slow down every now and again.

When the last column went out of sight at the end of Nakhimov Prospect, regular units of the Russian and Ukrainian navies began their march. Prior to that, both had staged a show for the city officials and the veterans sitting on the Nakhimov Square. Carabineers, orchestras, choreographic groups and singers demonstrated their skills. First the Ukrainians, and then the Russians. The veterans listened to the Ukrainian song “Eternal Sleep” very attentively but applauded only to the sounds of the legendary “Victory Day” hymn. The music to this song was written by David Tukhmanov to the words of the war poet Vladimir Kharitonov.

That song ended the Victory Day marches, but the holiday continued the whole day. Crowds of people walked on the sea embankment and on an open-air stage, which everybody in Sevastopol calls a ‘sea shell’. Singing and dancing culminated with traditional fireworks in the evening. And through all that, I couldn’t get rid of the feeling that the Russian and Ukrainian fleets were competing with each other.

Eventually, the sentence proved quite mild, the court handing down a year-long suspended term to each, with two years probation. Judging by what the FSB claims, the agency is pleased with this outcome. Its spokesman went on record as saying that it was the first time in Russian history that an indictment was handed down on the basis of article183 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code (illegal procurement and disclosure of information constituting a commercial, tax, or banking secret).

"Barack Obama cannot help but show his respect for Shimon Peres as the oldest Israeli politician and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. For this reason Obama is willing to take time to meet him, unlike Netanyahu," J. Dobrowolski, professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem noted in a conversation with Vremya Novostei. In his opinion, this meeting is a clear signal as to what kind of policy the US expects from Prime Minister Netanyahu. A president is a nominal post in Israel; his responsibilities do not include the formation of foreign policy. But unlike Netanyahu, Perez is known to have a moderate stance in relation to peaceful negotiations with the Arabs.

The main purpose of Shimon Peres’ visit to the United States is to speak at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which started in Washington on Sunday. But the Maariv Israeli newspaper states that in the United States, Peres represents the new Israeli government which officially started working on April 1st. According to journalists, during the meeting with Obama, the Israeli President will be preparing his American colleague for a potential military operation against Tehran. If Tel-Aviv becomes convinced the international community is unable to stop the Iranian nuclear program, Netanyahu may give a command to attack Iran.

Just the other day the Express French magazine informed that the Israeli air forces were holding their military exercises in case of a possible war with Iran. The Israeli military aircrafts flew to Gibraltar, and covered the distance of 3,800 kilometres as a part of the exercises. According to the Jerusalem Post Israeli newspaper, the Israeli air defense forces have begun the regular calling-out of reserves to operate the Israeli anti-missile defense complexes. The reserves are called out for one-day weekly training in order to practice their skills. The Israeli antimissile defence systems are preparing to knock down Iranian missiles in case of an armed conflict with Tehran.

Shimon Peres’ speech at the AIPAC conference was devoted to the Iranian nuclear threat as well. For Israel, this is almost the most important event of the year which takes place in the United States. This organization includes many American congressmen, as well as world financial leaders. It is also called the Jewish lobby of America. In 2008, current US president Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had participated in the same conference. However, at that time they were not occupying their important posts, but rather fighting against each other for the leadership in the Democratic Party. This year, the White House was represented by its chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Other than Peres, Israel was also represented at the conference by the opposition leader, head of the Kadima Party, the former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. In her speech, she didn’t miss the opportunity to criticize the policy of the new Israeli government for its harshness towards the Palestinians. She stated the ‘two states for two nations’ plan was the way to a peaceful settlement. This would imply forming a Palestinian state in the near future. However, Livni noted the government and the opposition were united on the issue of fighting against the Iranian nuclear threat.

Shimon Peres’ visit to the United States enabled him to avoid the strongest sandstorm which had descended on Israel in recent days. Fire had broken out in several cities and nature reserves in Israel due to the hot wind blowing from the desert. Several central cities including Tel-Aviv were experiencing troubles with electric power yesterday. The Health Ministry recommends staying inside and drinking lots of water.

By Maria Grishina, Jerusalem

Last autumn, certain European defenders of Georgia even suggested that their Russian opposite numbers should be temporarily stripped of some part of their powers, such as the right to vote during discussions on important parliamentary documents. Currently the passions are not riding as high as they used to. The MEPs will talk about the consequences of last year’s war in the Caucasus, eventually restricting themselves to a resolution on the existing humanitarian problems. The report will be by the Dutch MEP, Corien Jonker, who visited the area in March.

The Russian representatives (as one of them told VN on condition of anonymity) don’t like the report using the collocation ‘occupied territories’ in relation to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, whose independence Russia recognized immediately after the war. The Russian delegation set out its grievances as amendments to the final document, even though this does not yet mean that they will be accepted (the debate continues). But it is indicative that there will be no political resolution and that the discussions have drifted to the humanitarian sphere. The emotions in connection with last year’s August war are cooling. The Europeans have turned away from big-time politics and are seeking to help those in the conflict zone.

The intrigue of the day is preparing the elections of the new Secretary General. The present incumbent, Terry Davis, is due to step down in June. Two of the four suggested candidates – Mátyás Eörsi, Hungary, and Luc van den Brande, Belgium (both familiar to the Russian authorities as active in Caucasian studies) - failed to pass the muster held the other day by the executive. They are going to challenge the decision Wednesday.

Thus, there are just two candidates on the list: former PM Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz of Poland and former PM Thorbjorn Jagland of Norway. Russian sources told VN that Moscow was satisfied with both, although there were some nuances:

“It’s better for the Council of Europe itself if the Norwegian wins. He represents a country that, unlike Poland, is not an EU member. This would emphasize the EU’s distinctness, its being different from other European structures.”

The disputes cannot spoil the festive atmosphere reigning inside the Council of Europe palace in Strasbourg. The Organization is marking its 60th anniversary; the celebrations are modest and business-like, despite its considerable annual budget of 200 million euros. Two planned discussions were held yesterday, one on the recent parliamentary elections in Moldova (recognized as “conforming to the international criteria”), the other on the March constitutional referendum in Azerbaijan that made it possible for Ilkham Aliyev to run for a third presidential term. It was only after this that a celebration could have taken place, with numerous orations said for the 47-member Council of Europe. An orchestra played the anthem, Ludwig van Beethoven’s Ode to Joy from his Ninth Symphony. It is an accepted practice to play the music alone without Friedrich Schiller’s lyrics, although everyone here knows them well:

“Be embraced, millions!
This kiss to the entire world!”

The Council of Europe was established in London on May 5, 1949, its Charter signed by representatives of ten European states. This time, it was decided to hold the celebrations a week earlier than the official birthday, timing them to coincide with the opening of the spring session. Thanks were said to the founding fathers whose brainchild became one of the symbols of European unity and universality of European values. Speakers evoked the names of the French Prime Ministers Georges Bideault and Robert Schuman, and, of course, that of Britain’s Winston Churchill. Their speculations about the fates of postwar Europe became a prophecy for its future unification, even though those plans seemed too daring and unrealistic in the mid-1940s.

Winston Churchill was thinking about it at the height of the war. Historians know his secret memo addressed to Britain’s extraordinary war cabinet in October 1942. I believe, he said, that the European family of nations will be able to act as a united front, as a single whole under the guidance of a European council. ‘I am turning my eyes to a united Europe’, he wrote. He saw at least ten powers as its members, including Turkey, although debates continue to this day as to whether it should join a united Europe. Not accidentally, Turkey is not accepted to yet another structure, the European Union, which already has 27 states as its members. As for the Council of Europe, the Turks joined it as early as August 1949. Even not one of the ten founding states, Turkey was among its initial members.

CE politicians recalled yesterday one of Mr. Churchill’s later public addresses that concerned establishing what he called the ‘United States of Europe’. In September 1946, already in retirement, he was spending his holidays in Switzerland, and, as was his habit, combining pleasant pastimes with political work. His Zurich University speech made a splash. He was speaking about the necessity of bringing the vanquished Germany back to the polity of European nations. In so doing, he did not conceal, however, that his own homeland, Britain, should play the key role in the process. We must turn our eyes to the future, he said. The European family ought to perform an act of faith and confine to oblivion all crimes and horrors of the past. In his book, the united European groups might convey a feeling of enhanced patriotism and common nationality to the crazed peoples of this turbulent and powerful continent.

At that time, Moscow was following anxiously these postwar activities, seeing the burgeoning structures as a counterweight to the Soviet-led socialist bloc. The mistrust persisted into the period where some tectonic changes began in the Soviet Union, which led to its disintegration. In 1990, Hungary was the first East European nation to join the Council of Europe.

Russia did the same in February 1996, assuming the obligations to improve its human rights record and to bring its legal standards in conformity with the European rules. Two years later, Russians were given the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights established under the Council of Europe. Addressing a press conference in Strasbourg yesterday, President of the PACE, Spain’s Lluis Maria de Puig, described the joining of “all the East countries” (he meant the former socialist camp countries) as the second most important “achievement during the 60 years” of the Council of Europe. The first one was the approval in 1950 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. “It is the pillar on which this Organization rests,” said the Spaniard.

The Russia authorities are out to prove that they have performed the obligations assumed 13 years ago. But the Council of Europe thinks it necessary to continue studying this matter and persists with its monitoring that implies the coming of commissions and a close study of processes unfolding in this country. The same kind of surveillance is applied to several more countries of the former USSR. In late March of this year, the Parliamentary Commission of the Council of Europe came to the conclusion that Russia was demonstrating a “considerable progress,” but “its successes are less than was expected.” This concerns the state of the media, the judicial reforms, elections to bodies of power, and other things.

The criticisms are irritating Moscow, forcing it to make reminders to the effect that its contribution to the Council of Europe budget (about 27 million euros a year) is one of the five biggest inputs. But it is due to its activity and political weight rather than on account of its contribution that Russia has become one of the “most important members of the Organization.” The present writer repeatedly heard this phrase from CE heads, even though their interviews criticized Russia.

Second, their willingness to avoid exacerbating tensions as much as possible is obvious. For example, the indifferent reaction of the White House to kicking the American base out of Kirghizia, and the absence of strong comments on the hassle around the NATO war games in Georgia form a contrast to the style of the previous administration.

Third, the priorities hierarchy of the White House has been roughly formed. Moscow is not among them, meaning that Washington is not really interested in Russia itself. The country is not viewed as a promising partner, or a real threat. However, the administration believes Russia would be helpful in solving a range of truly important issues (such as Afghanistan, Iran, and strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime). Thus, it would be good to improve the general climate of relations.

The issues which had played the most destructive role during the last couple of years (such as the NATO expansion and the ABM defense system deployment in Europe) are not among the priorities either. Obama doesn’t believe it necessary to fund these projects, which enables a clearing of the air between Moscow and Washington.

What do these things promise for Russia-US relations?

The US restraint should not be seen as weakness. The administration has been seriously changing its tactics, which is natural, considering the monstrous legacy it had received. But the strategic goal of strengthening American leadership remains unchanged which rules out any deals and changes to the ‘areas of interest’. And a more flexible and adjusted position would enable the United States to create a less hostile atmosphere for reaching their goals.

The pragmatic non-ideology-driven approach as described above may actually reverse sides if Washington decides it had overestimated the abilities of Moscow in resolving American problems. Reduction of interest towards Russia may bring the situation back to Bush’s times when the US’s complete indifference to Moscow’s opinion was even a bigger problem than its hostility.

In general, one can say Obama’s team has been much more selective and shrewd in the area of foreign policy than its predecessor Republicans. The Democratic administration has been demonstrating a non-typical American leadership quality of being willing to admit a certain share of America’s responsibility for the world crisis, as well as for the problems in bilateral relations. In other words, it realizes the US has to show initiative in amending the situation, rather that wait for its counterparts to take actions. However, this ‘repentance’ has clear boundaries, backed by the same harshness that was attributable to the associates of Bush and Cheney.

-- A bilateral decision between Russia and the USA to reduce warheads will not change Iranian or North Korean nuclear policy in the blink of an eye. However, the “threshold countries” (a number of states that have technical capacities to create nuclear weapons, and have made political decisions to develop them) are very sensitive to the rhetoric of the great countries, to any changes in the diplomatic background. It will be easier for the world community to influence Iran and North Korea if Russia and the USA set an example of goodwill. The problem is that the nuclear five, while calling for Iran and North Korea to be disciplined, violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty themselves – the USA and Great Britain continue developing new types of nuclear weapons. I know that as a sign of protest against such hypocrisy, some non-nuclear countries, who joined NNT, would like to break off from the treaty, but still stay non-nuclear countries.

-- Do you think the UN can no longer serve as an international judge?

-- The UN Security Council called on North Korea not to launch rockets, but they didn’t respond. The Security Council warned Iran that if it created a nuclear bomb, it would threaten world security. Another thing is the Non-Proliferation treaty, where Iran is a member, does not prohibit enriching uranium. Tehran was just annoyed by the sanctions that the Security Council voted on under pressure from the USA and Great Britain. Iran, which many experts think is already close to creating nuclear weapons and its transportation, pays close attention to where American policy is going. Having weapons of mass destruction is an issue of national security for it, the USA being the major threat. If Russia and the USA are able to reduce their nuclear arsenal to, let’s say 1500 war heads, for Iran this will mean strengthening its national security.

-- What is your take on the efforts that the IAEA puts into solving the Iran issue?

-- The IAEA has always been and still is a good tool for nuclear control. It was the IAEA inspectors who discovered in Iran documents on the adaptation of the Shahab-3 (with 1.3 km range) ballistic missile to delivering a nuclear war charge. But many try to find some supernatural forces in the agency, and forget that it is neither a political, nor economic or military instrument. The most important thing for an IAEA inspector is to be objective and always somewhat suspicious.

The previous election in Abkhazia in winter 2004-2005 nearly erupted into a full-scale civil war. Society was split down the middle into supporters and opponents of Mr. Bagapsh, who actually proved an alternative to Moscow’s (and the local elite’s choice) Raul Khadjimba.

Moscow-based technologists hastened to accuse Sergei Bagapsh of all mortal sins, including his alleged collusion with Georgia. But when it became clear that the “Moscow-backed” candidate was losing to Bagapsh, the “friendly” Russia even closed its usually transparent border on the Psou River, precisely when the whole of Abkhazia was hauling the mass of its locally-grown tangerines for sale across the border into Russia. Eventually, however, Abkhazia did vote for Bagapsh and the only thing that could have been done as a last-minute face-saver was to put Khadjimba on his bandwagon in the capacity of vice-president.

Abkhazia became transformed during his first presidential term. The revival of its seaside resorts and Sukhumi’s newly-sprung constellation of fairly decent cafes and restaurants are not the whole story. Abkhazian politics looks quite different from what it was five years ago. Occasionally it is claimed (not without reason) that Sergei Bagapsh is the best president in the Caucasus; the comparison being made with presidents recognised, non-recognised, and those within Russian jurisdiction.

He makes annual addresses to parliament, where there is a fairly strong opposition. The latter possesses media of its own, while its representatives hold a number of important government positions. It cannot be ruled out that one of the key ministers – for example, Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba, who significantly boosted his ratings in the course of developments that led to Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia as well as during subsequent international negotiations – will prove the main rival to Mr. Bagapsh at the forthcoming election. Taken together, all of this is making neither participant in the process hysterical, and it impresses people as being normal, not stage-managed, political life. Abkhazia’s newly-established rules of conduct are clear and acceptable to all players, who agree that the more competence and stability they display, the better the chances are for at least the beginning of a discussion on some broader international recognition of their republic.

This seemingly unsophisticated recipe is being openly envied by some participants in the political process in South Ossetia, where the political system looks totally different and is more in tune with the current Russian views on what vertical power should be. As early as May 31, 2009, South Ossetia will vote for a new parliament. All of its 34 deputies are elected on party slates. The presidential party, Unity, lays the main claim to the “constitutional majority”. The Communists have some chances, too, for it looks like they are ready to renounce their criticism of the authorities in exchange for parliamentary seats. The two opposition parties are facing problems. One of them, Homeland, was made to withdraw from the last parliamentary elections, and the current tidings are that it is unlikely to be allowed to run again. Represented by the People’s Party, the radical opposition has gone even further, creating a loyal clone with a new chairman and a new party slate. It is this entity that is most likely to be put on the ballot papers.

It is believed in South Ossetia that President Eduard Kokoity will also be active in having the vote counted “the right way,” because he is badly in need of a loyal parliament that can be entrusted with running constitutional reform and with removing the limits on the number of presidential terms (Kokoity himself is in the middle of his second term). Chosen by the South Ossetian authorities, the Russian-inspired logic underlying the development of political institutions suggests that we may expect the term of presidential powers to be extended or possibly even the abolition of direct presidential elections.

After the August war in 2008 and Russia’s recognition of South Ossetian independence, the current president is witnessing a very perceptible slide in his popularity ratings. Mr. Kokoity is blamed for his inability to achieve a post-war revival and for corruptively sponging on Russian financial and humanitarian aid. Certain opposition figures predict an upcoming replay of the 2004-2005 Abkhazian events, where the public flatly refused to accept a leader who was being forced upon it. The sceptics believe that a revolution is impossible because not a single Ossetian will risk taking to the streets and thereby discrediting the Russian efforts to support South Ossetian independence. But both agree that Eduard Kokoity is not the leader under whom South Ossetia may expect further recognition in the world.

Regions of the Caucasus have been always a puzzle whose components are both essentially similar and imperceptibly different. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, the majority of these became part of four states: Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. But there are four “pieces” that to this day remain somewhat on the sidelines of this mosaic. I mean Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Chechnya.

The nature of all four conflicts is similar in some respects. In the early 1990s, when the USSR was still in existence, the Soviet leadership clashed in what was as yet a bureaucratic battle with its Russian opposite number by “loosening the leash” for the autonomous entities within the constituent republics. This was done to enable the autonomies within Russia to weaken Boris Yeltsin by making bids for their direct participation in drafting a new union treaty. But the USSR’s authorities were unable to limit their initiative to Russia. Meanwhile it was precisely Russia that, in effect, proved the only one in possession of enough resources for quelling (or at least dampening) the separatist challenges. This was the case everywhere aside from Chechnya.

Chechnya is distinct from all other Caucasian territories in being a showcase of success for the mother country by making a region with some most powerful secession attitudes accept its supremacy in the wake of two lost wars of independence. This results from a complex economic, military and political compromise between the federal centre and the local elite - the elites that, to a significant extent, are composed of those who only recently fought for independence and enjoy a huge amount of freedom inside the region. Yet, they are “buying” this right by letting the mother country use their main economic resource - oil - and by daily repeating the mantra about the unbreakable unity of the Russian Federation.

It is difficult to measure Chechnya against the same benchmark as Abkhazia and South Ossetia, because if there is one of them that is not “accomplished as a state”, then it is Chechnya, which officially recognises itself as part of Russia. By the way, the Chechens were very restrained in expressing their enthusiasm about Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Very many in Chechnya think that two devastating wars with Russia give it far more rights to recognition than any other territory in the Caucasus. The 2003 Chechen Constitution says that the Chechen Republic (with the word “state”, which causes allergy in adepts of centralism, given in parentheses) is part of the Russian Federation.

However, that “part” is paradoxically “accomplished”. In many aspects – in overwhelming the terrible devastation, for example, – it has done far better than the successful secessionists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That is why moderate discontent with the recognition of the former Georgian autonomies did not go any further than barely audible grumbling.

Chechnya still has no officially elected local authorities. Its parliament, elected in 2005 and reformed in 2008, is much more “quasi” than any parliament possible in South Ossetia. The 2003 Constitution was accepted through a referendum, which the rural population only attended as a ritual break in their war-ravaged lives, while the urban population did not attend at all. The same situation could be observed during all presidential elections to have taken place in Chechnya since 2003. Incumbent President Ramzan Kadyrov officially got his position without any direct national voting at all. He was approved by parliament upon recommendation of the head of state. While his power mostly relies on force, he is the key figure in the scheme of Chechnya’s trade-off with Moscow. He is a national leader whose popularity is equal, if not greater, to that of the democratic and intelligent Sergey Bagapsh and, even more so, Eduard Kokoity.

Comparing these three faces of Caucasian self-determination is flawed from the beginning. Formally, Chechnya is a failed secession, while Abkhazia and South Osseita are supposed to be winners. Chechnya, Ossetia, and Abkhazia are regions whose cultures differ vastly from each other. But now, in 2009, we can compare the results that they have achieved in their fights. Abkhazia, who has excellent points of sustained economic growth, is trying to build a reliable, European-style political system to ensure non-traumatic transmission of power and rotation of senior figures and to claim international recognition. South Ossetia, almost devoid of an independent economy, depends on Russia in financial, energetic and political aspects. The current South Ossetian leaders are foisting themselves on its people and, to a point, on Moscow, which is not sure if the managers currently holding offices in Tskhinval can be trusted with the money to restore the republic.

This situation is somewhat like the one that was observed a few years ago in Chechnya. Afraid of incredible embezzling, Moscow was reluctant to give control over cash flows to Chechen leaders while at the same time trying to force its own presidential candidates upon the Chechen people. After all, Akhmat Kadyrov was not very popular in Chechnya at first, and during elections he faced competitors so strong that they had to be removed from the race before the voting. But then the Chechen miracle happened: control of money was given to Grozny, which began to be restored, and the popularity of the Kadyrov clan soared to the height of the newly-built blocks of flats.

Perhaps the current South Ossetian leaders hope to repeat the Chechen success story by winning the right to control money from Moscow and win back people’s love regardless of the not-so-favourable-for-them results of the real voting.

However, they seem to be overlooking a very significant moment. The cornerstone of the Kadyrov family’s political and economic success was their serious desire to invest in their cause. Grozny would still be lying in ruins worse than those in Tskhinval had Kadyrov not started to pay construction workers from his own pocket, albeit via loans from the federal budget. Chechen leaders started doing that after they realised a simple thing: Chechnya is their home, of which they are masters. Abkhazian leadership seems to be thinking pretty much the same way. In South Ossetia, something isn’t working out yet. Otherwise, the president’s family would not be living outside the republic, and the ruined huts of Tskhinvali would have been rebuilt even before the New Year.

This theme dominated the Moscow negotiations between a high-powered Iraqi delegation led by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and the Russian authorities in the person of President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. His meetings with the two men were devoted to how to resume bilateral cooperation, even though he stood for the very same Iraqi opposition that had been very much angered by the USSR supporting the Saddam regime.

Many opposition figures threatened they wouldn’t let Moscow partake in the juicy Iraqi “pie” should they ever come to power. They knew what they were saying, since oil and gas cooperation alone promised considerable profits with oil reserves in excess of 112 billion barrels. Developing Iraq’s huge oil and gas fields, specifically Western Kurna-2 in the south, is a serious and very large business responsibility.

In Moscow, it became apparent that the Russians needed Iraq as much as Iraqis needed Russia. The reasons were both political (the Iraqis not wishing to be entirely dependent on the West) and technical (the long-standing habit of relying on Russian technologies and – since Soviet times – on Russian arms). This is why Baghdad is intent on reviving cooperation in weapons, oil and gas, and other areas.

The wish to cooperate is as compelling as to elicit certain sensational Iraqi admissions. Aside from announcing plans to purchase Russian-made arms, the new Iraqi authorities said they were ready to recognize a number of Russian contracts signed by the former regime that had failed to materialize. On top of that, Mr. Al-Maliki told Vremya novostei that Russians might, after all, be given the coveted contract for developing the Western Kurna-2, the world’s largest oil field.

The appropriate tenders will have to be won, of course, and Iraq hopefully should gain more stability, but the chance is quite serious. Not accidentally, the Iraqi PM even cancelled his Saturday press conference half an hour before it should have started to hold urgent talks with LUKOIL’s Vagit Alekperov and Andrei Kuzyaev, whose company had signed (jointly with two minor Russian participants, Zarubezhneft and Machinoimport) a development contract for Western Kurna-2 during the Saddam period, and now, despite the political changes in Iraq, is fighting to be allowed to deliver.

Finally, the Iraqi delegation in Moscow signed a $133 million contract to rebuild Iraq’s Harta heat power plant. The amount is small compared to profits that are likely to be derived from oil, but it is the first step in the resumed cooperation, and it counts. Speaking in an interview with Vramya novostei, the Iraqi power minister, Karim Vakhid Hassan, mentioned the fact that the project in question was funded by the World Bank and that a Russian company, Technopromexport, had won a tender for it.

Yesterday in Moldova, the Central Election Commission finally confirmed the victory of the Communist Party, which gained 49.48% of the votes (they have to obtain 60 mandates from 101 in the Parliament, they still lack one vote to elect their own President). In the meantime, the Moldovan security services went on to interrogate hundreds of mostly active participants of demonstrations who have been arrested before.

At Chisinau's request, Ukrainian authorities also carried on with arresting protestors. Ukraine says it has detained several people in Odessa to extradite to Moldova. Gabriel Stati, a 32 year old rich Moldovan businessman, is among them. He is suspected of an attempted overthrow of power in Moldova.

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also tackled the issue of a Romanian trace in Moldovan events. “The banners and flags being waved yesterday and two days ago in Chisinau worried us a lot as they uniquely displayed that the demonstrators – I would call them vandals - were obsessed with the idea of demolishing Moldovan nationhood," he said in an interview with the Russian media. Russia has already alerted the European Union’s attention to this. Romania has been an EU member since the 1st of January, 2007.

“We were assured that they took it very seriously, and we hope that the EU and the Romanian government, which has condemned the violence will take measures to prevent any situations in which Romanian flags and slogans are used as a cover to disrupt Moldova's federal status," Lavrov said.

Romania takes such accusations calmly. Many Romanian political experts and analysts from other countries, who have been living in Romania for a long time, recognize in the Moldovan events not so much “a Romanian trace," but the above-mentioned generation gap.

Moldova’s current political elite dates back to the mid-1960s when the USSR leadership carried out the policy of so called “Moldavisation” of local authorities. It includes the first presidents of an independent Moldova, Mirche Sneguru and Petr Luchinsky and President Vladimir Voronin with his Communist party and opposition party leaders.

The Moldovan establishment, as many in Bucharest believe, has always been “anti-Romanian” by definition. It began during the movement which gripped Moldova in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and proclaimed a motto of joining the “mother of Romania." It continues to this day. The political elite realizes that in the case of the “reunification” of Moldova and Romania, they will lose their leading positions in state and society which they have been used to since Soviet times.

In any case, some Romanian observers explain the hostile attitude of the Moldovan leadership to any attempts to become closer to Romania. Despite this, theories constantly appear among Romanians and Moldovans concerning “two states of one people”. They keep disputing how a national language in Moldova and Romania should be named – Moldovan or Romanian.

In Bucharest, attempts for closer ties are welcomed. Several years ago, Romanians even offered a formula of “two Romanian states”. It was mentioned during talks for signing an intergovernmental political treaty between Romania and Moldova (this treaty has not yet been signed). Just yesterday, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded that there was not even a border treaty between Romania and Moldova. By the way, this does not quite correspond with EU rules, according to which country-members should not have serious territorial disputes.

Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin has more than once accused Romania, before the EU, of interfering in the internal affairs of Moldova, even “imperialism." In the days of the current crisis, this hostility has reached its climax. Chisinau declared the Romanian Ambassador and his deputy persona non grata, introduced visas for Romanian citizens and cancelled all passenger trains on the Chisinau-Bucharest route. Only Romanians were allowed not to travel without visas before. Moldovans need to obtain free visas to travel to Romania, as it is an EU-country.

In Bucharest, some political experts believe that in this, Voronin and his Communist Party and other political forces such as Liberal-democratic and Liberal parties, and the alliance “Our Moldova”, do not differ much. Even a former symbol of Romanian unification – the Christian-Democratic Peoples Party of Yury Roshka – joined the union with the Communist Party four years ago after having secured its parliamentary majority. Another thing, that opposition parties have is young people who didn’t taste power, and lack nomenclature and Anti-Romanian complexes. Though it looks like their time has not yet come.

It has also not come to those young “Bessarabians” who during the recent manifestations chanted “Down with Communists!," “We are Romanians!," and “We want in Europe!,” waving Romanian flags. There are many graduates or students of Romanian universities among them. Since the mid-1990s, more than two thousand students from Moldova have been studying in Romanian universities. During the years of study in the Romanian cities of Bucharest, Yassy, Kluzhe, Timisioaru, they absorb the Romanian idea.

At the height of the Chisinau disturbances, hundreds of such students who are studying in Romania chanted “Bessarabia is a Romanian land!” at solidarity meetings in Bucharest. Many of them tried to go to Moldova to provide more substantial support to protesters, but they were blocked by Moldovan frontier guards. And in Chisinau there are associations for western graduates, and nowhere other than at the USA Embassy! Judging by reports from the Moldovan capital, the members of this association “flashed” in the ranks of the riots and clash organizers.

All this growing social group has strong pro-Romanian and pro-European potential. Without taking into account some of its “disseminations” in political parties, it has not yet formed politically. However, they hope in Bucharest that a nomenclature of the Soviet or post-Soviet type cannot be eternal. A strong catalyst for changes is the same in neighboring Romania, a member of NATO and the European Union, which by the words of the Romanian political analyst Emil Khurezianu is, if not a “motherland”, still a “symbol of Europe”. It is not by accident that thousands and thousands of new Moldovans apply for Romanian citizenship.

“There was no “colored revolution” in Chisinau," said well-known Romanian political analyst Corneliu Vlad speaking to "Vremya Novostey." “There were not noticed by the Soros Foundation or other sponsors of this type of “revolutions”, which succeeded in Ukraine and Georgia, but failed in other former Soviet republics as, for instance, in Kyrgyzstan”. In his opinion, ‘the protests were sparked by a concrete reason – because of dissatisfaction of the parliamentary elections’ results”. Our interlocutor was sad saying that the past
events “would take Moldova away from the United Europe."

The purposefully resentful behavior of Romania is also demonstrative in this situation. Yesterday, Foreign Minister Cristian Diaconescu dispelled any accusation of interference in the internal affairs of Moldova, and named counter moves of Chisinau including a visa regime as ‘discrimination towards Romanian citizens”. Bucharest itself has no intention of toughening its policy against Chisinau. It will continue to maintain “European type relations with it’. Romanians promise to continue to help their neighbors in the issue of integration into the European Union. In other words, they continue to back up tendencies, whose carriers become a young generation of Moldovan citizens as they believe in Bucharest.

Another historic fact should also be remembered. Simple people support Moldovan Communists. They heard from their fathers and grandfathers how Romanians behaved in Bessarabia when it was made part of Romania (in 1918-1940). The region was a rural zone of the country. Its economy and social institutions had not been developed. Hospitals and schools were not built, while Bessarabian citizens were considered to be “second class Romanians”. And in the years of Romanian military administration (1941-1945) Transdnister had been turned into a camp for the extermination of hundreds of thousand Hebrews and Gypsies. All this negative experience will remain in people’s memory. It will manifest itself as long as people come to ballot- boxes.

It was not before last week that Dmitry Vrubel, the author of the painting, learned that his work had been “renovated” to such a degree that it was completely gone. The classic Sots Art artist came to Berlin to attend an exhibition opening, took his son to see the Wall and was transfixed when he saw blank blocks of concrete where paintings of various artists used to be. We are referring, of course, to that part of the Wall between West Berlin and East Berlin which was preserved after 1989. Dmitry Vrubel was among 118 artists from 22 countries who painted the eastern side of the 1.3-km wall in 1990. This was a special event during which young artists drew free paintings on the Berlin Wall.

Now the historic graffiti has been destroyed. The authentic layer of 1990 has been removed almost entirely. The job was performed by the S.T.E.R.N. GmbH construction company, headed by 23-year-old Christian Schaeffer. “He was born three years before the wall [fell]; he does not understand what he has erased,” Dmitry Vrubel told Vremya Novostei. “The methods this company employs remind of raider attacks,” he complained.

The renovation of the Wall is supervised by East Side Gallery's Artists' Association. Its head Kani Alavi, who in 1990 was one of the “wall painters,” claims the authors were told about the coming renovation. They were told that the concrete (which, experts say, is strong enough to endure even if rammed by a tank) should be replaced with a more durable material. Naturally, it is possible that painting may be lost during the renovation. But it is impossible to do without renovation; the wall’s condition is terrible. Throughout twenty years, the wind and the rain have been destroying the outer layer, while tourists, who by definition are always trying to “steal the Coliseum,” have been chipping away pieces of the Wall.

Dmitry Vrubel admits he knew about the coming renovation. But the terms proposed by the German side, he claims, were more like a warning about the imminent destruction of the graffiti. Last year, S.T.E.R.N. sent him an e-mail with a draft contract. The document said the artist was to renovate the painting before May 9. The company offered to pay 3,000 euros for the job. Mr. Vrubel did not sign the contract because, according to him, during his two meetings with Kani Alavi, in October 2008 and in January 2009, they have agreed to do it in June. “I thought we had agreed that I will manually restore the damaged parts. I asked them, Why do you send me a contract with May 9 as the deadline? But Kani Alavi could not offer an intelligent explanation,” the artist says.

Many other artists besides Vrubel were willing to restore their works manually. This would have been cheaper and easier to do. But the Germans chose to use a more expensive method: various media outlets suggest that the renovation will cost 2-5 million euros. Part of this money will come from the government budget while the rest will come from private sources. Apparently, a small part of this amount, namely 3,000 euros mentioned in the contract, was offered to our artist. Many media outlets reported that Vrubel accepted the money as compensation. However, he categorically denies this: “This looked like a bribe more than anything else. Naturally, I refused to sign the contract and did not accept the money.”