<tit>
IS THERE ANYONE SOBER?<aut>Victor Baranets
<src>Komsomolskaya Pravda, November 28, 2006, p. 8
<sum>Three times smaller than the Soviet Army, the Russian Army is twice the drinker its predecessor was.</sum>
<cov>HEAVY DRINKING AS A BANE OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY
The Soviet Defense Ministry issued Order No 0150 against alcoholism in the Soviet Armed Forces twenty years ago, give or take a few. It was a period of heavy drinking, when every fourth crime and infraction in the Soviet Union was committed under the influence. These days, vodka-induced crimes account for more than 40% of all (according to the General Staff and Military Prosecutor General's Office). One million people strong, the Russian army is a worse drinker than its Soviet predecessor 3 million men strong ever was. Why is that?
Renaming the Soviet Army into the Russian in the early 1990's, did not reduce drinking. Neither did the list of motives become any shorter: whoever gets a promotion, decoration, or apartment is expected to throw a party for comrades. The same goes for birthdays and annual vacations (both before and afterwards). The officer arriving to a new unit or garrison is supposed to throw a party or be forever tagged as stingy. All end-training cycle exams, exercises, and so on regardless of their outcome are followed with a feast. Ditto appearance of inspectors of all calibers who are seen off with another feast in their honor. As for drinking on the so-called birthday of the military unit, of the day of the branch of the military, and so on - probably a nuclear strike is needed to cancel a party. Doctors claim that an average officer has over 100 excuses for a party every year or one party every three or four days.
And since alcohol in the bloodstream does not dissolve for six days, it follows that Russian officers are never sober.
There are moderate drinkers in the Armed Forces of course. There are even the officers who do not drink at all. Unfortunately, the vortex of numerous "drinking" traditions and rituals - plus active drinkers as such - is frequently too strong to resist. Doctors of the Far East and Volga-Urals military districts and Pacific Fleet questioned more than 1,000 lieutenants on the subject of tossing a stiff drink or two in 2003. One hundred and thirty of them admitted drinking at least once a week. These officers are senior lieutenants now. Army and Navy and doctors maintain that about 600 of these senior officers hit the bottle 2-3 times a week. That's the line beyond which drinking becomes boozing. Almost 500 officers were treated for it in hospitals six years ago. The figure nearly doubled by 2005 (according to the Main Medical Directorate of the Defense Ministry and General Staff).
Heavy drinking becomes a weapon of mass destruction that results in numerous emergencies, tragedies, and dramas. It is booze that finished a lot of careers - of lowly lieutenants and senior officers.
Heavy drinking cost eight generals and admirals early termination of their contracts in the last five years. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov does not tolerate drunks.
<itl>From our folders:
<itl>Military law enforcement agencies maintain that officers account for eight heavy drinkers out of every ten in the Army and Navy. Alcohol-induced crime rate quadrupled in the Airborne Troops, more than tripled in the Moscow Military District, ditto in the Pacific Fleet, ditto in the Baltic Fleet. Soldiers and sailors drunk out of their mind maimed more than 30 officers and warrant officers in the last two years. Drunken officers crippled almost 40 soldiers and sailors. Cruelty in the barracks augmented by booze resulted in the deaths of more than 80 servicemen and twice as many were maimed for life.
<par>to be continued
<tit>
"THE COMMONWEALTH WILL INEVITABLY SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS"<aut>Alexander Dugin
<src>Trud, November 29, 2006, p. 3
<sum>Political scientist Dugin believes that the Commonwealth is on the verge of collapse.</sum>
<cov>POLITICAL SCIENTIST ALEXANDER DUGIN: THE COMMONWEALTH WILL GIVE WAY TO TWO NEW ALLIANCES
The Commonwealth is rapidly approaching the worst crisis in its history. To all appearances, it is not a single alliance anymore. There are two of them in it. There are two factions within the Commonwealth nowadays, and their views on the CIS future and their own objectives are diametrically opposite. These factions coexist for the time being, but this state of affairs cannot last. The moment of disintegration of the Commonwealth into two alliances is getting closer.
One of the future alliances may be branded as Eurasian. It will comprise the states that maintain friendly relations with Russia and that are determined to advance rapprochement of sisterly nations. They are Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Armenia. Essentially, all of that comprises the nucleus of a future strategic world power, Eurasian Union, and perhaps even of the Eurasian Confederation afterwards. Remaining sovereign and fortifying national self-identities, these countries have opted for unity and integration. They view the Commonwealth itself as an instrument of rapprochement and reunification.
The other faction consists of GUAM or an alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Their agenda is wholly different. These countries aspire for integration into the European Union but the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the latter compels them to entertain the hope of joining NATO. The Americans actively encourage and feed these hopes, since they themselves need their military bases as close to the Russian borders as possible - and the sooner the better. These countries regard the CIS as an instrument of divorce and want to part company with Russia and Eurasian states for the sake of integration with the West. Not all of these countries are equally industrious about it. It is Saakashvili and Yushchenko (presidents of Georgia and Ukraine) who are undeniable GUAM leaders nowadays while Voronin and Aliyev (Moldova and Azerbaijan) are less sure of the expediency of disintegration of the Commonwealth. Uzbekistan's withdrawal from GUAM only reinforced their fears that what they are doing is correct. In fact, Moldova and Azerbaijan are afraid of finding themselves in nationalist Romania and kremalist Turkey instead of prosperous Europe.
It may be added here that unlike Eurasian countries, all GUAM member states are facing problems with separatist regions. Georgia has to deal with runaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In Ukraine, the Crimean crisis is fomenting and the matter of federalization of eastern regions is rising. Moldova has to deal with the Trans-Dniester region, the province that aspires for membership in the Russian Federation. Azerbaijan has Nagorno-Karabakh, the territory that is its territory only in theory.
What's the conclusion then? The CIS member states standing with Russia are free of territorial problems and problems with runaway provinces. Territorial problems haunt precisely the CIS countries that are anti-Russian and that aspire for NATO membership. Here is the First Law of the post-Soviet zone then. Whoever is with Russia is fine and dandy. Whoever is against it may lose some of their territories. Because Russia is the guarantor of post-Soviet countries' territorial integrity.
Trying to consolidate sovereign post-Soviet states, Putin is careful to take into account their domestic democratic models and preserve their national features in the common strategic zone. This is what enlightened Putin's imperialism is about.
Policy of enlightened imperialism has only one weak spot - domestic nationalism that nullifies all enlightened and legitimate nature of sanctions against, say, Saakashvili, that transforms the sanctions into persecution of Georgians by ethnic principle.
<tit>
RUSSIA ATTRACTS WESTERN INVESTORSRussia remains one of the most attractive markets in Eastern Europe. For three years in succession annual growth of Russia’s GDP has exceeded 6%. For 2006, the IMF predicts growth of 6.5%. Along with this, Western experts call on the government of Russia to give up the “focus” on raw materials saying that it is wiser to invest super revenues from oil and gas sales and to restore processing facilities.
According to the federal foreign economic relations agency of Germany, since the beginning of 2006, export from Russia to Germany grew by more than 26%. Rapidly developing China “opened” the Russian market for itself too. In 2006, Chinese companies invested $700 million in Russia, which accounted for more than 5% of foreign direct investments in the country. In 2005, their overall volume exceeded $13 billion.
The strength gained by Russia’s economy is also manifested by the level of its own direct investments abroad. According to Economist Intelligence Unit, whereas in 2000 they amounted to $20 billion, by the end of 2005, they exceeded $120 billion. Thus, in the group of countries with emerging markets Russia turned out to be one of the three most active international investors.
A strong domestic demand is a precondition for good results. In 2005, this demand received additional momentum on account of tax allowances and general growth in incomes. At present, the retail trade sector of the Russian market is considered to be one of the most profitable in the world. However, the rapid growth of Russia’s liquidity is primarily backed up by significant revenues from export of raw materials, first of all, oil and gas. It is expected that in 2006, the stabilization fund will grow by $30 billion to $74 billion.
In any case, there is still a danger that the “raw materials bliss” may turn into a “raw materials curse” for the country. So far, the Kremlin has failed to direct super revenues into profitable investments. There is an obvious absence of clear economic line. This is especially noticeable in the level of Russia’s competitiveness. According to the rating of global competitiveness prepared by the World Economic Forum, in 2006, Russia fell nine positions. Among the reasons experts mention weakness of state institutions, corruption of excessively inflated bureaucracy and absence of business relations ethics.
The OECD published a report in which it cracked down on growing interference of the state in the economy saying that in the middle term this might lead to slowdown of economic growth. In its report the OECD pointed out, “Insufficient efficiency and corruption in state governance are a heavy burden on business. The federal foreign economic relations agency of Germany says that if Russia fails to get rid of the “focus” on raw materials and to develop a modern processing industry this may soon have negative impact on the general economic climate in the country.
The available facilities for oil extraction and transportation are busy almost to the limit. Increase of production on a big scale looks unlikely now. PMV Oil consultancy forecasts that average annual production growth will fluctuate between 2% and 3% after it exceeded 10% a year.
Petrodollars made the rouble stronger and thus increased pressure of current costs on Russian manufacturers who enjoyed benefits from dramatic depreciation of the Russian rouble as a result of the financial crisis of 1998, for a long time. It seems that the positive role of this factor is already over. Since the beginning of 2005, the dollar grew weaker by 20% against the rouble being freely convertible since the middle of 2006. Meanwhile, growth of industrial production lags behind the GDP growth still. It is likely that in 2006, growth of industrial production will be relatively small at a level of 3.9%.
The government tries to use the inflow of money to the state treasury to achieve progress in development of “national projects” in housing construction, healthcare, education and agriculture. The government plans to invest about $16 billion in these sectors between 2006 and 2007. Despite the positive figures in the economy Russia struggles against serious social problems. Unlike in other countries with developing economies average life expectancy and birth rate are decreasing in Russia.
<ref>RBC daily (in cooperation with Handelsblatt), November 29, 2006
