Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
February 21, 2005, Monday

A COLLECTIVE FAREWELL TO ARMS

SOURCE: Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, No. 6, February 18, 2005, p. 2

by Vladimir Mukhin

The CIS collective defense system has started falling apart rapidly.
The first evidence that this system is falling apart is the upcoming
closure of the headquarters for coordination of CIS military
cooperation (SHKVS). According to informed sources at the Russian
Defense Ministry, after lengthy and intensive consultations Russia
has finally agreed with Astana’s proposal to disband this
super-national body. The structure that has somehow tried to regulate
military relations among the CIS countries throughout post-Soviet
history is being shut down.

Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the Geopolitical
Studies Academy, confirmed that such a decision would probably be
made at the summit of CIS heads of state in August 2005 in Kazan.
Ivashov initially set up the SHKVS, and headed the secretariat of the
CIS council of defense ministers (SMO) and main department of
international military cooperation at the Russian Defense Ministry
for a long time. Ivashov considers this step “very wrong and harmful,
significantly weakening Russia’s positions in the former Soviet
Union.” Until recently, Russia was averse to disbanding of the SHKVS
and even at the meeting of the SMO held in November 2004 initiated
support of the staff on the part of other CIS republics, first of
all, Central Asian republics and Armenia. Now there is a 180-degree
turn. Why?

To some extent this question is answered by leaders of various
structures of the CIS and defense ministers of the former Soviet
republics. General Secretary of the CIS Nikolai Bordyuzha presumes,
“There is no common Eurasian security space now. It remains
fragmentary and diluted and internally contradictory to some extent
because its separate elements are not simply harmonious but even
compete against each other.” According to Bordyuzha, to avoid this
“It is necessary to limit the areas of influence in the issues of
provision of collective security among the integration structures
operating in the region, namely CIS, Shanghai Organization of
Cooperation, EvrAzES, Organization of the Collective Security Treaty
and others.” This means that Bordyuzha diplomatically does not speak
about disbanding of military structures in the framework of the CIS
(SHKVS and SMO) but obviously points at Organization of the
Collective Security Treaty (ODKB) subordinated to him. According to
Bordyuzha, ODKB could become a “locomotive of integration processes
in the CIS.” Defense Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Altynbaev is
harsher on this matter. Like Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev he
believes that “instead of the inefficient SHKVS and SMO a security
council of the CIS countries should be established and work in the
framework of the Commonwealth.” This idea was already partially
supported by Defense Minister of Belarus Leonid Maltsev. Maltsev
proposes disbanding of SHKVS and preserving of the SMO secretariat.

In any case, ODKB includes only 6 of the 12 former Soviet republics
(Baltic republics are excluded). Let us presume that they will be
“locomotives of integration” but what can the rest do? The security
council of the CIS countries will be unable to become a “locomotive”
too if it is created because there have been and there are no
military integration processes in the post-Soviet space.

We need to say that the CIS as a traditional form from republics of
the USSR to the post-Soviet sovereign countries is slowly dying. At
this point military collective relations are not an exception. The
countries are forming their military relations not according to the
patterns established in the 1990s but according to their national
interests. This is obviously an objective process. This is an
illusion that the military staff of ODKB is more efficient than
SHKVS. For example, already now in the framework of ODKB there is a
nucleus of countries united by their own coalition forces in Central
Asia. There is a united group of forces of Russia and Belarus in the
west of the CIS and Russia and Armenia in the south. All these groups
have their own staffs and only with difficulties it is possible to
unite them under the flag of ODKB. Along with this, the recent tenth
anniversary of establishment of the united air defense system of the
CIS showed that many post-Soviet countries had common interests in
defense of their airspace. Of course, ODKB member states form the
backbone of these countries but among them there is already
competition and there are problems. Thus, Kyrgyzstan being an ODKB
member is obviously lagging behind the integration processes in the
framework of establishment of the united air defense system.
Commander of air defense of Kyrgyzstan Colonel Vladimir Valyaev was
not even present at the solemn meeting of the member states of the
united air defense system dedicated to discussion of the plans for
2005. However, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, which are not ODKB members,
demonstrated their interest in this even.

Kazakhstan is active as usual. It proposed organization of the air
defense exercises not only on the Russian testing range like it had
happened before but also at its Sary-Shagan testing range. Ukraine
already accepted this proposal having terminated agreements with
Moscow on organization of military exercises in Ashuluk (Astrakhan
Region). Ukraine is currently preparing an intergovernmental
agreement on military exercises on the Kazakh testing range. Thus,
there is an obvious military technology cooperation between Astana
and Moscow, allies in the ODKB. Astana is obviously wining because
its testing range is much bigger and is more attractive from the
financial point of view. This circumstance is another evidence of the
fact that military relations are built not according to the patterns
of ODKB and SHKVS but according to interests of military structures
of the CIS countries.

Moscow traditionally supplies armament and services to member states
of the united air defense system of the CIS countries at its domestic
prices and undertakes arrangement of military infrastructure
(airdromes, testing ranges, staffs), training of personnel and so on.
In exchange Russia receives only unhealthy competition of military
testing ranges, “semi-hostile” blocs (like GUUAM), purchase of
armament and hardware and training of officers of air forces of the
CIS countries in NATO countries (Ukraine is going to do this and
Georgia is already doing this).

Vladimir Popov from the Academy of Military Sciences says:
“Collective staffs and collective defense bodies have exhausted their
capacities in their current form, also because Russia has not finally
determined its principles and its ideology in relations with other
CIS countries.”

According to the analyst, the SHKVS has exhausted its capacities. Its
personnel numbers were halved in 2004. The 55 remaining officers are
very ineffective. All the same, this does not mean that the staff
should be disbanded. Its members could do theoretical work, work out
concepts, identify threats and plan joint events in the interests of
Moscow. It was the SHKVS that worked out the documents determining
the contents of such notions as collective defense and security of
the CIS.

The SHKVS is also located in Moscow. The capital of Russia provides
the base for work, solves everyday problems of officers from the CIS
countries, pays additionally for communication, for electricity and
so on. And it is said that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Military-political structures in the CIS

ODKB – CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization. Established on
May 15, 1992, by six CIS countries (Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Tajikistan). The treaty implies military
political cooperation of the member states and assistance, including
military assistance, in case of aggression against any of them.

SMO – Council of Defense Ministers. Established on February 14, 1992.
This is a body of the council of the heads of states for the issues
of military policy of the CIS member states. Activities of the SMO
are coordinated by the secretariat headed by Lieutenant General
Alexander Sinaisky.

SHKVS – Staff for Coordination of Military Cooperation of the CIS
countries. This is an interstate permanent working body of SMO and is
intended for assistance to development of comprehensive military
cooperation of the CIS countries and coordination of implementation
of the decisions of the council of the heads of the states, council
of the heads of the governments and SMO in this area. The head of
staff is Army General Vladimir Yakovlev (former commander of the
Strategic Missile Forces of Russia).

United air defense system of the CIS. It includes 10 CIS member
states that have signed a special agreement in 1995, but only
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Russia have
active cooperation in this area.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Established on April 26, 1996, by
Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan
joined the “Shanghai five” later.

EvrAzES – Euro-Asian Economic Cooperation. This is an organization
established in 2000, including Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Russia and Tajikistan. Moldova and Ukraine have observer status.

Translated by Pavel Pushkin

PanArmenian News
Feb 21 2005

ARMENIAN-IRANIAN BUSINESS FORUM TO BE HELD IN 2005

21.02.2005 12:59

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ An Armenian-Iranian business forum is to be held in
2005, the person in charge of economic issues of the Iranian Embassy
in Armenia Ali Najafi said. He conditioned the importance of the
forum by the necessity of providing Iranian and Armenian businessmen
with the information on economic aspects of the two states. When
touching upon the Iranian investments in Armenian economy Ali Najafi
noted that the numerous representations of Iranian companies in
Armenia give hope that the amount of the investments will be still
increased.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
February 21, 2005, Monday

RUMORS: KASIANOV COULD LEAD RUSSIA’S “ORANGE REVOLUTION”

Following the revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and impending coups
in Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia, it appears that Russia is next
on the list. In this context, a recent visit to Washington by former
prime minister Mikhail Kasianov is revealing. During that visit,
Kasianov met with some Republican and Democrat leaders, as well as
Condoleezza Rice. Future parliamentary and presidential elections
were discussed at those talks. The Americans made it clear to
Kasianov that they would approve if he decides to run for president
in 2008. Noting Kasianov’s fairly strong standing in Russia’s
right-wing liberal circles, the Americans advised him to establish
contacts with the left-wing opposition, since reaching a compromise
with those forces would be essential in forming a broad social
support base for the revolution among people who have been hurt by
the government’s recent reforms.

Source: Versiya, No. 6, February 15, 2005, p. 9

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
February 21, 2005, Monday

TABLEAU: FIELD REPORTS FROM THE DEN INTELLIGENCE NETWORK

According to our experts, the favorable coverage given by the
Washington Post and the New York Times to the Communist Party (CPRF)
protest rallies on February 12 (including quotes from Gennadi
Zyuganov: “the Putin regime is teetering”) cannot be a coincidence.
This is evidence that the extensive media pressure being exerted on
President Putin in the lead-up to the Bratislava summit is reaching
its peak; and these efforts to squeeze strategic concessions from the
Kremlin even involve anti-American opposition forces within Russia.
Thus, Putin is being driven into a position where he is caught in the
crossfire; then, according to the American strategists, he would have
to accept all terms for a “nuclear surrender.”

A pre-planned visit to Moscow by Henry Kissinger, former US secretary
of state and prominent member of global para-Masonic organizations
(Bilderberg Club, Trilateral Commission, etc.) served as a warm-up
exercise, viewed by the Washington administration as a key mechanism
of influencing the Kremlin leadership. Condoleezza Rice, who had
taken an extremely hardline stance at her meeting with Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov in Istanbul, played “bad cop”; while
Kissinger, who came to Moscow especially to “work on the target
directly,” played “good cop.” However, according to sources close to
the government, the demands made by Kissinger proved to be even
harsher than Rice’s public attacks. In effect, they come down to
demanding that Putin should reconcile himself to the “velvet
revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, and make no attempt to counter
similar processes in Central Asia and the European part of the former
USSR (Armenia, Belarus, Moldova); Russia should also reduce its arms
exports and cease cooperating with Iran in nuclear energy and high
technologies.

Actually, in relation to the Chinese-Korean “nuclear missle
maneuver,” the iron fist of the “world government” is thoroughly
encased in a velvet glove: if Russia joins in the American ultimatum
and supports a return to the six-nation negotiation process (USA,
Russia, China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea) with the purpose of
establishing international monitoring for Pyongyang’s nuclear
warheads, then strategic cooperation on safety and security measures
at Russia’s nuclear facilities could become more generous towards the
Kremlin. And a comprehensive agreement covering this area of
cooperation could be signed within nine or ten months of a
“declaration of intentions in Bratislava.”

Insider sources report that the Foreign Ministry secretariat has
received a directive from the presidential administration: be as
receptive as possible to American proposals across the full range of
issues under discussion.

According to our London sources, Russia’s North Caucasus may soon
witness some large-scale developments capable of starting the process
of Russia’s disintegration. British intelligence agencies have
prepared some recommendations for Islamic fundamentalists in Russia:
proposing to take advantage of the people’s growing discontent with
Putin’s social policies and Caucasus policy, as an irrefutable cover
story for terrorist attacks directed against Russian federal
officials.

As our experts predicted, despite the very “democratic” reduction of
the share of votes for Shiite representatives from 76% to 48% by the
occupational administration in Iraq, control over the government will
be exerted by the Shiite clergy. Thus, American intervention in Iraq
actually played up to Iran and enabled Iran to achieve goals not
achieved during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, according to our
sources in Beirut.

Henceforth a repeated positive verdict of the Texas court on the
lawsuit of YUKOS against the Russian Federation worth $28 billion
should be confirmed by the international court in the Hague, which
might take 12-18 months. If the lawsuit is upheld, sequestration of
all exports of Russian oil to cover the judicial costs, damages and
so on is an entirely realistic prospect.

Source: Zavtra, February 17, 2005, p. 1

Sunday Times (London)
February 20, 2005, Sunday

A sectarian squabble over the Christian world’s holiest of holies

by Anthony Sattin

HOLY FIRE:The Battle for Christ’s Tomb by Victoria Clark Macmillan
£20 pp294

Nobody knows exactly where Jesus was placed after the crucifixion,
but -in a rare instance of harmony -most archeologists and biblical
historians agree that it was somewhere on the land now occupied by
Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Christian world’s most
sacred shrine.

Religions seem to breed contentions, and Christianity is no
exception. For while there is broad consensus over the location of
Jesus’s burial place, there is none over which Christian sect should
have control of the site. This disagreement bubbles beneath the
surface of inter-Christian relations throughout the year, but tends
to erupt each Easter Saturday at a ceremony when a supposedly
miraculous fire is seen to emerge from the tomb. Candles are lit from
this “holy fire” and taken across the city and now, thanks to
aviation, around the world, as a sign of Jesus’s resurrection.

Three years ago, the Greek patriarch and an Armenian priest began to
fight over who should light the first candle: the patriarch won, but
left the tomb with only one shoe. Over the centuries, the ceremony
has led to riots and deaths. It is one of many cases of what Edward
Lear so aptly called Jeru- salem’s “squabblepoison”.

Victoria Clark’s third book opens with a description of the Holy Fire
ceremony of 2002 and then introduces us to the main Christian sects
in the city. From the Latins and the Greek, Armenian and Syrian
Orthodox, to the “breakaway” Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians, each
sect believes it has a divine right to the tomb.

But not all Christians are equal -the Egyptians and Ethiopians, for
instance, who live among the ruins of a Crusader refectory, have less
money, and therefore less access than the Europeans. The story of how
things became so complicated is a fascinating one that Clark tells
extremely well. From the pilgrimage of the Byzantine Empress Helena
in 326AD to the less devout visitations of the Crusaders, we are
treated to the long story of Christian devotion and powerplay in the
Holy Land.

Around this history, Clark wraps stories from her own time in
Jerusalem, and makes good use of the opportunities they present.
Through the concerns of Rahme, a Pales- tinian Christian who lives
with her in a former Orthodox Old City monastery, she introduces
landgrabs, roadblocks, suicide bombers, the siege in Beth- lehem’s
Church of the Nativity and other realities of the on- going
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American-born settlers provide a
different view; one of the leaders of the Armenian community yet
another. All this is well observed and freshly written -so much so
that it begins to look as though what Clark really wanted to write a
book about was not the tomb and its holy fire, but her experiences in
the city. Then, halfway through, she shifts again and introduces us
to Christian Zionism, a theme of such weight that it could have made
– perhaps should have made -another book.

The story of Christian Zionism, of the Christian groups who are
actively encouraging Jews to settle in the Holy Land/Israel, is both
intriguing and frightening. It is intriguing because people who take
the Bible literally in the 21st century need to be understood: like
fundamentalist Islamist groups, they are a force to be reckoned with
and we feel their influence even if we don’t see their hands at work.
And they are frightening because of their professed reason for
wanting to strengthen the Jewish state (and, by the same token,
ensuring there is never a Palestinian state): quoting biblical
revelations, they believe that only when Jews hold all the land
promised to their patriarchs will the so-called “end of days” come to
pass and the messiah reappear. Their efforts at hastening the
apocalypse seem to be paying off. As the vice president of Thy
Kingdom Come Inc, in America, puts it: “Since the creation of Israel
we have seen a truly remarkable speeding up of events that have been
prophesised. There’s no doubt in my mind that we are getting close to
the end.”

By her end, Clark has abandoned the subtitle -The Battle for Christ’s
Tomb -and describes the work as a “survey of the Christian world’s
involvement” in the Holy Land. Herein lies the problem: she wants us
to believe that the struggle over the tomb is a microcosm of the
wider Christian struggle, but she fails to convince. The history of
Christians in the Holy Land may be the key to understanding why the
various sects are fighting over the tomb, but the reverse is not the
case -the tomb is little more than a sideshow to Christians’
involvement in the region. At times this makes for a confusing read
and leaves one wishing Clark had turned away from the holy fire and
concentrated on writing a definitive history of Christian involvement
in the Holy Land. She has the breadth of knowledge and the ability to
see through the squabblepoison. And she recognises the motivation: at
a time when western Christian governments are so active politically,
economically and militarily in the region, it would have been a
timely reminder of the difficulty western armies have had in keeping
the peace in the Middle East. q Available at the Books First price of
£16 plus £2.25 p&p on 0870 165 8585

PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web:

Armenia’s FM Oskanian Receives Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov

Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov arrived in Armenia for his first working
visit late Wednesday, February 16. On February 17, Minister Oskanian
received his Russian counterpart at Armenia’s Foreign Ministry for a lengthy
meeting.

The Armenian Foreign Minister welcomed Minister Lavrov’s visit to Yerevan,
noting that in the last decade Armenia-Russia relations have deepened, with
strategic cooperation between the two based on common interests. Minister
Lavrov, too, expressed his satisfaction with the level of cooperation and
the positive direction of interstate contacts. As evidence, he pointed to
the fact that 2005 is the Year of Russia, in Armenia.

Noting that there is a conflation of opinion and approach surrounding
various international and regional developments, the sides expressed
readiness to take the necessary steps to create an atmosphere of reciprocal
confidence and cooperation in the South Caucasus. In this context, the
Armenian and Russian ministers discussed the current stage of negotiations
surrounding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Minister Lavrov expressed hope
that the Prague Process would give the two sides the opportunity to find
common ground for the quick settlement of the conflict, and reaffirmed
Russia’s readiness to serve as guarantor for whatever agreement is reached
by the sides.

The two ministers discussed the main issues on the Armenia-Russia agenda.
They focused specifically on economic matters and spoke of the effeciveness
of the Armenian-Russian Intergovernmental Commission, as well as the
Armenia-Russia Business Cooperation Union. They noted that such cooperation
can only be aided by the recently enhanced contacts between Armenia’s
regions and specific Russian companies.

In the context of improved economic relations, Ministers Oskanian and Lavrov
stressed the importance of a unified policy on the part of the countries of
the South Caucasus and Russia towards the reestablishment of communication
lines in the region, noting that this would at the same time benefit the
settlement of existing conflicts. The ministers acknowledged that some
progress is noticeable in this area and discussed a series of issues which
still await resolution.

In the context of the Year of Russia, they discussed humanitarian
activities, cultural exchange, and a variety of programs and activities and
programs in the fields of trade, culture, science, education, information,
youth, sports and tourism which will begin by mid-March. Armenia’s and
Russia’s top diplomats also discussed the need to encourage and facilitate
Armenian and Russian language instruction in each other’s countries,
especially in the context of the historic friendship between the two
peoples.

On the bilateral agenda, the ministers examined issues relating to Armenian
citizens in Russia, such as residency, status and work quotas, as well as
specific consular and diplomatic matters.

Minister Lavrov and Minister Oskanian conferred about cooperation in
international and regional organizations, CIS reforms, cooperation in the
Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization, and UN reform.

During his one-day visit, Minister Lavrov, who had last visited Armenia
over a decade earlier, placed a wreath at the Tsitsernakaberd Genocide
Memorial, visited Armenia’s Slavonic University, and participated in a joint
news conference with Minister Oskanian.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Gulf News
February 22, 2005

HAVING A FRIEND AND BEING ONE

Alaric Gomes, Staff Reporter

–>Everyone can recount their friendships. And Armenian Sargis
Sargsian is no different as he traces his bond with Andre Agassi.

A whole lifetime of 31 years behind him, Sargsian can count “just
three or four real friends.

“That’s three or four in a lifetime,” he stated. “I mean people whom
you can really trust and open out to. And Agassi ranks as one of
these true friends.”

More than a decade ago, Sargsian went to the US, with the Armenian
national team in 1993, to compete against the Ivy League schools and
ended up staying there.

Two years later, when he ended up as the best player in the country,
he stumbled upon Agassi in Las Vegas and they struck up an instant
rapport.

“That was so many years ago, but it is still very special to me
today,” Sargsian says remembering. “He’s been an amazing guy and
truly unbelievable as a friend,” he added.

After that meeting, both players have regularly practiced in Las
Vegas. Off-court too, their bond has held though both have
experienced varying fortunes on the Tour.

“Our friendship has stayed the same. He has evolved into such a great
player, a true legend of our time. But, he has been such a constant
factor in our friendship,” Sargsian admitted.

May be it is their common Armenian roots that helped them bond so
well. “No, I don’t think having a common background had anything to
do with our friendship,” Sargsian corrected adding that, “It’s just
that we have a lot of things in common. “I really care about him and
every time he plays, I want him to win,” Sargsian says.

Though contemporaries, Agassi’s career has been constantly evolving
and on a high. Sargsian’s, on the other hand, has hit rock bottom.
The fact that he failed to make it through the Dubai Open qualifiers
is a case in point. “It was a bad year for me and I was not enjoying
my tennis, mainly due to some personal problems,” he stated.

The consistency of their friendship showed at this juncture as Agassi
helped his friend during his weak moments.

“He’s so loyal and I respect this too much,” Sargsian said. “He’ll do
anything for his friend. He’s helped me so much that I look up to him
and try to be like him,” he said smiling.

“He’s a much better friend than me. This is something special, very
special,” he adds.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
February 21, 2005, Monday

ARMENIA CONFIRMS CAPTURING 3 AZERBAIJANI SERVICEMEN

Armenian servicemen have captured 3 Azerbaijani servicemen, who
crossed the frontline, at 5.20 p.m. on February 15. At this time,
special services of the Karabakh separatists were questioning the
captives to ascertain how the Azerbaijani servicemen managed to cross
the frontline; was it accidental or on order of the Azerbaijani side.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA’S PM REFUTES RUMORS ABOUT HIS EARLY RESIGNATION

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 22. ARMINFO. Armenia’s Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan
refutes the report in Haykakan Zhamanak newspaper that he is going to resign
soon because of poor health.

“True I have been operated on my legs but I am feeling well now and will
continue my work,” says Margaryan.

He also refutes the information about his conflict with Pres.Kocharyan. “Our
terms are good, they have not changed since 2000,” he says.

RUSSIA’S NEGLIGENCE TURNING ARMENIAN OPPOSITION TOWARDS WEST

YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 22. ARMINFO. People in Armenia are getting
increasingly displeased with the policy of Robert Kocharyan, Armenia’s
president and Russia’s good ally. Meanwhile lack of attention from
Russia is turning Armenia’s traditionally pro-Russian opposition
towards th West, says Russian politician Irina Khakamada in her
article “Seducing Lover and Impotent Rapist: Russia and West on the
Post Soviet Stage.”

Russia’s relations with the CIS are quite complicated. At the initial
stage of CIS history Russia was mediator and peace-maker for many
post-Soviet conflicts. This role is not generally accepted as positive
but was rather effective in some cases like Transdniestria. Some even
hoped that Russia would become a kind of exporter of
liberal-democratic values in the post-Soviet area. But in reality
Russia has turned into an exporter of authoritarianism for the CIS
countries except for those having one in abundance (Turkmenistan,
Belarus and Uzbekistan). Ukraine was a vivid example of such
export. Similar situations are ripening in Armenia, Moldova,
Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Khakamada forecasts collapse of Russia’s influence in the post-Soviet
republics in the coming years. This will not impact economy as Russian
business and Russian politics are oftentimes moving in different
directions. Business in Russia needs state protection but not finding
one will start contacting directly with post-Soviet governments
despite and in spite of their own authorities.

But this is not good for Russia. This country has two ways: either to
become an authoritarian mutant or to start large-scale political,
social and administrative reforms.