| Russia and the U.S.
With David Hoffman
Author and Washington Post Foreign Editor
Friday, May 24, 2002; 11 a.m. EDT As part of his tour of Europe President Bush will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss nuclear arms control, NATO, the war on terrorism and a host of other topics. Washington Post Foreign Editor David Hoffman was online to take questions and comments on the meeting, his book "The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia" and the fate of Russian-U.S. relations. Hoffman joined The Washington Post in 1982, and covered the Reagan and Bush presidencies as a White House correspondent. After serving as diplomatic correspondent and Jerusalem correspondent, he moved to Russia to head the Post's Moscow bureau from 1995-2001. He is currently the Foreign Editor of The Washington Post, based in Washington, D.C. The transcript follows. Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Harrisburg, Pa.: Leaving aside the irony of discussing the inequitable distribution of wealth in a former communist country, what recommendations do you have for improving the economic health of Russia? Russians have suffered from a weak economy for a long time. What will it take to give the Russian people a higher standard of living? David Hoffman: Good question and there are lots of answers. One big improvement would be to get a decent banking system. Banks are really important -- Russia is a rich country and yet one of the key methods of making good use of that wealth is broken: the banks. You know, banks were among the first private businesses to succeed, even in the late Soviet period, thousands of them sprang up, and the field is now overgrown with weeds -- hundreds of small banks that do nothing but serve one company, if that.
Some other ideas: rule of law, better corporate governance, transparency -- all would help reduce the risk of doing business there, attract investment.
Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Nuclear Arms Treaty, here goes. I've read that Bush wants to store nuclear warhead trade-ins and Putin wants to keep MIRVs. Did this treaty give them both what they wanted? Does it really accomplish anything both parties didn't already have? Therefore, is this treaty any big deal? Is it likely to be ratified in the Senate and the Duma? In any case, does The House of Europe care about this treaty at all? Thanks much. David Hoffman: In a big picture sense, I do think the treaty matters and should have been done years ago. It is leftover business, and Clinton did not focus on it. Remember, Yeltsin said once at a meeting in Sweden that 1,000 nuclear warheads were enough for Russia. His aides rushed to say "no no!" -- but now Putin and Bush have all but codified the levels. And Russia will go lower that the numbers in this document -- way lower. Putin may want to keep Mirvs but look at the Topol-M, his "modernized" and newest missile. They are rolling off the assembly line slower than the Russians ever expected. A clue there: they are not going to build up, they can't afford to, and Putin is realistic. I think Russia built as many Topol-Ms as it has Zil limos, lately.
Alexandria, Va.: Lenin once remarked that "a capitalist will sell you the rope to hang him with." Is the Soviet Union still supplying nuclear materials, equipment or know-how to the government of Iran? If so then is the United States serious about stopping the Soviet Union from assisting the Iranian nuclear effort? David Hoffman: Yes we have so many good quotes from Lenin and Marx, we should thank them, and I personally wish they could be here today for this talk!
The Soviet Union is gone. Russia may well be allowing missile parts, fissile materials and other bits of weapons of mass destruction to find their way to Iran and other places. Russia is porous. I worry about it. And the United States has been "serious" about the problem in rhetoric for a long time, but dallied when it comes to action. Bush has lately realized more clearly the importance of trying to keep the stuff from wandering around. More could be done.
Silver Spring, Md.: Has there been a problem over the years of Western journalists in Moscow being too-close to their English-speaking sources and sometimes friends? Has this affected news coverage? David Hoffman: Speaking Russian is really important to covering the country well. Speaking Russian well is a talent, too, and I will never claim to have spoken the language with the respect it deserves, but I tried. If you can only speak to people who speak English, it is a filter, and limiting.
Alexandria, Va.: You list six oligarchs in your book. Another author has 20 in her 1999 book on Russia. Who is right? Cheers. David Hoffman: We are both wrong. There were dozens -- big Oligarchs, baby Oligarchs, wanna-be Oligarchs. I think Russia would have been better off if there had been 100,000. In the mid-late 1990s there was talk about seven main oligarchs, but even that group was constantly breaking down, dividing itself into new groups.
Alexandria, Va.: Are the Chechen militants terrorists like the Palestinian militants in the West Bank? Do the Chechen militants engage in suicide bombings? How many Chechens fought for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Are there Al Qaeda in Chechnya? David Hoffman: The Chechens have engaged in all kinds of tactics, including the storming of a hospital in Russia in 1995 in which many innocents were killed, and many ambushes and attacks. But my sense is that suicide bombing is not one of their main tactics. I don't know, and don't think anyone knows, precisely what kind of links there were between Al Qaeda and the Chechens. Everyone speaks of some fighters going back and forth. My guess: there were a few. But the Chechens had their hands full with two wars for most of the 1990s.
Alexandria, Va.: While studying in Moscow in 1997 a theory that was often tossed around by my classmates and I was that Russia would be best served by a system of government similar to Britain's. A monarch, a strong leader that everyone can look to for guidance, combined with representation in some type of Parliament. Though never having been interested much in politics, this sounded like a good idea to me. Russians seem really into revering a strong leader, as shown by the demi-god status of Lenin and the remaining popularity of Stalin. (Yes, some Russians do say, it's true that Stalin killed a lot of people, but look how he made the Soviet Union a major world power in the process. They still think he was a good leader.) My question is two-fold. One, do you think that this theory has any footing in the Russia you see? And two, if it does, doesn't it seem that Putin is similar to Stalin in some ways -- making nice to the West but ruling the country basically how he wishes (with an iron fist, no less)? Thank you for answering my questions. David Hoffman: Tough questions. I think the core issue is authoritarianism. You know the history of the Russia experience with it, and I think whether Soviet or Imperial, it would not be a good idea to try to create such figures again. A lot better idea would be to encourage Russia to perfect the system of electoral democracy it now has embraced, and which remains weak, tentative, and vulnerable. I'd love to see more emphasis on building the pillars of this system -- strengthening what we call civil society -- than coming up with new some new system. I worry a lot that Putin has not done this. It's one thing to destroy the old system as Yeltsin did; another to build a new one. Putin seems to want to create what he calls "managed democracy" -- ahem, that is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? That's the whole point about democracy -- that the people make choices, and don't need to be "managed" by the ruler.
Alexandria, Va.: Are you kidding? Lenin is still around. You can see him the next time you go to Moscow. Or have they completely stopped that tour? (Sorry. It's Friday before a long weekend.) David Hoffman: Yes, but he doesn't answer questions in his current state. Unless they have added sound.
Washington, D.C.: What do you think President Bush should be looking to come out of his meeting with Putin? What should Putin be looking to get out of it? David Hoffman: If I were Bush -- I would certainly have tried to get to Moscow with an announcement on lifting Jackson-Vanik, a cold war relic, which might have been a good symbolic step. But he didn't. He got the arms reductions business sealed, which is fine, but did very little to outline the direction of this "entirely new" relationship he mentioned. Clinton's last summit with Putin was a bust, too; this one seems to be limited as well. Perhaps that's a comment on the way things are going. Putin has shown Bush a lot of understanding -- gave in on NATO expansion, on ABM, and on parts of the arms deal. He is probably disappointed he did not get Jackson-Vanik, at least. He may at some point need to explain to folks at home why he has moved so far toward the United States. I don't see signs of serious discontent about that in Russia, but the question might be raised by his critics: what did you get for it? In truth, if Putin wants to steer Russia toward the West, as he is suggesting, then most of what he needs to do is in Russia's hands -- improving investment climate, respect for human rights and so forth. I am sure Putin is very happy that Bush has downplayed Chechnya.
Virginia: How are Bush and Clinton different in their Russian dealing? And how would Gore compare with Cheney towards Russia? Are liberals pro-Russian while conservative are anti-Russian? David Hoffman: No labels please!! You just can't generalize like that. Clinton saw Yeltsin as a fellow politician. Clinton overpersonalized the relationship. He did not seem to have a larger view other than "I need to help Yeltsin." At the time, Bush and his people sneered at this. The Republicans tried to make hay out of it -- saying the Clinton years were too soft on Russia. And, today, Bush is basically following Clinton's path, cleaning up some of the leftover business. Perhaps the real truth is that both parties are on the same path -- and the real issue is where is Putin going to take Russia.
Alexandria, Va.: How much aid does the U.S. provide to the former Soviet Union directly and indirectly in the form of loans, loan guarantees, grants, payments to the World Bank which end up in the former USSR, etc? David Hoffman: I just don't know the precise totals. Tens of billions of dollars over tens of years.
David Hoffman: Big questions about the Oligarchs which no one has asked: were they good or bad for the country? Could Russia have made the leap from the Soviet years without wild and crazy capitalism? Did the Oligarchs help or hurt Russia's democratic transformation?
David Hoffman: Theoligarchs.com is the website!
washingtonpost.com: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion. © Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
