Enter your e-mail:
OK

THE NEWS BULLETIN

On March 15th, 2008 the biggest international road building machinery and equipment exhibition CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2008, that takes place in Las Vegas only once every three years, came to an end. For the first time in its history the Russian Holding “Concern “Tractor Plants” and its production were presented among world leaders of road building equipment and machinery.
According to the president of the Concern “Tractor Plants” Mikhail Bolotin, participation in the biggest specialized exhibition like CONEXPO - is the first major step for Russian heavy machinery builders to enter the North and South American markets actively pursuing its integration in the world markets.
During five days of the exhibition, Russian machinery builders met with over three hundred representatives of companies from North and South America, Middle East, South East Asia, Africa, and Australia. The machinery and equipment under the Concern trademark sparked a great deal of interest among potential dealers and end-users from many industries. The representatives of companies from countries of South and Central America (Mexico, Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.) were interested in the CHETRA side boom pipe layers with maximum lifting capacity from 25.6 to 104.5 tons. The line of powerful “CHETRA” bulldozers with engines ranging from 150 to 600 h.p. drew attention from companies of South and Central America, Africa, and South East Asia. Canadian Companies busy in forestry industries were impressed with Concern’s capabilities servicing the equipment under the most extreme conditions and moreover with wheel front loaders with bucket capacity of 3-7 cubic meters. Uniqueness of the all terrain vehicles and their universal use on water or land was the most intruiging machinery, and it drew the most interest from companies all over the world. Finally, representatives from road building and construction industries from North and South America admired the line of specialty vehicles for the municipal technology (MKSM, Wheel Tractors) which comes with a large selection of attachable equipment.
Machine-building holding the Concern “Tractor Plants” is amongst the ten largest heavy machinery building companies in the world. The Holding is supported by the Government. The Russian Trade Mission of the Russian Federation delegated a trade officer to join Chetra exhibition team to prove this.
The Concern uses international merits for quality control, service, and the development of trends. Most models under the “CHETRA” trademark correspond to the guidelines of the European Union - the certificates are given out by the international organization TŰV Rheinland InterCert. Production of the Concern is now used in more than 40 countries worldwide, recently adding Zimbabwe and Australia to the existing list. Concern’s hubs and service locations are equipped with the latest repair technology as well as spare parts centers and the repair service specialists are capable of servicing the machinery at any of its locations or at the place of work of the machinery.
Presented on the market are the machinery and the equipment of 14 production enterprises under single Concern: Industrial Machinery consisting of (31.8% turnover), (27.1% attachments and spare parts), (18.3% agricultural and municipal machinery), and (22.8% machinery for the railroad production). In 2007, the production of the Concern exceeded 16 thousand units of equipment and the company’s turnover has increased between 30-35% annually. In order to boost the sales even further, the Concern is looking for new strategic partnerships and investment opportunities in countries of North and South America. The short term objective is to develop service networks with local companies, establish service and parts centers, and to build a comprehensive distribution network. The next important step will be developing lasting strategic partnerships with the American companies.

Everyone says that everything “new” is actually a well-forgotten “old.” We therefore decided to offer our readers an old/new newspaper column, “If I Were a President.” We are appealing to our young readers to check up on a once - hyperpopular Soviet “Literary Paper” of the 1970s and its publications titled “If I Were a Director”; our older readers already know what this title refers to. We wanted to update this theme by offering a different title and theme in order to talk about what is most pressing at the moment.

We hereby offer the following theme: “If I Were a President.” We are asking our readers for a concise (maximum three paragraphs) statement on the most crucial issues they would take up if they were a President of the United States. This would offer concerned citizens from all walks of life a voice and a belief that our country- and the world at large- can and should be changed for the better.

We are asking for one more condition, besides the concise delivery of the ideas – all responders must be U.S. Citizens or those with a legal right to reside in America. We want to direct all others interested in this idea to various Internet forums that offer similar-style discussions.

MediaGroup “Kontinent” wants to thank in advance all those who wish to participate in this new venue. The most interesting responses will be published, while others will be analyzed by the publication. We will also direct these responses to various Presidential Election Committees to the attention of the 2008 Presidential candidates.

We would like to direct attention of our readers to first responses received by MediaGroup “Kontinent” survey question. We further, convincingly ask you to provide the following information with your response: name (or initials), profession, sex and age.

We welcome responses both in English or Russian. We will accept responses both via email kontinentmedia@gmail.com (Subject: If I would be a president) or via mail to Kontinent Media Group, 1580 S. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 208, Libertyville, IL 60049 or via fax 847-680-9717.

Our foreign readers – including former compatriots currently living in Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Germany, Canada and other states – can offer us suggestions that apply to their states, and “Kontinent” will be ready to showcase such responses to our large international readership.

************************************

1. First thing that comes to mind is absolute need for health care reform. In a country that offers wealth of options health care or need for insurance health care reform seems to be trailing behind. A need for sponsored and or universal health care seems to linger.

2. Second but equally important concern is our failing education. It is imperative to provide our teachers with more rigid certification-training program that would avail them to prepare our youth to stand side-by-side with the world’s youth.

3. Although at a first glance there seems to be adequate defense for ethnic minority, but by looking deeper inside it becomes abundantly clear that ethnic minority is powerless when it comes to consumer defense or otherwise, even legal defense. A need for change is beginning to happen.

LIM, manager, male, 29

************************************

1. Increase the budgeting of education.

2. Try to stop wars, and solve matters diplomatically.

3. Try to disarm nuclear weaponry around the world and in my country.

M.A., student, male, 19

By Anatol Lieven

Every few months or even weeks, a new issue seems to arise to create new hostility to Russia in the US, and often Europe too. Sometimes this is based on real conflicts of views or interests; as for example the question of Russian and West European ownership of parts of each other’s energy networks. Often, however, the issues are essentially minor, and of no real significance to important Western interests.

And in the great majority of cases, alas, reporting and comment by much of the Western media, and statements by Western politicians, reflect a frightening degree of bias and ignorance – when not outright disinformation; a situation worsened by the tendency to select Russian commentators in US newspapers only from one narrow section of Russian liberal opinion.

Andrew MORAVCSIK, director of the European Union Program at Princeton University

Politics stops at the water's edge. Or so voters in the Western democracies like to believe. When our security is at stake, we expect elected leaders to think coolly and strategically, advancing the national interest.

Iraq has done much to discredit such hopes. Now comes another American-inspired folly—the brewing transatlantic spat over the deployment of a primitive antiballistic-missile defense system in Eastern Europe. At bottom, it has little to do with security, and everything to do with symbolism and spin. And in the end it is destined to come back to bite its adherents in their collective geostrategic backside.

Ann ODEGOVA, graduate student of journalism of the Moscow State University and of the American University in Moscow

It is not a secret now that today relations of Russia with different countries which could be our faithful allies are becoming less cloudless. This year it became especially obvious. But is it necessary to burn bridges? Flexibility is necessary in these relations.

Is it correct to translate all relations on a monetary basis? It was with Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan. Recent New Year's conflict with Byelorussia (White Russia) once again roughly naked essence of the future changes.

We do not have allies. Love for money has remained. Oh, pity calculation! Everything is seized by it. We should only recognize its domination which has aggravated political situation.

Gary Hamburg, Professor of European History at Claremont McKenna College, and Johannes F. Linn, Executive Director of the Wolfensohn Center for Development at the Brookings Institution analyze the current state of U.S.-Russian relations.

— How would you characterize the current U.S.- Russian relationship: are we in fact heading towards a new cold war?

GARY HAMBURG, Professor of European History at Claremont McKenna College, author of several books on Russia and the Soviet Union: U.S.-Russian relations have become difficult for various reasons:
Putin thinks the United States has become a force for instability in the world, by which he means that the U.S. intervention in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East but also that U.S. sponsorship of NATO expansion has disturbed Russia's 'near abroad'; Putin also thinks that the United States has not duly recognized Russian power, political and economic; the Bush administration is disappointed by what it sees as Putin's meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs, by its unhelpful attitude toward Georgia, by its use of oil as an instrument of political intimidation in Europe, and, of course, by the continuing Russian use of force in Chechnya (which reminds Washington of Soviet habits, even though the tacit agreement is for Washington to 'look the other way' while Chechnya is pacified and to classify the suppression of Chechen independence as a part of the international 'war on terror.')

The Chechen Gamble Comment by Sergei MARKEDONOV
Special to Russia Profile

Ramzan Kadyrov can celebrate another victory. From Mar. 2, he has formally and legally cemented his grip on power in Chechnya. The day after President Vladimir Putin submitted Kadyrov’s candidacy for Chechen president to the region’s parliament, lawmakers backed the acting regional boss. Of 58 deputies in the legislature, 55 voted in favor of Kadyrov. Only two ballots were spoiled.
Putin’s candidate achieved almost total support. The spoiled ballot papers were not counted, since they do not count as votes against the Russian president’s prot?g?. Only one lawmaker voted against Kadyrov’s candidacy.
In proposing Kadyrov for president, Putin expressed the hope that a positive decision by parliament would “aid the continuation of Chechnya’s social and economic rehabilitation at the same speed as at present.” A week before his official confirmation, the Kremlin favorite said: “Being president is a huge responsibility before the Almighty, before the people, and before Putin himself.” We can see in this troika that Allah and Putin belong in the same breath, while the prophet Mohammed is nowhere to be seen.

Question:
Situation: I have been working in Switzerland for almost three years. My parents and two sisters are in Moscow. We are all registered in a three-room non-privatized apartment in Moscow (social rent contract). They ask me to send a document certifying that I’ve been living in Switzerland for the last three years. They say they need it for the purposes of rent re-calculation. Can they evict me on the basis of such document certifying that I’ve been living in Switzerland for the last three years? Comment: I looked through the Housing Code and haven’t found any explicit possibility to evict me on the basis of my three years absence. But I still would like to know a professional opinion before sending the mentioned document to my sisters. They are too concerned about the “dwelling matter” (for example they tried to convince our grandfather to bequeathe his apartment only to them as I “am fairly well settled in Switzerland” and they “have to deal with a dwelling matter in Moscow”).

Answer:
Such document may be used in court to prove that you unilaterally terminated the rent contract by moving abroad for permanent residence. I wouldn’t recommend you to send any documents of such kind and provide your relatives with other proofs (for example letters) certifying that you don’t stay in the apartment for a long time and stay in another place. On the other hand I would like to recommend you address to the Unified City Payment Center to obtain information about the payments, number of personal account, transfer a required amount to your representative in Russia: he/she will issue a receipt and effect your rent payments. By doing this you will disburden your relatives from paying your part of the rent payment and will be sure that you will not be evicted. If needed, I may help you in effecting your part of the rent payment for prior periods as well as in future.

Anetta Meiman

Even while just a freshman at the legendary Shukin College of Moscow, in 1974, Sergey Prokhanov started acting in the Mossovet Theater and at the same time acting in movies.

Brilliant, saturated with sunny energy, the character of the mustached babysitter with a guitar in the 1977 comedy “Mustached Babysitter” made actor Sergey Prokhanov very well known for that role and famous all over the former Soviet Union.

In Sergey Prokhanov’s cinema biography there are more than 50 movies. These included: “Breakfast on the Grass”, “The Corp of General Shubnikov”, “Corruption”, “The Halt of Pilgrims”, “The Genius”… and many more.

George H. WITTMAN, member of the US Committee on the Present Danger

The Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Sheffer, recently has been quite outspoken regarding the need for a missile shield in Europe. In de Hoop Sheffer's mind the only real problem is the cost of the weapons, site construction, and the division of that cost among the participating European states.
What is striking is the secretary general's disregard of Russia's strident objections to the effort of the United States to arrange for missile interceptor sites and integrated radar to be placed in Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively. Apparently NATO has judged the bellicose Russian reaction to the potential of such basing to be empty political posturing.
The argument that is being made at NATO headquarters in Brussels is that Iran's Shahab-6, its true intercontinental missile, will be operational in eight years. This intelligence is combined with a pessimistic assessment regarding prevention of the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Apparently the evaluation of this information has led NATO planners to conclude that they must opt to protect all of Europe.
The surprising thing is that there has been no immediate outcry from the usual hip-shooting Russian Defense Ministry. Perhaps First Dep. Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who now is effectively defense czar, is currently too involved with his own presidential election efforts to give much credence to what a NATO secretary general says. On the other hand, the Russian military may be loath to escalate the rhetoric to a European scale when threats against the already burdened Americans are a much more welcome international matter.
One of the other things at play here is that Moscow must be already in the process of developing its own advanced missile defense system. Russia's problem is not a simple one in that it must protect itself from Asia, the Middle East and Europe, as well as the United States -- if the traditional Russian paranoia is still operative.
Unless the Russians make the calculated judgment that their thousands of nuclear-armed missiles are enough of a deterrent in themselves to make unnecessary an anti-intercontinental ballistic missile defense system, one can expect rather soon the word to be "leaked" that Moscow is about to test its own advanced ABM system.
All of which tends to expose the fact that the vociferous Russian objection to American interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic is more a matter of leftover pique from Moscow's loss of dominance over eastern Europe. Putin doesn't really give a strategic damn over a bare screen of ten interceptors in Poland clearly targeted against Iran. He just doesn't want the Americans taking up a position — even if it's defensive — in the USSR's old satellite states.
In domestic political terms Putin believes Russia must maintain the image of an internationally powerful, and thus influential, strategic capability. Putin and his acolytes, Dmitri Medvedev and Sergei Ivanov, as well as the rising star, Sergei Mironov, have one principal objective in mind: Move Russia into a position of exercising the clout that the old Soviet Union once had, but without the inherent danger and expense.
Part of this is done with mirrors, and part with judicious defense investment. But much of it is accomplished by a vigorous economy and an even more vigorous and consistent diplomatic offensive whenever possible. International strategic policy is a combination of political, diplomatic and military strength.
Ironically, the assassination of anti-government journalists and activist dissidents, such as Litvinenko in London, is a clear mark of weakness rather than the strength for which the perpetrators had hoped. President Putin and the rest of the Kremlin leadership appear to be a regime incapable at best of controlling their own supporters, or, at worst, their own most base instincts.
Aside from their many missiles and nuclear weapons, the Russian military is nowhere near the class of the American military services. Its economy is flying high at the moment on the production and price of its exportable oil. The vulnerability in that sector is the limited term of its proven reserves (60 billion barrels) as calculated by British Petroleum. Some estimates indicate commercially exploitable reserves will be substantially diminished in less than 10 years.
In politics, intelligence, and diplomacy, however, Moscow is still a first rank contender, if not a super power. It would be wise for Washington to remain attuned to this — now and after 2008, no matter who is the American president.

America-russia.net