By Erin Miller

Editor in chief

Of the many broad topics a speaker could choose to discuss in a 45-minute lecture, perhaps none would be so daunting as U.S.-Russian relations.

Geographically, the topic is huge. Culturally, the countries are quite different. Politically and historically, much could also be said.

Perhaps only someone like Gen. John Reppert (Army, Ret.) would have the courage to do so, and only then because Reppert spent years studying the former Soviet Union, visiting the country and even living there for a time.

Reppert spoke Monday, Feb. 11 in the Gezon Theatre as the second lecturer for the World Affairs Council Great Decisions Lecture Series. Though his topic was: ``Update: Russia, including Current State of US-Russia Arms Control,'' Reppert focused only partially on arms control, while also discussing differences between current President Vladimir Putin and former President Boris Yeltsin and the challenges facing Russians since the replacement of communism with democracy.

Of particular interest to Reppert, who is an expert on U.S. policy towards Russia, has been the discussions of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, signed in 1972 by the United States and the Soviet Union to limit the number of anti-ballistic missile systems each country could have. Because President George W. Bush announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the treaty in December, it will expire in June 2002.

The reason treaties such as this one worked for so long, Reppert said, was parity. As long as both the United States and the Soviet Union had an equal number of weapons pointed at each other, neither wanted to be the first to fire.

However, Reppert pointed out, having just two anti-ballistic missile systems was probably more symbolic than pragmatic for both countries. Having the system would enable the United States to shoot down the first missile shot at a U.S. city, but if the country shooting has 4,000 missiles, unless the defense system is loaded with more missiles, shooting down the first is relatively futile.

``By establishing a balance, we can have peace and security,'' he said. ``For better or worse, the world in which you can have balance and parity ended with the Soviet Union.''

Since 1990, he said, the United States has pulled significantly ahead of the rest of the world in defense spending, thereby eliminating the possibility of a balance similar to that of the Cold War. The United States' budget for defense spending is greater than the combined budgets of the second through tenth next highest budgets.

U.S. spending is 40 percent of the spending on defense worldwide. No one can keep up with the United States, Reppert said. Not only that, but, right now, no one sees any other way of ordering power to create balance again.

``None of the flashpoints can you use as basis for establishing a different form,'' he said.

Many Russians believe that ending the 30-year old treaty will remove one of the ``building blocks'' on which many other treaties and even the state of relative peace and security in which Americans live, is based.

Looking back at the current state of living in Russia, Reppert said he has seen some continued improvements over the past few years, but other things have become greater problems than they were immediately following the fall of communism.

Under Yeltsin, for example, freedom of the press improved.

Yeltsin may not have liked freedom of the press and he may not have understood why it was important, Reppert said, but he did know that the leaders of other democratic nations insisted that such freedom was important to democratic societies.

Under Putin, however, some of the freedom gained with Yeltsin has since been revoked.

``Putin knows what he doesn't like,'' Reppert said. ``Two large [television stations that were] critics of Putin have been eliminated.''

In order to present a pretense of freedom of the press, Putin has allowed several print media to publish criticism of his administration, although Reppert added, those publications are not the most widely-read newspapers in the country.

Another problem is the corruption that pervades everyday life and politics in Russia. Although the international perception is that crime is running rampant in Russia, Reppert said the situation has more nuances than many outside observers understand.

``There is less crime than under the Soviets, partly because everyone under the Soviets was a criminal,'' Reppert said.

Whereas just after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a few select criminals formed oligarchies, ``Putin has cracked down on that. [You are] no longer seeing huge one-time rip offs [but] people still assume corruption is the norm.''

Contributing to the corruption, he added, is a judicial system unwilling to enforce their own rulings.

Despite all of this, younger Russians still have hope for the future of Russia.

``[They are] dedicated to creating what they call a `normal life,''' Reppert said. ``Tell me when Russia had a normal life.''

The ``normal life'' to which they refer is the life they see glamorized on television, and even though Reppert does not see that as an accurate representation of life anywhere in the world, he does see some things changing for the better.

The Russian Orthodox Church, for example, has seen an increase in attendance since 1991. Although the Soviet Union was officially atheist, that particular church remained for years, run by the older generations of Russians.

The biggest problem facing these churches is not a lack of members, but the same problems facing many American churches: younger Russians want to bring in updated styles of music and worship, while older Russians prefer the traditional chants and songs passed down through centuries.

Of course, every bit of good news comes with a piece of bad news to counter it. ``Newer'' denominations and churches, Reppert said, are unable to be established without passing a series of intense inspections carried out by Russian Orthodox inspectors.

Falling into this category of ``new'' churches are various Protestant denominations, but also the Catholic Church.

While Reppert seemed to have a more positive attitude toward Russia than many Americans may hold, he said that he realized there were still obstacles to be overcome, especially when the issue of arms is discussed.

Responsibility for reconciling the problems of the balance of power and how to again create some sort of parity between the United States and the rest of the world does not fall to members of his own generation, Reppert said.

He and his generation are too used to Cold War tactics and thinking. Rather, he added, it is the responsibility of the generation of current students, of whom there were many in the audience on Monday.

``It will be your challenge to do that,'' he said.