95 



9 

 as to say that in the past 12 - 14 months we have hurt ourselves and not really helped the Russians. 



Our mistakes have been costly in terms of money, time and image. 



Who is to blame? While fingers can be pointed at one government agenqr or another, the blame 

 ultimately must rest on our government I do not pretend to know what our national policymakers 

 had in mind regarding getting aid to Russia, but I can say it was less than effective. Besides being 

 inordinately costly, some programs were duplicative and not suited to Russian circumstances. They 

 were not staffed professionally and were managed without tangible results. Generally, the smaller, 

 the more targeted the program is, and the more effective, possibly because a lower profile enables 

 better and closer supervision, usually by individuals with some background and knowledge about 

 Russia and the Russians, or who are at least sensitive to local circumstances. I can cite several 

 instances where small, integrated efforts are being successful in Russia. 



Too often, it seems to me, large scale projects have attracted contractors without expertise but 

 primarily interested in profiting from the adventure. Of course, large disbursements quickly raise 

 the total amount of 'aid going to Russia.' A certain amount of PR was always invoNed. Large 

 projects can be effective, but they must be managed well and responsibly and carried throu^ to 

 completion. 



Seemingjly endless numbers of study groups, assessment teams and delegations have gone to Russia 

 in the last year to find out what they need and how we can help the Russians. Many of these teams 

 follow the same itinerary and ask the same questions, but they are funded by a different account 

 Clearly, the impression made on the Russians is not good. Their time is used answering questions 

 they have come to believe will go unheeded. Expectations raised early, probably by the first 



