OA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM RELEASE IN
Directorate of Intelligence
Economic Survey of2
'If lis survey was prepared in ihc Economic Performance Division of lhe Office of Slavic and Eurasian Analysts.ontribution from Ihe Defense Programs Division.
Summary of Key Developments
Yel'uin'i government made significant snidesarket economy in Russia bn year by freeing must prices, culling defense spending sharply, unifying foreign etchangc rates, and launching an ambitious privatizaDun program. Al the same time, there was an acioss the-board economic decline largely reflecting government efforts t> restructure the economy, shortages of essential importi caused by the breakdown in former Bloc and interstate trade, and reduced demand following the freeing of prices in January.
Ouipul Falls Sharply bul Vnemplopnera Remains Law. According to Russian official statistics, the output of all goods ami nervices2 fell for the third consecutive year, with Industrial production declining by almostcrcenl nnd agricultural outputercent. The actual decline, however, may have been less steep, because industrial and agricultural enterprises had strong incentives lo understate output to avoid taxes, und official statistics may not have fully captured the output of the growing private sector. Despite the large drop in ouipul. unemployment at yearend stood at anercent ofmillion-person labor force; many people, however, are working shortened weeks or arc on forced have.
Futancial Stabilization FJusin. The resurgence of high inflation toward yearend largely reflected the price that Russia was willing to pay for maintaining high employment in ihe face of falling output. Moscow's financial stabilization program got offood start at the beginning of last year hut began to falter by midyear. Through spring, the Russian leadership followed tight monetary and fiscal policies, enabling it to sharply reduce ihe budget deficit and the monthly rate of inflation. Under pressure from industrialists and Ihe Supreme Soviel. lhe government loosened fiscal policies in the second half. In addition, lhe Russian Centra) Bank relaxed its tight credit policy in July at tbe behest dI new Acting Chairman. Viktor Gerashclienko. This loosening of financial policies ledharp increase in prices during lhe last quarter, and inflation reachedCKI percent for the year.
The Plight of Moxl (ontumers Worsens. Russia's January pnee liborali/auonlossoming of private vendors fiHed shelves across the country with previously scarce food items and consumer goods, but wages lagged inflation, making inch goods onaf fordablc for many consutnen. Falling real wages forced most jjusjans toarger share of their income on food
and to alter their eating habits. Indeed, many Russians reduced their consumption of higher priced meat. fish, milk, vegetables, and fruit, in favor of more bread and potatoescsull of higher spending on food, consumers reduced their consumption of nonfood goods and services.
Pnremauon Picks Vp Steam.low start and some rough going, the Russian Government by the end2 scored some successes in its campaign to break the stale's stranglehold on properly and improve the environment for private businesses. More peasant farms were created than expected, ihc number of consumers purchasing goods from private traders rose sharply, the portion of tlie population working in the private sector increased to nearly ooe-fifth, and Ihc nine-month-long slump in the privatization of small businesses was ended in the fall.
Defense Conversion Slow. Russia made little headway in restructuring the defense sector toward the production of consumer goods, bul the number of defense plants attempting to do so increased markedly. Although the output of weapons fell sharply last year, most defense enterprises continued to encounter numerous difficulties developing and marketing new products, establishing new supply links, and securing resources for retooling. Moreover, tool civil production by the defense sea or fell in tx.au* of shortages of inputs and (owe. consumer demand caused by higher prices.
Rilaleral Trade Ptummett and Debtroblem. Ruptured ties wilh former trading partners, output declines, and sometimes erratic efforts to move to world prices and decentralize trade-foreign andeavy loll on Russia's commercial relations wilh oihcr countries. For lite second yearow. foreign trade was down sharply, with exports falling by as much asercent and imports byercent. The diop in imports would have been much greater if foreign aid-worth an estimatedillion-had not allowed the continued How of essential imports. Trade with Ihe Kurasian Sulci continued to decline, and support for the rubleommon currency eroded in the face of loose monetary policies and rapidly rising prices throughout the region At the same time. Russa pudraction ofillion due on the former USSR's roughly SSO bduon debt: debt rescheduling remains hung up becauseispute between Russia and Ukraine over division of the former USSR's assets. Capital High alsoerious problem
Russian Ouipul Indicators
Change in Real
Pare/it change over ante period of pmiiu,,
Ruuian officialewepi for agriculture Industrial
' Estimated, net of feed, seed, andrdimmary.
Source: Russian official siaiiiuci, [neutilcd ai* peiccnl change ener tlK Wine period of the ptmounyear, have been adjusted mtinlh trends
Output Falls and lincmploymcnt Rises
The Russian economy7 contracted foe the third consecutive year, with truss dornesuc product (GDP) falling bycrceni. according to Russian official statistics.esult. GDP was only aboul two-thirds of9 level.
Production Down. Industrial output droppedore lhan double the decline recordedccording u> Russian of (Vial statistics. Although the slump in output was across the board, the machinery and equipment sectors were particularly hard hit because ofpercent reduction in military procurement and the 4Vpercent cut in capital investment. In the energy sector, oil output dec uncdercem. coal wasercent, and natural gas was virtually unchanged1 levels. Production of consumer Roods was lipcrccnt lower than
Overall agricultural output fellercent from (he1 level, according to our calculations, although the production of most crops was up last year. The drop largely reflected the continued decline in lhe rmDducuon of meat. milk, and eggs brought about by shrinking livestock herds and the increasing costs of inputs that made some output unprofitable; meat and milk output fell last your to ihoir lowest levels inecade. Russiaillion ions of grain-cleanboutercent more lhaneanwhile, the decline in state production of potatoes and other vegetables was largely offset by increased output from private plots and urban gardens. The private sector, fix example, accounted for someercent of potato produclion.
The production declines prohihly were not quite as bad as.official statistics indicate. The drop in output may have been less steep, because enterprises had strong incentives io understate output lo avoid taxes and keep goods fur side deals. Moreover, olficial Russian data probably failed io fully capture the cor*ribuiioa of the country's growing private vector In many cases, the (all in owpui wasood sign; besideseducoon in military production, many goods had been
produced in excessive ojuantiues. Indeed, price liberalization revealed lhe structural distortions thai have accumulated ova lhe yean; ihe tremendous resource intensiveness of many sectors; and the poor quality, unprofitablility. or even negative value added at many industrial and agricultural enterprises.
Investment Slashed. Investment spending was cu! by almost half last year as part of the government effort to reduce ihe budget deficit. Government hopes that other sources of mvestmenl--mainjy enterprise funds-would help offset cuts in state funding were not fulfilled. Many enterprises were financially strapped and had little money lo spend on capital improvements or repair. Moreover, as Russian officials noted, private savings were insufficient, invewinenl institutions poorly developed, and foreign investment low because of the country's political and economic urecrtainties. The cut In investment spendinganicularty heavy lull on energy, machine building, agmindustry. and construction. Uncompleted investment projects continued to proliferjie, adding to mfbiionary pressures.
Unemployment Climbs, ffespitc the large drop in output, unemployment remained relatively lowestern definition of unemployment, by yearend the jobless rateimbed loercent ofmiUkm-person labor force. Urtemptoyment would have risen more sharply if enterprises and the government had not taken measures to limit its growth Many enterprise managers placed workers on shortened workweeks or extended leave with pay. and most dipped heavily into working capital and investment funds lo pay wages. Indeed, llie high priority thai enterprise managers assigned to keeping iheir workforces imaci partially explains ihc ballooning of intcrcnicrpnsc debt last year. For its pan, the government began easing light credit and spending policies atove thai helped unprofitable firms to pay the* workers. Central bank credits, in particular, were targeted at large industrial firms, in part, lo ward off massive layoffs.
Incnailiqt Budget Dcfkil...
lir In Stale Credit.-.
Ke "liltedlurp Increase In MoneyVmnlGDP
and Higher Monthly Inflation.
price* Wltutesnlc pi mi
JFMAMJ JASON l>
Kuwun official daw sodim.reK
Financial Stability Erodes
the Yerisin-Gaydai government look overl inherited an economy thai was in "severe imbalance:
The budget delicti hadpproximatelyercent of GNP. with the gap largely covered by the priming of money.
Despite administrative controls, pruts were rising at an accelerating rate caused by lhe rapid growih of Ihc money supply and tlie sharp drop in output.
Shortages of basic goods and food were rife.
Early Success. The government moved quickly lo stabilise the financial situation by freeing most prices in January, cutting spending.-particularly defense rKocuremeni and budget-funded investment--and overhauling the tax system. Besides helping to bring the demand forine with supply, price decontrol allowed the government lo reduce subsidies on food and other products Meanwhile, tax reform, including the introductionew value-added uu, helped boost and stabilize government revenues despite implcmentation and collection problems.
The government's actions resultedharp reduction in the budget deficit inis: half of the yearteady decline in the monthly rate of retail price increases following the freeing of prices in January. By summer, lhe monthly rise in consumer prices had slowed ioercent The inflation rate would have been even lower if the government had been aMcestrict the growth of intercntcrprtse debt. This debt climbed fromillion rubles al the end1 lorillion rublesuly.
Stability Slips Away. Under pressure from industrialists, regional leaders, and the Supreme Soviet, Ihe government loosened fiscal policy last summer io help financially strapped enterprises, ensure collection of the fall harvest, raise pensions and budget-funded wages, and provide for essential imports. The Russian Central Bank, meanwhile, relaxed its tight credit policy in July to ease ihc buildup of interenterprise debts and lo increase working capital at Ihc urging of lis Acting Chairman Gerashchenko.
By September, the monthly infUtwo rate began lo climb, compelling the government to try to Ughtcn fiscal policy by sequestering eipendnures. The government succeeded in running large budget surpluses in September and October by delaying state expenditures for investment and olher uses. Success was short lived, however, because OK bod gel apparently ran large deficits in November and December. Meanwhile. Central Bank credits to the economy and Eurasian states cowinuedigh level, and interenterprise debt rccrnerged despite rules designed to force enterprises to prepay for iheir purchases. During the fall, the overall money supply increased by an average of aboutercent per month, roughly twice as fast as earlier in the year.esult, monthly rctaU inflation rates hit aboutercent per month during the fourth quarter. This contributed lo the dramaac decline in the exchange rate of the ruble, which depreciated sharply against the dollar from July through December.
The (allure of the government's monetary and fist id policies to stem the decline in output contributed to Ycl'ism's replacement ol Acting Premier Gaydar in December. Hrs successor. Viktor Chernomyrdin, was viewed by many legislatorsragmatic industrialist who would focus first on raising output and livinghernomyrdin, however, has publicly said lhat achieving financial stability and reducing inflation arc (lie most important immediate tasks.
Living Standards Drop
2 price liberalization filled store shelves across the country with previously scarce food products and other consumer goods, but wages lagged inflation, making such goods unaiTordablc for many
Prices Rise and Real Wages Fall Consumer prices increased byercentut wages grew by onlyercent, according to Russian official statistics. Living standards fell the most in January, when following liberalization, pricesercent while wages grew by onlyercent. The gap narrowed somewhat by yearend, but average per capita real income for the year was still about one-thud lower thanhe real income of pensioners, low-income families, and workers in budget-funded government, education, and health care jobs fell ihc most. The minimum pension was raised twice2 bul failed to keep up wilh ihe Russian Government's calculated minimum subsistence budget By December, about one-third of die population reportedly earned lessubles per month, the official 'poverty, line."
The gap between the rich and poor widened, offending many Russians'ingrained sense of equity.he incomes of lhe topcrcenl of the population were five tunes higher than the poorestercent; byt was roughly nine times greater. The increase in the disparity between the lower and upper income brackets reflects both the slow growth in pensioners' incomes and the high earnings of persons working in the emerging private sector. The gulf in average pay among the middle-income brackets also widened last year, the average pay of public health and education employees--who account for the bulk of budget-funded employces-and industrial workers grew by about two-thirds
Consumption Down. Falling real income reduced total consumption and forced most Russians louch larger share of their income on food. The average family spent aboutercent of its income on foods compared withercentensioners, meanwhile, reportedly spent overercent of their incomes on food bypercentage pointshe drop in real income also forced many Russians to alter their diet by reducing
consumption of higher priced meat, fish, milk, vegetables, and fruit, in favor of more bread and potatoes.esult, per capita consumption of milk fell byercent, meat byercent, and fish byercent. In contrast, consumption of grain roseercent and potatoesercent To help cope with the drop in real income, almost half of all Russian families now grow food ai weekend homes and garden plots, accordingecent poll by the Ail-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTslOM).
Higher spending on food contributed to reduced purchases of odicr consumer goods and services. For example, sales of knitwear, sewn goods, hosiery, and cotton fabrics fell by overercent, and sales of shoes, woolens, and silks fell by overercent. Consumers now plan lo buy only essentials-shoes, coals, and clothing-and forego purchases of furniture, appliances, and cars, according to the VTslOM polL Russians also spentercent less on services last year.
Food Availability Improrts. Under price liberalization, scarce foods became available in stores and in farm markets throughout the country. Weekly government surveys showed that many basic foods-milk, beef, potatoes, onions, carrots, and cabbage-althougli high priced, were available iii almost all ofities surveyed during most of the year. Farm markets also were well stocked, but prices were substantially higher. The weekly surveys, however, found shortages of pork, canned fish, rye bread, and some types of noodles in aboul half of the surveyed cities, particularly during tho winter. Local price controls and high transport costs led to food shortages and rationing in some cities in the Urals. Siberia, the Far East, and the far north.
Housing Construction Declines. Slate and private construction of new housing was downuarterccording io Russian official statistics. Most of the drop in the state sector-wliich accounted forercent of total housing construction last year-stemmed from the cutback in government funding. The decline in Ute construction of private homes was caused hy soaring costs that put such housing out of the reach of most Russians. Moreover, some citizens who could cover the exorbitant costs were stymied by shortages ol building materials.
Privatization Cains Momentum
private sector assumed more importance in the Russian economy last year. According to official statistics, the volume of consumer goods purchased from private shops roseegligible amount1 lo moreercenturchases from street .traders who operated at open-air markets, street owners, and sidewalk kiosks were also up last year and accounted forercent of total spending on consumer goods. Private-sector employment blossomed as well. Russian official data report that aboulillionercent of the labor force-were privately employedn addition, one out of six Russians moonlighted in the private sector, and half of Russian families raised some of their own food.
Small BwinetMi Spo&ighud. Yel'tsin. believing that it was necessary toarge propertied class that would promote social stability andconomK reform, declaredould be the yearhe- Knvcnimcci fmiscd its efforts mainly on small businesses, delaying privatization of industryoscow reasoned that there would be little oppositionhange in ownership for small firms because they could be privatized quickly and consumers would benefit from the likely improvement in supplies. To this end, the governmentrash campaign to sellercent of small shops, restaurants, and service establishments-largely through auctions. The selloff of small businesses was slow during most of the year, but picked up dramatically during the last quarterhen the government announced that citi/cns could useruNe privatization vouchers--which were distributed to all Russians
beginning inbuy tliese properties. By0 firms -more than double the number in October and aboutoercent of those scheduled for privatixmg-had been soM. Pnvarxaoon proceededarticularly fast pace in the proreform cities of St. Petersburg, Nizhniy Novgorod, Vladimir. Orel, and Belgorod, where progressive local leaders were able tooasensus for change
Dcspiie the accelerated pace bur in lhe year, the government fell short of2 privatization target. PnvjjDarjon czar Anatoliy Chubays blamed paperwork problems, but the more important causes were that most Russians lacked the investmentuy businesses and were reluctant to take the risks of ownership. To Uie government's disappointment, virtually no foreigners sank their money into the new companies.
Prt*auzaOo* of f'armi and Housing I'p The procram to tum agricultural land over to independent farmers acceleratedhe number of private farms more than tripled, toar exceeding the2 target. Despite the rapid growth, however, these private farms accounted (or lessercent of Russia's agricultural land and produciion. Moreover, private fanners continued to be dependent on the state for inputs, machinery, and credit The Russian Government meanwhile, managed toillion dwellings--outiatc stock of aboutillion units-over tociu/cns last year, the vast majority for free.
Defense Conversion Effort Finds Incentive
a ogress on defense conversion was slow. Enterprise managers, however, began io take conversion seriously in response to the Russian government's cut in weapons orders by roughly TO percent. Yei'tsinalsoonversion law in2 that offers .guajeunea for shining to civil production, but its impact has been limited by the leadership's continued indecision over which weapon programs and plants it needs to retain. In addition, economic reforms-especially price liberalization and privatization "have begun to force firms to restructure themselves to produce goods that arc in demand.
Uefenst Sector Production Plummets. Russian officials publicly claim thai the production of weapon systems fell byercent or more last year. Some plant, ceased production entirely, wtdk others continued to manufacture arms without orders or customers. Mounting inventories made plant managers desperate to find foreign buyers. Allhough many officials looked to arms sales abroad to keep plants active and to finance conversion, hard currency sales were down by half last year.
Civil production by the defend industrial sector also fell2 becausehortage of materials and declining demand caused by price increases. According to Russian official statistics, produclion of televisions, refrigerators, and washingall of which arc made by defense plants-fell byoercent Most enterprise* continued to face problems developing and marketing new products, establishing new supply links, securing resources for retooling, and attracting loreign aid and investment.
Financml Problems Formidable. Many financially strapped defense plants managed lo keep operating by running up interenterprise debts and by relying on Central Bank credits-many of which were on preferential terms. In addition, defense enierpms; diverted most ofillion rubles the government earmarked last year to finance conversion lo meet payrolls. These actions averted large-scale unemployment amongillion defense-industrial workers, although, according to Russian press,efense workers left the sector primarily for higher paying fobs in the civil sector. Underemployment however, was widespread. wirh many thousi<nds of workers on extended leave and. reportedly, moreefenseerating only three io foureek. In addition,illion industrial workers were only partially employed, and at least hall of these probably were in the defense sector.
Iteftnse tnduitrialOts SpiU.mall-but growing-number of delcns- plant officials welcomed their new frorxkim and endorsed the govcmrncni'( economic reforms, including privatization, the worsening situation drove many defense industry leaders to join with other industrialists and calllowdown in the pace of economic reform. These groups lobbied the government to channel additional credits to unprofitable enterprises, including defense plants, to hold down uriemplaymenl. even at the risk of hyperinflation.
Rimiin Foreign fctonomic2
Katinuied Hard Cnm-nry Debt of (he Suite, of Ihr Former
Source- Gotkomutdau. ftdhJai Bade %mm
Vsod Ihr IUHk SUNK
81 S3 83 Atc mate
MoiMMy Mrtw Volutin
Sold by Ctfilial BinV1,
Solilbycornmctciol enterprise* hitViiltjl Hunk"
Saild by ajRinwrcul riWerprisia Iiitc tpi *c*
I 'rn(M)vrnti,Mi *
Ccnliul Hank nl Russia
Foreign Economic Relations Still in Turmoil
foreign iradc2 dropped sharply for the second yearow. Moscow, meanwhile, made little headway onebt agreement with foreign creditors, and foreign investors remained cautious because of the country's political and economic uQcertajnties.
Foreign Trade Falls. Trade with countries other ihan the Eurasian states fell2 by as much ashe decline primarily reflects falling Russian output, hard currency shortages, problems wilh transportation links through Eurasia, and difficulty financing trade with former CEMA partners. Russia's foreign trade regulations-hard currency surrender requirements, licensing rules, and tariffs-and Moscow'sodify these rules with little advance notice also inhibitedrowing share of the country's foreign trade last year was conducted by Russian enterprises, and many skirted the government's trade rules by illegally exporting and importing various goods and by depositing as much asillion in export earnings in foreign banks.
The composition of Russian foreign trade2 mirrored past years, with Russiaeller of raw materialsuyer of manufactured goods and food. Sales of oil and natural gas earned Russiaillion, or almost half of all export earnings. Other commodities such as chemicals, metals, and timber also were significant export items, while manufactured goods-including arms--probably accounted for less thanercent of Russia'stotal sales. On the import side, machinery and equipment composed aboutercent of Russian purchases and food, and agricultural products make up more thancrcenl.
Shifts in the regional pattern of Russian foreign trade occurred as some partners were hit harder than others by the drop in Russia's trade. Trade with Developed Western countries, for example, fell less than trade with other regions because of the West's willingness to pay cash for Russia's exports and to provide credits for many of Russia's purchases. Exchanges with Moscow's former CEMA partners, meanwhile, were down sharply, reflecting financing troubles that forced most trade to
take place on barter terms. Arid trade with most Third World regions plummeted; East Asia was the exception because of the strength of increased trade with China
Hard Currency Debt Goes Unpaid. Russia was the only Eurasian state to make any payments2 onillion due on the debts of the former USSR. Moscow, however, was able to pay only5 billion of its share ofillion because of weak export performance, continued capital flight,ack of foreign investment. Inussia and seven of the other Eurasian states accepted joint responsibility for the foreign debt and setechanism to service their individual shares through the Vneshxxonombankhis arrangement, however, quickly broke down because the non-Russian states did not have significant sources of hard currency and refused to channel their payments through the Russian<ontrolled VEB. Russia has since concluded agreements with all of the Eurasian states except Ukraine to assume responsibility for their share of the debt in return for their renunciationlaim on assets Of the former USSR.
Toward the end Of last year. Russia began negotiations with the Paris Clubomprehensive debt rescheduling but was unable touick agreement because of differences over the amount of debt service to be paidegotiations were also complicated by Ukraine's insistence on retaining responsibility for its share of the debt and servicing it independently of Russia in exchange forroportional share of the assets of the former USSR. At yearend. the hard currency debt of the Eurasian states totaled anillion.
Foreign Investors Still Wary. Foreign investment continued to playmall role in Russia's economyith inflows estimated atew hundred million dollars. Foreign investors were discouraged by Russia's lackound legal system, the nonconvcrtability of the ruble. Moscow's inability to implement an IMF stabilization program, and Ihe uncertain political climate.
The State Statistical Committee. Ooskornstai, reported that foreign trade fell byercenthe Ministry for Foreign Economic Relations' figures show that foreign trade fellercent last year. Tlie Goskomstat figures probably overstate the decline in foreign trade last year because of their failure to account for small enterprises and inactivities. The Ministry's figures, however, probably understate the decline because they include some interrepublic trade.
Exchange Rale FaOs as Inflation Rises. The ruble, fell precipitously in value2 because of high irtflationlighioreign assets. Ai midyear, the government unified the ruble rale by abolishing its administratively set official and special commercial rates, and began setting its new official rate on the basis of biweekly hard currency auctions in Moscow. Although the government intervened heavily at these auctions to support (he ruble, loose monetary policies during the latter half of the year caused the rubleallubles per dollar by yearend.esult at (he end of December the ruble was worthhird of whai ii had been at ihe start
Ruble Zone Shrinks.ussia'stradc with other Eurasian stales continued to decline, while support for ihe rubleommon currency eroded in ihe face of loose monetary policies and rapidly rising prices within the ruble zone. The decline in ruble zone trade primarily reflected Moscow's efforts to move to world prices and decentralize trade coupled with production declines in the region. Moscow increased energy pricesercent depending on each stale's economic and political relationship with Russia. Because the other Eurasian slates were unable to pay the higher costs, Moscow cui back sharply on deliveries of oil and other goods to limit its growing bilateral trade
deficits. Moscow's decentralization of interstate trade also forced the other Eurasian states to negotiate directly with Russian enterprises to purchase goods previously acquired through stale channels. Russian enterprises producing goods readily marketable in the West, however, were increasingly reluciant to sell their products for rubles.esult most of the Eurasian states resorted io barter to carry out essential transactions. Growing payment arrears brought about by an ineffective banking system also contributed to (he fall in trade across the region.
Russia became increasingly concerned last year that the credit emissions and large trade deficits of other Eurasian states were uivaerminuig Moscow's reforms and spurring inflation in Russia. Some Russian officials demanded thai the other states abide by Russia's monetary policies or leave the ruble rone. Moscow at midyear began refusing io process trade payment orders from olher Eurasian stales unless bilateral trade was in balance. It also cut back on credits to Eurasian states running trade deficits. Moscow eventually cased these policies because lliey severely crimped trade. Four states-Estonia, Latvia. Lithuania, and UVraine--lefl the ruble zone and issued iheir own currencies in lhe second halfnd other Eurasian stales arc contemplating similar moves.
Estonia Latvia Lithuania Ukraine
of the Ruble Zone
The kroon national currency was issued in
The rublis coupon replaced the ruble in
The talonas coupon replaced ihc ruble in
The karbovaneis coupon replaced the ruble in
The manat has been circulating in parallel with the ruble sincehe government plans toew currency later
new ruble note is gradually replacing the old Soviet-style currency
rubel coupon is being uved in parallel with rhe ruble.
lei currency will he issued pending Russia's actions.
government has decided lo leave the ruble zone, bul no dale has been set
national currency is being prepared for use later, but no date has been vet
national currency is being printed, hut no date has been set tor its release.
national currency is being prepared, but ihe ruble is still in use.
plansew currency arc under way. but the ruble is still used.
government isarallel currency to be coordinated with the ruble.Original document.