This is a story about: Y2K bug could hurt Russia, ex-Soviet states

at http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=3647

It is bad news and time is running fast. How can we help them ? There must be plenty enough expertise available to help them with solving the Y2K bug ?

USA: September 15, 1999

WASHINGTON - Russia and other former Soviet states could face dark, cold homes, dead phones and the failure of other essential services if the Y2K computer bug hits, the U.S. State Department said in a report.

The report on 196 countries and territories, meant to help Americans abroad at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000, found Russia "somewhat prepared" for Y2K, Ukraine unprepared, Belarus not prepared, and Latvia working hard but needing improvement.

Even though none of the former Soviet states relies heavily on computerized systems, they depend on them enough to make the Y2K glitch a potential problem, the report found.

"Although Russia continues remediation efforts and contingency planning, at the present time, Y2K disruptions are likely to occur in the key sectors of electrical power, heat, telecommunications, transportation and financial and emergency services," the report from the State Department's bureau of consular affairs said.

In Ukraine, a former home to Soviet nuclear missiles, "there may be a risk of potential disruption in all key sectors, especially the energy and electric services," the report said.

Belarus could face disruptions in electricity and medical services because it relies on imported energy, and Y2K-related problems could hit the countries that supply power to Belarus, the report found.

"Americans who are planning to remain in Belarus should be prepared to withstand power, water and heat outages during cold winter weather that can last several days or more," the report said.

CHERNOBYL-TYPE NUCLEAR PLANTS

Other former Soviet republics, including Kazakhstan, carried only a generic warning about the possible consequences of Y2K.

The so-called Y2K bug could prevent some computers from distinguishing 2000 from 1900 because of old programming shortcuts that recorded the year with the last two digits only. Unless fixed, this could disrupt everything from airlines to health care to telephones.

Russia and former members of the Soviet Union raise special concerns regarding computers because of the 16 Chernobyl-type nuclear power plants located there. The Chernobyl plant in Ukraine was the site of the world's worst nuclear reactor accident in 1986.

While no nuclear power plant catastrophes are expected, a Senate panel dealing with the Y2K problem suggested last week week that the computers controlling daily operations could experience problems that could affect safety operations.

On another front, some 2,500 nuclear-tipped missiles remain on hair-trigger alert in Russia. U.S. and Russian officials have agreed to jointly staff a missile command centre in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to protect against false warnings of missile attacks as the new year dawns, leaders of the Senate Y2K panel said in a statement.

"The greatest Y2K danger comes not from the threat of an accidental launch, but from the threat of Y2K glitches being misinterpreted by personnel on either side of the Atlantic," said Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, in announcing Russia's commitment to the project.

Story by Deborah Zabarenko

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

Answers

See also http://www.russiatoday.com/news.php3?id=92417

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

As you're probably aware, I was an observer at the latest NERC sponsored drill on September 8/9. Interestingly enough, there was also a contingent of 7 or so Russian power industry professionals in attendance. They had been at the facility for a few days prior to my arrival, picking the brains of the Y2k personnel at the facility.

Too little too late? Probably.

What can "we" do directly? Unfortunately, at this late stage of the game I don't think there is much that can be done in the way of helping the Y2k situation in Russia and other ex-soviet countries. I have one acquaintence that has been in Russia working on Y2k issues for the past few months, but have had no correspondence with her recently to see how things are going.

If there is any upside to the Russian situation, it is that her people are accustomed to hard times in general, unreliable infrastructure, and long winters. Us westerners are quite soft, by comparison. I think a lot of U.S./Russian cooperation on Y2k kind of fell by the wayside during the "NATO" involvement in Yugoslavia / Kosovo, and has not appriciably recovered since that engagement ended.

And, it's not just Russia. I hate to have a defeatest attitude about the Y2k prospects of countries other than my own. However, I don't think there's much that countries such as the U.S. can really do to make even a small dent in the Y2k problems in other countries that haven't made much progress. At this point, it's a time and resource issue - time is too short, and resources too scarce.

So, thinking out loud, maybe the focus should be on mobilizing and providing post-Y2k recovery assistance where necessary.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

What do we know about the dependency of some European Union countries, especially Germany, on oil, coal or natural gas originating in or passing through Russia and Ukraine?

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

Since about May-June of this year, international energy and other organizations involved with infrastructure, changed their emphasis from promoting Y2K remediation in countries lagging in progress to stressing contingency plans in the event of failures. Although international documents are always very diplomatically worded, the underlying message for a few months now has been that if a country started very late and/or did not have the financial resources to be well along with remediation, they are better off devoting the remaining time to addressing how they might cope with infrastructure failures.

What has not been widely discussed or addressed, at least insofar as my research shows, is how those countries which are more along (or less late?) in Y2K progress are planning to deal with the loss of any supplies/pipelines/transmissions from those lesser prepared countries which they might interact with or have reliance upon. For instance, it's been noted several times (not only by Rick) that the Russian people are accustomed to infrastructure unreliability. But are the German people so accustomed if they are impacted by Russian failures? It's been well documented that Y2K awareness came very late to Italy - too late to accomplish anything substantial re assessing or fixing their systems. If Italy has infrastructure problems, will this impact neighbor countries and how?

As far as I can tell, the international diplomatic community has been dealing with potential Y2K infrastructure problems more from the aspect of not wanting to offend any nation by coming right out and saying "You're out of time and probably in trouble", than from the aspect of what is to be done if that trouble happens. Tiptoeing around the fact that assessment, repairs and testing just have NOT been accomplished in many places around the globe, might save face but doesn't promote mitigating actions in the event of probable failures.

We're seeing this tip-toeing don't-offend-other-countries-whatever-you-do diplomacy in the recent wording of U.S. and British citizen's foreign travel advisory reports. None of us should really be surprised at the international Y2K state of affairs. Since it's a given that even the more Y2K prepared nations, including the U.S., started much later than they should have, and since diplomatic "initiatives" to help those nations with less resources travel at a speed slower than a snail, it was inevitable that the world as a whole would not be prepared for Y2K.

I think we're already past the point in time where we should have been openly acknowledging that global Y2K remediation was not going to happen. Period. All the wishful diplomatic put-the-best-face-on thinking can't push back this deadline. How to best deal with probable failures in unremediated nations is the only real option there is, and the one that nobody in authority seems to want to look square in the face at.

The fact of the matter is that even the countries at a higher level of Y2K preparedness are not finished, and they were basically dragged kicking and screaming into awareness by people like Ed Yourdon, Rick Cowles, et al. One of the dictionary definitions of the word "doom" is "to fix the fate of". Everybody pounces on that word as some kind of completely pessimistic crazy pronouncement. But in essence it simply means that some precursing situations will inevitably engender a certain kind of outcome.

If you wait until there's only one hour left to accomplish two hours work, you are doomed to not complete the work and you will have to deal with whatever consequences arise. In that sense, I AM a DOOMER. We can argue and debate ad infitum about what the consequences of not completing Y2K work might be, but the world has been doomed not to complete all the work necessary when it didn't begin in earnest at least ten years ago. I believe there is _nothing_ anybody can do about this now except make contingency plans. The world missed the pro-active boat and we're stuck with reacting to whatever happens.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

menno,

if they have announced, in a less than direct fashion, that the federalis will not be able to help the states and others at the local level in their own country... what do you think that the chances will be that the united states will have the wherewithal to help other nations in distress?

i believe that we are down to the wire and i do not see anyone anywhere near the finish line... and i do mean *anyone*, that includes the united states.

never in human history have so many humans blindly trusted that so many other humans won't screw up.

dr.ed yardeni

-- Anonymous, September 15, 1999

Bonnie,

Your point about the U.S. State Department's unwillingness to criticize other nations' Y2K preparations for diplomatic/political reasons is very well taken. According to a Yahoo news report I read, Senator Bennett "blasted the final product as full of 'boilerplate' that 'made it difficult to discern the difference in Y2K readiness between well prepared and unprepared countries.'

'The State Department report barely scratches the surface of serious Y2K problems facing many countries from around the world,' he said in reply to a query from Reuters."

So much for the veracity and value of Y2K reports issued by the U.S. government.

I did like the report put out by the Brits. Although also constrained by diplomatic and political considerations they were much more detailed. I particularly liked the British paragraph about the Italian post office: "The Italian Post Office has guaranteed continuity of service. Final checks in the areas of electronic communication and internal services will not be completed until November 1999."

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Too little too late ?

Focus on mobilizing and providing post Y2K recovery assistance.

What are the dependences and impacts ?

Contingency plans in the event of failures.

Diplomacy is a barrier for solving the real problems.

I think it is NOW the time to be open and act normal and not diplomatic.

Step 1 : Ask for help and be open in the progress so far and what is left over.

Step 2 : Send Y2K specialists

Step 3 : Help them with finishing the Y2K-work or the contingency plans in the event of failures.

Step 4 : Prepare Y2K recovery teams.

The only way to succeed this is to organise this on a very high level where it is possible to be open and ask for help.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Menno,

As you know, the US is not on the best of terms with the Russians at this time. There are many reasons for this, going back a long way, but most recently is our intrusion, through NATO, into Kosovo. The Russians took this very hard, and personally I can't blame them. They are also a proud, should I say hard headed?, people who have been waving off any early warnings about Y2k. So, at this point, perhaps your own good Dutch experts, along with some Swedes, could pop over there, roll up your sleeves, and exterminate a bunch of their bugs. Hope so, because I don't have a good feeling about them right now.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Bonnie - well said, as usual. What is even more astonishing is that there is no public discussion (that I am aware of) in the countries that might be hit, directly or indirectly. Nobody in authority, in the media, in the political elite, the parties, the workers movements, the womens movement, the green movement etc., seem to think Y2K is a serious agenda item - neither in the east nor the west. Everybody is carrying on oblivious to the news we get online. You can get 'em on the streets or writing to their politicians and the media over issues with event horizons way into your grandchildren's future, but try getting anyone to focus on something as imminent as January next year ...dream on. I live in Europe, less than a couple of hours from the Baltic countries, Poland, and a neighbour to Germany. Here in Scandinavia we get pretty good marks all round Y2K-wise (State Dept. and Gartner etc.), though I am at a loss to know how they are reaching their conclusions. What little information there is in the public domain (in local languages) would not stand 5 minutes of critical scrutiny from this forum. In fact the main reason I read this USA-focused forum is to try and understand, to fill in the information gaps, about what is happening (or not happening) back home. Bizarre situation, but trust me - the quality of public information is generally abysmal (and I read and understand Norwegian, Swedish and Danish). I probably ain't alone in this situation - I'm sure there are more than a few foreigners lurking this forum for lack of information back home. What I will do is write to my former employers (a United Nations agency), politicians here and NGOs who work in those east european countries - to make them aware of the need to be prepared to at least provide help to the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of the populations in Russia, Ukraine, Romania etc. (the sick, elderly, small children) to get them through the winter months. Germany I am afraid will have to take care of itself. It certainly has more resources than its neighbours to the east to pull itself through the tough times that could arise. The main risk areas, I guess, will be warmth and clean water, possibly food. Environmental and nuclear risks ...well I take the reassurances we have heard at face value - I have to, it's impossible and too late to contemplate if they've screwed that up also. I'm downwind of too many of these places. Would still like to know a good link/source for stats on western european dependency on Russian pipelines (gas, oil) or coal mines etc. The self-interest card is probably the most convincing in terms of raising awareness, though with Y2K who knows.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Chris,

Thanks for that "man on the street" update from Europe. You are right that Gartner is not putting a lot concern into that area, for the most part. But Gartner used to sell information to commercial clients (still do) that was very pessimistic. Gloomy even. But, when they start issuing free public information, it suddenly got much more smiley faced, the same as Koskinen here does. Maybe Gartner actually has two sets of books on this issue, but you gotta pay for the darker "adults only" stuff.

-- Anonymous, September 16, 1999

Rick wrote:

And, it's not just Russia. I hate to have a defeatest attitude about the Y2k prospects of countries other than my own. However, I don't think there's much that countries such as the U.S. can really do to make even a small dent in the Y2k problems in other countries that haven't made much progress. At this point, it's a time and resource issue - time is too short, and resources too scarce.

I agree with this and I also agree with Bonnie. I am a doomer by her definition too. I became a doomer more than a year ago because we ran out of time to avoid some degree of bad. Companies did not start soon enough. This is the most common reason projects of all kinds, not just software, fail. Not enough time.

Still, I do not make much of this Russia and China stuff. It is simply too convenient to point the finger somewhere else. It is like hackers and cyber-terrorism as genuine threats. Bunk.

I think we have Y2k almost inside out.

1) Myth: The big concern is panic. Reality: There is zero evidence that anyone is panicking or concerned about Y2k at all.

2) Myth: Y2k problems will hit hardest overseas, not in the countries where remediation has been most aggressive. Reality: Aggressive remediation or not, most of the problems will happen where there is most dependence on computers. If we in North America prevent 90% of our potential high impact Y2k failures, and the Russians prevent 10% of their potential high impact Y2k failures, who will have the most high impact failures? Us, that's who.

3) Myth: The large companies have spent the money and the problem is under control. Reality: For the same reasons the problems will mostly occur in developed countries, most of the problems will occur in large companies and organizations.

Why do I think large companies do not have the problem under control? They did not start early enough.

4) Myth: Today we are finding out that everybody has been addressing this since the mid-1990's. Reality: I became a doomer because - according to StatsCan - less than 1% of large companies started prior to 1996. Less than a third had a project underway by the end of 1997. A third of large companies have been working on the problem for a year or less!

5) Myth: As long as the infrastructure stays up, everything will be A-okay. Reality: There are significant Y2k issues in power and telecoms and transportation but these industries all existed prior to computerization. If you squint hard at the infrastructure problem you can imagine service despite Y2k failures.

The really hard problems are in industries and companies that did not and could not exist without computers. Universal Medicare and Unemployment Insurance and social security programs cannot be delivered without computers. Satellites cannot be controlled manually. And so on.

The Y2k arguments from the alarmists for the past two years have been about:

1) To get companies to start taking the problem seriously in time to make the repairs. (Y2k alarmists tried, but they failed.)

2) To get the public ready for a datequake. (Y2k alarmists tried, but they failed.)

Both sets of arguments are now moot. No matter how loud we shout, we cannot get companies to retroactively start earlier. And it is too late to ramp up and get everyone ready for a datequake. The die has been cast.

All we can do is relax, put our feet up, and watch the show. The movie is already made and no amount of arguing will change what has been printed on the film. I read the script a year ago and it had disaster flick written all over it. John Koskinen tells me the script was rewritten at the last minute and the whole thing was turned into a romantic comedy.

Maybe so, but I want to see the movie before I buy Mel Gibson and Susan Sarandon living happily ever after.

Tom

-- Anonymous, September 20, 1999

"All we can do is relax, put our feet up, and watch the show. The movie is already made and no amount of arguing will change what has been printed on the film. I read the script a year ago and it had disaster flick written all over it."

Good analogy. Whenever I watch Romeo and Juliet I always want to shout out to the screen and change the ending. Alas.. it is not to be.

And somehow I can't imagine Chuck Heston playing John Koskinen pulling us out of the triple ought rubble just in time for the credits.

-- Anonymous, September 22, 1999