#1
Majority of Russians feel sympathy for the Americans
Interfax

Moscow, 20 September: A few days after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington DC, Russians were asked to describe their feelings.

The overwhelming majority of them (77 per cent) said they felt pity and sympathy for the Americans, fear, horror, shock, indignation, anger, weakness, helplessness and inconsolableness, the Public Opinion Foundation reported on Thursday [20 September]. The information comes from a nationwide poll of 1,500 people done on 15 September.

Some typical pronouncements included, "I cry because I feel so sorry for people, children, mothers, elderly people," "pain," "I was entirely shocked," "fear that it may happen again," "shock, absurdity, I could not believe my eyes," "I feel like crushing the terrorists with my bare hands," "the terrorists must be torn to pieces," "helplessness, defencelessness," "despair".

Yet 8 per cent of the respondents were aloof or even rejoiced at the misfortune of others ("everything is quiet, there are no emotions", "I don't care", "the Americans have gotten on everyone" [as given]," "it was the revenge they deserved," "I rejoiced at their punishment".)

The respondents were also asked the following question - "Some people said they were glad that the United States had got the punishment it rather deserved. What was your feeling and was it weak or strong?" 72 per cent said they did not feel satisfaction; 7 per cent said their satisfaction was very strong, and 15 per cent said their satisfaction was weak. Most of the "satisfied" are supporters of Communist Party leader Gennadiy Zyuganov (36 per cent). This was a multiple-choice question.

As is known, [Russian President] Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to present his condolences to the people of the United States. About one third of those polled did not watch his television address (30 per cent), while almost all the rest (55 per cent) liked it.

Eight per cent of the respondents had negative feelings about Putin's address. 41 per cent of them said they felt satisfied with "the just punishment" of the United States.

Almost two thirds of the respondents (63 per cent) said they knew the word "extremism". They described this notion with the words "terrorism" (9 per cent), "cruelty" (6 per cent), "Chechnya" (4 per cent), "extreme views" and "intolerance" (3 per cent), "banditry" (2 per cent), "war" (2 per cent), "opposition to the authorities, the state" (2 per cent), "inter-ethnic discord" and "chauvinism" (2 per cent), "seizure of power" (2 per cent), "fanaticism" (1 per cent), and "Islamic fundamentalism" (1 per cent).

Two per cent of those polled said they feared extremism as "something dangerous and dreadful."

Thirty-one per cent of the respondents said that extremism has been on the rise in Russia; 9 per cent disagreed with this statement.

The previous poll took place on 1 September, 2001, 10 days before the acts of terrorism in New York City and Washington DC

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#2
USA Today
September 20, 2001
Tragedy can tighten U.S., Russian ties
By Dusko Doder

It is a moment shot through with heart-wrenching ironies. America and Russia -- or at least the former Soviet Union -- did not fight in the traditional way during the Cold War. But they did engage in a fierce proxy war in Afghanistan. That war was largely responsible for the communist superpower's unraveling.

Could Afghanistan again become a focal point in the two countries' complex relationship? One where they finally find common cause? That seems perfectly possible -- providing this week's meetings of top government officials of the two countries are successful.

Russian President Vladimir Putin already has endorsed America's call for a global coalition against terrorism. He has made noises about possibly joining an allied military action in Afghanistan, refuge of the main suspect in the terrorist attacks, Osama bin Laden.

Words, of course, are not actions. Putin had insisted that a thorough investigation precede any military action; his defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, had opposed Western "troop presence" in former Soviet Central Asia. Their real calculations will emerge later.

But it seems entirely possible that Russian-American relations now could shift into a more productive groove -- despite the ironies. The Russians, after all, invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to provide "fraternal aid" to a communist puppet regime against Islamic rebels. The United States took the side of the rebels. Guess who was a main rebel leader trained and supported by the United States? None other than bin Laden.

The Russian war in Afghanistan devastated Soviet society and its economy. It sparked an Islamic revival in Soviet Central Asia. More than any single event, it led to the unraveling of the Soviet empire, leaving Russia with perpetual instability on its southern borders. To Moscow, the Sept. 11 catastrophe may lend credence to Putin's claim that his own war in Chechnya is a struggle against Muslim radicals with roots in Afghanistan.

An American-Russian action against bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan could be part of a cooperative effort that might engender the trust that has been missing. Russia has extensive intelligence on Afghanistan. Moscow maintains military bases near Afghan borders in the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan; it also has a motorized division deployed on the Tajik side of the Tajik-Afghan border.

Russia's cooperation, especially providing Western allies access to these military facilities, could prove crucial if the United States decides to take military action against the Taliban government hosting the Islamic terrorists.

The other aspect is even more important: the danger of a terrorist group acquiring nuclear or biological weapons. The Sept. 11 attack makes amply clear that there are people so blinded by their cause that they would do anything in its name. Since the collapse of communism, Russia has been awash in nuclear materials -- and in scientists with the know-how for making weapons of mass destruction.

The American officials now in Moscow need to use their meetings with Russian leaders to try to forge a new dialogue. In particular, they need to soothe Russian feathers ruffled during recent months as the United States threatened to proceed unilaterally with plans to build an anti-missile shield.

And the U.S. delegation should look for ways to proceed jointly in the new anti-terrorism war. One of the key ingredients of success in the 1991 Gulf War was the ability of George Bush, the president's father, to persuade Kremlin leader Mikhail Gorbachev to join the anti-Iraq coalition.

The struggle against terrorism is, of course, a very different kind of war, likely to be more complex and more protracted than the first President Bush's conventional war against Iraq. The possibility of nuclear terrorism must be considered and appropriate measures taken to protect the United States. But we must recognize that no amount of money can prevent future terrorist attacks if this is not backed up by skillful diplomacy.

Putin, a former secret police agent, has shown himself during the past 2 years to be a pragmatic politician. Russia, in his view, has nothing to gain from a confrontation with the United States. He has inherited a country experiencing a dramatic decline in living standards, its economy in shambles. He needs time to reform Russia's financial and tax systems, create an orderly society and rebuild the machinery of state power. His country's economic revival is to a great extent dependent on closer ties with the West.

Putin also believes that Russia is, and must remain, a great power. Its great-power status is now based solely on its nuclear strike force. He had felt threatened by the plans for the missile-defense shield.

But, as Sept. 11's tragedy demonstrated, the international climate can change overnight. The war on global terrorism -- a phenomenon that knows no geographic limits -- will need a new approach, including the skillful diplomatic forging of a new alliance. One important part of that: finding a new common cause for Russia and the United States.

Dusko Doder is the author of several books on Russia, including Gorbachev: Heretic in the Kremlin and Shadows and Whispers: Power Politics Inside the Kremlin from Brezhnev to Gorbachev.

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#3
strana.ru
September 20. 2001
Fate of Russians in New York and Washington remains unclear
Russian Embassy in Washington flooded with inquiries from worried friends and relatives
By Patricia Heffernan

Russian Embassy staff are continuing to track down Russian nationals who are thought to have been either in New York or Washington on September 11. The first death of a Russian citizen during the terrorist attacks, Alexander Ivantsov, who worked as a computer programmer on the 104th floor of the WTC's north tower, was confirmed only within the past 48 hours.

The "working list" of possible victims is in constant flux, as worried relatives flood the embassy's hotline for information on the fates of loved ones. The problem is complicated by the fact that in most cases, prior to the distress calls, the embassy had been unaware of its citizens' residence - whether temporary or permanent - within the United States in the first place.

Certainly, accounting for diplomatic staffers at the Washington embassy as well as at numerous Russian consulates throughout the US - including New York - has been relatively easy. The case is quite different, however, for ordinary Russians in the US, who fall into a grab bag of tourists and student and/or work visa holders. There is no formal system in place to register such individuals at Russian diplomatic outposts on arrival in case of emergencies - whether personal or national - as is the case with so many Western embassies in Moscow (American, Canadian, British etc.). The Western system in Russia could hardly be described as failsafe should a similar national emergency occur, however, as it tends to be strictly voluntary, and varies from country to country in terms of formality.

Nevertheless, the Russian Embassy in Washington has thus far been able to exclude 110 Russian nationals from its list. To simplify matters, officials are pleading with relatives to call concerning the whereabouts only of those Russian nationals, with whom contact has been severed since September 11. Additional details are being requested concerning this risk group - age, contact information etc.

A crisis center has been set up for Russian nationals at the New York consulate on Lexington Avenue, where individuals are being asked to come in - voluntarily - to fill in the necessary paperwork to make it official that they are indeed still alive.

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#4
Vremya Novostei
September 20, 2001
ON THE COAST, FACING LONELY WAVES
Putin chooses Russia's place in the world
Russia feels solidarity with the United States and the American people
Author: Yevgeny Antonov, Anrei Denisov, Igor Glanin
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

FOREIGN MINISTER IGOR IVANOV HAS MET WITH PRESIDENT BUSH, BRINGING A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT PUTIN. THE KREMLIN HOPES THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL FORCE WASHINGTON TO RECONSIDER ITS OPTIONS, AND ITS ATTITUDE TO THE CONFLICT IN CHECHNYA AND NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE.

It doesn't seem like the Kremlin has made up its collective mind yet on its official line of conduct. Sure, it has declared its support for the United States and readiness to come to its aid. On the other hand, the unofficial statements of some Kremlin officials indicate disappointment with Washington. A senior source in the presidential administration explains that speculations that the world has been changed by the tragedy in the United States are not exactly true, since the United States continues to be unable to distinguish between real and imaginary threats. The Kremlin believes that US retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan will enable Washington to "reduce its adrenaline levels" and solve its domestic problems, but won't do anything to solve the problem of terrorism. Needless to say, Moscow is not sympathizing with Osama bin Laden or the Taliban (insiders say that Russian intelligence does have indirect evidence of the Saudi millionaire's involvement in the terrorist attacks in America). It is only proposing that the international community shouldn't act in haste, and should start establishing new international mechanisms - perhaps even on the basis of NATO and secret services of various states, including Russia. The political stimulus could be provided by the upcoming G-8 summit, which the United States has so far refused to attend.

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov has met with President George W. Bush, bringing a personal message from President Vladimir Putin. Ivanov said the message contained Russia's "specific proposals", but refused to elaborate. "What's important now is to have a proper evaluation of the broader situation, making it possible to make decisions," the Russian foreign minister said. "It's difficult to offer any advice, because the situation has been changing." And this is what Ivanov said on the subject of making military bases in the CIS available to the American troops: "Each state will make its own decision on the extent and nature of cooperation with the United States." (This doesn't exactly match the words of Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who rules out the possibility of CIS nations being involved.) "Unfortunately, the battle will be hard and we have to brace ourselves for it. Solidarity is needed," Ivanov said. "Russia feels and expresses this solidarity with the United States, the American people, and everyone who is facing the aggression of international terrorism." US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has come to Moscow for talks with Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov.

It is clear that Russia is trying to gain as much mileage as possible from the situation, in the hope that the United States will revise its attitude toward the conflict in Chechnya, and toward Georgia, where Chechen guerrillas are hiding. Reports of news agencies indicate that Russian intelligence has evidence that one of the hijackers in the United States had once fought the Russian federal troops in Chechnya.

Moscow has another objective as well. It hopes that all this will make Washington postpone its plans for a national missile defense, which would obviously be useless against such terrorist attacks. However, it doesn't appear that Washington accepts this reasoning. Bush and his administration are in no hurry to consider Chechnya and Georgia from the "Afghanistan" point of view. US Deputy Secretary of State John Bolton was in Moscow the other day and said that the terrorist attacks have only strengthened America's determination to deploy a missile defense system. Ordinary planes have turned out to be a threat to citizens. Imagine what a ballistic missile could do. This is Washington's reasoning...

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#5
Russia: Support For U.S. May Be Self-Serving
By Andrew F. Tully

Russia is offering unspecified support for the American campaign against terrorism and has even said military force cannot be ruled out. But as encouraging as these words may seem, some analysts believe that Moscow will be helping itself more than it will be helping the United States.

Washington, 20 September 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Russia says the use of military force cannot be ruled out in the new American-led campaign against international terrorism, and it promises unspecified cooperation in the effort.

But some analysts say Moscow's help will be self-serving, and they expect it will end abruptly if Russia sees its influence waning in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia that border Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is now the focus of the American response to the 11 September terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The Taliban militia, which controls most of Afghanistan, is harboring Saudi exile Osama bin Laden, who the U.S. says is the mastermind of the attacks.

Yesterday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov met in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to discuss a broad range of issues, including the American response to the acts of terror, which are believed to have killed more than 5,000 people.

After their meeting, Powell and Ivanov spoke with reporters outside the State Department. Ivanov said Russia is prepared to coordinate and cooperate with the U.S. in combating international terrorism. And he went so far as to say that military force could not be ruled out.

"I have said that in combating international terrorism, no means can be excluded, including the use of force.... At the same time, so far we have not discussed with the United States any specific, any concrete actions."

Later, Ivanov met with U.S. President George W. Bush, and told reporters afterwards that Russia's experience with Chechen rebels makes it sympathetic with Americans about the recent terror attacks. Russia calls the Chechen rebels terrorists. At the White House, Ivanov pledged Moscow's solidarity with Washington's campaign against international terrorism.

International policy analysts interviewed by RFE/RL caution that any cooperation that Moscow offers the U.S. in the fight against terrorism will be based strictly on Russia's own self-interest.

Keith Bush is a senior associate of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent policy analysis institution in Washington. He told our correspondent that Moscow's key interest in the current crisis is Central Asia.

"It will be helpful insofar as it [being helpful] promotes its own interests. But it will draw back when it feels that its interests are jeopardized. And I'm thinking of Russian influence in Central Asia in particular because it still regards the former Soviet republics [in Central Asia] as its sphere of influence, it still regards the outer borders of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan as its own border in many respects."

Bush was asked about comments made by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov that there is "no basis," as he put it, for Central Asian states bordering Afghanistan to offer their territory to the U.S. or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to launch strikes against Afghanistan.

Bush replied that while these former Soviet states, as well as the Caucasus states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, are now independent, they remain very dependent on Russia. He gave this hypothetical example:

"If there's a major incursion of Islamic rebels, say, into Tajikistan or into Uzbekistan, where can they turn for help? They have to turn to Russia. So there's this umbilical cord which has not yet been broken."

Muriel Atkin, an associate professor of history at George Washington University in Washington, agrees, but in an interview with RFE/RL, she spoke more cynically of Moscow's motives.

"I think that the Russian government is using this whole issue of support [for the U.S.] for its own purposes, to justify its policies in Chechnya and elsewhere, and [its] support of repressive regimes in Central Asia."

Atkin says Moscow's "old-fashioned thinkers," as she calls them, reject the idea of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia relying less on Russia and more on the West. She says these officials -- including Russian military leaders -- are particularly upset about Western oil companies doing business in the region.

The countries of Central Asia have generally responded positively to America's call for help in fighting terrorism. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have issued statements pledging cooperation. Kyrgyzstan said it would help the FBI's investigation, if asked. But Uzbekistan's offer of staging areas for military attacks against Afghanistan is so far the most generous.

According to Atkin, Uzbekistan's offers of help to the U.S. come as no surprise. She notes that Uzbekistan, with a population nearing 25 million people, hopes to become the true power broker in Central Asia, and therefore sees itself as a competitor with Russia, not a dependant.

Atkin says Uzbekistan has been cultivating the U.S. as a way to counterbalance Russian influence in the region. She notes that Uzbekistan's secular government, under President Islam Karimov, has been struggling against Muslim rebels, and the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington give him a perfect opportunity to court Washington further.

"The regime in Uzbekistan is extremely repressive and routinely targets real or imagined opponents of the regime as Islamic extremists and terrorists. So how useful from the point of view of Uzbekistan's regime to say, 'We'll side with the United States against people who have committed this atrocity in the U.S.'"

So despite its generous offer to help the U.S., Atkin says Uzbekistan is merely looking for an opportunity to justify its own repressive policies against Muslim dissidents. She says this is no different from Russia's offer of cooperation to justify its war in Chechnya.

This issue was illustrated during the Ivanov-Powell briefing when a reporter for a Russian news organization reminded Powell that the U.S. says it is ready to combat terrorism anywhere. He then asked if that applied to Chechnya.

Powell replied that the U.S. understands that Russia must deal with that "challenge," as he put it. But he added that Washington has repeatedly counseled Moscow to seek a political, not military, solution and to respect Chechens' human rights.

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#6
Moscow Times
September 21, 2001
Central Asia Is Crux of Dilemma
By Ana Uzelac
Staff Writer

In a flurry of diplomatic activity by Russian leaders trying to find their place in the emerging U.S.-led coalition against terrorism, Moscow has focused largely on the volatile states of Central Asia -- whose neighbor Afghanistan is the most likely target of a U.S. military strike.

Despite Russia's stated support for a joint anti-terrorist operation, Moscow is apprehensive about hints from the region's former Soviet republics that they are willing to let Washington use their bases and airspace without seeking Russian approval. Moscow fears that the region's direct involvement in a U.S. military operation could both undermine its already waning influence there and destabilize the region, leading to conflagrations on Russia's southern border.

Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan -- impoverished nations ruled by heavy-handed secular regimes -- have all faced the threat of militant Islamic groups suspected of links with the Taliban, which controls much of Afghanistan and has been playing host to suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden. And while the downfall of the Taliban regime could defuse tensions by depriving local radicals of their nearby support base, experts warn that a hasty and short-sighted operation could plunge the region into crisis and further radicalization.

The Players

The only country in the region where Russia still maintains a military presence is Tajikistan -- a pauperized nation of less than 6.5 million people emerging from a devastating five-year civil war between a pro-Moscow secular government and an Islamic opposition. The country is so weak that its 1,200-kilometer border with Afghanistan is guarded by 10,000 Russian troops, with 15,000 more scattered throughout the country.

The border they guard is a tough zone to patrol.

According to Reuters, Tajikistan is the transit route for 65 percent to 85 percent of heroin smuggled out of Afghanistan, the world's largest producer.

The border also serves as a bulwark against thousands of Afghan refugees, some of them armed, whom the Tajik government has refused to accept. The refugees live in a no-man's land on the islands of the Pyandzh River, which separates Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Dushanbe, whose government includes former Islamic opposition leaders, fears some of the refugees might be affiliated with radical Islamic groups and could bolster the warlords who still control parts of the country.

Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov reiterated Thursday that his country would not take in refugees should the United States launch strikes against Afghanistan.

"We cannot allow the penetration of a single refugee from Afghanistan into Tajikistan because there could be emissaries of different international terrorist organizations among them," Rakhmonov told Reuters during an inspection of the Tajik-Afghan border together with Russia's Security Council chief, Vladimir Rushailo.

Tajikistan's other problem is neighboring Uzbekistan, which does not conceal its animosity toward its smaller eastern neighbor. Uzbekistan, a country of 23 million, accuses Tajikistan of housing training camps and allowing the free passage of members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, or IMU, the region's largest armed extremist group.

The IMU is suspected of having strong links with the Taliban, which allows it to operate through bases in Afghanistan. The movement staged an attack on Uzbek President Islam Karimov in 1999 and conducted a major raid in Uzbekistan's Ferghana Valley in 2000.

The Uzbek government has responded to the threat with repressions against all practicing Moslems. In the last four years, hundreds of mosques have been closed and thousands of devout Moslems have been imprisoned. Many among them, according to human rights groups, have been tortured.

But Uzbekistan's border with Afghanistan is the shortest and best guarded of all -- its 137 kilometers are reportedly fortified by 20,000 troops, some of which are U.S.-trained.

Neighboring Turkmenistan is in a far less enviable position: Its 744-kilometer border with Afghanistan is virtually unguarded. Aware of his weakness, the country's megalomaniac ruler, Saparmurat Niyazov -- whose 40-meter gold-covered rotating statue adorns the capital, Ashgabat -- has opted for neutrality in dealing with the Taliban.

Turkmenistan's Foreign Ministry reiterated its stance Wednesday, saying it had no plans to allow the United States and its allies to use its territory or air space for retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan.

Fragile Balance

The caution with which the Central Asian countries have reacted to the possibility of joining the U.S.-led military operation is justified, and the risks of destabilization are real, according to Martha Brill Olcott, a senior associate and Central Asia expert with the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment.

"The war in Afghanistan has the capacity to destabilize the region," Brill Olcott said in a telephone interview from Washington on Wednesday.

Experts agreed that Central Asia could face two dangers in the event of a U.S. attack: a wave of refugees and the fueling of radical sentiment.

"For any of these states, a new refugee burden is not a welcome gift," Brill Olcott said. "They simply do not have the resources to deal with it unassisted."

According to Alexander Golts, a military correspondent for Itogi magazine, the flood of refugees is "unavoidable" if Afghanistan is invaded, so it should not deter the Central Asian nations or Russia from participating in a military operation. "It will happen whether we participate in the operation or not," he said in a telephone interview. "The only difference is that if we are partners, we could count on some form of aid. And if we're not, we'll be left to cope with it alone."

Perhaps a greater danger is potential retaliation by the Taliban.

Days after Washington threatened the Taliban with strikes, Kabul warned that it would fight back. The only means at its disposal other than terrorist attacks, observers say, are measures to destabilize neighboring countries -- first and foremost, Pakistan, followed by Central Asia.

According to Rustam Shukurov, an associate professor of history at Moscow State University, the Taliban has had "very serious plans for Central Asia."

"Ever since they came to power, they've been supporting the Islamic movements in those countries, financing them and helping them build networks throughout Central Asia," he said in a telephone interview Thursday. "It was obvious they were planning serious operations there in the coming years."

However, observers also believe that an attack against the Taliban might actually bring the region some stability, or at least buy it some time to solve its internal problems.

An attack on Afghanistan could deplete the Taliban's resources to such an extent that the movement might find itself unable to help anybody anymore, according to Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert with the Jane's Intelligence group in London.

"They are not that rich, they will be busy fighting the U.S. and a civil war in their own country, with the Northern Alliance. They might try to pour some more arms to their affiliates in the region, but not more than that," Galeotti said.

As if confirming this, the Indian government announced Thursday that some of the Taliban forces that fought alongside rebels in the province of Jammu and Kashmir have started withdrawing to Afghanistan.

"The danger of the Taliban destabilizing the region exists, but I find it a bit exaggerated," Alexei Malashenko, an expert with the Moscow Carnegie Center, said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

"The Taliban is going to fall eventually," Galeotti said. "It is fragmented and lacks a real power base. And if it's going to collapse, it's better for its neighbors to have it collapse under American pressure. That would make the U.S. feel responsible for the consequences and invest in the region's recovery."

Carnegie's Brill Olcott agreed.

"An invasion that has broad international support and is accompanied by some sense of responsibility for rebuilding Afghanistan ... might not be destabilizing at all," she said.

But Professor Shukurov cautioned that eliminating the Taliban -- "a black hole that does not recognize any international rules of the game" -- while a necessary step, is "just the first one."

The future of the Central Asian states is determined first and foremost at home, Shukurov said, and there the prospects are grim. Both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan -- countries with majority Moslem populations -- are ruled by "virulently anti-Moslem regimes" that could use the global fight against terrorism as an excuse to step up repression at home.

"These regimes with their indiscriminate persecution of all Moslems are breeding radicalism," Shukurov said.

Russia's Game

Here, Shukurov believes, is where Russia can help -- first by participating in efforts to neutralize the Taliban, then by helping the democratization of Central Asia.

But, thus far, there is little sign of either and Russia's political and military leadership appear to have conflicting ideas on how to handle the situation.

Reuters cited a senior U.S. State Department official as saying that Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, during his visit to Washington, had made it clear that Russia would not stand in the way of U.S. cooperation with former Soviet states in Central Asia.

Ivanov said Wednesday that Russia and the United States should "give up the stereotypes of the Cold War" and that in fighting terrorism "no means can be excluded, including the use of force."

At the same time, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov was adamant that there was no "basis for even the hypothetical possibility" of a NATO military presence in Central Asia.

Dushanbe and Tashkent have been careful not to rile their northern neighbor. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which is home to two air bases that were used to launch attacks against Afghanistan during the Soviet military campaign there, initially said they would consider all means of cooperation with the United States, including the use of air bases. But a day later they back-pedaled, saying they had not received any concrete requests from Washington.

Washington has seemed sensitive to Russia's touchiness in the region as well, and has been conspicuously low-key in dealing with the Central Asian regimes.

Jane's Galeotti said Russia's military top brass was lobbying very hard against U.S. use of air bases in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.

"Their arguments were, among others, that the U.S. planes might spy on Russian military facilities," he said.

"[Russia's] help will most likely be limited to intelligence," Galeotti said. "Russia can offer the help of officers who fought in Afghanistan and remember the terrain there. It's easy, it can make a difference and it costs nothing."

Russian Chief of General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin has been touring the region, making sure none of the countries extends too helping a hand to Washington.

"Russia has not considered and is not planning to consider participation in a military operation against Afghanistan," Kvashnin told reporters during his visit to Tajikistan on Wednesday. As far the "territorial integrity" of the Central Asian nations, he said, "there are relevant bilateral and other obligations."

"The problem is, Russian policy in the region is not conducted by politicians, but by military people," Shukurov said. "And they unfortunately lack vision: They still see America as the main enemy and the repressive governments as their main allies."

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#7
eurasianet.org
September 18, 2001
EURASIA INSIGHT
RUSSIA CONSIDERS ITS OWN INTERESTS AS MOSCOW PONDERS ANTI-TERRORIST ACTIONS
By Igor Torbakov
Editor's Note: Igor Torbakov is a freelance journalist who specializes in CIS political affairs. He holds an MA in History from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He was a Regional Exchange Scholar at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC, 1995; Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1988-1997; and Kiev correspondent for the Paris-based weekly Russkaya mysl, 1998-2000.

Russia stands to play a major role in an international anti-terrorism coalition being forged by the Bush administration. But many experts and officials in Moscow insist that Russia will cooperate in the struggle against terrorism on its own terms. Indeed, the cost of participation may be a considerable expansion of Russian influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as an all-out blitz to crush Chechen separatism.

Russian support could be a critical element of success for possible American military strikes against Afghanistan, where terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden has several training bases. Moscow can supply Washington with useful intelligence concerning Afghanistan and the Taliban movement, which controls roughly 90 percent of the country. Russia's own bitter war experience there, plus valuable knowledge of the people and terrain may prove invaluable. In addition, its connections to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance could prove important. Meanwhile, Russia is obviously well positioned to influence Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in strengthening the anti-terrorism alliance.

A decisive strike against the Taliban would greatly benefit Moscow's security aims in Central Asia. The Taliban's sponsorship of Islamic radical groups, especially the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), has fueled instability in Central Asia. Moscow is anxious to stem the growth Islamic radicalism in the region, and maintain it as a buffer against instability.

Of immediate concern to Russian observers is the weakness of Central Asian states in the face of the Islamic radical threat. The Northern Alliance, considered by Moscow as one of the chief bulwarks against the spread of Taliban-inspired radicalism, suffered a grievous loss when its military leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was mortally wounded in an assassination attempt on September 9.

The disruption caused by Massoud's death has greatly diminished the Northern Alliance's ability to offer military resistance to Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan, leaving Central Asian states more vulnerable than ever. Moscow-based Central Asia expert Igor Rotar specifically pointed to the synchronization of Massoud's murder and bomb attacks in the United States. "If the terrorist acts in America were indeed committed by the Islamist radicals, it is highly unlikely that they would limit their activities to vengeance against Washington," Rotar wrote in the Nezavisimaya gazeta newspaper.

"Bordering the centers of Islamist terrorism, Central Asia, beset by economic problems and inter-ethnic strife, is too tempting a prey for the champions of the new Jihad," Rotar added.

Russia's immediate attention is not solely focused on Afghanistan, however. It would appear that the Russia's rulers intend to use the world-wide wave of indignation against terrorism to "solve the Chechen question" as they see fit.

Indeed, these days no dissenting voices can be heard in Moscow. Just how dramatically the situation has changed can be illustrated by the rapid about-face of Boris Nemtsov, the leader of the liberal Union of Rightist Forces faction in Russia's State Duma. As late as September 6, Nemtsov, speaking in the program of the Ekho Moskvy Radio, urged Russian President Vladmir Putin to start negotiations with the Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov.

But on September 13, in an interview with the Moskovskii Komsomolets daily, Nemtsov said: "The very term 'negotiations' should be dropped for the time being. All talks should be conducted in the language of Kalashnikov submachine guns only. We should concentrate on the destruction of the gangs. That is all. Either we kill the terrorists now, or they will get at the Kremlin one day."

Taking a longer term view, the Kremlin leadership is well aware how valuable Russian assistance might be for the US administration, and a lively debate is continuing in Moscow on how Russia can benefit best from its participation in an America-led anti-terrorism coalition. Whatever the final shape of the deal that might be cut between Washington and Moscow, it would seem that future developments in the Caucasus and Central Asia may be seriously impacted.

The general consensus in Moscow, as phrased by the ORT channel anchor Mikhail Leontyev, is that "Russia should participate in the American actions proceeding exclusively from its national interest."

In the opinion of Sergei Markov, Director of the Moscow Institute for Political Studies, Russia should take an active part in the anti-terrorism struggle, citing the fact that Russia has suffered from similar acts of terror, which have been blamed on Chechens. The participants in the U.S.-led anti-terrorist war, Markov believes, will then form a "world government," and under such an arrangement, Russia "has a full moral right to demand its piece of the 'American pie.'"

Several Russian analysts have stated with great satisfaction that all kinds of Islamic "fighters for self-determination" will soon face "rainy days" all across the board -- in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. In light of this, argues Moscow analyst Yefim Dikii, "Russia is gaining freedom of hands in the southern direction [Chechnya]."

Over the past two years, the international community has repeatedly condemned Russian human rights violations in connection with Moscow's struggle to crush Chechen separatism. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Dikii, writing in the influential Russkii Zhurnal website, said that from now on the "world public" will not be able to condemn the Russian military's brutal tactics in Chechnya.

Dikii also envisages Russia's participation in the special ground operations --in direct cooperation with NATO -- on the Afghan territory. However, Dikii added in a rather provocative manner; "In case the military escalation takes on a global character, it would be only logical for Russia to annex Azerbaijan ('a terrorist safe haven!') along with all its oil resources. Then Russia would even acquire some features of a superpower -- rich and aggressive."

Other Moscow commentators might not go that far, but their line of logic is similar. The Kremlin must grab this unique opportunity -- aiding the United States, while mercilessly acting to rid Russia of "evil doers" in its own back yard. Mikhail Leontyev bluntly says that Russia should make use of the current "beneficial situation" and "try to resolve at least some part of our problems in Chechnya and Georgia."

"If Russia now wipes out the Chechen militants in the Pankisi Gorge [located in Georgia], not a single soul in the world will be able to reproach us," Leontyev asserted.

Addressing the question of under what conditions can Russia help America, the political scientist Markov specifically stressed that Moscow should "actively insist" on using Russia's experience of fighting terrorists in Chechnya in all possible anti-terrorist operations. From the tactical point of view, argues he, this experience "seems to me nearly perfect."

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#8
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
September 20, 2001

EX-SOVIET GENERALS DOUBT AMERICA CAN PREVAIL IN AFGHANISTAN. The Russian print media has continued to devote much ink and many column inches to the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and the impending U.S. response. While both ordinary Russians and officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have expressed their condolences for the victims of those attacks and called for a united front against international terrorism, a significant portion of the press coverage and commentary has begun expressing doubts over America's planned military response.

Moskovsky Komsomolets, for example, today featured a long article with Boris Gromov, the governor of Moscow Oblast who commanded Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Gromov, who has already warned that the involvement of U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan could turn out to be a "second Vietnam," refused to give any concrete advice. He did say, however, that "intelligence of all types" would play the most important role in any possible conflict in Afghanistan. Gromov added that while the use of nuclear weapons would "simplify the task of liquidating terrorists in hard-to-reach regions," it would also endanger the lives of tens of thousands of civilians, put the world on the edge of "full-scale war" and never be forgiven by Muslim countries. While Gromov expressed deep sympathy for the United States, he ruled out completely the possibility that the Russian army would assist the U.S. armed forces if they entered Afghanistan (Moskovsky Komsomolets, September 20).

For its part, the weekly Argument i Fakty featured an interview with Valentin Varennikov, who was deputy head of the Soviet General Staff from 1979 to 1984 and a key planner of the Soviet Union's military campaign in Afghanistan. Varennikov said that it would be "simply ludicrous" for the United States to introduce ground forces in Afghanistan. He also claimed that Russia has long been fighting international terrorism, "in both Afghanistan and Chechnya," but that no one has supported Russia, including "the Americans," who "only spoke about violations of human rights." Varennikov urged the creation of an international coalition against terrorism, but said he considered it "inadvisable" to urge Russia's "allies" in the Commonwealth of Independent States to allow U.S. forces to use their bases. "Let the United States launch surgical strikes from the territory of Pakistan, bomb the Taliban from [aircraft carriers] located in the Indian Ocean," Varennikov said. "There is no need for Russia to be drawn into another war in Afghanistan" (Argumenty i Fakty, September 19). The Gazeta.ru website, meanwhile, posted an article chronicling the latest developments surrounding the U.S. attempts to build an antiterrorism coalition and the latest statements from Afghanistan's Taliban regime. While the article was basically a straight news story, it was headlined: "America prepares for its second Vietnam" (Gazeta.ru, September 19).

Meanwhile, the Russian authorities continued their efforts to try and link the Chechen rebels with Osama bin Laden. Vladimir Kalamanov, President Vladimir Putin's special representative for human rights in Chechnya, said yesterday that Chechen rebel groups were unquestionably "part of the international terrorist movement" and claimed that former acting Chechen President Zelimkhan Yandarbiev had lived in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and was closely linked to bin Laden. Kalamanov, who was on a visit to Switzerland for talks with Council of Europe officials, said the Russian authorities have information that bin Laden, among others, was financing the Chechen rebels through front companies, using the international banking system, and that new funds could lead to a new upsurge in "terrorist activity" in Chechnya, which has already escalated over the last two weeks

(Strana.ru, September 19).

Meanwhile, the pro-rebel website Kavkaz.org, which is run out of Qatar and connected to Movladi Udugov, who served as foreign minister under Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov, today ran a commentary scoffing at such claims by Russian media and officials--although not Kalamanov's claims specifically. The website noted it had run comments from rebel field commander Shamil Basaev expressing condolences to the families of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks while expressing solidarity with the Taliban "against possible Western attacks" (Kavkaz.org, September 20). The Chechenpress news agency, which is connected to Maskhadov, suggested that the September 11 attacks were aimed at provoking the United States into a war with Afghanistan. "The Afghan state has enough enemies, particularly many in the Kremlin," the news agency noted. Another pro-rebel website today denied Russian television reports claiming that one or more of the hijackers who carried out the September 11 attacks had fought in Chechnya

(Chechen.org, September 20).

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#9
Trud
September 20, 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
HIGH-PRECISION AND SELECTIVE RETALIATION IS ESSENTIAL

The world is waiting tensely for a US retaliatory strike. It goes without saying that evil must be punished and uprooted, so that it would never regain strength. This should not be doubted. Human civilization has proved too fragile and vulnerable in the face of subtle barbaric attacks. However, what we need is high-precision and selective retaliatory strikes because punitive operations would otherwise create new troubles, also aggravating the entire global situation for quite a while. Well, the latter would only play into the hands of those, who master-mind terrorist attacks. Consequently, we would find ourselves living in a hopelessly divided world consisting of various blocs (in line with specific features).

APOCALYPSE LOOMS AHEAD

Metropolitan KIRILL of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's department of foreign church relations:

His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church have issued a statement in connection with the latest terrorist attacks that happened in the United States. According to their statement, the world has changed after that disaster. We have witnessed the specter of a 21-st century war in its entire horrifying reality because we are witnessing yet another particularly insolent attempt to impose one's idea of a global world order on others (in line with one's own world outlook or religious convictions and by regarding one's own culture and way of life as an absolute value).

The situation can now develop in line with two scenarios. The first and most terrible scenario would constitute an act of retaliation and an attempt to change Moslem nations by force, to make them change their habits and renounce their inner freedom forever. The specter of a global Christian-Moslem confrontation looms behind this scenario. Yes, terrorism must be punished as severely as possible. The global community must comprehend the fact that crimes in New York and Washington, Moscow and Grozny, Kosovo and Macedonia constitute the links of one and the same chain. This chain of evil must be broken and melted down. However, entire nations and religions can't be punished.

I hope that Western countries and Russia will manage to discern between criminals and their accomplices, on the one hand, and hundreds of millions of law-abiding Moslems, on the other. I'd like to warn society against displaying thoughtless nationalism and religious strife. This would harm ourselves; at the same time, this would make it impossible to solve the problem of terrorism, aggravating that problem still further.

Yet another scenario, e.g. the switch-over to peaceful co-existence between different systems of religious, world-outlook and cultural values, exists. The world has many such systems comprising dozens and hundreds of millions of people, as well as even one billion people. We must prevent one such system from dominating others and from considering itself as a system of universal human values. Still others, be it Islam or consistent Christianity, must not be denigrated. Each of them should adequately influence the elaboration of international law; moreover, they should be taken into account during the global decision-making process. Should this happen, then we would cut the ground from under the feet of terrorists. They would no longer be able to address public opinion; nor would they have an opportunity to refer to that unjust world order.

REVENGE FIRST, DISASTER NEXT?

Andrei NIKOLAYEV, chairman of the Russian State Duma's defense committee:

By all looks, America will utilize its superior technology in the course of retaliatory strikes. State-of-the-art weapons will be used against terrorist bases and those areas where their accomplices are located. Some limited large-scale attacks will take place in relatively small areas. The United States might well use low-yield nuclear warheads.

Such a military operation would entail easily predictable consequences. A humanitarian disaster would happen already during the initial phase, that is when hundreds of thousands and even millions of people start pouring into neighboring states in a bid to avoid air strikes and artillery bombardment. A possible attack against Afghanistan would compel local refugees to leave for Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Iran. Meanwhile an attack against Algeria would induce thousands of people to enter Europe, Spain and France, in the first place. A lot of people would lose their jobs, homes and even their homeland. The operation's second stage can also be predicted easily enough. A Moslem, who has lost his relatives, wants to avenge their death, no matter what. Even if one in a thousand takes up weapons, then the world would face 1 million militants just about everywhere. France alone now has a 1-million Algerian diaspora. So, who can study all aspects of this scenario?

IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN

Col.-Gen. Boris GROMOV, Moscow-region governor, Hero of the Soviet Union:

Frankly speaking, I have no right to give advice to the US military, who are top-notch professionals, and who know perfectly well what they are doing. However, judging by my own Afghan combat experience, I can only say that it's extremely difficult to fight there. This can be explained by Afghanistan's position, as well as by its religious and ethnic specifics. Surely enough, far from all Afghans support Taliban; however, some of them can be called fanatical supporters.

All aspects of a possible military operation should be studied in great detail. A short-term military operation involving warplanes and helicopters alone is one thing; meanwhile large-scale operations involving ground forces are an entirely different matter. One should also keep in mind that the numerical strength of logistics-support units, supply trains, heavy-repair and light-repair companies will have to exceed that of combat elements by some 200-300 percent.

First of all, the United States should make sure whether the latest terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were master-minded by Osama bin Laden. Moreover, Washington should not vent its rage on the entire Islamic world. Those terrorists, who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon building, are not true Moslems. All one has to do is open the Koran and see that Islam is a peace-loving religion. Those committing evil deeds under the Islamic flag merely discredit that religion.

It would be difficult and even inexpedient to discuss the possible consequences of US combat operations on Afghan territory because we don't know anything about such operations. As far as Russia is concerned, I emphatically oppose any military involvement on its part.

True, Russia and the United States must jointly fight international terrorism; such cooperation should proceed along diplomatic channels, involving our secret services all the same. These two aspects are now more topical than anything else. Well, this is what the Russian side suggests.

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION


#10
San Francisco Chronicle
September 19, 2001
A wake-up call to avoid Armageddon
U.S. should secure Russia's nuclear stockpiles now
By Brett Wagner
Brett Wagner is president of the California Center for Strategic Studies (www.thecaliforniacenter.org), and serves as executive director of the Swords into Plowshares Project.

THE ATTACKS on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon sent a long overdue wakeup call that the United States should take seriously the continuing efforts by terrorist groups to acquire nuclear weapons. The time has come to take concrete steps to address this growing threat before its too late.

No longer can we take for granted our national security or the inviolability of the American homeland. The State Department currently lists more than a dozen rogue states and terrorist organizations, including billionaire Osama bin Laden, who are actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Russia's vast and under-secured stockpiles of excess fissile materials represent the most likely potential source of terrorist nuclear capability. For several years, Russia has been hinting that it would be interested in selling these nuclear stockpiles to the United States for fuel in nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, these hints have usually fallen on deaf ears.

Now, thanks to years of hard work and perseverance, we stand at the threshold of just such an agreement -- and the timing couldn't be more critical.

Russia's Cold War-era nuclear stockpiles, which include 700 to 800 tons of highly enriched uranium and 150 to 200 tons of weapon-grade plutonium, pose a growing risk because of serious gaps in Moscow's nuclear security. Many of these scattered stockpiles are stored in makeshift warehouses, protected only by $5 combination locks or the equivalent. Small quantities of these materials have already been confiscated by European law officials from sellers looking for buyers.

It would only take 15 to 20 pounds of this uranium, or an even smaller amount of plutonium, to level a city the size of downtown Washington, lower Manhattan, or San Francisco for that matter. Iraq and the terrorist group Islamic Jihad have each reportedly offered Russian workers $1 billion for enough nuclear material to produce a single weapon, according to a 1996 Center for Strategic International Studies publication on the nuclear black market.

The blueprints and non-nuclear components necessary to build crude but highly effective nuclear weapons are already widely available -- the only component prohibitively difficult to develop or acquire is the nuclear material.

There is no reliable way of keeping a nuclear weapon or contraband from being smuggled into U.S. territory if it ever does fall into the wrong hands. Fortunately, Moscow appears willing to sell these same materials to the United States, or a U.S.-led group of international investors, for just a few thousand dollars per pound.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., introduced on July 31 SB1277, which establishes a framework for how such a transaction might take place. Under the bill's provisions, the U.S. government would guarantee loans to Russia in increments of $20 million, up to $1 billion at any one time, accepting Moscow's fissile materials as collateral. For each $20 million loan, Russia would place 1 metric ton of uranium and 1 metric ton of plutonium under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards at a secure facility in Russia that is mutually acceptable to both Russia and the energy agency.

As part of the deal, Russia would guarantee that the fissile materials placed under the agency's safeguards would remain there indefinitely, meaning until they are used as nuclear fuel or otherwise permanently disposed. This entire process could be completed within a decade.

The opportunity has never been greater to resolve the tremendous risk to U. S. and international security posed by Russia's enormous stockpiles of under- secured nuclear materials.

Last but not least, the friendly relationship established between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin during their first face-to-face meetings, combined with their declared intention to hold a summit in November to discuss the closely related issues of nuclear arms reduction and missile defense, could help provide the final boost to push this idea through to fruition.

Congress should move quickly to consider this bill, make any necessary revisions, and deliver it to the president as soon as possible for his signature. Otherwise, the next "act of war" against the United States might very well turn out to be an act of nuclear war.

TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    CDI RUSSIA WEEKLY HOME    CDI HOME