Terrorism and U.S.-Russia Relations, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Spy Satellites, and more...

CDI RUSSIA WEEKLY #173 28 SEPTEMBER 2001

Edited by David Johnson   Standard Web Version    Plain Text

1. RFE/RL
Frank Csongos Russia: U.S. Says No Deal With Moscow

2. Moscow Times
Pavel Felgenhauer A Vicious Circle of Terror

3. AFP
Putin's arms handover offer finds few takers

4. Trud-7
Vitaly Golovachev BLIND RECONNAISSANCE.
Russia is fast running out of spy satellites

5. AFP Kursk lifting barge moves into position over wreck

6. Jamestown Foundation Monitor WESTERN LEADERS RE-EVALUATE THEIR STANCE ON CHECHEN WAR

7. Baltimore Sun
In Russia, doubts, skepticism.
Putin: The Russian president's policy reversal in offering to let the United States use his country's airspace to strike Afghanistan is greeted with suspicion by Russian newspapers.

8. Argumenty i Fakty
RUSSIAN GENERALS COMMENT ON PROSPECTS OF U.S. ANTI-TERRORIST OPERATION

9. BBC Monitoring
Chechen deputy premier denies Bin-Ladin link, positive on Russian talks

10. Moscow Times
Yekaterina Stepanova Keep America From Becoming Another Israel

11. strana.ru
Q&A: Taliban can be weakened but not defeated.
Interview with Pavel Kendel, an expert of the Europe Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences

12. Chicago Tribune
Editorial U.S. and Russia, together again.

#1
Russia: U.S. Says No Deal With Moscow
By Frank T. Csongos
Is the United States easing its criticism of Moscow's military involvement in Chechnya? If so, is it in an exchange for Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to support America's war on international terrorism? The U.S. administration of President George W. Bush says the answer is no. Officials say the U.S. has been following a consistent policy.
Washington, 27 September 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The United States says it has made no deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to relax its criticism of Moscow's actions in Chechnya in exchange for his support of the U.S. campaign against international terrorism.
The issue was raised by reporters yesterday at a White House briefing after President George W. Bush's chief spokesman called on leaders of the breakaway republic to cut all ties to terrorists and praised Putin for offering to conduct a political dialogue with the Chechens.
Spokesman Ari Fleischer said it would be inaccurate to assume that the administration's position on Chechnya is a payback for Putin's stated cooperation with the United States against terrorism.
In a speech on 24 September, Putin said Russia was willing to open its airspace -- along with those of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia -- for a "humanitarian" U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan.
Putin has also offered intelligence about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. In addition, Russia has offered to conduct search-and-rescue operations, if necessary.
In calling on Chechen leaders to sever all ties to terrorism, Fleischer said there is no question that there is an international terrorist presence in Chechnya that has links to Osama bin Laden, considered by the U.S. as the chief suspect in the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington. Bin Laden is said to be hiding in Afghanistan.
Fleischer said: "Chechnya's leadership, like all responsible political leaders in the world, must immediately and unconditionally cut all contacts with international terrorist groups such as Osama bin Laden and (the) Al-Qaeda organization. At the same time the United States has long said that the only solution in Chechnya is a political solution, a political process, to resolve the conflict there."
Russia has been fighting Chechen rebels seeking independence for the republic. Moscow has consistently linked the insurgency with Islamic militancy, portraying the rebels as "terrorists" trained and funded by terrorist organizations.
During a meeting with Islamic-American leaders, Bush was asked whether he has changed his mind about Chechnya. Bush said, "To the extent that there are terrorists in Chechnya, Arab terrorists, associated with the Al-Qaeda organization, I believe they ought to be brought to justice."
Bush stressed, however, that Russia's treatment of Chechens must take into consideration fundamental rights. He said:
"I do believe it's very important for President Putin to deal with the Chechnyan minority in his country with respect, respect of human rights, and respect of difference of opinion about religion, for example. And so I would hope that the Russian president, while dealing with the Al-Qaeda organization, also respects minority rights within his country."
In the past, the United States has frequently criticized Russia for its handling of the Chechen conflict, saying its military actions in the breakaway republic have been disproportionally harsh and that Moscow has disregarded the human rights of Chechens.
At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said the U.S. position has been consistent on Chechnya. Boucher said:
"We have been quite clear on the whole -- every aspect of our policy towards Chechnya. We've been quite clear in welcoming Russian recognition that there needed to be a dialogue or a political settlement. Quite clear also in condemning the terrorism that exists. But we have maintained quite clearly as well our concerns about human rights, our concerns about the need for accountability there."
Boucher said it is very important for the Chechens to end any ties they may have with outside terrorist groups.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#2
Moscow Times
September 27, 2001
A Vicious Circle of Terror
By Pavel Felgenhauer
This week, President Vladimir Putin announced plans to help the United States in the war against terrorism after intensive consultations with his military and security chiefs and with Russia's leading politicians.
Putin pledged to send more armaments to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, which is fighting against the ruling Taliban militia. But Russia has already given the anti-Taliban forces as many arms as they can absorb, and more arms can hardly change the military balance. There have been reports that Russian pilots fly Northern Alliance aircraft and that unmarked Russian attack planes have bombed Taliban positions.
Russia has been in a proxy war with the Taliban for years, fearing that instability and Islamic radicalism promoted by the Taliban will spread from Afghanistan to the north, engulfing Central Asia where Russia has vital strategic interests. The harder the United States hits the Taliban and their allies, the better it will be for Russia.
At the same time, Russian military chiefs are against any significant or permanent U.S. military presence in Central Asia, which was in Soviet times and still is one of the main testing grounds for strategic weapons. There was jubilation in Moscow in 1979 when the United States lost bases and intelligence-gathering installations in Iran after the Islamic revolution.
In the same year, the Soviets marched into Afghanistan to defeat what the Kremlin believed was a U.S. conspiracy to establish bases in that country. The idea that today the United States could gain a base for intelligence-gathering near Tashkent in Uzbekistan, just several hundred kilometers south of Russia's ICBM test launch pads in Baikonur, Kazakhstan, is maddening to Russian generals.
This week, Putin agreed with his generals and announced that Russia will only allow in "aircraft delivering humanitarian cargoes" and that "we have coordinated the offer with our Central Asian allies." This statement means that U.S. warplanes and soldiers are not welcome.
The true views of the various Central Asian governments on providing the United States with bases to attack the Taliban and the bases of international terrorists are not yet fully clear. But without Russian cooperation, it is logistically and politically impossible to establish a major springboard base for attacking targets in Afghanistan.
However, in his latest statement, Putin clearly suggested that Russia may in fact agree to have a "deeper partnership" with the U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition. Putin also stressed that "the scope and content of such a partnership will directly depend on the level" of East-West relations and of "mutual understanding" on international terrorism.
Moscow is ready to trade, and the major stake today is apparently not debt relief or possible NATO membership, but "mutual understanding" regarding Russia's actions in Chechnya.
Two years ago, Putin promised that the war in Chechnya would be short and victorious. Today, when Russia desperately needs reinforcements to send to Central Asia to face a possible military contingency and to balance a U.S. presence, virtually all combat-capable units are still bogged down in Chechnya.
In his statement, Putin announced an ultimatum to Chechen rebels to surrender their weapons within 72 hours. It's clear that the Kremlin wants to solve the Chechen problem as swiftly as possible in order to be able to pull out some units.
In the past two years, Russian troops have committed massive war crimes and killed thousands of civilians. Now, they are apparently preparing to do much more, but this time with U.S. endorsement. U.S. officials and European leaders have already publicly agreed that Russia is fighting terrorists in Chechnya. The United States has also pledged to help Russia stop money from foreign sources reaching the rebels in Chechnya.
The United States is now busy building a grand international anti-terrorist coalition, inviting, among others, war criminals, human rights abusers and dictators to join the cause of "freedom." This coalition may have some military successes in attacking terrorist bases in Afghanistan, but on the moral front it has lost already.
Moslem radicals have previously held the United States accountable for the misery of Palestinians and Iraqis. Now, the plight of ordinary Chechens and Afghans can also be added to the list. Innocent blood will call for vengeance, producing new terrorist attacks against the United States and creating a vicious circle of terror and counter-terror.
Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#3
Putin's arms handover offer finds few takers
MOSCOW, Sept 27 (AFP) -
Russian President Vladimir Putin's 72-hour ultimatum to Chechen rebels to lay down their arms appeared to have drawn a blank as it drew to a close Thursday.
But observers said Putin's shrewdly-timed move, made in the wake of an offer to back US military operations in Afghanistan, was already providing a diplomatic payoff.
The number of weapons handed in by rebels to pro-Russian authorities was virtually insignificant, officials in Chechnya said.
No more than seven weapons had been surrendered to federal forces, a senior interior ministry official said, quoted by the Interfax-AVN news agency.
"Four grenade launchers and two guns were surrendered in the Sholkovsky region (in northeastern Chechnya) and a machine gun was handed over in the Nozhai-Yurt area," east of Grozny, the official said.
Another interior ministry spokesman at Khankala, near Grozny, quoted by the RIA Novosti news agency, said no handovers at all had been recorded.
However an official with the office of Putin's representative in southern Russia Viktor Kazantsev said several separatist groups had contacted federal forces to lay down their weapons, ITAR-TASS reported.
And Nikolai Britvin, Kazantsev's deputy, downplayed the low number of weapons handed in so far, telling RIA Novosti that it would be "premature" to give an assessment of the results as yet.
On Monday, two years to the week since Russian troops poured into Chechnya to put down a separatist uprising, Putin gave the rebels 72 hours to contact his representatives in the region to discuss laying down their weapons.
And on Wednesday Washington endorsed Putin's initiative, calling on Chechen separatists to cut all ties with terrorists, including with Osama bin Laden, whom the United States blames for the September 11 terror strikes, echoing a claim long made by the Kremlin.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that Putin's offer was the separatists' "last chance."
"We are giving a chance to those who want to lay down their weapons," he said in an interview with the daily Trud, adding the warning: "The decisiveness and the aggressiveness of our targeted operations against terrorists will increase."
But the Kremlin's top official for Chechnya, Sergei Yastrzhembsky, said that federal forces were not planning "massive operations" in Chechnya following the expiry of Putin's ultimatum.
For the Moscow-based military analyst Alexander Golts, Putin's goal in issuing the ultimatum was more to signal -- particularly to the West -- that he was looking for a solution -- than to achieve immediate results.
"For two weeks, Moscow has been trying to link the Chechen war to the fight against terrorism and now it has almost achieved its goal, putting an end to Western criticism over Chechnya.
"Of course, no Chechen will surrender, but that does not mean that Putin's offer was a failure," he said.
Following Putin's offer, Chechen rebel President Aslan Maskhadov called for peace talks with Moscow and named a negotiator, only to be rebuffed by the Kremlin.
A spokesman for Maskhadov told AFP Thursday that there had been "no contacts between Russian and (rebel) Chechen leaders."
He added that "in spite of the relative 72 hour truce announced by Moscow, the Russian airforce has carried on bombing the southern mountain region, and the secret services have been carrying out more mopping-up operations."
Thirty-eight Chechens were arrested in Russian special operations over the last 24 hours, the spokesman went on.
Interior ministry troops killed 13 Chechen guerrillas and arrested 25 in Grozny, Nozhai-Yurt and Argun, two towns located east of the Chechen capital, ITAR-TASS quoted officials as saying.
Meanwhile, rebels killed a security aide to Chechnya's pro-Russian administration head Akhmad Kadyrov late Wednesday at Kurchaloi, east of Grozny, Russian security officials said.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#4
Trud-7
September 27, 2001
BLIND RECONNAISSANCE
Russia is fast running out of spy satellites
Author: Vitaly Golovachev
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
FUNDING CUTS HAVE TAKEN THEIR TOLL. THESE DAYS, RUSSIA HAS ONLY 43 MILITARY SATELLITES AND ABOUT 20 DUAL APPLICATION SATELLITES. SPECIALISTS SAY THIS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSES. THE PENTAGON HAS 170 MILITARY SATELLITES IN ORBIT.
Funding cuts have taken their toll - Russia's satellite group, including military and civilian satellites, is down to a shadow of its former power. Russia once had almost 200 satellites; now it has only 93. Over 80% of the remaining satellites have exceeded their service lifetimes. To describe this as a problem would be an understatement, as President Vladimir Putin made clear at a Security Council meeting in January.
Putin: Only 40% of the space exploration program for 1996-2000 was carried out... There is nothing to be proud of, in either the civilian or the military programs... Space systems communications in the sphere of national security have gone down. Maintaining global strategic security is impossible without this component.
These days, Russia has only 43 military satellites and about 20 dual application satellites. Specialists say this is not enough for national security purposes. The Pentagon has 170 military satellites in orbit, almost three times as many as Russia. As a result, Russia is no longer capable of 24-hour reconnaissance from space. Many gaps mar the monitoring field. At some periods each day, Russia cannot track potential threats. Another satellite - Russia's only (!) Kobalt photo- surveillance satellite - is about to be lost. Unless a replacement for it is launched, the Russian military will be deprived of photos of what is happening in the potential southern theater of operations and other territories.
Alexei Vengeorvsky, until recently chairman of the intelligence subcommittee of the Duma: "Our space reconnaissance is largely blind and deaf. I said as much back in 1999, but no one listened..." Another source who insisted on anonymity said the Russian secret services don't yet have to rely on spy satellites alone; they have other assets, for the time being at least. All the same, participants in the Security Council meeting in January were concerned about the decreasing contribution of space reconnaissance assets to the defense capacity of the Russian Federation.
There is more to the satellites than reconnaissance alone. The GLONASS system, which is supposed to determine the location of any given vehicle or vessel, ought to have 24 satellites. There are only nine of them nowadays, which means that Russia's navigational system cannot operate properly. The conclusion is simple: if a country wants its armed forces to be battle-ready and adequate to the task, it should take care of its satellites.
Alexei Moskovsky, Deputy Secretary of the Security Council: Data transmitted from orbit is integrated into the combat control contours of modern weapons systems. It determines the combat capacities of commanders and units...
Need we say more?
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#5
Kursk lifting barge moves into position over wreck

MURMANSK, Russia, Sept 27 (AFP) -
A huge salvage barge moved into position over the stricken nuclear submarine Kursk Thursday in preparation for raising the 20,000-tonne wreck to the surface, Russian naval officials said.
The Giant-4 barge is to be secured by eight anchors that will fix it within half a metre of the Kursk, which sank last year with the loss of more than 100 crew.
The salvage operation was sensitive and complicated and needed to be carried out in daylight, the chief of general staff of the Northern Fleet, Rear Admiral Mikhail Motsak, said.
But he warned that stormy weather expected in the region at the weekend meant the lifting operation was likely to be put off for a further day from Sunday to Monday.
"We're expecting a storm with winds of force four or five which would force us to put back the lifting to October 1," he told reporters.
Preparatory work by divers on the submarine's hull was "virtually completed" early Thursday, and the way was clear to begin preparing the barge systems that will raise the vessel from the seabed, Motsak said.
The divers have been installing grips at 26 holes in the hull to enable steel cables to be attached, prior to hauling the submarine to the surface.
Eight radiation monitors are being installed on the wreck's hull to enable experts aboard the Giant-4 to detect possible radiation leaks during the salvage operation, Motsak's spokesman, Igor Dygalo, told the ITAR-TASS news agency.
However experts at the design office in Nizhny Novgorod, central Russia, where the sub's two nuclear reactors were built said it was certain that the reactors were safe.
Design director Alexander Kiryushin told ITAR-TASS that the reactors and their systems had remained intact during the disaster that had sent the submarine to the bottom, and that regular testing of the waters since then showed there was no risk of radiation leaks.
Environmental groups have expressed concern that an accident during the lifting operation could cause the reactors to fall to the bottom, causing an ecological disaster.
Once the Kursk has been raised to the surface, the salvage barge will tow it to dry dock at Roslyakovo, near Murmansk, on the northwest Russian Kola peninsula.
Salvage workers have been racing against time to raise the wreck before the Arctic winter storms set in and paralyse the salvage effort.
The Kursk sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea during a naval exercise on August 12 last year, killing all 118 crewmembers. The cause of the disaster has still not been determined.
Western experts have said the sinking followed two unexplained explosions probably involving the submarine's torpedoes, but some Russian officials maintained the Kursk may have collided with a Western submarine.
The decision to raise the wreck was taken in line with a pledge by President Vladimir Putin to the seamen's families that their bodies would be recovered.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#6
Jamestown Foundation Monitor
September 27, 2001
WESTERN LEADERS RE-EVALUATE THEIR STANCE ON CHECHEN WAR. President Vladimir Putin's declaration of support for the U.S.-led campaign is clearly causing some Western leaders to re-evaluate their governments' stance vis-a-vis Russia's military campaign in Chechnya. Both German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi yesterday stressed the need to "evaluate things differently" in relation to Chechnya, given the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, September 27). Russian observers have also noted what they see as a tacit shift in U.S. policy vis-a-vis the conflict in Chechnya following President Vladimir Putin's agreement to support Washington's campaign against international terrorism. Yesterday, for example, President George W. Bush declared that "Arab terrorists" associated with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida organization were operating on Chechen territory and ought to be "brought to justice." While both Bush and his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reiterated the traditional U.S. view--that the Chechen conflict must be settled by political negotiations and that the Russian authorities should observe human rights standards while carrying out military operations there--Fleischer said that the Chechen rebel leadership must "immediately and unconditionally cut all contacts with international terrorist groups, such as Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization." Fleischer justified calling the Chechen rebels "terrorists" rather than "freedom fighters" by citing the testimony of State Department officials to Congress two years ago and the State Department's human rights report for 1999, both of which stated that bin Laden had sent "trainers" to Chechnya (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, September 27).
The Gazeta.ru website wrote in commentary today that Fleischer, in essence, had confirmed that Washington always knew Moscow's claims about the Chechen rebels' international terrorist links were true, but failed to admit it. "Thus the representatives of Russia's special services absolutely in vain exhausted themselves collecting evidence of bin Laden's trail in Chechnya," the website wrote. "The White House knew about this the whole time, but remained silent." The website, citing the Reuters news agency, reported that the Russian government had presented evidence to Washington that at least 2,560 Chechen fighters had been trained in camps run by bin Laden in Afghanistan (Gazeta.ru, September 27). Meanwhile, a spokesman for Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov said that Fleischer's demand that the rebels break off contacts with bin Laden and other international terrorists was "no problem." The spokesman said nothing else, but his comment was interpreted to mean that there were no such contacts to break off (AFP, Gazeta.ru, September 27). Maskhadov has in the past come into conflict with more radical Islamist field commanders, including as Shamil Basaev and the Jordanian-born Khattab, who are said to have had contacts with bin Laden.
For its part, Kavkaz.org, a Qatar-based pro-Chechen rebel website reportedly set up by Movladi Udugov, who was once Maskhadov's foreign minister but later lined up with the more radical rebel field commanders, today posted a commentary speculating that the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were carried out by either Israel's Mossad, "the international financial mafia standing behind the Euro and trying to sink the dollar," or "certain international forces interested in starting a third world war (the military-industrial mafia, drug dealers, etc.)" (Kavkaz.org, September 27).
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#7
Baltimore Sun
September 27, 2001
In Russia, doubts, skepticism
Putin: The Russian president's policy reversal in offering to let the United States use his country's airspace to strike Afghanistan is greeted with suspicion by Russian newspapers.
In an abrupt change of policy and heart, Russia's President Vladimir V. Putin said this week that the United States could use Russian airspace to carry out strikes against Afghanistan. Putin, who until then had been eager to put more and more distance between himself and Washington, also withdrew his objections to a U.S. military presence in the former Soviet republics Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
Russian newspapers greeted the announcement with various degrees of enthusiasm, but nearly all were suspicious about what kind of deal might have been cut between Putin and President Bush. Yesterday, their skepticism was apparently justified when Bush said Chechnya was harboring a terrorist element with links to Osama bin Laden. The United States had been sharply critical of Russia's conduct of the war in the region.
Here are excerpts from Russian newspapers over the past two days:
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
The President's Second Front
Vladimir Putin has made a very difficult decision. Neither the Kursk tragedy nor Chechnya stands anywhere near the enormity of the issues the Russian president has had to tackle this September.
No matter how cautious Vladimir Putin was in formulating his televised address, one thing is abundantly clear: Russia stands the enormous chance of being drawn into an armed conflict.
Putin couched the loss of neutrality in brilliant phraseology. The wording of his speech was so oblique that the first response of most Russian politicians was delight with what they thought was Russia's refusal to be involved in an armed conflict. Western newspapers exuded disappointment with Moscow's restraint.
But if Russia were to get involved in some "reconnaissance and rescue" operations in Afghanistan's mountains or elsewhere, would not that pave the way for its direct involvement in war? By the same token, if Russia were to open its airspace, would not that give the green light to its involvement in the conflict, especially against the background of the remark about the possibility of closer cooperation with the United States?
By all appearances, the prospect of Russia's being drawn into a military conflict is not dictated by Moscow's altruistic wish to help Washington fight terrorism. Far from it. Nor is Moscow pursuing pragmatic goals, which is regrettable.
It is in effect an attempt to reconcile two opposing points of view within the country. Those who want Russia to give support to the United States should be satisfied. Those who want Russia to distance itself from the conflict should be delighted with Moscow's readiness to radicalize its actions in Chechnya and carry them through to the end. ...
The United States stands to benefit from the collapse of oil prices, but it is catastrophic for Russia. Is it the price Russia will have to pay if Saudi Arabia is to be let alone, or does that mean that Russia is doing everything within its powers to help Washington fight terrorism? Does that mean that Washington accepts help from other countries with conditions after all?
Izvestia
Northern Alliance
In essence, Russia has formed the second front against the Taliban, whose military might is hugely overestimated. They have about 50,000 soldiers, 20,000 of which are defending the Pakistani border. A massive advance of the Northern Alliance could temporarily paralyze the Taliban and allow attacks on bin Laden and his people.
Anatoly Kvashnin [head of the general staff] is one of the few Russian generals who is not an Afghanistan veteran and, therefore, is not "allergic" to that country. We can almost be sure that the Northern Alliance will become the main land force used against the Taliban.
If Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff continues his support of the U.S., the Taliban will find themselves in a tight spot very soon. If Iran joins the coalition, a war against the Taliban will not be led by the Americans and the Europeans directly, but by their local supporters instead. For Russia this turn of events could be favorable: in this case, Russia's military intervention will not be needed.
Novaya Gazeta
America will fall flat on its face in Afghanistan
Osama bin Laden is not afraid of war. He hopes for it, because war is a recruiting campaign for bin Laden's forces, paid for by American taxpayers' money. Every American missile which kills 100 people will create a thousand new fighters.
Right now, bin Laden's Al Qaeda network is made up of fringe-dwellers, who survive by extracting donations from "true believers" and drug trafficking. But a couple of thousand American tactical missiles will turn it into a Pan-Islamic government.
Bin Laden did not want to upset the United States. He wanted to unite the Islamic world in a struggle against the "infidels." You can bet that the average American doesn't have the slightest idea of what they are going to be fighting. Americans are used to this.
If a pipe springs a leak, you call a plumber and he will come and fix everything. If someone blows up the World Trade Center, you call the government and they will come and fix everything. The Afghans have no government. They have the tradition of blood-feud, just like any society where instability and the threat of death is too high.
Missiles costing $2 million each do a great job of hitting command points and presidential palaces, but they are an expensive way to burn the hair off a camel's hide. The United States claims it is ready for war. This is a bluff, and we can prove that.
According to preliminary figures, 6,000 people died in the terrorist attacks. Left behind were at least 16,000 close relatives - wives, brothers, sons, friends. We all saw dozens of interviews along the lines of "It was so terrible!" But I personally did not see a single interview which ended, "And now I am enlisting in the army and I'm going to crush those vermin who did this."
Americans do not want war. They want a happy ending.
Komsomolskaya Pravda
U.S. military presence in Central Asia
If Russia provided Washington with intelligence data, air corridors, airfields and bases on Commonweath of Independent States, [which is former Soviet] territory, Russia would virtually lose its positions in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. There's no doubting the fact that it would be a really formidable task to persuade the U.S. armed forces to evacuate those bases.
The United States would use any conceivable pretext for retaining its military units there. Suffice it to recall the Kosovo crisis, which has facilitated America's massive presence on the Balkan Peninsula.
A decision to side with the United States, to permit the Allies to lord it over Russia's famous "soft underbelly" and to facilitate the creation of a huge regional NATO military base would be tantamount to suicide as far as Russian national interests are concerned.
On the whole, Russia, which has already provided adequate political and moral support to the United States, should stay away from all this. In this connection, one should recall the following Japanese saying: "Sit still, and they will carry your enemy's body in front of you."
The United States won't necessarily be backed by the Arab world. True, Arab countries are offering their official support; however, volunteers are also being recruited there. Moreover, Jihad appropriations are being accumulated in regional countries.
The United States promises to lavish riches on anyone in exchange for support. Still who can say for sure that Bush Jr. will keep his word? The West had promised a lot to Gorbachev and Yeltsin in the past, nonetheless failing to keep many of its promises.
True, the United States did lift those anti-Indian and anti-Pakistani sanctions. Nonetheless, one should not harbor any illusions whatsoever, because the United States is going to help various countries in line with its own interests alone. At the same time, Russia will never join their list because America doesn't want Russia to become strong.
Kommersant
72 hours
Immediately after describing how he will help the international fight against terrorism, Putin gave the remaining guerrillas in Chechnya 72 hours to stop all contact with international terrorists and start disarmament talks with Russian authorities.
In 72 hours from now, Russia will be able to act in Chechnya without worrying about the opinion of the international community. And the latter, led by America and if, of course, it agrees with Moscow's terms, will have a free hand in Afghanistan.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#8
Argumenty i Fakty
No. 39
September 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIAN GENERALS COMMENT ON PROSPECTS OF
U.S. ANTI-TERRORIST OPERATION

GENERAL RUSLAN AUSHEV: AMERICA WILL GET A HEADACHE
Natalya ANDRUSHCHENKO and Vitaly TSEPLYAYEV
President of Ingushetia Ruslan Aushev knows about the war in Afghanistan not from hearsay. He spent 4 years and 7 months there. He was a commander of a mechanised infantry battalion, the chief of a regiment headquarters, was heavily wounded and became Hero of the Soviet Union. Lieutenant-General agreed to answer questions of the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper on the prospects of the anti-terrorist operation prepared by the United States.
Question: What in your opinion are specific features of hostilities in Afghanistan?
Answer: First, the local terrain is very complicated. Afghanistan is a mountainous country. Second, there is a lack of infrastructure and most importantly roads. A large group of vehicles could be moved only in certain directions there, which limits opportunities for maneuver. Troops usually move in columns, and therefore become convenient targets in mine warfare.
At the same time, mountainous terrain provides the defensive side with perfect conditions for creating ambushes and fortified areas in the mountains, which are hard to take over even if you have modern and precise missile weapons.
If the Americans deploy land forces in Afghanistan, they will face such a war for the first time in their experience. Major personnel losses are inevitable, even if they would advance by blasting and burning everything ahead of them. Houses in Afghanistan are made of clay and their wall structure reminds of plasticine. This lowers the effect of fire attacks. Also, troops that advance in the mountains are blinded, as they do not see anyone, but they themselves are perfectly visible. I doubt that the Taliban will send major troops to fight the Americans. I think they are more likely to divide their forces into small groups and attack the enemy from all sides.
Question: Can special services kill bin Laden without causing a major bloodshed?
Answer: I assume, special services are capable of anything. But then the question is why do they initiate a military operation? If their only goal is to liquidate bin Laden, they should undertake different actions. Judging by their preparations, the U.S. and its allies want an operation that would affect the whole region. No one has estimated the consequences of such a scenario.
Question: How many troops are needed to keep Afghanistan in control?
Answer: The Soviet Union retained 100,000 troops there. Our troops were stationed in all parts of the country, but they controlled the area only directly near them, which means in actuality only twenty percent of the Afghan territory. Afghanistan occupies a territory of over 650,000 square km, which is more than the territory of France. Almost eighteen million people live there. The Americans are not going to be able to control Afghanistan even if they send the entire U.S. army there.
Question: Given the Soviet troops' experience what advice can we give the U.S.?
Answer: We had a different purpose in Afghanistan. We set out to help the Afghan leadership of the time. We entered and stopped. If we had not moved anywhere and got involved, the result would have been completely different. But we allowed ourselves to get dragged into warfare. This was our worst mistake.
The Americans risk repeating our mistake. It is possible that if they use all of their capabilities, cruise missiles, etc. they would suppress the Taliban forces for a while. However, they will never defeat the whole nation. The U.S. is simply going to get another headache.

GENERAL EDUARD VOROBYEV: SECRETS OF INVASION
Alexander KONDRASHOV
Colonel-General Eduard Vorobyev is Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on Defence. He has been in charge of troops in many hot spots. He participated in warfare in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Transdniestria.
Question: Some sort of invasion is inevitable at this point. How much time is needed to prepare for the operation?
Answer: The Soviet Union prepared to enter Afghanistan for about a year. Just like in this case, the preparations were kept in strict secret.
Question: The Taliban is armed rather well. What could help breaking its resistance? Could it be bought off? There must be a reason why American businessmen promised to pay $1 billion for Osama bin Laden's head.
Answer: Money in the East plays an important role. We lured Afghan tribal leaders to our side not by pretty words alone. The U.S. can certainly buy over many of the Taliban's field commanders. But I would doubt it could work with the main leaders, including Mullah Omar, and not only because of their fanaticism. They are very well aware that with time they are going to share bin Laden's fate. I believe that it makes more sense to assist the Taliban's opposition, the Northern Alliance.
Question: They say that the U.S. air force is ready to use 30,000 bombs in Afghanistan. Would air strikes help?
Answer: This is an obsolete tactics. During our war in Afghanistan, we used carpet bombings, which created the amount of chipping sufficient to build roads all over the world. Such strikes are very ineffective.
Today, there are concussion bombs. Due to high pressure, they leave nothing but shadows of people behind in caverns. There also exist laser-guided systems that allow a charge or bomb to hit a tank hatch from many kilometres away.
Question: The Americans stated that they would not limit their actions in Afghanistan to remote strikes. What major difficulties will they encounter in a ground operation?
Answer: First, the major problem will be warfare being separated from the rear support. Let's say the Americans deploy paratroopers in the mountains. They fight for no longer than 8 to 10 days. After that, the rear needs to be moved closer to the front line, as it supplies not only ammunition and fuel, but also water, food, and firewood. We faced this problem in the first phase of the war in Afghanistan. Our paratroopers would take 310 cartridges instead of 60 and a double grenade set. Dry rations and firewood they would leave behind. However, in autumn and winter, on the Hindukush mountains, is it easier to die from cold than from a bullet. A hungry soldier is not a good soldier either. In periods when it rains and snows, it is rather difficult to use aviation and move through alpine passes. Warfare in Afghanistan is hard regardless. Success would depend on every little thing, such as, for instance, whether the servicemen have appropriate supplies of warm underclothing and wool caps.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#9
BBC Monitoring
Chechen deputy premier denies Bin-Ladin link, positive on Russian talks
Source: Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Russian 1207 gmt 26 Sep 01
In an interview billed as exclusive, Akhmed Zakayev, deputy prime minister in the rebel Chechen government and the man nominated to conduct talks with Russia, denied any link to Usamah Bin-Ladin and condemned the terror strikes inflicted on the USA. He warned that US retaliation should be well-considered. Zakayev said that President Putin had not imposed an ultimatum on Chechnya, but had offered talks to follow the surrender of Chechen weapons. He praised Georgia and President Shevardnadze personally for their policy on Chechen refugees and said Georgia could act as mediator between Chechnya and Russia. The following is the text of the interview reported by Georgian news agency Prime-News:
Prime-News agency has an exclusive interview with the deputy prime minister of the Chechen republic of Ichkeria [Akhmed Zakayev].
[Question] Recently the Russian media have increasingly frequently been putting out reports saying that there are Chechen units in Georgia, not only in the Pankisi gorge, but also in the Kodori gorge. Do you have any comment on these assertions?
[Answer] I can state in all honesty that this is untrue. Georgia is coming under pressure because this country has offered moral support to the Chechens and accepted refugees from Chechnya. Russia is doing everything it can to draw Georgia into the conflict in the North Caucasus. The Georgian leadership deserves respect, because President Shevardnadze's stance on the resolution of this kind of conflict, against the background of what is happening in Chechnya, is an example to the world: There is an alternative solution to these conflicts. Russia is therefore doing everything it can to provoke the situation in Abkhazia and to influence the presence of Chechen refugees in Georgia. It is simply absurd to say that there are Chechen guerrillas in Georgia. The war is not in Georgia, the war is in Chechnya. And everyone involved in the Chechen resistance is back home fighting the Russian army.
[Question] Could there be units not under your control in the Pankisi or Kodori gorges?
[Answer] I would say not. Yes, we had volunteers taking part in the Abkhaz conflict. But they were definitely not subordinate to our leadership or to the Chechen people. It is therefore totally pointless to link these events with current events in Chechnya.
[Question] So Ruslan Gelayev, about whom so much is being said, is not on Georgian soil?
[Answer] I can confirm that. Georgia's law-enforcement bodies would have established that long ago, if he had been here. That is all provocation on the part of the Russian special services.
[Question] A lot has been said lately about a possible Georgian-Chechen alliance for the restoration of Abkhazia. Do you have any comment on that?
[Answer] That would constitute interference in Georgia's internal affairs. I think President Shevardnadze's policy on this is the most correct - there can be no forceful resolution of these matters. We will do all we can to promote participation in the talks process.
[Question] Could Georgia play the role of mediator between Moscow and Maskhadov? After all, recently President Vladimir Putin of Russia said he was ready for talks.
[Answer] Georgia is the only country and its leader the only one who could influence the situation, if Russia truly wants to being this conflict to a close. Shevardnadze certainly could act as mediator and Georgia could indeed be a kind of mini-Switzerland in the Caucasus, where these kinds of contacts and talks could take place.
[Question] What would you say about the 72-hour deadline that Russia has set for the handover of Chechen weapons?
[Answer] There was no hint of an ultimatum in Putin's statement, the time for ultimatums has passed. It is not territory in all its manifestations that forms the basis of the Russian-Chechen conflict, it is solely matters unresolved through history in Russian-Chechen relations. The gulf of alienation between the two peoples can still be bridged, peaceful and goodneighbourly relations are a realistic possibility between Russians and Chechens. In this context we have assessed the Russian president's recent proposal as a serious step towards starting talks on peaceful settlement. Prolonging these would mean a senseless increase in casualties. This does not mean handing in weapons, it means ceasing military actions in Chechnya, which can only be decided on at the negotiating table. There are no intractable issues in our conflict.
[Question] Mr Zakayev, have weapons ever or do they now reach the Chechens from Russian military bases in Georgia?
[Answer] This has never happened, because there is absolutely no need for that. There are more weapons in Chechnya than could come out of Georgia or any other country. These are constantly topped up from the Russian military in Chechnya. There is no point bringing Russian weapons into Chechnya across the border, across the mountains and passes, they are already there.
[Question] When might Chechen refugees be able to return home?
[Answer] According to our figures, there are 10-11,000 Chechen refugees in Georgia. There are 250,000 refugees in Ingushetia. Worldwide there are some 1.5m refugees from Chechnya. The refugees cannot return as long as there is fighting in Chechnya. On the contrary, their numbers could increase daily.
[Question] What is Chechnya's view of the US plans to mount an operation against the Taleban in Afghanistan?
[Answer] We have already passed on our sympathy concerning the monstrous acts of terrorism in the USA on 11 September. We condemn any manifestation of terrorism. Measures taken by the USA must be very carefully considered. One should ask: Who will benefit from all this? Any further escalation or whipping up of this situation in the world - who stands to gain? Our position is clear - the operation must be specific. The culprits, those who ordered this, must be identified. It is a sacred duty to punish these people. However, setting the Islamic world against all the rest could have unpredictable consequences and this should not happen under any circumstances, and we do not observe this in the stance of the US administration.
[Question] Have you any ties with Bin-Ladin?
[Answer] We do not, and never have.
[Question] It is sometimes said that Khattab is his pupil.
[Answer] I cannot rule out that there may have been some kind of link between them, I cannot take responsibility for that, but I can state officially that at the present time none of our units has contact with Bin-Ladin.
[Question] And are not financed by him?
[Answer] And are not financed by him.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#10
Moscow Times
September 27, 2001
Keep America From Becoming Another Israel
By Yekaterina Stepanova
Yekaterina Stepanova is a senior researcher at the Center for Political and Military Forecast of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. She contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
Long before the tragic events of September, Afghanistan presented one of the rare examples of U.S. and Russian active bilateral cooperation on a regional security problem. Improved cooperation on Afghanistan stood as a notable exception to generally problematic relations between the United States and Russia. Problems ranged from strategic arms control to human rights to regional conflict management -- especially in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq and on the territory of the former Soviet Union.
U.S.-Russia cooperation on Afghanistan took different forms: from seeking to force the Taliban, the country's de facto government, to change its policies on terrorism and narcotics through UN sanctions, to forming a bilateral working group focusing on terrorist threats coming from Afghanistan. Long before September, this "untypical" case of U.S.-Russia cooperation on a regional security problem had provoked both political and academic interest.
Both Russia and the United States have been key international players in the region. Both have used Afghanistan (the Soviet Union directly and the United States indirectly) as a Cold War playground; both have been seriously considering the "terrorist threat" coming from Afghanistan. As permanent members of the UN Security Council, both have been the most active advocates of sanctions against the Taliban, despite disagreements with some other members. And both have resorted or threatened to resort to the use of force against targets in Afghanistan, with the U.S. bombing Osama bin Ladin's "terrorist bases" in 1998 and Russia threatening missile attacks in 2000.
However, it is the wider counter-terrorism aspect of the problem that has important foreign policy and domestic implications for both states. This is what led presidents Bill Clinton and Vladimir Putin in 2000 to agree to form a bilateral working group on Afghanistan specifically to complement U.S. and Russian counter-terrorist efforts.
For the United States, it was the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, allegedly instigated by bin Ladin, that seemed to stimulate a reinvigoration of policy on Afghanistan, which had been off the primary agenda since the fall of Najibullah's government in 1992.
For Russia, which has also declared the struggle against international terrorism as one of its top foreign policy priorities, the greatest challenge regarding the situation in Afghanistan was the so-called "Islamic threat" -- the potential of the Taliban to stimulate the rise of radical Islam in Central Asian states, thus aiding, directly or indirectly, radical Islamic movements in challenging local regimes.
With the U.S. response to the September terrorist attacks in the offing, the question of whether U.S.-Russian cooperation on Afghanistan is a case-specific phenomenon or a litmus test for Russia's future cooperation with the West -- both in confronting terrorism and in resolving other conflicts across Eurasia -- is now more relevant than ever.
Any disproportionate and unfocused U.S. unilateral military action against "appointed culprit" states -- an action that has the potential of seriously destabilizing the situation not only in the states under attack, but in the adjacent regions as well -- could create more security problems than it is meant to solve, stimulate backlash aggression from forces hostile to the United States and lead to erosion of the wide international consensus in their favor. While this time U.S. unilateralism is unlikely to be openly disputed, as the case for self-defense can be justified, the need to counter international terrorism more than ever requires multilateral solutions that should not be limited to the use of military force. In the longer term, the world cannot afford its leader, the United States, to become another Israel -- a "fortress state" whose active and effective unilateral counter-terrorist measures seem largely to fail to address the underlying problems fueling terrorism.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#11
strana.ru
September 27, 2001
Q&A: Taliban can be weakened but not defeated
Interview with Pavel Kendel, an expert of the Europe Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
By Viktor Sokolov
Q. America asks many countries for aid in the retaliatory operation. What does the U.S. proceed from as it is organizing this operation?
A. It proceeds from the military-technical necessity - to make the blow effective it is to have airfield nearby.
Q. Is the U.S. going to squeeze the Taliban in a ring?
A. Yes.
Q. What about countries like Iran?
A. The U.S. has rather difficult relations with Iran, though Tehran is historically hostile towards the Taliban.
Q. The U.S. could have killed three birds with one stone - make peace with Iran, punish the Taliban with its help and dispel suspicions about Russian-Iranian relations, couldn't it?
A. Hypothetically yes, but I think, it can hardly go that far, since, after all, serious counteraction forces exist on both sides - the U.S. is against rapprochement with Iran, while Iran is against coming to terms with the U.S. either, though Iranians are glad to know that the Taliban will be, if not defeated, than at least as seriously damaged. So, Iran's positions will be strengthened in Afghanistan, because the Northern Alliance is far closer to it.
Q. As I look at the map, I see that China also has a short border with Afghanistan not far from Kabul. What is China's stance in the present situation?
A. China is faced with its own problem of Islamic radicalism and separatism in the Sin Zhan province, where Uigurs are a predominant part of the population. They have long been demanding autonomy and self-administration, and their radical groups have long been waging armed struggle, using terrorist methods. Those groups come out for independence. They demand that that the territory be proclaimed an independent Islamic state. So China, of course, has its own reasons for being displeased with the Taliban and to support U.S. actions. But how far Beijing will go in that action depends on many other factors, on the character of its relations with the U.S. and on the price the U.S. is prepared to pay for China's support.
Q. There are also Pakistan and India. Will the present situation improve relations between those two countries?
A. A lull may be expected on the border between them as long as the anti-terrorist operation lasts and their relations may somewhat improve, but it is unlikely that cardinal problems will be removed. The border conflict will remain, because no one is going to yield, not to mention that the very existence of the state of Pakistan is a challenge to India. There is a considerable part of Muslim population in India as well, so contradictions will remain
But there is a still greater problem. The Pakistani government announced its support for the United States and cooperation is being effected along government lines. But it is known that the population of Pakistan, its considerable part, is strongly opposed to that and is prepared even to offer armed resistance to such cooperation.
Q. Moreover, refugees from Afghanistan are going there, while militants supporting the Taliban go from Pakistan.
A. Because the main question in this operation, as I see it, is whether Pakistan will explode or not. If it does, the retaliatory operation itself will get stuck - the main communications run through Pakistan, and the rest are auxiliary means.
Q. And, last but not least, the Central Asian countries. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are also rather firmly opposed to the Taliban, but Turkmenistan's attitude is different.
A. Turkmenistan, yes. In the first place, it acts in keeping with its formally proclaimed neutrality. Second, it corresponds to Turkmenistan's long-pursued policy of acting as a neutral mediator in the conflict within Afghanistan. Once it already performed this role. The talks between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance in those years, when the belligerents tried to come to terms on the division of power and ending the war, were conducted in Turkmenistan and with its mediation. So, Turkmenistan would like to preserve this role partly because it has quite a long and practically unprotected border with Afghanistan.
As regards the armed forces of Turkmenistan, it is a relative term. That country has no real means of defending itself against the Taliban. There are no border guards either, and therefore the Turkmenian leadership has good reason to be cautious. Turkmens fear that U.S. presence there will not be long and the U.S. will leave after the operation while problems will remain.
Q. Is there a chance that such talks will be held and the idea of a strike will be abandoned?
A. I don't think such a chance exists, after the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden and resorted to cheap tricks. But it is obvious that the U.S. cannot stop now and will have to bomb it out somewhere. Afghanistan is the best place for that.
Q. They have squeezed the Taliban in a ring, but there are small ruptures in that ring. Do the Taliban have a chance to hold out?
A. There is a chance, of course, because a war has been going on in Afghanistan at least over the past 30 years, and if we look at the history of Afghanistan, it is a continuous war. In this sense Afghans have quite enough combat spirit and military experience.
The U.S. may destroy the remains of their comparatively modern types of arms - the warplanes, armored units and some missile systems - all that has remained after the Soviet army left and part of what has been provided by Pakistan. These are the only possible targets that the U.S. can hit effectively.
After that it may be supposed that at best the Northern Alliance, with Russia's military support, will gain some military superiority and may press the Taliban a good deal. But I am not sure that it can completely defeat it.
Q. Will the sources of arms supply for the Taliban still exist? Is it difficult to block them?
A. Until recently arms were supplied by Pakistan. I think that in these conditions Pakistan will not do this. So in this sense the sources are blocked.
Q. Are there other channels?
A. In the conditions of a total blockade it is unlikely that the Taliban may be effectively supplied with arms. The Taliban have a chance, but it is minimal. They can be greatly weakened during the U.S. operation, after which they will retreat into the mountains and fight another 20 years.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    NEXT SECTION

#12
Chicago Tribune
September 27, 2001
Editorial
U.S. and Russia, together again
Of all the nations America needs to join its global coalition against terrorism, none may prove more important strategically to the success of this new war than Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered support for military operations by the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov vowed Wednesday to work with NATO defense ministers to fight terrorism.
Russia has signaled that the U.S. may get to use military facilities in Tajikistan to launch strikes. Tajikistan is one of five Central Asian republics once part of the Soviet Union and still under Russia's sphere of influence. This comes amid reports U.S. planes may have already landed in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Imagine that. The U.S. and Russia are on the verge of collaborating in a military alliance. Together with other nations, they are preparing a counterstrike against the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. and Russia are realizing common interests that could redefine their relationship.
Allies once in World War II, fierce foes through decades of Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have been struggling for several years to sort out what kind of relationship they will have now. A common enemy helps clear the mind. All the divisive issues that President Bush and Putin were debating up to now--ballistic missile defense, scrapping the ABM treaty, NATO enlargement, Russian accession to the World Trade Organization--are temporarily on the back burner.
Doubtless, this is not just altruism. Nations act in self-interest. The irony is that Osama bin Laden and his "host," the Taliban regime, have given Moscow and Washington a common cause in a land, Afghanistan, where the superpowers waged one of the last proxy fights of the Cold War. In the 1980s the CIA funded Islamic rebels to oust Soviet occupiers. Some of those rebels, such as bin Laden, are now our common enemy.
For Russia, whose cities have been targets of terrorist strikes, one motivation for cooperation seems to be its long war against separatist rebels in Chechnya. Moscow views them as radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists--and would like the rest of the world to share that view. Europe and the U.S. have seen them as, if not freedom fighters, victims of Russian repression.
Now the U.S. has a terrorist enemy that has committed horrific crimes against humanity on U.S. soil. America needs Russia's help. The Bush administration will be under pressure to tone down its criticism of Moscow's abuses against Chechen fighters.
Russia is strategically important in this battle for another reason. The attacks on the U.S. were a grim reminder that determined terrorists could have done even more damage if they had had weapons of mass destruction instead of suicide airplanes. Russia has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, which the U.S. has been helping dismantle since the Soviet Union broke up. Despite Bush's misgivings on some of that spending, Sept. 11 has proved it is a vital investment.
Putin has to walk a fine line. If Russia takes too direct a role in a military attack on Muslims, it may stir radical unrest against Moscow. For this reason, Russia may stick to providing intelligence and logistical support. Russia and the U.S. are stepping up support of the Northern Alliance, the opposition rebels in Afghanistan fighting the ruling Taliban.
The U.S. and Russia, allies again. More evidence of the adage that there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
TOP OF PAGE    CONTENTS    TOP OF SECTION    CDI RUSSIA WEEKLY HOME    CDI HOME

CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109
Ph: (202) 332-0600 � Fax: (202) 462-4559
info@cdi.org