CDI Russia Weekly-#173
28 September 2001
Edited by David Johnson
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036
phone: 202-332-0600; fax:202-462-4559
djohnson@cdi.org

The CDI Russia Weekly is an e-mail newsletter that carries news and
analysis on all aspects of today's Russia, including political, 
economic, social, military, and foreign policy issues. With support
from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation,
CDI Russia Weekly is a project of the Washington-based Center for Defense 
Information (CDI), a nonprofit research and education organization. 

CDI Russia Weekly web page (with archive): http://www.cdi.org/russia/
Visit CDI's web site: http://www.cdi.org

Contents:
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.

*******

#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.

*******

#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. 

*******

#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?

*******

#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. 

******

#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).

*******

#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.

******

#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.  
     
******

#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. 

******

#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.

******* 

#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.

******

#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.

*******