CDI Russia Weekly-#175 12 October 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 Home: http://www.cdi.org/russia/ CDI Home: http://www.cdi.org Contents: 1. AFP: Putin gambles on support for US action in Russia's back yard. 2. Moscow Times: Pavel Felgenhauer, Sowing Seeds of Acrimony? 3. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: AMERICANS HAVEN'T COME TO STAY, BUT MOSCOW SHOULDN'T LET THEM JUST BOMB SITES AND LEAVE. (Interview with Alexei ARBATOV) 4. RFE/RL Security Watch: KREMLIN ADVISER EXPLAINS PUTIN'S DECISION TO ALLY WITH WEST and PRO-KREMLIN INTELLECTUALS PROVIDE A BROADER RATIONALE. 5. RFE/RL: Francesca Mereu, Federation Council Passes Historic Land Code. 6. Asia Times: Sergei Blagov, Putin's Chechen spin has rights groups in a whirl. 7. BBC Monitoring: TV says USA, Russia playing geostrategic game in Afghanistan, Central Asia. 8. AFP: Ukraine's Kuchma rejects resignation as missile view of downing firms. 9. strana.ru: Relations between Ukraine and Russia Are Going through the Most Crucial Trial. Russian press on TU-154 disaster. 10. The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst: Stephen Blank, TOWARDS GEOSTRATEGIC REALIGNMENT IN CENTRAL ASIA. 11. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Leonid Ivashov, A GLOBAL PROVOCATION. Why the war against terrorism may not be what it seems. 12. BBC Monitoring: Russian daily says Taleban a threat to Pakistan, Uzbekistan. ******* #1 Putin gambles on support for US action in Russia's back yard MOSCOW, Oct 11 (AFP) - President Vladimir Putin has taken a major gamble with Russia's foreign policy in Central Asia, known as its "near abroad," by giving unprecedented support to US military action on Afghanistan, analysts warned Thursday. Putin won international plaudits following last month's attacks in New York and Washington for his landmark speech of September 24 aligning Russia with the United States in the fight against terrorism. But caution has marked domestic reaction, with many Russian lawmakers and commentators warning Putin not to risk the inevitable weakening of Moscow's influence in Central Asia that would result from US "mission creep" in the region. Others lament the passing of Russia's so-called "third way" in foreign policy -- Putin's bid to forge a partnership with western Europe as a counterbalance to the United States, the world's only remaining superpower. "President Putin made a courageous choice on September 24 in renouncing the the myth of the third way for his country, but Russia risks getting embroiled in a number of problems," argues Dmitry Trenin of Moscow's Carnegie Centre. Russia has ruled out direct involvement in the US-led military attacks on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, concentrating its efforts on the humanitarian effort. But the influential Communist speaker of the State Duma Gennady Seleznyov warned earlier this week that Russian troops could be sucked into the conflict by a mass exodus of refugees from Afghanistan to the former Soviet republics, particularly Tajikistan. Russia already has 7,000 soldiers stationed in the impoverished republic, as well as 11,000 border guards patrolling the 1,200-kilometre (800-mile) border with Afghanistan under a 1992 agreement between Moscow and Dushanbe. However, pro-Kremlin deputy Vladislav Reznik said Wednesday, after returning from a visit to Tajikistan, that Russian forces were ill-equipped to repel a concerted attack by Taliban militia. "The communications systems used by the border troops date from the 1960s and 1970s. They don't have tanks, they don't have any fuel," Reznik added. The Taliban were reported Thursday to have deployed 10,000 troops on the Uzbekistan border after threatening to carry out reprisal attacks on Central Asian neighbours who support the United States in its campaign against Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network. Putin is under pressure "to prove the West is making concessions" -- on debt repayment, missile defence and Russia's wish to join the World Trade Organisation -- in return for "unilaterally" backing the United States, Trenin says. "The Americans have been interested in Central Asia for a long time. Now the fight against terrorism has given them a perfect pretext to get a foot in the region," said Vladimir Kumachev, of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. Russia has begun to deliver up to 45 million dollars worth of arms, including Soviet-era T-55 tanks, combat vehicles, small arms and ammunition, to the anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Moscow has sought to exploit the international struggle against Afghan-based terrorists to whip up Western support for Russia's two-year "anti-terrorist" war against Islamic separatists in Chechnya. However, Putin faces a complex balancing act if his unprecedented support for the US-led coalition is not to jeopardise Russia's longstanding partnerships in the Islamic world, particularly with Iran and Iraq. ******* #2 Moscow Times October 11, 2001 Sowing Seeds of Acrimony? By Pavel Felgenhauer In a pattern almost the same as in other armed conflicts of the last decade, the United States and Britain attacked Afghanistan with warplanes, strategic bombers and cruise missiles. But the number of sorties was not impressive -- 40 on the first day, 20 on the second, as well as several dozen cruise missiles -- in comparison with the thousands of daily sorties carried out during the Gulf War in 1991 or hundreds of NATO daily sorties against Yugoslavia in 1999. However, the Pentagon claims that the strikes virtually destroyed the Taliban's radar capability, air force and air defense system and that the West has gained air superiority. A great military achievement, but only if one forgets that the Taliban did not have any air defense system to begin with. There were only a couple of civilian air-traffic control radars that were donated to Afghanistan by international organizations to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid by airlift. The airports have been repeatedly hit, the radars have been destroyed and no food, medicine or clothing can be airlifted directly into Afghanistan. In the approaching winter, many roads will be closed and a large number of Afghans may perish (international charities say it may be in the hundreds of thousands). After destroying the Taliban's air defense system, U.S. warplanes still do not venture to fly low-altitude missions to engage the bulk of the Taliban's armed forces. The Taliban, with their air defense system "destroyed," still has several hundred operational Soviet-made ZU-23 twin anti-aircraft 23mm guns, mounted on trucks. These mobile guns were mostly used in ground battles during the past 10 years of civil war in Afghanistan, but are now being turned against allied aircraft. In the Gulf in 1991, most allied warplanes were shot down by ZU-23 and ZSU-23 self-propelled Shilka 23mm guns, and this time the same may happen to the embarrassment of the U.S. government. The Taliban also apparently still has some Stinger shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, supplied by the United States to resistance fighters during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Stingers are also a serious danger to low-flying aircraft. The low intensity allied air offensive in Afghanistan has in the first two days destroyed most of the small Taliban air force. But since airpower was not used much in the Afghan civil war, genuine damage to the Taliban war machine seems to be negligible. While the allied air force does not venture to fly low-altitude missions against the Taliban, the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance will not benefit much from the air campaign. And even if the allied attack planes do begin to fly close air-support missions, the effect will be limited, since there are only a few dozen attack planes on the two aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea to cover the whole of Afghanistan. In order to make a dent in the Taliban militarily, the West still needs operational airfields near to or inside of Afghanistan for its tactical air force. Last week, Alexei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the State Duma defense committee, told reporters that "there are growing misgivings in Moscow's political and military circles over American actions in Afghanistan." Russia is in fact already directly involved in the war inside Afghanistan, said Arbatov, since it is supplying the Northern Alliance with tanks and other heavy equipment together with Russian crews and technicians. But the United States does not, in turn, help the Northern Alliance, and when its long-postponed strike comes, it may be fainthearted. "Russia may find itself facing a new enemy -- the Taliban -- alone," concluded Arbatov. To add to Russian dissatisfaction, Washington is not volunteering to pay for the tanks and guns Russia has supplied to the anti-Taliban forces. Reliable sources in Moscow say that parts of the Russian 201st division have also crossed from Tajikistan into Afghanistan to help fight the Taliban. Russian officers and tank crews are operating with the anti-Taliban forces only 30 kilometers north of Kabul. But now the United States says it may stop the bombing campaign altogether "to assess damage." The Taliban may then counterattack the rag-tag Northern Alliance and defeat it, together with its Russian support. The covert Russian invasion of Afghanistan would be exposed, the Russian public would be furious, the elite would blame the treacherous Americans, and the new closeness between Moscow and the West might end in acute acrimony. Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst. ******* #3 Nezavisimaya Gazeta No. 190 October 11, 2001 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] AMERICANS HAVEN'T COME TO STAY, BUT MOSCOW SHOULDN'T LET THEM JUST BOMB SITES AND LEAVE Alexei ARBATOV, deputy chairman of the State Duma Defence Committee, believes that after the rout of the Taliban movement, which may happen next year, there won't be any need for Washington's presence on the CIS countries' borders. Question: One of the questions which arise in connection with the start of the US and British military operation in Afghanistan, is how it will influence Russia and its interests. Answer: Russia itself is a participant in the operation and protects its own interests. If Moscow had stayed on the sidelines, this would have had negative consequences. Firstly, because the operation against the Taliban movement cannot be successful without Russia's participation, and secondly, because the further active presence of the Taliban movement, including in Chechnya and Central Asian republics, would negatively affect the well-being of our society and the country's security. Question: How long will the US-British action last, in your opinion? Answer: If the action aims at capturing bin Laden and his associates, it all depends on the efficiency of special services and special-purpose units. They may capture him in a week, a month, or never. As for the rout of the Taliban, this is hardly possible until the end of this year. If the operation of targeted strikes on the Taliban and assistance to the Northern Alliance continues, the latter might rout the Taliban armed formations by the end of next year, restore legal power in the country and start forming a coalition government and stabilising the country's socio-economic situation. However, if we mean the fight against international terrorism, it will last for years, even given the maximally coordinated efforts of all civilised states. Question: Is there a danger that Russia might come under a terrorist attack? Could our country count on support from the West in such a case? Answer: Regrettably, terrorist actions may be directed against Russia, too. By the way, it was so in 1999 and later. However, if Russia stayed alone in such situations before, now, in connection with the change of the entire international situation, it has opportunities to get support from abroad, including from advanced democracies. Naturally, Russia's participation in the counter-terrorist operation should presuppose mutual commitments should a terrorist act be carried out here. Wherever this might happen, Russia must be sure that it will get political, military and economic assistance from those states together with which it is taking part in the anti-terrorist operation by contributing its resources and thus bringing just retribution on all those people who are guilty of the terrorist attacks in the United States. Question: According to some press reports, Russian soldiers are fighting in tanks of the Northern Alliance. Answer: This isn't really so. There are no Russian soldiers there now. What there is is Russian military hardware and Russian weapons, as well as instructors, advisers and technical specialists who must ensure the proper functioning of this hardware and train troops of the Northern Alliance to use it. However, if the Taliban launches a counter-offensive and violates state frontiers of Uzbekistan or Tajikistan, I think Russia will have to grapple with it and protect Central Asian republics the security of which is directly linked with actual interests of our country's security. If the Northern Alliance needs air support when attacking the Taliban and the United States fails to provide it, I think Russia must ensure such support. But Moscow shouldn't send any troops to Afghanistan or take part in land forces' operations there. It is for Afghan nationals to liberate their own country. Russia may help them, but it shouldn't assume such functions. Question: Do you think Americans have come to stay at the CIS countries' borders? Answer: No, I don't think they've come here to stay. Americans will stay as long as is needed for carrying out the operation. Our task now is not to let them just bomb sites and go away leaving us face to face with the Central Asian republics and the continuing war in Afghanistan. We would like them to stay as long as is needed for routing the Taliban and restoring the legal government of Afghanistan to its rights. When this is done, there won't be any grounds for US military presence there. Transcript by Yulia PETROVSKAYA. ******* #4 RFE/RL Security Watch Vol. 2, No. 39, 10 October 2001 Security, Corruption and Foreign Policy in Russia and the Post-Communist Region THE WAR AGAINST TERROR KREMLIN ADVISER EXPLAINS PUTIN'S DECISION TO ALLY WITH WEST. Gleb Pavlovskii, a media and political advisor to the Kremlin, said on 4 October that President Vladimir Putin had changed positions on NATO expansion and support for American antiterrorist efforts because of genuine fears of Taliban threats to Russian security, strana.ru reported. Pavlovskii said that "for Russia, it is better to have Americans in Uzbekistan than to have the Taliban in Tatarstan." In other comments, he said that Moscow is keeping track of its contributions to the antiterrorist effort and plans to demand that their cost be subtracted from Russia's foreign debts once the "postwar" settlement takes place. PRO-KREMLIN INTELLECTUALS PROVIDE A BROADER RATIONALE. Political scientist Sergei Kurganyan said on 29 September that Putin is using this crisis to help Russia over "the barrier of globalization," RosBalt reported. Putin can thus strengthen himself and his country in this way. Meanwhile Globalization Institute director Mikhail Delyagin also endorsed Putin's new course: "Globalization is a problem only for the weak and the stupid; for the smart and the strong, it provides a chance. Consequently, Russia is right to join the second group." Meanwhile, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said that "without Russia, it is impossible to build a united Europe or a new world order." RUSSIA SUPPORTS U.S., U.K. STRIKES. In a statement televised by the national network channels on 8 October, President Putin welcomed the beginning of the U.S.-led military operation against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. "The terrorists never expected such consolidation of the world community in the face of a common enemy," he said. Putin said that Moscow plans to increase its cooperation with "our European and American partners" in fighting terrorism and providing humanitarian assistance. Meanwhile, Deputy Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee Aleksei Arbatov said that the Taliban must be destroyed as a "nest of terrorism." Russia will give all its political support to the U.S. military operation and direct military assistance to the Northern Alliance, Arbatov told Russian public TV on 7 October. ******* #5 Russia: Federation Council Passes Historic Land Code By Francesca Mereu Russia's upper house of parliament yesterday gave final approval to a bill lifting a ban on the sale of land that was one of the last vestiges of the Soviet economic system. RFE/RL Moscow correspondent Francesca Mereu looks at the reaction of Russia's different political factions to the new Land Code. Moscow, 11 October 2002 (RFE/RL) -- On 10 October, Russia's upper house of parliament, the Federation Council, easily passed (103 votes to 29, with nine abstentions) a bill that permits limited sales of land. The State Duma, or lower house, overwhelmingly approved the new Land Code in the last of three readings last month. The Land Code -- which received strong support from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is expected to sign it soon -- does not apply to farmland, which is due to be addressed in a future bill. The Kremlin hopes that the current legislation will boost economic reforms and attract foreign investment. The absence of workable land legislation has been one of the largest deterrents to foreign businesses and is blamed for slowing Russia's economic development. Until now, land sales had been regulated by the country's local legislatures using a complex and sometimes archaic system of laws. Despite the pro-Kremlin leanings of the Federation Council, yesterday's parliamentary debate over the Land Code did not go smoothly. The bill was strongly opposed by the Communist and Agrarian parties, who argued the bill would allow foreigners and wealthy Russians to buy up Russian land. In fact, the new Land Code affects only about two percent of Russian land. Alexander Nazarchuk, the leader of the Agrarians in the Altai regions, said he was concerned the new bill would legitimize all illegal land sales made before the bill was passed. He also said the bill would leave Russia's forests wide open to purchase and exploitation: "Why are we in such a hurry? Let's sit down and try to find an agreement. This code makes it possible not only to [build on] land but also to privatize our woodlands. This is what you all are voting for." Mikhail Odinzov, a lawmaker from the Ryazan region, said that the Federation Council's political factions should support the president's will despite any differences over the Land Code: "It is impossible for those who support the advantages of private property and those who are against it to come to an agreement. [But we should remember that] when we voted for [Putin], he said he would back both private property and a market economy. Now we have to decide: Are we with the president's policy or against it?" Russia's 1993 Constitution allows Russians to buy and sell land, but parliament has traditionally been reluctant to pass legislation that would put that right into effect. Russia's minister for economic development and trade, German Gref, called the Land Code a big step forward for Russia's economy. He says it will prevent the black market from profiting unduly from the sale of land. He said such "shadow sales" cost the Russian government between $1 billion and $2 billion a year: "First of all, the bill will prevent the black market [from taking revenues from land sales]. When you have 10,000 percent of [revenues] that come from the sale of land, we can say that land-sale revenues are comparable to those from drugs and arms sales and from different black-market businesses. This bill will prevent these kinds of things. [Now] these revenues [can] go to municipal and regional budgets." Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov criticized the Land Code's price restrictions on land occupied by public city facilities. But the mayor said he would have voted for the code despite his objections, saying it would contribute to the more active use of land and boost investor confidence. ******* #6 Asia Times October 11, 2001 Putin's Chechen spin has rights groups in a whirl By Sergei Blagov MOSCOW - In the wake of the US-led air strikes against the Taliban, Russia has tightened security around water supply and nuclear installations in Moscow. Hundreds of people died in Moscow in September 1999 when two high-rise apartment blocks were blown up in what the authorities described as terrorist attacks by the Chechen rebels, supported by Osama bin Laden. The Kremlin has accused Chechen separatists of maintaining close ties with bin Laden and the Taliban, but rights groups are not convinced. " President [Vladimir] Putin has tried to use the events of September 11 to get carte blanche for the conduct of Russian forces in Chechnya," said Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of the HRW's Europe and Central Asia division. The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) claimed that it has documented "very serious violations of human rights" by Russian forces in Chechnya, including summary executions, torture, disappearances, and indiscriminate bombing. Diderik Lohman, the HRW representative in Moscow, told journalists last week that recent Russian security operations in Chechnya amounted to collective punishment of the civilian population. Last week Putin gave the Chechen separatists 72 hours to lay down their arms, promising that those who have not committed grave crimes will be pardoned. But human rights advocate and State Duma deputy Sergei Kovalyov claimed that the Russian Air Force bombed Chechen villages following expiration of Putin's ultimatum as no sizeable rebel defection was recorded. Putin's aide in charge of human rights, Vladimir Kalamanov, dismissed HRW's claims as "baseless", and Kovalyov's statement as "a figment of his imagination". Putin told journalist during a Russia-EU summit in Brussels last week that Moscow is ready for dialogue with the Chechen separatists, but that they must first cut all ties with international terrorists. EU officials have softened their criticism of Russia's actions in Chechnya in the interests of building a broad coalition against international terrorism. "The European Union expressed its support for the efforts of the Russian authorities to find a political resolution" in Chechnya, a joint Russia-EU statement said. Sergei Yastrzhembsky, the Kremlin's chief spokesperson for Chechnya, told journalists in Moscow that at least four of the perpetrators of the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington had fought against Russian forces in Chechnya. He also claimed that Chechen rebels receive "millions of dollars" from no less than 100 terrorist sources abroad. Putin's envoy in Chechnya, Viktor Kazantsev said that he is ready to meet Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov to set terms for disarmament, but warned that Moscow will never accept the Republic's bid for independence. Yastrzhembsky also mentioned "telephone talks" between government officials and Maskhadov's representatives. Until recently the Kremlin ruled out any possibility of talks with Maskhadov. "It is impossible to hold talks with someone involved in terrorism," said Kazantsev. Last summer about 100 Chechen refugees held a hunger strike and demanded talks between Putin and Maskhadov, elected in 1997 but now declared an outlaw by the Kremlin. "The Federal authorities should have no contacts or talks with Maskhadov or his supporters," Chechnya's chief administrator Akhmad Kadyrov told journalists in the Chechen capital Grozny recently. During the war in Chechnya, Russian troops conducted searches of Chechen villages, known as zachistki, or cleansing. Officially, the searches aimed at checking documents and finding rebels. However, there have been numerous allegations of abuses and looting by troops. Large-scale "cleansing" operations, including house-to-house searches and massive identity checks, by federal troops in Chechen villages have sparked another refugee outflows to neighboring Russian region Ingushetia, where more than 100,000 Chechens have found an asylum. Russian officials described the operations as "tough but necessary" measures to find separatists among the civilian population. The Russian army retook Chechnya in 1999 in the wake of 1996 defeat by separatists. More than 3,000 servicemen have died in the course of the "second Chechen war", according to Russian official accounts. Russia's official media outlets describe life in Chechnya as returning to normal, although Russian troops still suffer casualties from rebel attacks daily. Separatists also kill pro-Moscow Chechen village chiefs, trying to intimidate anyone cooperating with the federal authorities. Chechen conflict is deeply rooted in the Chechen society itself, Sergei Rogozin, State Duma deputy, said recently. "All decision relating to Chechnya's future must be taken by the Chechen people," he sadi. However, it remains to be seen whether a viable solution in Chechnya can be worked out soon - especially with a backdrop of military action in Afghanistan and softened Western criticism. (Inter Press Service) ****** #7 BBC Monitoring TV says USA, Russia playing geostrategic game in Afghanistan, Central Asia Source: Ren TV, Moscow, in Russian 1500 gmt 11 Oct 01 Russian TV commentator Olga Romanova has said that the USA is using the current Afghanistan crisis to try to remove Russian influence over the geostrategically important Central Asian region. She said the real purpose of an upcoming US-British ground operation in Afghanistan was to create a new regime there and to cause refugees to spill into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan where - in combination with drug barons and fundamentalists - they would soon dislodge pro-Russian administrations . The USA also sought to gain control over the oil route through Asia from the Caspian. Russia, whatever its officials said, had secretly been backing Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan since the mid-1990s. The following is the text of the comment broadcast by Russian Ren TV on 11 October: [Olga Romanova] Judging by all the indications, US and British military units will enter Afghanistan in the next few hours. Right now it is fairly difficult to guess what they will do there other than engage in pinpoint attacks. The most immediate result of the ground operation probably will be the overthrow of the Taleban regime and the formation of an Afghan coalition government which also will include Taleban people. That is to say that the Taleban people at whom the Americans will be shooting are bad Taleban and the Taleban people who will be included in the [new] Afghan government are good Taleban people. Bin-Ladin a pawn in a bigger geopolitical game The long-term economic and geopolitical interests of America in Central Asia are much more important for the United States than the head of Usamah Bin-Ladin. The latter is just a pawn in a big game; he is some kind of human explosive. The US National Intelligence Service recently prepared a report entitled: global trends up to the year 2015. The report says and I quote from it: The greatest increase in demand for energy products is expected to be in Asia, especially China and India, which means North America will be dislodged from the position of the main consumer. By 2015 only one-tenth of the oil produced in the Persian Gulf region will go to the Western market. Of course, the Americans will not agree to tightening their belts and to cutting their consumption of energy. What if not this is a cause for a small and victorious war? [Female Correspondent] By fighting in Afghanistan, the USA is seeking not only the annihilation of Usamah Bin-Ladin and the terrorist organization al-Qa'ida. The experts believe that long-term geostrategic interests in Central Asia are much more important for the USA. Iran and Iraq, which possess large reserves of oil and gas, have left American influence for an indefinite period of time. After the first strikes on Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia broke off diplomatic relations with America. For a long time, that state with most major reserves of energy products was a raw material base for the USA. For this reason, the energy resources of the Caspian Sea basin have become all the more important. But oil from that region only reaches the world market via Russia. The US company Unocal already started building a pipeline which will mean Uzbek oil will bypass Russia via Turkmenistan and Afghanistan and arrive in the Pakistani ports of Karachi and Gwadar. But this project had to be mothballed until such times as peace and stability arrives in Afghanistan and a [new] government formed there is recognized by the United Nations and the USA. [graphic: map of the Gulf/Central Asia region.] Russia, USA vying for influence in Central Asia [Romanova] The Central Asian republics - I refer to former USSR republics - seem to be quite satisfied with this turn of events. And why not? Girls, even in the East, always enjoy a situation where two enviable suitors suffer for you, court you, and fight each other for you. In this case, we have Russian and American suitors. The Central Asian republics already have been on dates with the Russian suitor. Now they want to try dating the American suitor. At the same time, they have no intention of letting the Russian suitor go. Uzbek President Islam Karimov, for instance, refused even to have talks about supplies to Uzbekistan of contemporary Western arms. This refusal is understandable: the Uzbek army is accustomed to simple and good-quality Russian weapons. Moreover, if one is to believe Western media reports, Karimov managed to wring out of President Vladimir Putin fresh deliveries of Russian arms at a good price. Uzbekistan has no money so it was decided to exchange raisins and nuts for guns. The Americans now have proposed to Uzbekistan taking upon themselves the task of paying for the latest Russian arms deliveries: Uncle Sam will pick up the tab. US newspapers say the supplies are: two MiGs, three helicopters, a transport plane, artillery shells and Kalashnikovs with cartridges. True, the New York Times - which today published a large article about the wild Central Asian republics and the clans inhabiting them - says that certain mighty Central Asian clans may not take to the American suitor. [Male correspondent, quoting from New York Times] The population of the former Soviet Central Asian republics will not automatically follow their presidents' bidding and may protest sharply against the rapprochement with America. Russia secretly helping Taleban enemies in Afghanistan since 1996 [Romanova] All the indications are that Russian politicians and military people are not slumbering. For example, unofficial and as yet unconfirmed reports say that men from the special detachments of the airborne troops and from the Main Intelligence Administration of the General Staff have been sent to join our 201st division in Tajikistan. Of course, the situation in Central Asia is completely and utterly connected with events in Afghanistan. The Americans are not preparing to settle in the Afghan hills for centuries to come. Therefore, there is a theory that they will attempt to set off a mighty outflow of refugees in the northerly direction to Central Asia where UN refugee camps would then be established, just as in Pakistan and particularly in Macedonia. These refugees in combination with local drug trafficking criminals and fundamentalist structures will become the bosses rather than guests, after which not a trace will be left of Russian influence. But I seem to recall that the Russian Defence Ministry keeps on saying that there can be no talk of a Russian military presence in Afghanistan. [Pavel Felgengauer, captioned as independent military expert] In effect, Russia has been participating in the war in Afghanistan since 1996 when we starting giving support on the quiet to the Northern Alliance. And we have advisors and airmen there. Our warplanes from time to time have bombed the Taleban. Even if Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov yesterday declared publicly to the Federation Council that they [the Northern Alliance] do not need our advisors, that of course is nonsense because just recently 200 pieces of heavy materiel - and maybe more - were supplied. I mean tanks, APCs, Infantry Fighting Vehicles, Grad missile systems, and artillery pieces. How else is it that the Northern Alliance - and, of course, they are mobilizing the peasants - will find experts to use all of this materiel? [Romanova] It is a longstanding tradition of ours secretly to send arms and military advisors. The Americans in this sense are much more forthright: they take and give Tajikistan 3m dollars to fight the drought, after which Tajikistan offers the USA use of its airfields. Back in our country news agencies report that the [still not completed] ice palace in Yaroslavl [which was meant to co-host the 2000 world hockey championship] cost 74m dollars. That money could have been used for more than fighting droughts and in more than just Tajikistan. ****** #8 Ukraine's Kuchma rejects resignation as missile view of downing firms KIEV, Oct 11 (AFP) - Ukrainian Defence Minister Olexander Kuzmuk offered to resign "immediately" after last week's Russian plane crash in the Black Sea, but President Leonid Kuchma said Thursday he had refused to accept the resignation. The Russian Tu-154 airliner which crashed into the Black Sea a week ago killing all 76 passengers and crew is believed to have been brought down by an S-200 missile fired during a military exercise. Kuchma told reporters that "as president and supreme commander, I am not going to get rid of my people so easily." Kuzmuk had been the most insistent of Ukrainian officials denying his country's involvement in the plane crash, which was initially attributed to a terrorist act or a mechanical failure. Kuchma, who had also rejected responsibility until conceding Tuesday it was "theoretically" possible a Ukrainian missile had shot down the Sibir airlines Tu-154, stressed that they should wait for the findings of the official investigation. In Vienna, Ukrainian Prime Minister Anatoly Kinakh said he hoped the results of the probe would be published "shortly" but declined to speculate further on the outcome. He reiterated that the crash was a tragedy for which Kiev expressed its condolences to the families of the victims. The Sibir airliner had just left Tel Aviv and was travelling to the Siberian city of Novosibirsk, carrying mainly Israeli passengers. The head of Ukraine's Security and Defence Council, Evhen Marchuk, arrived in Sochi to inspect fragments of the plane's fuselage pulled from the sea. He was accompanied by Russian Security Council chief Vladimir Rushailo, who heads the Russian investigating commission charged with determining the causes of the disaster. On Tuesday a senior member of the commission revealed that experts had found tiny metal balls resembling fragments of an S-200 missile in the plane's wreckage. And the missile theory gained further ground Thursday when the Russian daily Kommersant reported that air traffic controllers heard the pilot of the airliner shout "Where are we hit?" seconds before the place crashed into the Black Sea. The pilot Yevgeny Garov was in radio contact with the North Caucasus ground control centre for six minutes prior to the blast that rocked the plane, and for several seconds after explosion, the paper said, quoting Vladimir Zhukov, the deputy chief of the control centre. Garov had told ground control that the flight was proceeding normally. Then seconds after the Tu-154 vanished from radar screens, he was heard over the maintained radio link to shout "Where are we hit?" "Clearly Garov was asking his crew to find out exactly what damage had been caused by the explosion of the missile so he could tell ground control, but he didn't have time," Zhukov said. Quoting unnamed experts, Kommersant said the plane had been shot down accidentally by a Ukrainian S-200 missile that exploded a few dozen metres (yards) away and not right alongside, as it is programmed to do. If this were proved to be the case, "the passengers and crew died not in the air but when crashing into the sea," Igor Shipanov, head of the autopsy service in the morgue at Sochi, on Russia's Black Sea coast, told the daily. ******* #9 strana.ru October 11, 2001 Relations between Ukraine and Russia Are Going through the Most Crucial Trial Russian press on TU-154 disaster Yevgeny Yevdokimov, Strana.Ru observer That Ukrainians were involved in the Russian Tu-154 air disaster over the Black Sea has been practically proven. As the Russian media remarks, a situation has been created in relations between Russia and Ukraine that is fundamentally new. Journalists seem to agree that these relations are now going through the most crucial test since the Soviet Union fell apart ten years ago. In Izvestia's opinion, the political elite of the two countries is also passing through a kind of civility test well. The daily holds that the scandal is only beginning to unwind. Nonetheless, certain conclusions can be drawn now. The main thing for Russia is that right from the moment when news of the disaster appeared and the "Ukrainian connection" was considered to be the main cause, Moscow has been acting most tactfully, with restraint, almost benevolently in respect to Kiev. The Kremlin has been displaying obvious empathy towards a neighbor that has found itself in hot water. The Kremlin is not giving in to the temptation to catch Kiev lying publicly, in front of the whole world. Time will pass and the Ukrainians may probably appreciate such fastidiousness. Not everyone in Kiev (or in Moscow for that matter) had expected such tact. Analysts see the Kremlin's behavior in the given situation as the best argument in the dispute with those Ukrainian politicians who still fear "Russia's aspirations for revenge" and "empire-building ambitions." Vremya Novostei writes that Kiev still hopes to prove that the Ukrainian military had nothing to do with the air disaster. However, if it is proven that Ukraine is responsible for the death of almost 100 people, the Ukrainian Parliament will demand the dismissal of all the officials that had a hand in organizing the military exercises in the Crimea, including those at the top echelons of power. Deputy Sergei Terekhin made a statement to this effect in an interview with Vremya Novostei. The newspaper even offers a "black list" of Ukrainian leaders that may get the boot. Heading this list is Defense Minister Nikolai Kuzmuk and the commander in chief of the republic's Air Defense system, Vladimir Tkachev. Certain pundits of Russian-Ukrainian relation believe that Moscow will not miss the chance to take advantage of Kiev's blunders and will try to regain its status of "guarantor of security" in the post-Soviet region. Ukrainian politicians fear that this may result in prolonging the stay of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea for an indefinite period of time. They also fear that this will lead to attempts to drag Ukraine into new military-political alliances with Russia. In reply, their opponents maintain that a scenario purporting that Ukraine may find itself dependent on Moscow on the basis of a single incident is "laying it on too thick." In its commentary, Izvestia believes that Moscow will not demand too much from Kiev, only that it admit its guilt, repent and promise compensation for the damage incurred. It is important that they do not simply promise (for Ukrainian politicians are fond of making promises), but really pay up. At the same time, Vedomosti points out that even if Ukraine manages to get off with an apology for the air disaster, other no less serious pretexts for complaints may be found. Moscow and Kiev have many political and economic problems that have not yet been completely thrashed out. Cynical as it may sound, Ukraine's admission of its guilt may have a favorable impact on Russia's airline market, the newspaper writes. Analysts forecast at least a 5% growth in this market next year, and this on the backdrop of an almost one-third drop in the U. S. market. The version that a Ukrainian missile downed the Russian airliner seems to have satisfied everyone in the end, no matter how horrendous it looked from the very beginning. Everyone, of course, means Russian and Ukrainian officials, politicians, the military, the airlines and insurers. Russia has made it clearly understood to Ukraine that if it admits its military shot down the airliner, it may get away with only making profound apologies. ****** #10 The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst. The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute of The Johns Hopkins University-The Nitze School of Advanced International Studies BIWEEKLY BRIEFING Wednesday/October 10, 2001 TOWARDS GEOSTRATEGIC REALIGNMENT IN CENTRAL ASIA Prof. Stephen Blank AUTHOR BIO: Professor Stephen Blank, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013. The views expressed here do not represent the views of the U.S. Army, Defense Department, or the U.S. Government Traditionally crisis denotes both challenge and opportunity. The new anti-terrorist war offers the United States and Central Asian governments both a challenge and an opportunity to effect a mutually advantageous regional geopolitical realignment. Should this realignment take place, it can alleviate many other security dilemmas that afflict Central Asia and its neighbors. BACKGROUND: Central Asia's fundamental geostrategic attribute is that its proximity to East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East makes it part of an ever dynamic system of interstate relations. The competing struggles for influence there among numerous powers great and small, and the Central Asian rulers' determination to maintain their maximum freedom by diversifying their security policies are constant factors of regional relationships. The impending war against Afghanistan-based terrorism offers these states a chance to escape from Russo-Chinese efforts to dominate them, as expressed in the recent evolution of the "Shanghai" Cooperation. The "Shanghai-6" organization has become a platform for joint Russo-Chinese denunciations of American policies and for a collective security organization that actually allows for either Russia and/or China to project military forces into the area. Allegedly they would be defending Central Asia against separatism, terrorism, and extremism, a justification that also could allow Russian forces to fight alongside China in a Taiwan scenario. Yet despite Russia's denunciations of terrorism, little material aid has flowed to Central Asia and there is reason to suspect Russian collusion with at least some of the alleged terrorist groups, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). After all, Russia is the only power who gains any benefit from the perpetuation of insurgency in Central Asia, because that offers it a pretext, now enshrined in the Shanghai-6 communique, to project its military power into the region. Simultaneously, few Central Asian statesmen can regard with equanimity the possibility of China projecting forces into their territories. The impending war offers them a chance to break out of this dead end. It is noteworthy that Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the states with most to lose from Russo-Chinese condominium and those who wished for previous Western support against terrorism, were relatively quick to promise Washington bases, overflight rights, intelligence sharing, etc. Undoubtedly their determination to do so and thus display their full sovereignty on defense issues forced Russia's hand and induced President Putin to make a large offer of cooperation with Washington. Nevertheless Moscow and Beijing decidedly view American presence in Central Asia with apprehension and clearly want to limit the U.S. regional presence in terms of its size, duration, and mission. IMPLICATIONS: This situation offers both Washington and Central Asia an opportunity, especially if Washington can not only alter the Afghan authorities' (whomever they eventually are) support for international and cross-border terrorism and drug trafficking, but also induce Pakistan and/or Iran to stop supporting terrorism or insurgencies, either in Kashmir or the Middle East. To the degree that Washington can persuade or, more bluntly, frighten, either Tehran or Islamabad into reshaping their regional foreign policies, it can support more alternatives for Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, and Uzbekistan as well as smaller Kyrgyzstan and even Russian client Tajikistan to expand and diversify their international trade to those states. That possibility entails energy pipelines and the construction of major infrastructural and transportation outlets that will greatly stimulate trade among all these states. Such large-scale growth of trade, provided Afghanistan is pacified and becomes the recipient of sustained international efforts at reconstruction, offers Central Asia major security and economic benefits. It would certainly help the regional governments overcome the logjam concerning pipelines and shatter the material basis for the Iranian-Russian alliance, partly directed against Central Asian governments and Azerbaijan. This strategic realignment also offers a possibility for genuine Indo-Pakistani negotiations and reduced tensions between Iran and its neighbors and/or Israel. Either or both of those outcomes would clearly be mutually beneficial for everyone in the Middle East, Central Asia, and/or South Asia. While this vision may seem too audacious, this crisis and the fact that the war is not likely to be a short one, offers the possibilities for major restructuring of Central Asian alignments to the benefit of local regimes and the United States. CONCLUSIONS: As the U.S.-led coalition commences its war against terrorist networks emanating from Central Asia, Washington should keep the larger perspective in mind. Central Asia suffers from pervasive misrule, and accompanying major economic problems which are exacerbated by the drug trade, insurgency originating in Afghanistan, and by Russian efforts to keep it economically dependent based on an essentially colonial exploitation of energy and raw materials. If this coalition can win and exact changed security policies from those who wish to join it like Pakistan or possibly Iran, the road is open to alleviating (though hardly curing) many of the evils that beset the region and stimulate violence and terror. That outcome alone, if it can be realized, would sufficiently justify the war that is now beginning. ****** #11 Nezavisimaya Gazeta October 10, 2001 A GLOBAL PROVOCATION Why the war against terrorism may not be what it seems Author: Leonid Ivashov [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] ANY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISM WILL AMOUNT TO TILTING AGAINST WINDMILLS IF WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE-EFFECT RELATIONS IN EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED. THE TRAGEDY OF SEPTEMBER 11 BENEFITS FORCES WHICH SEEK TO STRENGTHEN WASHINGTON'S GLOBAL DOMINANCE. The military operation against Afghanistan and George W. Bush's menacing warning that the US will consider any government which supports terrorism as its enemy concerns practically all countries, because it is easy enough to find terrorists and reports of terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, the US can accuse any country which did not support the operation of supporting terrorism - and the image of the enemy is ready. Of course, the Taliban is an evil. However, the US did not want to vote for sanctions against this regime a few months ago... The tragedy in New York and Washington raises many questions. Were the terrorist attacks on September 11 a global challenge by terrorists to the international security? Could they have been a provocation by powerful transnational forces which use terrorists to achieve their goals? Any operations against terrorism will amount to tilting against windmills if we do not understand the cause-effect relations in everything that has happened. Why did terrorists attack the US, the top nation in economic and military terms, and the leader of the civilized world? The other side of the coin is darker. The US is a country which considers the whole planet - and outer space - as the zone of its interests. This country wants to gain control over the whole world and forces its allies to support its interests, thus disregarding traditions of other nations. The essence of the new world order is a global Monroe doctrine. The US seeks global dominance. A far as the causes of the tragedy in the US are concerned, they should be sought in 1991 when the US contributed to the disintegration of the USSR. The Soviet Union guaranteed the stability of the world. The USSR held the US back from aggressive attacks and gave Washington a chance to remain a democratic country. The USSR prevented the US from using its military force and new technologies for gaining control over the world. At present, no one can stop Washington's expansion and its aggressive policy. The US has ignored the UN. This is why many forces protest against this expansion spontaneously. Anti-globalization protesters hold demonstrations in Europe and oppose the process of globalization launched by the US. Terrorism was born because Washington's policies cannot be stopped by democratic methods. The tragedy which happened on September 11 is a consequence of Washington's policy and an advantage for US forces which seek global predominance in the world. On the other hand, such a policy will aggravate protests which will lead to new terrorist actions. This situation raises a very important questions: aren't terrorist acts in New York and Washington a well-planned global provocation? If we were to view the version of the events of September 11 as a huge provocation, then we should discover the motives and aims of its organizers and those forces that ordered this large-scale crime. As for the immediate executors, it is obvious that there exists social habitat for their appearance and there are enough people ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah, for the sake of justice. This "human trotyl" is dangerous only potentially. It explodes only when some other people put it under some object and launch the trigger. And I am absolutely sure that Osama bin Laden, Terrorist No. 1 is nothing but a more powerful charge of the same "human trotyl". They started creating him when anti-western terrorism was spreading rapidly - the 1960s and 1970s. It was then that in a number of countries of the Middle East, Latin America and South-East Asia there were established organizations, professionally dealing with preparing and carrying out acts of terrorism. The main objects of this diversion activities were the United States, Israel, France, Britain. All these events prompted the CIA and Mossad to conclude that it was necessary to establish a wide network of agents in the Islamic states and to set up anti-Soviet terrorist structures. Appearance of Soviet troops in Afghanistan in December 1979 favored this idea. This is how Osama bin Laden appeared. The media often say that bin Laden left his masters. Did he? Or did he just change his masters? In connection with bin Laden there are a number of questions, and the first of them is about his invulnerability. The Taliban is a creature of Pakistani secret services, which are strategic allies of the US secret services. And today, if the US wants Osama bin Laden dead or alive (most likely they want him dead), Pakistanis would hand him over on a silver platter. The second question: why did bin Laden keep his money openly in US banks, without anyone touching it until September 2001? And another thing: why does Osama bin Laden express his extremist inclinations when Israel has political problems? As we know, the situation around Tel Aviv is especially gloomy this year. And according to the Washington Post on October 1, it was in September this year that Secretary of State Colin Powell was going to express the idea of supporting the establishment of a independent state of Palestine; only the tragedy of September 11 wrecked these plans. And even during the first hours of the US retaliatory strikes, Osama bin Laden (or someone who looks very much like him) played up to its organizers, making a speech on television. At that, if earlier he proclaimed that he was innocent, this time he accepted it, and thus, justified the decision of George Bush. We have to conclude that some other forces, apart from the Islamic world, need a Terrorist No. 1. What aims might the action with the planes follow if it was a planned provocation? Nowadays, geo-economical interests are in the foreground, defending the interests of the United States - of giant transnational oil companies, to be more exact. For example, in the Balkans Washington is puffing up Albanian nationalism and setting up a network of protectors and tiny states, thus deciding the destiny of Bulgarian- Macedonian-Albanian oil transport routes. The same combination reveals itself in the Middle East, where a state of controlled tension is being kept up artificially. Such plans are connected with the Caspian Sea oil fields. The provocation of September 11 serves the interests of tightening military control of the US over oil routes, enhancing political-military pressure on states producing oil, activating influence on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Thus, one of the parties interested in the provocation might be the United States, and multinationals as well. In the political sphere aims were dictated on the assumption of worsened political image of Washington, which was caused by its aggressive actions in the Middle East and the Balkans, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty of 1972, ignoring the UN and other international organizations, ignoring the standards and principles of the international law. The huge provocation enables the US to appear as the injured party, the victim, drawing sympathy from around the world. And the slogan of "those who aren't with us are with the terrorists" fits into the situation very well. Nobody wants to be with the terrorists, nobody wants to be a target for US missiles. It means that other nations can only be with the United States, sharing responsibility for its policies - past, present and future; sharing responsibility for this global-scale escapade. So all of us, or nearly all, are tied to US policy. And this is a fairly serious step toward world domination. (Translated by Daria Brunova and Alexander Dubovoi) ******* #12 BBC Monitoring Russian daily says Taleban a threat to Pakistan, Uzbekistan Source: Izvestiya, Moscow, in Russian 11 Oct 01 The influential Russian daily Izvestiya has warned Russia that its geopolitical interests could be at risk if developments in Afghanistan take a dramatic turn. The daily goes on to warn about the dangers which Pakistan's nuclear bombs could pose to the region as a whole in view of the instability which could reign following a Taleban fall. Subheadings have been inserted editorially. The following is the text of report by Russian newspaper Izvestiya on 11 October: Russia's geopolitical interests at risk Yesterday morning [10 October], the TV news started carrying a report about a Taleban offensive against Pakistani territory; that report then went off the air. But it was merely a warning of a possibly dramatic development of events - the world adjoining Afghanistan stands on the brink of a major redivision which can only be stopped through extraordinary actions by diplomats and the military. Otherwise events will develop on the basis of a negative scenario, which will directly affect Russia's geopolitical interests. It would seem that for the time being there is no particular reason to be afraid - according to statements made by representatives of the Northern Alliance, 1,800 members of the Taleban have surrendered in the past 24 hours. Others are fleeing to Pakistan - and Western news agencies report that there was a two-hour firefight on the Afghan-Pakistani border. Thirty of the Taleban were stopped by Pakistani border guards - clearly, that attempt by a handful of people was seen by the TV as the start of an offensive. Moreover, yesterday's Taleban statement about the removal of "all restrictions on the movements of Usamah Bin-Ladin", however threatening its form, essentially changes nothing. Izvestiya's source at the Russian Foreign Ministry is confident that "for some time now it has not been the Taleban controlling the actions of Bin-Ladin, but the Saudi millionaire who has been dictating his ground rules to the Taleban". All of this is probably no more than a desperate propaganda stunt on the part of the former madrasah students. Greater Pashtunistan haunts Pakistan Nonetheless, it is no accident that Islamabad has been reacting so painfully and intensely to all of these pinpricks - the Pakistani elite discerns behind these small tremors the rumbling of an impending earthquake. Pakistani President General Musharraf is most worried about Taleban radicals infiltrating areas where the Pashtun population predominates. The spectre of a "Greater Pashtunistan" uniting Pashtuns on both sides of the border has haunted the country's rulers for more than 10 years. The Taleban would be incredibly stupid if they did not attempt to play the "Pashtun card", which could threaten in the future to bring down the country that had until recently so selflessly supported them. Unfortunately, we cannot count on their stupidity. All the more so as they, just like the al-Qa'idah gunmen, do not necessarily need to seize power in Pakistan; they need only gain access to nuclear weapons. According to certain information, Islamabad has 30-50 nuclear bombs. And there are a lot of Taleban sympathizers among the Pakistani military, particularly at the "lower levels" of the hierarchy. The reshuffle recently undertaken by Pakistani President Gen Musharraf within the "power structures" will not solve the problem - it is far harder to control the junior officer corps than it is to control the General Staff. Moreover, the structure of Pakistani society is such that the elite, which has been educated in and is geared to secular values, has no real support within society. It is awfully far removed from the people - and it is only for that reason that the Western community can do business with it. The paradox of the situation is that America is bound to oppose democratic aspirations among citizens of Islamic countries - without relying on authoritarian regimes able to ignore aggressive publics, the incipient operation has no chance at all of succeeding. Playing with fire Something similar is also happening on the northern outskirts of Afghanistan; in a recent interview it was no accident that Uzbek President Islam Karimov (the only leader of a post-Soviet country who has decided to provide his territory for deployments by the US military) struck an almost hysterical note. He cannot fail to assist America - the secular regimes of Central Asia, being, as they are, very far removed from the norms of "enduring freedom", cannot now get by without its protection. And, at the same time, he realizes that he is taking an incredible risk, that the peace and quiet that have prevailed at the top levels of Uzbek politics are merely a sumptuous cover for dormant conflicts that could come to life if the Taleban were to respond to the "betrayal" of the cause of world Islamization by striking back. Despite the fact that Islamabad, Tashkent, and Washington are currently on the same side of the front, it is still not known how everything will ultimately turn out. America will have to offer Musharraf and Karimov a lot of tempting carrots to keep them on the side of the fight against terrorism. It would be no bad thing for Russia to store up some presents of its own either. Because Pakistan is far away, but nuclear weapons are always nearby. And it is just a stone's throw to Uzbekistan. *******