September 17, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5446 • 5447

Johnson's Russia List
#5446
17 September 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. The Times (UK): Richard Beeston, Generals size up 'launch pads' in Central Asia.
2. BBC Monitoring: Afghan Northern Alliance believe US strikes will help defeat Taleban - Russia TV.
3. AP: Tajikistan Won't Allow Afghan Attacks.
4. BBC Monitoring: Prominent MP ponders aftermath of US terror attacks. (Kokoshin)
5. RIA Novosti: EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON RECEIVES INQUIRIES ABOUT 158 RUSSIAN CITIZENS.
6. UPI: Ariel Cohen, The Geopolitical Paradigm Shifts.
7. SMI.RU: Dmitri Buntman, "Russia will help the US if it works to the advantage of our national interests." (collection of comments)
8. Financial Times (UK): Andrew Jack, Russia mulls measures to reform banking sector.
9. Robert Bruce Ware: Terrorism.
10. Lionel Beehner: Comment on McFaul's "Thank You Russia"/5444.
11. The Sunday Times (UK): Mark Franchetti, Russian film role puts rock star Adams in the Kremlin war zone.
12. strana.ru: Communists worried over attempts to quarrel Russia with Islamic world.]

******

#1
The Times (UK)
SEPTEMBER 17 2001
Generals size up 'launch pads' in Central Asia
BY RICHARD BEESTON, DIPLOMATIC EDITOR

THE former Soviet Central Asian republics bordering Afghanistan may offer
the best launching pad for any American military operation against the
Taleban authorities and Osama bin Laden.

Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, which share the northern frontier
with Afghanistan, could provide a US expeditionary force with the staging
ground for air attacks and even land operations. The republics are largely
hostile to the Taleban and have condemned last week’s attacks on America
and offered to help.

Objections from the Kremlin to having American troops stationed in a region
that has traditionally been under Russia’s sphere of influence would have
to be overcome before any American operation could be contemplated. If a
deal can be struck, however, in meetings scheduled to take place this week,
a new northern front could be opened in the United States’s declared war
against terrorists based in Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan, in particular, could be attractive for military planners
drawing up contingencies. During the communist era, Tashkent, the Uzbek
capital, was the headquarters of the Soviet forces in Central Asia. It was
used as the base for the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and remained the
main logistics centre during the decade-long Soviet occupation.

A British source with extensive knowledge of the region said: “The military
infrastructure exists in Uzbekistan for the Americans to mount a 24-hour
air campaign and even ground operations.”

There is a sprawling air base in Tashkent and a large tank park and airbase
at Termez, right on the Afghan border. In addition, the Uzbeks have a long
history of hostility towards the Taleban. They have been supplying arms and
funding across the border to ethnic Uzbek rebels, of the Northern Alliance,
in their fight against the Taleban.

“You would not need to persuade the Uzbeks about the merits of attacking
the Taleban,” one former diplomat in the region said. “They would be
delighted.”

Tajikistan, the main supply route for arms and fighters of the Northern
Alliance, is also an option. Russia has nearly 10,000 troops of the 201st
Motor Rifle Division in two large military bases and almost 15,000 troops,
recruited locally but commanded by Russian officers, patrolling the border
with Afghanistan.

Once established in the region, the Americans could even consider deploying
forces inside Afghanistan at the former Soviet air base at Bagram, which is
under the control of the Northern Alliance and is only 40 miles north of
Kabul, the capital.

Turkmenistan could also be approached for help, although it has declared
itself neutral and has had better relations with the Taleban than the other
former Soviet republics in Central Asia. It shares a long and rugged border
with Afghanistan and also has Soviet-era military facilities that could be
offered to the US.

Much now rests on Russia. Sergei Ivanov, the Defence Minister, and General
Anatoli Kvashnin, the Chief of the General Staff, have already ruled out
any hopes of military co-operation on the territory of Central Asian nations.

******

#2
BBC Monitoring
Afghan Northern Alliance believe US strikes will help defeat Taleban -
Russia TV
Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 1600 gmt 16 Sep 01

[Presenter] Our special correspondent Sergey Zenin has happened to be the
only Russian TV journalist now staying in Afghanistan. In an interview with
our correspondent representatives of the Northern Alliance made a
sensational statement: they are ready to wage war against the Taleban and
Usamah Bin-Ladin jointly with the US army. Sergey Zenin passed this report
to the editorial office last night.

[Correspondent] This is the River Panj - a natural and actual border
between Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Pilots are trying to gain maximum
height as soon as possible in order to fly safely over the most dangerous
area. The territory down there is under the control of the Northern
Alliance army, not the Taleban. However, the helicopter crew regularly find
new bullet holes in the body of their aircraft...

In two hours, we reached Panjsher. Soviet troops made seven attempts to
establish control over this place, but in vain. Now, like then, the army of
Ahmad Shah Masud is stationed here. The Panjsher lion - Sher Panjsher -
this is how they called this man here. At 1000 [local time] on Saturday [15
September], Gen Masud died in hospital as a result of wounds which he
sustained a week ago.

The first official interview on the issue was granted to the "Vesti"
programme...

Foreign Minister of the Islamic State of Afghanistan Dr Abdollah said that,
at present, the army of Ahmad Shah Masud numbered about 15,000 men. Each of
these men perceives the death of the general as their own tragedy. But they
have not lost their spirits...

Minister Abdollah said that the Northern Alliance leaders were hoping to
defeat the Taleban in the near future and that they were pinning great
hopes on the forthcoming operation to be carried out by the US army.

[Dr Abdollah, captioned as foreign minister of the Islamic State of
Afghanistan] We believe that the US action will be a success. All people
here are against the Taleban. Because the Taleban and Bin-Ladin's
terrorists act in agreement, strikes against terrorists' bases, to be
delivered by the Americans, will inflict serious losses on the Taleban
movement.

[Correspondent] The situation in Panjsher itself is quiet now. The army of
Ahmad Shah Masud is concentrated along the front line, and the Northern
Alliance will launch an offensive as soon as the Americans start their
operation.

*******

#3
Tajikistan Won't Allow Afghan Attacks
September 16, 2001
By LIDA ISAMOVA

DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (AP) - Tajikistan will not allow Western nations to
launch attacks on neighboring Afghanistan from its territory, its
leadership said Sunday.

``Reports in some media on the use of the Tajik territory by a third
country to inflict strikes on military camps of the Taliban and
international terrorists in Afghanistan are groundless,'' chief Foreign
Ministry spokesman Igor Sattarov told reporters.

U.S. officials have identified Osama bin Laden as the prime suspect in
Tuesday's terrorist strikes in New York and Washington. The Saudi exile
operates in Afghanistan, whose hard-line Muslim Taliban rulers have given
him sanctuary.

Last week, Tajik Prime Minister Akil Akilov indicated that his government
might consider a U.S. request to provide air corridors for strikes on
Afghanistan, but only with approval from Russia and the international
community.

But Russia, which has thousands of troops in Tajikistan and wields
considerable influence in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, made
it clear last week that it would not approve a Western-led campaign from
what Moscow considers its own backyard.

``I don't see any basis for even the hypothetical possibility of NATO
military operations on the territory of Central Asian nations that belong
to the Commonwealth of Independent States,'' Russian Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov said Friday.

Tajikistan, along with the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, is located on Afghanistan's northern border. It is one of the
few countries from which a military offensive could be launched.

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were major staging areas for Soviet troops and
aircraft during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and Russian
troops still patrol Tajikistan's border with Afghanistan.

Makhmut Gareyev, who served as the chief Soviet military adviser to
Afghanistan's pro-Moscow government in the 1980s, warned Sunday that
targeting bin Laden and facing down the Taliban could prove extremely
difficult.

``The airstrikes will bring no result. Bin Laden is not alone - he is a
part of huge international network of terrorist centers,'' he told
Associated Press Television. ``So terrorist organizations will survive any
strikes even if bin Laden were to be wiped out. The problem will remain.''

In Afghanistan, the opposition alliance is made up of ethnic Tajiks, Uzbeks
and other minorities in Afghanistan and controls about 10 percent of the
country in the northeast, along the former Soviet border.

Tajikistan is struggling to recover from a five-year civil war between
mostly Islamic opposition forces and the hard-line secular government, and
depends heavily on Russia for military and political support.

Since Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan also rely on Russia for major economic
support, it is unlikely they would agree to military operations from their
territories without Moscow's approval.

*******

#4
BBC Monitoring
Russia: Prominent MP ponders aftermath of US terror attacks
Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 1625 gmt 15 Sep 01

MP Andrey Kokoshin, ex-chairman of the Russian Security Council, has said
that the world is "to some extent in a state of war" as a result of the US
terror attacks. He said NATO's military action in the vicinity of Russia's
borders is unlikely to lead to its continued presence there in the future.
Given the level of "threat to civilization", he called for a meeting of the
heads of state from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council
as a legitimate agency to tackle issues of such magnitude. The following is
excerpt from Kokoshin's interview with Russia TV on 15 September:

[Presenter] Our guest is Russian State Duma deputy, Russian Security
Council ex-Chairman, professional expert on America and correspondent
member of Russia's Academy of Sciences Andrey Kokoshin.

Andrey Afanasyevich, straight away here's my first question: After what
happened, we can expect a retaliatory strike by the USA. We know the
psychology of the American nation. We know, we can imagine what the
Americans want now. Given all that's happened, there will be retaliatory
strikes. Will there be war?

[Kokoshin] I think that we already are to some extent in a state of war.
The issue here is what political goals it will pursue. What we should now
think about is how to make sure it is not on a scale that is absolutely
unnecessary. Both the Americans and we ourselves should be thinking about
it now. We are in quite a good position to advise them on the matter. Of
course they will not always listen to what we have to say, but we should
nonetheless do it.

Another issue is how the terrorists will then respond. Any operation should
ensure that, at least for the next few years, there can be no response of
any kind.

[Presenter] A question by email: Given a possible plan for NATO forces'
deployment to Afghanistan from bases in Turkey and Great Britain, as seen
in tonight's "Vesti" programme, do you think - it is a question to you,
Andrey Afanasyevich, personally - that the US terror attacks and NATO's
possible deployment to Afghanistan are links in the same chain, that is,
that it is NATO's next step towards Russia's borders?

[Kokoshin] Given that Afghanistan is quite near Russia's borders, formerly
bang on the Soviet border, if the operation takes this form then of course
it will mean that NATO will approach Russia's borders. However, if such an
operation does take place it will almost certainly not lead to a permanent
NATO presence in the areas which will be used to launch the operation...

[Presenter] What should Russia now do in the political arena?

[Kokoshin] As far as we are concerned, it is a major issue indeed. In the
situation, we must first of all take care of our own national interests.

First, we must learn the lessons of what happened in the USA, in particular
the most immediate lessons on the way the respective services are run in
Russia, and - with account taken of what the Americans are doing now - do
all we can to prevent similar terrorist acts.

What is most important, however, is politics, that is, to resolve a whole
raft of major political issues. President Putin has already said that the
system now in place to provide for cooperation in the area is far from
perfect. I think that it would be fundamentally important to us if we were
to take the initiative in the organization of a meeting by the heads of
state from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is a
legitimate body. We need the same forum today as that organized by the
founding fathers of the UN as they fought Nazism during World War II. The
threat to humankind, to civilization is on the same scale...

So the task today is to assemble this body, in which China is also a
member, the People's Republic of China. Without China, without India these
issues cannot be resolved...

The top political leadership should formalize a brand new system of
cooperation in the interest of global security...

[Question, by phone] With things as they are, what can be done to prevent
World War III?

[Kokoshin] The probability of World War III in the traditional sense, as we
had made ready for it for decades after World War II, is at present very
insignificant. However, war now is of an altogether different nature.
Terrorism, as manifested in this monstrous act, is becoming the main
feature of war. There could certainly be a situation in which massive
retaliatory strikes by the Americans would be followed by even more
horrific acts of terrorism, with the use of bacteriological or chemical
weapons...

So account should now be taken of the failure to prevent World War I and,
even more so, World War II. What is required is the highest level of
intellectual effort and willpower on the part of politicians...

*******

#5
EMBASSY IN WASHINGTON RECEIVES INQUIRIES ABOUT 158 RUSSIAN CITIZENS

WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 16, 2001. /RIA Novosti correspondent/ -- The Russian
embassy in Washington has received 158 inquiries from relatives of those
Russian citizens who during the attacks on the US cities were in the United
States. It has been ascertained that 41 of them have not been affected.
Some people who found their names on the list have phoned to say that they
were O.K.

According to Russian embassy press secretary Yuri Zubarev, the Russian
general consulate in New York is busy checking the inquiries against the
lists of the municipal crisis centre, compiled on the basis of information
gained from rescue services, police and firemen as well as from residents'
applications. These lists include those who have been killed, hospitalized,
missing and those who were caught in the disaster area during the attacks,
have remained unaffected and want to tell relatives about this.

The press secretary reports that the list of the hospitalized persons
contains thousands of names and though there are Russian names as well, it
has not yet been possible to find out whether they are citizens of Russia.
The list, however, lacks the names of those who are among hot-line inquiries.

*******

#6
Analysis: The Geopolitical Paradigm Shifts
By ARIEL COHEN

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- Leaders have to recognize a tectonic plate
shift -- a change of paradigm -- when it happens. And one happened on Sept.
11, when terrorist mass murder was committed, apparently by radical Islamic
terrorists, in New York and Washington. The anti-jihad war of the 21st
century was forced upon the United States just like the anti-Nazi crusade
was forced on America by Tokyo and Berlin in December 1941.

Russia reacted with great emotion to the carnage in America. President
Vladimir Putin is leading an effort to put Russia squarely in the
anti-terrorist camp. Putin talked to President Bush twice on the phone and
has reportedly ordered all intelligence information on ties between bin
Laden and the Taliban to be passed on the United States.

Putin and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov declared that Russia and
NATO are prepared to act jointly with the United States against
international terrorism. However, Ivanov clarified that Russia will not
participate in retaliatory attacks, especially as long as it is not clear
against whom they will be directed.

To take care of the home front, Putin met with Justice Minister Yuri
Chaika and Interior Minister Boris Gryzlov to discuss beefing up
anti-terrorism measures. Dozens of civilians have been killed in explosions
of car bombs throughout the cities of Southern Russia.

Over 300 men, women and children died in explosions in Moscow and other
Russian cities during 1999. The Russian government blames Chechen militants
for those attacks, while the Chechens have denied responsibility.

According to Boston University researcher Lyuba Schwartzman, who monitors
Russian TV, the flag on the Russian White House was lowered to half-staff.
At noon on Wednesday, a moment of silence was observed at Putin's Cabinet
meeting and around the country.

By that hour, the lawn of the U.S. embassy in Moscow had been covered with
flowers placed there by sympathetic Russians. Among those who came to pay
their respects were the same Muscovites who protested America's bombings of
Belgrade - on Wednesday, they came to mourn the victims. Muscovites, like
the Israelis, have come to hospitals donate blood for the victims. This is
an unprecedented expression of solidarity.

Thousands of e-mail messages and phone calls expressing condolences
crossed the Atlantic. And it is personal: there are almost a million
Russian-speakers in this country, many of them in the New York area.

But the leaders of Russia have not missed this opportunity to state their
case. Russian General Prosecutor Vladimir Ustinov met Thursday with a
delegation of the European Assembly and discussed "improvements" in
Chechnya.

Ustinov said that Moscow has proof that Chechen fighters undergo training
in terrorist camps that are run and financed by Osama bin Laden. And the
Russian Ministry of Defense suggested that the United States needs no
missile defense when the threat is so low-tech.

Russia is also emphasizing the Taliban-Chechen connection. The Taliban
regime in Afghanistan is one of very few which has formally recognized
independence of Chechnya. And as the Chechens have a Diaspora throughout the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it makes them a perfect conduit for
a large-scale drug distribution network. Thus, the Afghan-Chechen connection
may have as much to do with spreading the opium poppy in Europe as with
spreading religion, Russian security experts believe.

Russian goodwill and sympathy may come in handy as the U.S. response
develops. It looks increasingly like the United States is planning to put
pressure on the military government of Pakistan, where the United States has
had extensive ties since the days of the war in Afghanistan (1979-1989), to
punish the Taliban and bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and
Washington calamity.

However, the Northern Alliance, which is Tajik-dominated, is located in
the north of the country, along the Tajik-Afghani border. It is the prime
opposition against the predominantly Pushtun Taliban. And it is the logical
location to develop a staging area for anti-Taliban forces. Russia already
has its 201st Division in the area, which is 11,000 strong, and is guarding
the Tajik border.

If the U.S. government does not succeed in Islamabad, or if it wants to
open a second front from the North against the fundamentalist regime,
Washington will need to deal with the Kremlin, as well as with the
governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, to ensure their cooperation.

Russia and Uzbekistan, both supporters of the Northern Alliance, have good
intelligence networks among the anti-Taliban resistance. However, the leader
of Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Masoud, the best military commander of the
Afghan war, nicknamed the Lion of Panjsher Valley, was killed from a Sept.
10 attack.

The blow against Masoud may have been connected to these plans. As Dmitri
Mitin, a Russian scholar at Duke University, recently remarked, the typical
U.S. response to an attack by the Taliban would be to arm and train the
existing opposition. However, if the Northern enclave is overrun by Kabul in
the near future, there will be no opposition left for the United States to
ally with in reprisal.

Some analysts suggest that, if it is established that the Taliban knew or
cooperated with bin Laden in the attack against American targets, Washington
should develop a pincer strategy against the Taliban, working with Pakistan
and the governments of Central Asia.

There, they argue, Russia, India and China, can become U.S. partners in
the war against terrorism. They suggest Russia might welcome a U.S. offer to
cooperate with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is aimed at
stemming radical Islam, as an observer, if not a member.

The paradigm has shifted overnight. There are new gaping tectonic chasms
where there were none before. And the possibility that the United States and
Russia may cooperate in fighting terrorism offers amid all the carnage and
heartbreak the possibility that the United States can "clear the air" in its
relations with Russia and perhaps even China, and open a new page for
relations between the great powers of the 21st century.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies
at the Heritage Foundation.

*******

#7
SMI.RU
15 September 2001
http://smi.ru/2001/09/15/1000564922.html

"Russia will help the US if it works to the advantage of our national
interests."
Dmitri Buntman

Following the unprecedented terrorist acts on their territory, America is
hurriedly preparing a counter-stroke. A massive anti-terrorist operation by
the US and its NATO allies threatens to become a global war against the Arab
world. But are "Islamists" the only ones implicated in terrorist acts? And
is it in Russia's interest to enter unconditionally into this conflict on
the side of the West? Exclusively for SMI.ru, commentary is provided by:
political scientist and host of the television program "Postskriptum" (TVTs)
Aleksei Pushkov; political scientist and Director of the Institute for
Political Research, Sergei Markov; Deputy to the Chief Editor, "Nezavisimoe
voennoe obozrenie" [The Independent Military Review], Sergei Sokut; and the
host of the program "Odnako" (ORT) Mikhail Leont'ev.

Aleksei Pushkov, political scientist, host of the television program
"Postskriptum":

For now it is pointless to guess who was actually behind the terrorist acts
in America. Only one thing is clear--it was a political organization, one
of whose principle goals may well have been to provoke the United States
into a response. Who prompted this provocation and against whom is unknown.
What advantage could the terrorists gain by capturing the American Embassy
in Tehran in 1979? The answer is simple. Terrorists' sphere of interests
is not confined to rational benefit. The events in America are the product
of passion, not rational thinking. Therefore, the terrorists acted
according to principles that closely bind politics and emotions. I
personally find no economic advantage in the actions of the plotters.

Within the US structure, terrorists could not find allies. No one in the US
would take part in treason; in an blow against the foundation of their own
civilization. Americans may blow up a skyscraper at a time when no one
would be in it, except perhaps the janitors, or they may deliver a precision
strike to kill 5-10 people who posed a threat to some projects information
security. A conspiracy along state lines involving other countries is also
unlikely. Otherwise, information on that level would surely have surfaced
long ago. This appears to have been a very narrow conspiracy, perhaps
involving the private participation state employees, acting outside of the
official channels.

If Russia wants to become a target of global Islamic terror, it definitely
ought to actively cooperate with the US in all aspects of a potential
military and political retaliation. Within the present conditions of a weak
Russian security structure, which has proven rather weak in dealing with the
situation in Chechnya, we must decide whether it is worth it for us to
become America's ally in its war against Islamic terror. It is one thing to
cooperate in information exchange and joint investigation. It is another
thing to conduct joint military-political actions. At present, the vast
potential of hatred from the Arab governments is arrayed against America.
Such potential is not yet directed toward Russia, with the exception of the
relatively gentle condemnations on the Chechen problem.

The US will deliver strikes against Afghanistan. There is no doubt about
that. However, retaliatory options that would result in damage to Saudi
Arabia and a number of other countries are out of the question. First,
Saudi Arabia is a US strategic partner in the Middle East, and in the Muslim
world more generally. The US is not going to risk losing such a partner.
Second, no on in the US will simply want to throw away the American military
bases located on Saudi territory, not to mention the general economic
interests of the two countries.

Sergei Markov, political scientist, Director, Institute for Political
Research:

The apparent benefit derived from the terrorist acts in America is the
reward for conspiratorial temperaments. Who stands to benefit when war is
announced? The forces opposing America in that war have declared themselves
repeatedly. It is a united army, with many different divisions, which you
may identify as you wish--from the allies of bin Laden to "Hizbollah." To
me, one thing is clear at this point. Retaliatory strikes will not be
carried out until the intelligence services issue their reports on the
situation.

The role of transnational corporations in the plot against America seems to
me unfounded. They have noting to gain from raising the price of oil, and
simultaneously placing pressure on the American economy and moving money to
risky markets. Here everything is tied to the fund markets. Transnational
corporations will breathe life into the dust of the Euro and Dollar,
otherwise the ranks of Japan, Asia and Europe will collapse in turn behind
America. This is a sufficiently widespread linkage of interests.

The possible variants for the situation's development are as follows.
Rocket and bomb attacks will be delivered against Afghanistan. This is
necessary to reestablish the American nation's self-respect and will not be
related to any kind of PR campaign. That is the first thing. From there
none of the larger-scale problems will be resolved. Third, the world will
be consolidated in an antiterrorist coalition. What exactly it will look
like--a closed consultation between security services or open involvement of
the world's forces up to and including Russia and China with rights to
influence military decisions--is unknown. And there is still the uncertain
question of whether an expeditionary force will be inserted into the area of
operations. Will such a force have an American or multi-national character?
It is also unclear what will now become of the Taliban. Will they be
ignored or will they be negotiated with and brought under a protectorate?

Nonetheless, it sees to me that among all these question one has an answer.
At present it is clear that Russia must seek by all means to take part in
the retaliatory actions. For one thing, participants will become the world
government (even if the UN retains its status). Russia has suffered from
similar terror and has a full moral right to a piece of "the American pie."
Second, in the possible retaliatory operations, Russia must not simply take
part in US actions, but must actively promote the application of its
experience in counter-terrorism operations in Chechnya, which, from a
tactical perspective, seem to me to be ideal--the use of powerful military
action complemented by the formation of a new local political elite and the
civilian structure of society. Of course, public opinion will not believe
Russia, but specialists will all understand perfectly.

Sergei Sokut, Deputy Chief Editor "Nezavisimoe voennoe obozrenie:"

The terrorist acts involved too many people over too long a period for
anyone to obtain direct economic benefit. According to experts, such an
operation would take from eighteen months to six years. In the course of
say two years, markets can change dramatically. However, you cannot
completely rule out economic considerations in the terrorist acts. Bin
Laden himself is tied to the oil business. And if you recall, the Chechen
campaign also involves the economic interests of terrorists. The economic
component plays some part. However, as a derivative influence, it takes
second place to purely political tasks.

The coordination of US and Russian military actions will take place and is
already under way. For example, on the tragic day of the terrorist strikes
in America, at the request of the American side, our commander of Air Forces
issued an order to clear Russian airspace of long-range strategic aviation,
in order to allow the Americans to confidently redeploy their interceptors
from the periphery. Likewise, when delivering strikes and planning major
air operations over Central Asia, our Air Forces will give notification, as
will the Americans in the region. The role of our forces depends solely on
political conditions. From the military perspective it is possible.

Providing technical support to significant retaliatory actions in
Afghanistan is not simple task for the Americans. They will be forced to
use either Pakistan or Central Asia for this purpose. Otherwise, the
scenario of 1998 will be repeated, wherein air strikes did not hit their
intended targets. Nonetheless, I am certain that, this time, the US will
deliver rocket and bomber strikes through the use of special operations
forces. However, the planet's widespread expectation that they will be
carried out quickly must be attributed to the psychological factor of the
experience of this catastrophe in America. In actual fact, significant
actions require time. And, the US, by all appearances, has decided to
conduct a significant operation. This will require months of preparation
(for example, preparations for the bombing of the Talibs in 1998 took 12
days). The US must first conduct aerial reconnaissance, planning and
deployment of strike forces.

Mikhail Leont'ev, host of the ORT program "Odnako:"

I am not an advocate of the concept of conspiracy. Nonetheless, what has
taken place is a too complex process. Here we have a conspiracy in fact,
not in theory. A certain number of participants implies another number of
people controlling them. From purely technical considerations, I am not
about to rule it out.

The terrorist acts in America are the sort of incidents where one can speak
of a very small group of conspirators. Strange as it may seem, the future
course of world history is tied only loosely to the events that have
transpired. There will be no revolution of consciousness as presently
proclaimed everywhere. World politics will remain unchanged--could it
really be that rhetoric would change or that the expression of grievances
will be different somehow?

Russia may well join America in joint retaliatory actions only if they are
going to be systematic actions rather than a one-time strike. Of course, if
the Americans "take out" bin Laden's group without us, that would be good
for us. However, that would be like a stranger poking a stick in our
anthill, as a result of which we will all get stung. Therefore, Russia must
take part in American actions only on the basis of our national interests.

If the Americans truly wish to bring the "anthill" under firm control, why
shouldn't we help? Moreover, from the perspective of international rights
it will all be fully justifiable. But Russia ought not commit unconditional
support to the resolution of America's problems. At present, America may
draw all possible allies into its problems and bring them into its conflict,
including the confrontation with Arab terrorism. At this point, the US
hardly feels itself humiliated, rather it sees itself as resurgent.

The US strikes promise to be loud and "vociferous," but hardly sustained.
It seems to me that the Americans selected their target, Afghanistan, is
justified only as a "necessary covering action."

Therefore, Russia ought to use the presently advantageous situation to
attempt to resolve at least some of our problems in Chechnya and Georgia,
much as Israel, which is taking advantage of the noise to quietly and calmly
resolve its problems in Palestine. That is a wholly appropriate example
for us. If Russia now deals with the Chechen bandits in the Pankissky Pass,
no mouth in the world can reproach us.

*******

#8
Financial Times (UK)
17 September 20001
Russia mulls measures to reform banking sector
By Andrew Jack in Moscow

Russia is considering the creation of a deposit protection scheme and
measures designed to increase competition within the country's poorly
developed banking sector, under reform plans being drawn up for cabinet
discussion this month.

Officials are gearing up for a government meeting on September 27, which is
expected to debate significant changes to boost the role of banks in
funding future Russian growth.

A deposit insurance scheme, part-funded by the banks and with support from
the state, is being discussed to encourage Russians to reinject their
savings into the financial system, discredited after losses following the
August 1998 financial crisis.

That could pave the way for increased lending by banks, which central bank
estimates from the start of this year put at just 10 per cent of gross
domestic product, or substantially less than in most other comparable
economies.

Much lending is made to large companies and for a duration of less than one
year, at the expense of long-term investment and the financing needs of
small and medium-sized enterprises.

Separately, commercial banks lobbying through the Russian Association of
Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RAIE) are pressing for the transfer out
of central bank control of Sberbank, the state savings bank, and
Vneshtorgbank, another commercial bank.

The different ideas, which have long been discussed, appear to have gained
a fresh political impetus, culminating in a high-level conference hosted by
the central bank in Moscow last Tuesday. For the first time, the central
bank invited the World Bank, as well as the International Monetary Fund and
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to attend discussions
on bank reform.

Christoph Ruhl, chief economist in Moscow for the World Bank, said his
organisation supported deposit protection as long as any scheme was only
granted to quality banks. He also supported the creation of a two-tier
banking sector, consisting of the central bank on the one hand and all
other banks including those currently held by the central bank on the other.

"These conditions will be a yardstick for the quality of reforms," he said.

He added that a deposit insurance scheme would help introduce greater
competition. He stressed that any new scheme should only be offered to
those commercial banks which met "quality and not quantity" requirements.

******

#9
From: "Robert Bruce Ware" <bruce@brick.net>
Subject: Terrorism
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001

On the one hand, it is encouraging to see that some of those responsible
for the Russaphobic diatribes that have set the tone in JRL for at least
the last two years are now prepared to consider, first, that Russia and the
West have common security interests and bases for sustained cooperation,
second that Russia, after all, may be facing genuine and complex security
problems along its southern borders, and third, that coordinated Islamist
terrorist attacks are not merely a convenient fiction of the FSB. On the
other hand, it is unfortunate that the same unrelenting naiveté that
motivated those diatribes continues to permeate some recent analyses (e.g.
Stratfor, September 15, 2001, "Russia's View, Russia's Options", JRL 5445).

The United States must retaliate against terrorist attacks. Unless we
destroy those that are responsible, they will continue their efforts to
destroy us. Following overwhelmingly catastrophic events, decisive and
concerted action is necessary as a rite of cultural catharsis and a
recovery of social integrity. The American response deserves and requires
international support. Russia and Central Asian republics have much to gain
from international cooperation against Islamist threats emanating from
Afghanistan. The use of bases in Russia and Central Asia would be useful in
the course of retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan.

But the importance of these bases, and of other overt forms of Russian
support for US military operations in the region, has been overestimated
due to the overestimation of opportunities for US military retaliation
against Afghanistan.

At times like this, symbolic gestures have a role as a first step on the
road toward real action. American strikes against Afghanistan may have
symbolic benefits. But with or without the use of bases in Russia and
Central Asia, the US has the capability for symbolic strikes against
Afghanistan.

Beyond symbolism, America can hope that military strikes will discourage
Afghanistans Taliban rulers from their open support for terrorist groups,
and that they will destroy numerous terrorist bases in the country. Yet
because these facilities involve little infrastructural investment their
destruction will deter further attacks upon neither the United States, nor
Russia, nor other Central Asian states. Indeed, they are likely to inflame
further attacks against any states that are involved.

Moreover, the majority of the Caucasian peoples who currently support
Russias military campaign in Chechnya will have strong reservations about
American military activity in Afghanistan. Russia simply cannot afford to
risk their support.

Neither air strikes nor expeditionary forces on the ground in Afghanistan
are likely to apprehend terrorist leaders, many of whom are either leaving,
or making preparations to leave, Afghanistan. The benefits of an
expeditionary force are unlikely to be commensurate with costs.

Attacks against Afghan civilian centers will produce only limited results
since the Taliban is prepared to accept high levels of civilian casualties.
Many of those casualties would be exhausted, impoverished, powerless people
with far greater distaste for the Taliban than that of anyone in the US or
Russia. Moreover, any such attacks would risk the same indiscriminate
brutality that the West has rightly condemned in Chechnya.

In this moment of shock and confusion, we must not succumb to the
comforting illusion that our opponent is a man, or an organization, or a
state. We know that we can easily defeat such enemies. But this time our
opponent is an historical phenomenon, and we will not triumph until we come
to terms with its full implications. History always presents a nation with
the limitations of its policies, prejudices and assumptions.

In one sense the problem is simple. Terrorism, like more familiar human
activities, operates according to laws of supply and demand. A concerted
and sustained military response is necessary to cut off the supply of
terrorism. Yet the true complexity of the problem lies in the fact that our
military efforts to reduce the supply will simultaneously stimulate the
demand for more terrorist acts. If we are to succeed we must not only
attack the supply of terrorism, but we must also reduce the demand.

In the sustained struggle against the supply of terrorism the most
important assistance that Russia can offer the United States is not
airstrips but intelligence. In reducing the demand for terrorism, both
countries have difficult tasks ahead.

Russia must eliminate the scourge of its anti-Caucasian prejudices, which
result in the harassment of Caucasian people throughout Russia, and force
many of them to abandon employment in the cities of Northern Russia,
thereby contributing to the economic crisis in the South. Anti-Caucasian
prejudices undermine Russias presence in the Caucasus both morally and
politically. In Chechnya, they legitimate the separatist cause and bring it
numerous converts. If the Caucasus are to be part of Russia, then
Caucasians must enjoy all the rights and protections of Russian citizenship.

If it truly wishes to reduce the demand for terrorism, then the United
States, for its part, must reevaluate its traditional support for corrupt
and oppressive regimes in the Middle East. In 1953 the US installed the
Shah of Iran, who proceeded to imprison, torture, and murder a significant
portion of the Iranian population. When Iranians rose up against the Shah
at the end of the 1970s, the US tried to contain them by supporting Sadam
Hussein. When Sadam turned against us, we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.
Many Saudis, who defend values of democracy and equality similar to our
own, now see us as supporting a corrupt and repressive Saudi regime that
has turned the worlds largest oil producer into a debtor nation.

Much of the oppression and consequent instability in the Middle East has
resulted from American policies that have lurched from one misstep to the
next. The result has been an increasing demand for terrorism against the
United States. Faced with resulting problems, we have supported Israel as
our most reliable ally in the region. However, the unconditionality of our
support, has enabled the Israelis to ignore the rights of the Palestinians,
thereby further increasing the demand for terrorism. If we want to
elminate terrorism then we must reconsider such policies.

Finally, if we wish to reduce the demand for further acts of terrorism then
the United States, Russia, Britain and others must abandon the ludicrous
conceit of a "Great Game" in the Caspian region. The region is not
anybodys zero sum game; its a place where people live. Unless we begin
multilateral efforts to ensure the stability and economic development of
the region we will not succeed in effectively extracting its resources and
we will encourage future demands for terrorism.

Our struggle against terrorism may begin with air bases. But these are
insignificant in comparison with the long-term importance of effectively
coordinated intelligence activities, and the painful readjustment of
traditional policies and prejudices in both Russia and the United States.

*******

#10
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lionel Beehner <lbeehner@yahoo.com>
Subject: Comment on McFaul's "Thank You Russia"/5444

Reading Michael McFaul’s Vek article entitled “Thank
you Russia,” I am disturbed by his contention that, in
the aftermath of the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon,
Americans should have this newfound, palpable sympathy
(or even respect) for Russia’s Chechen campaign. He
seems to conclude that we now share “common values,”
which will auger in an era of jointly launching blind
wars to weed out the Khattabs and bin Ladens of the
world. To say that, “American officials undoubtedly
will have a new appreciation for Russia's struggles to
combat terrorism in Chechnya,” is simply not true, as
evidenced by U.S. Ambassador Sandy Vershbow’s recent
statements on the issue.

McFaul should have underscored the necessary point
that Russia’s war in Chechnya can be described as
neither a noble nor an anti-terrorist one. True,
Russians were victims of terrorism two years ago. But
the havoc wreaked by Russia on Chechnya, replete with
human rights abuses, genocide and indescribable
“collateral damage,” more than sufficiently
compensates for the misery it suffered at the hands of
the apartment bombers. Condemning international
terrorism or Islamic extremism is one thing; waging
war against innocent, impoverished peoples is another.

The U.S. should neither let up its denunciation of
Russia’s war in Chechnya, nor fall into the same trap
by starting an unwinnable imbroglio with Afghanistan.
That is not to say that we have nothing to learn from
Russia or that our current chummy relations should be
interrupted. But basing a bilateral partnership solely
on whom your enemy is can have awkward and undesirable
results, as World War II and the Iran-Iraq conflict
have shown. Just because Putin happened to phone Bush
first doesn’t make him a more “trustworthy” friend
than, say, Vaclav Havel. Not to mention that “true
friends” don’t sell arms to Iran behind our backs,
much less trample over our cherished values, such as a
free press and religious toleration. And with much of
Afghanistan’s current wretched situation in many ways
attributable to Russian (and arguably our own)
involvement two decades ago, why should we be so quick
to thank them? What’s more, contrary to McFaul’s
suggestion, we should not use the WTC attacks to
curtsy favor from the Russians, fan tensions or cover
up existing disaggreements on major issues such as
NATO expansion or NMD.

While we appreciate Russia’s sympathies and its push
to become more involved in the Middle East peace
process, let’s be more hesitant to heap praise on
Putin for his speed-dialing skills or his “solidarity”
with America and instead continue pressuring him to
rethink his barbaric and failing military strategy in
Chechnya, for on this front, our countries do not
share any “common values.”

********

#11
The Sunday Times (UK)
16 September 2001
Russian film role puts rock star Adams in the Kremlin war zone
Mark Franchetti, Moscow

THE veteran Canadian rock star Bryan Adams is an unlikely spokesman for those
opposed to Russia's war in Chechnya. The singer has, however, agreed to play
himself in a controversial film that is certain to anger the Kremlin with its
depiction of the suffering and futility of the conflict.

Entitled Dom Durakov - mad house or house of fools - it is based on the true
story of patients at a mental home in Chechnya who were abandoned by staff at
the height of Russia's bombing raids during its first war against the
breakaway republic in 1995.

The film, the first Russian feature to call the war into question, is being
made by Andrei Konchalovsky, one of the country's leading directors best
known abroad for the 1989 Hollywood film Tango and Cash, starring Sylvester
Stallone.

Dom Durakov, shot partly in a Moscow psychiatric hospital, features several
real patients alongside the actors.Adams, 41, appears in the dreams of
Zhanna, a mental patient struggling to survive as Russian bombs fall around
her. This role is played by Konchalovsky's wife Yulia.

Alina Gulyayeva, a member of Konchalovsky's production team, said: "Whenever
life becomes too awful and terrifying, Zhanna shuts her eyes and dreams of
Adams the rock star, who comes to her providing an escape from the horrors of
war.

"He talks to her and offers her comfort. In one scene Zhanna imagines she
marries Adams. Suddenly she is in a beautiful wedding dress, drinking
champagne with him. He is like her guardian angel."

Adams's hit Have You Ever Really Loved a Woman is the main song on the film's
soundtrack, and his girlfriend Cecilie Thomsen plays a Lithuanian sniper on
the Chechen rebel side. The film is to be released in Russia and the West
next year.

Adams, who has been involved with campaigns to raise money to fight breast
cancer in Canada, was quoted in the Russian press as saying that he
considered it important to "attract people's attention to Chechnya".

One of his managers said: "Adams agreed at once. He liked the idea and the
prospect of working with such a famous director. He enjoyed it immensely and
is very excited about the film. It's been a great trip."

During the first Chechen war, the psychiatric hospital in Shali in the south
of the republic, which is the subject of the film, became one of the most
potent symbols of the inhumanity of the conflict after dozens of patients
were left to their fate by staff fleeing the bombing.

The last surviving patients lived in freezing rooms full of their own
excrement. They had almost no food, no doctors and no outside help except for
a local volunteer. They had no light or heating and the most severe cases
were left padlocked in cages, where many died.

Patients were often too ill to understand the war which raged around the
building. As shells fell on the horizon they would gather by the side of the
road, dazed and bewildered. On one occasion the hospital was attacked and
looted by soldiers and drug addicts, who took away the last of its medicines
and syringes.

The film is certain to be controversial. Whereas the first Chechen war became
widely unpopular with the Russian public, few have dared to oppose the
present campaign which was launched by President Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin
leader owes much of his popularity to the war, which has claimed thousands of
lives but is officially still referred to only as an "anti-terrorist
operation".

Gulyayeva said the film is intended to denounce the folly of war. As the
conflict becomes more intense, a motley group of Chechen fighters, Russian
soldiers and civilians seek refuge in the hospital among the patients,
blurring the distinction between them.

"At the beginning the mad people are those inside the home, but by the end of
the film the world beyond those walls appears infinitely crazier than that of
the hospital," she said.

"It becomes a place to hide in away from the horrors of the war, and a
metaphor for all the horrors of the war."

*******

#12
strana.ru
September 14, 2001
Communists worried over attempts to quarrel Russia with Islamic world
Zyuganov urges USA to retain its composure

The leader of the Russian Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov, has voiced
concern in connection with the investigation of the terrorist attacks in the
USA, attempts are being undertaken to foist upon Russia a policy of hostility
towards the Islamic world, to clash Russia with Arab countries.

Talking to journalists in Moscow on Friday, he said that in conveying his
condolences to the American people through the U.S. ambassador in Moscow, he
also urged the American leadership to preserve their composure and courage.

Zyuganov noted that while commenting what has happened in the USA, American
and Russian politicians must be reserved in their assumptions concerning the
organizers of the terrorist attacks and not to allow indiscriminate
accusations against whole countries, peoples and religious denominations.

If one goes by the official versions, then it should be remembered that those
being accused by the American authorities today were spoon fed precisely by
the U.S. secret services. Suffice it to recall America's role in supporting
the Mujahedin fighters and terrorists, including Osama bin Laden when their
destructive actions were aimed against the USSR, Russia. To this list, we can
add the official receptions in Washington of representatives of the Chechen
terrorists that have close ties with that same bin Laden. It is very
important for the USA to give up its double standards in its approach to
terrorism. It should retain its composure and act in accordance with proven
facts, Zyuganov emphasized.

He also expressed concern in connection with the stance of certain Russian
politicians that are ready to push Russia towards supporting possible U.S.
armed actions in Afghanistan.

If this should happen, then such a clash may transpire into a conflict with
the whole Islamic world, with the whole of the so-called third world,
Zyuganov believes.

*******

Johnson's Russia List Archive (under construction):  http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson

Search Johnson's Russia List:  http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/search/

CDI Russia Weekly:  http://www.cdi.org/russia

CDI Headlines:  http://www.cdi.org/

Defense Monitor:  http://www.cdi.org/dm/2001

Weekly Defense Monitor:  http://www.cdi.org/weekly/