September 17, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5446 • 5447

Johnson's Russia List
#5447
17 September 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Chechen rebels say launch biggest attack in months.
2. AFP: US strikes on Afghanistan could light regional tinder-box.
3. AP: ABM, Attacks Focus of Talks in Russia.
4. Washington Post: Susan Glasser, U.S. to Pursue Withdrawal From ABM Pact.
5. AFP: Uzbekistan ready to discuss cooperation with US.
6. Boston Globe: Anna Badkhen, Russia's helping hands tied by history.
7. Interfax: Ingush president warns against underestimating Taleban.
8. BBC Monitoring: Afghan war veteran says same people behind US bombings, Masud's death.
9. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: RUSSIA MAY PLAY ITS OWN GAME. Russian politicians and consultants discuss Russia and US retaliation.
10. Moskovsky Komsomolets: YEVGENY PRIMAKOV COMMENTS ON US TRAGEDY.
11. AFP: Solzhenitsyn hails controversy on Jews book, finished second volume.
12. The Guardian (UK): Ian Traynor, Kursk salvage decried as Putin's face-saver. Even the victims' relatives are no longer anxious to see the submarine raised.
13. Financial Times (UK): Andrew Jack, Russia starts paying dividends: Shareholders are benefiting from improved corporate governance.]

******

#1
Chechen rebels say launch biggest attack in months
By Peter Graff

MOSCOW, Sept 17 (Reuters) - Chechen rebels said on Monday they had launched
their largest-scale offensive in months with a series of coordinated attacks
across the Russian rebel region's lowlands, seizing buildings and shooting
down a helicopter.

Russian officials confirmed a surge in fighting was under way, including
clashes in the second city Gudermes, in which several police were injured,
and said they were looking into other reports.

"There has been a surge in activity, but on just what scale we are still
checking," an official in the office of Kremlin Chechnya spokesman Sergei
Yastrazhembsky said.

Movladi Udugov, a rebel spokesman seen as close to guerrilla commander Shamil
Basyaev, said rebels had seized a Russian military headquarters in Gudermes,
launched a suicide car-bomb attack on a checkpoint in the town of Argun,
attacked an armoured convoy and shot down a helicopter in the capital Grozny.

"This is a coordinated military operation," Udugov said by telephone from an
undisclosed location.

Interfax news agency said rebels had shot down an Mi-8 helicopter in Grozny,
killing nine people on board, including a general, Anatoly Pozdnyakov.

The Defence Ministry said there was an accident on board and did not give any
further details or confirm deaths.

Udugov said rebels also took control of administrative buildings in the
mountain village of Nozhai-Yurt and attacked targets in the lowland districts
of Naursk and Shchyolkovskoi.

Separatists have battled Russian forces in Chechnya for much of the past
decade in their fight for independence from Moscow.

Russia links them to Islamic extremists abroad, including Osama bin Laden,
the Afghanistan-based Saudi exile named by Washington as a prime suspect in
last week's attacks on the United States.

CLASHES IN SECOND CITY

Initial reports focused on clashes in Gudermes, Chechnya's second city and
main railway crossroads.

The Kremlin initially played down reports of clashes there but later
confirmed fighting was under way, with "several tens" of rebels having
infiltrated the city. An official in Yastrzhembsky's office said several
police had been hurt there.

Russian news agencies quoted witnesses as saying administrative buildings had
come under attack and shooting was heard throughout the town. Interfax said
at least one Russian policeman was killed.

Udugov said the Chechens had seized the town's commandant headquarters, the
base of the military administration. Russians guarding the building were
sheltering in the cellar and negotiating with rebels, he said.

In Argun, just east of Grozny, Udugov said a guerrilla had detonated a car
bomb at a checkpoint, killing himself and several Russian troops. A firefight
followed.

Russian forces, which withdrew from Chechnya after a 1994-96 war, returned
there in 1999 and have since occupied most Chechen territory. But they have
failed to kill or capture top rebel leaders and troops still come under
regular attack.

******

#2
US strikes on Afghanistan could light regional tinder-box

NEW DELHI, Sept 17 (AFP) -
A US military strike on Afghanistan carries the tangible risk of an extended
conflict in a region already riven by bilateral tensions and seemingly
incompatible strategic and political agendas, analysts say.

A roundup of Afghanistan's immediate neighbours hardly reads like a suitable
list of candidates for a US-led alliance -- with India, Pakistan, China,
Russia, Iran and the Central Asian republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan.

Relations between most of these countries are, at best, tainted by mutual
suspicion, or in the case of India and Pakistan by outright hostility.

While they have voiced general support for the US campaign for a global war
on terrorism, it has often been accompanied by conditions and caveats, given
the continued uncertainty over the exact nature of any US retaliatory strike
against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The strategic balance in the region is complex and far from stable and
analysts say the main danger lies in US action escalating into a protracted
conflict that one or more states might see as posing a threat to their
sovereign interests.

The most acceptable scenario for most governments in the region would be
limited surgical strikes by US forces on terrorist bases in Afghanistan, with
neighbouring countries providing intelligence and logistical support.

Even that carries a significant element of risk, with the Taliban warning at
the weekend that any country helping the United States in any fashion would
suffer the consequences.

Of the regional states, only Pakistan actually recognises the Taliban, but it
certainly does not follow that the others would be happy to see the United
States topple the regime and install another of its choosing.

China is especially wary of any attempt by the United States to establish a
dominant position in Central Asia.

"If the US chooses to only attack terrorists in Afganistan, without staging
an army there or trying to foster a pro-American regime, then that would be
all right with China," said Lau Siu-kai, a political scientist at City
University in Hong Kong.

"But if soldiers are sent, the Taliban toppled and a pro-American regime
fostered, then there will be a conflict of interest not only between the US
and China, but the US and Russia and the US and Iraq."

Bakhodir Musayev, a political analyst in Uzbekistan, said a drawn-out
conflict in Afghanistan would force up military budgets in the Central Asian
republics -- a move that could end up fostering terrorism.

"Budgetary shifts would have significant economic consequences for the poor
rural regions which are already considered to be a breeding ground for
Islamic extremists," Musayez said.

Russia is distinctly reluctant to be drawn into an active role in an eventual
conflict, although it could no doubt prevail on its client state Tajikistan
to make bases available for US personnel.

Political commentator Andrei Piontovsky said Moscow would exact a
considerable price from Washington in exchange for its participation.

The vice-chairman of the State Duma defence committee Alexei Arbatov said
Russian involvement was "not ruled out", and added that if Moscow did take
part, it would demand "the role of a fully-fledged participant whose opinion
is as important ... as that of the US."

The most obvious flashpoint, however, is South Asia, where Indo-Pakistan
relations remain extremely tense, especially over the issue of Kashmir, where
Delhi accuses Islamabad of fomenting a long-running Muslim insurgency.

According to Stephen Cohen, head of the India Project at the Brookings
Institute in the United States, the big issue is whether the United States,
in seeking to pressure Pakistan into an anti-Taliban alliance, would shift
its policy on Kashmir away from a "neutral" position to one that tilts
towards India.

"There is some danger then that India might feel it had the backing of the
United States and move against Pakistan. With nuclear weapons in the
neighbourhood, this scenario becomes very frightening very quickly," Cohen
said.

Another problem facing the region would be a massive increase in the influx
of Afghan refugees in the event of a drawn-out conflict.

Iran announced Saturday it was closing its 900-kilometer (560-mile) border
with Afghanistan as a pre-emptive measure.

Millions of Afghan refugees have fled to Iran in the past 20 years, and more
than a million still live in the Islamic republic.

"Whatever happens, we are determined to defend our territory and we will not
allow any infringement of the borders of Iran," said Hossein Zare-Sefat,
deputy governor general of Iran's Khorassan province, which borders
Afghanistan.

Indian strategic analyst Brahma Chellaney argued the chances of US action
escalating into a serious regional were slim.

"If the struggle against terrorism slips into regional conflict, it would be
completely counterproductive to US strategy," Chellaney said.

"I think Washington will do everything to ensure that everyone stays firmly
on track."

******

#3
ABM, Attacks Focus of Talks in Russia
September 17, 2001
By JUDITH INGRAM

MOSCOW (AP) - Undersecretary of State John Bolton opened a new round of talks
in Moscow on Monday on the U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system and
Russia's cooperation in fighting terrorism.

His talks with Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov had originally been
scheduled for last week, but the terrorist strikes against the World Trade
Center and Pentagon forced the diplomats to reschedule their meeting. The
talks pave the way for discussions later this week between Secretary of State
Colin Powell and his Russian counterpart Igor Ivanov.

Moscow has expressed hope that the devastating attacks will prompt greater
cooperation in fighting international terrorism. However, Russian officials
have cautioned against hasty retaliation and said Moscow is unlikely to take
part in any U.S. strikes against Afghanistan, which has given sanctuary to
suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Mamedov said Monday's talks represented ``Moscow's concrete assistance,
including military, to Washington.'' Mamedov declared it was necessary to
cooperate in combatting terrorism and one way to do this was ``to strengthen
the world order - a way of battling those who have put themselves outside the
law,'' the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

For the past several months, U.S. officials have been engaged in a full-court
push to chip away at Moscow's resistance to the U.S. missile shield, which
would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Washington had hoped
the parallel talks between diplomatic, military and security officials would
yield some agreement before President Bush and Russian President Vladimir
Putin meet in Texas in November.

The treaty is a foundation of the system of agreements that was intended to
maintain a strategic nuclear balance in the world, and Moscow has declared it
must not be abandoned for fear of unleashing a new nuclear race. But Bush's
administration contends the treaty has outlived its usefulness, preventing
the United States from developing defenses against potential nuclear threats
from such nations as Iran and North Korea.

In July, Bush and Putin agreed to discuss the missile shield issue in tandem
with talks on reducing nuclear missiles. Moscow has proposed bringing the
number of missiles down to 1,500 for each side.

But Russian officials complain that the talks have not yet dealt with
concrete numbers or a detailed description of the United States' planned
missile shield.

******

#4
Washington Post
September 17, 2001
U.S. to Pursue Withdrawal From ABM Pact
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service

MOSCOW, Sept. 16 -- The Bush administration will inform Russia Monday that it
is prepared to press ahead with a unilateral withdrawal from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to build a missile defense system, according to
a senior administration official.

Seeking to put to rest questions about whether President Bush will still make
missile defense a priority after last week's terrorist attacks in the United
States, the administration plans to tell Russian in talks Monday that, "if
anything, the likelihood of unilateral withdrawal has increased" as a result
of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, said the U.S.
official.

"Missile defense will not fade as a priority of the administration. These
incidents prove that there are people in the world for whom the concept of
deterrence doesn't mean a thing," the official said, speaking on condition of
anonymity. "This was high-tech terrorism; these people had jet plane pilots.
And if these same people had access to ballistic missiles, do you think they
wouldn't have used them?"

Undersecretary of State John Bolton arrived in Moscow today for the talks,
which were to be held in London last week but were postponed after the
attacks. He is to meet with Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov Monday,
and sources said the two would also likely discuss potential Russian
cooperation with U.S.-led retaliatory strikes following the attacks.

In recent weeks, top Russian officials have signaled a newfound willingness
to accept U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, a move they previously said
would be tantamount to unraveling "the entire framework of international
security."

Indeed, just minutes before the planes crashed into the World Trade Center
last Tuesday, a Russian general told reporters here that a U.S. withdrawal
would not affect the "level of trust" between the two countries and that
Russia was prepared to negotiate a new, post-Cold War security structure even
after such a move.

Now, according to the Bush administration official, "the Russians have come
to an acceptance that, absent some major development, the United States is
going to withdraw from ABM unilaterally or at least give notice of
withdrawal. They have realized that maybe we're not going to negotiate on
this before the treaty is gone."

But last week's attacks by knife-wielding terrorists have also sparked a new
round of public criticism of Bush's missile defense plans here. Many top
Russian officials have gone out of their way to point out the relatively
low-tech nature of the attacks, insisting that it undermines Washington's
stated reason for spending billions of dollars on a system of missile defense
aimed at heading off a nuclear attack by small, hostile states such as North
Korea.

On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov is due in Washington for
talks on missile defense with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and U.S.
sources said they are expecting new proposals from the Russians then. At the
same time, in Moscow, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is
slated for meetings on enlisting Russia in the anti-terrorism fight, and
specifically on what support Russia can provide for possible U.S. strikes in
Afghanistan.

Since last week's attacks, Russian leaders have pledged support for the
United States but have ruled out Russian participation in military strikes.

******

#5
Uzbekistan ready to discuss cooperation with US

TASHKENT, Sept 17 (AFP) -
Uzbekistan indicated Monday it might be prepared to allow its territory to
be used by the United States to carry out a possible campaign against
suspected terrorists in Afghanistan.

"We have not received any request from the US about providing military aid
but we are ready to discuss all possible forms of cooperation in the fight
against international terrorism," said Bakhodir Umarov, Uzbek foreign
ministry spokesman.

A former Soviet republic, which shares a 170-kilometer (106-mile) border
with Afghanistan, Uzbekistan has accused Taliban-ruled Afghanistan of
sheltering Islamists who attacked its southern border in August 2000.

Tashkent also blames Islamic rebels trained in Afghanistan for a series of
bomb blasts in the Uzbek capital in 1999, which killed 16, injured more
than 100 and narrowly missed Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

The Uzbek spokesman was speaking after being asked whether Uzbekistan would
allow its territory to be used by the United States.

The comments come after Russia signaled that it would not let NATO troops
be based in former Soviet republics for such any potential US campaign
against suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan.

Moscow considers the central Asian region as its backyard and has been
trying to restore influence lost there after the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse.

Tashkent has stubbornly avoided Moscow's attempts to regain clout since it
gained its independence a decade ago and even dropped out of a Russian-led
security pact in 1999.

Another former Soviet state bordering Afghanistan, Tajikistan, said Sunday
that reports it would place its territory at the disposal of US forces
should Washington decided to launch strikes were "absolutely unfounded."

Russia has some 10,000 troops patrolling the Tajik-Afghan border.

A Turkmen foreign ministry source also said Turkmenistan would be unlikely
to allow the United States to use its territory to carry out potential air
strikes against Afghanistan.

"This can't happen, because Turkmenistan is a neutral country," a source in
the Turkmen foreign ministry told AFP.

Turkmenistan, which shares a long border with Afghanistan, has stayed
neutral in its Afghan policy despite mounting concern in other central
Asian states about the Taliban's alleged backing of Islamist militancy.

"The fact that Turkmenistan is in touch with the Taliban movement and the
Northern Alliance does not mean that Ashkhabad prefers one of them to the
other. It (Turkmenistan) acts as a peacemaker," the source added.

The former Soviet central Asian state of five million people, which also
borders on Iran, hopes one day to export its vast energy reserves through
Afghanistan.

******

#6
Boston Globe
September 17, 2001
Russia's helping hands tied by history
By Anna Badkhen, Globe Correspondent

MOSCOW - It took a tragedy in America for it to happen: For the first time in
years, Russia and the United States are on the same side of a potential
military conflict.

Backing President Bush's call for a global war against terrorism, President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has pledged cooperation. But it is far from clear
how far that cooperation will go.

Putin seemed to be evoking the Russian-American military alliance of World
War II when he explained his support for the United States by comparing last
week's attacks in New York and Washington to crimes committed by Nazi
Germany.

Russian security services followed up by promising to share information about
Afghanistan's extremist Taliban government, which has given refuge to
suspected terrorism mastermind Osama bin Laden. This week, the US deputy
secretary of state, Richard Armitage, will arrive in Moscow to discuss
antiterrorism operations with Russian officials.

These overtures contrast sharply with the haggling over NATO expansion and
missile defense that had characterized recent US-Russia exchanges. But even
as Russia flew flags at half-staff in memory of the victims of the terror
attacks, generals in Moscow were quick to say that they would not allow the
US to use Russian military bases in Central Asia - potentially an ideal
staging ground for an assault against Afghanistan. Russian Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov also said Russia would not participate in retaliatory strikes
against suspected terrorists.

Over the weekend, Putin himself signaled that Russia's willingness to help
did not extend to supporting US attacks against terrorist bases.

''We should not become like bandits that act from behind a corner. We should
weigh our decisions and proceed from true facts,'' Putin said.

Part of the problem is that in Russia, where much of the military still
thinks in terms of Cold War-era competition with America, any military action
conducted by the United States is still met with suspicion.

''As soon as the US started talking about assistance with military
operations, Russia said no, as devoid of logic as it may seem,'' said
Alexander Golts, a Moscow-based defense analyst. ''Apparently, Russia is
content with a form of cooperation that provides for publishing joint
statements with the US and for accepting American aid for obliteration of
Cold War-era weapons of mass destruction.''

Russia was an ardent opponent of the US-led NATO attacks on Yugoslavia in
1999. The Kremlin has also been sharply critical of the US plan to withdraw
from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to build a missile shield.

Russian analyists say strikes against the Taliban could trigger a new round
of violence in the ex-Soviet Central Asian republics, where peace is already
fragile. Strikes would cause a flood of refugees and weapons into the region,
said Nikolai Kovalyov, former chief of Russia's Federal Security Service -
the Russian successor of the KGB - and now deputy chairman of the
parliament's State Security Committee.

The Soviet army used Tajikistan, then one of the Kremlin's Central Asia
republics, as a launch pad for its attacks on Afghanistan during a
decade-long war that ended in retreat of the Soviet troops in 1989.
Tajikistan and its larger post-Soviet neighbor, Uzbekistan, have been
clashing with Islamic extremists who are believed to be sheltered and trained
by the Taliban.

The poverty and military weakness that followed the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991 have left the Central Asian countries fertile ground for
fundamentalist Islamic movements. Islamic rebels almost took over Tajikistan
in the early 1990s and have made armed incursions into Kyrgyzstan and
Uzbekistan in the last two years.

Islamic extremists continue to operate just south of Russia's borders, but
the Central Asian governments are unlikely to accept a US presence without
Moscow's approval, because they depend heavily on Russia for economic support.

Many defense specialists in Moscow believe military cooperation with the
United States could help Russia solve problems it faces in Tajikistan and
Chechnya, the breakaway Russian republic where Moscow has been waging war
against separatist rebels. Those rebels, too, the Kremlin contends, are
trained and armed by the Taliban.

Russia has been appealing for international help to fight Islamic terrorism
in Chechnya for years. Moscow launched its current campaign there after
blaming Islamic terrorists in the region for apartment bombings that claimed
more than 300 lives two years ago.

Political differences have prevented Russia and the West from cooperating on
terrorism in the past. The West has repeatedly charged that Moscow's campaign
in Chechnya was accompanied by rampant human rights violations in the region.

******

#7
Russia: Ingush president warns against underestimating Taleban
Interfax

Magas, 17 September: Ingush President Ruslan Aushev has said that he doubts
the success of a US retaliatory attack against Afghanistan.

Aushev took part in the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and was awarded the
Hero of the Soviet Union title for his service.

Afghanistan is a semi-destroyed country, and it is possible to destroy a
small power plant and one or two bridges at best, the Ingush leader has told
Interfax. "Afghanistan is not the Balkans. There are no vital communications
there, whose destruction may paralyse the activity of the Taleban. All of
their bases and strongholds are up in the mountains. They are experts at
fighting in the highlands, which make up most of Afghanistan, and they will
have military superiority under these conditions," he said.

The efficiency of cruise missiles and bombs will be low in the mountains,
Aushev said. "The entire American might will actually fall on civilians,
because the Taleban and Bin-Ladin will hide in caves in the mountains, and
the US warplanes won't be able to get them out of there," he said.

In the end, there will be nothing but the bombing of Kabul and other towns to
make a show for the American press, Aushev said.

Americans have never been to Afghanistan, and they know neither the country
nor the Afghans, he noted. "Great Britain and the Soviet Union failed to
conquer these people. If they start a land operation, they will suffer losses
beyond their widest dreams," he said.

The threats of the Taleban "should be taken more than seriously", Aushev
remarked. A strike-back of the Taleban may damage Central Asian countries if
they support the United States in its operations against the Taleban, the
Ingush leader noted.

Russian involvement in US actions against Bin-Ladin should be nothing more
than "moral support" and keep within the limits of Russian interests in that
region, Aushev said.

He said he does not doubt the need to fight terrorism, but he does not want
"Islam to be generally associated with this evil".

******

#8
BBC Monitoring
Russia: Afghan war veteran says same people behind US bombings, Masud's death
Source: Ekho Moskvy news agency, Moscow, in Russian 0742 gmt 17 Sep 01

[No dateline as received] Russia should avoid "hasty movements" and be very
careful while identifying its position in the conflict in Afghanistan that
may follow the terrorist attacks in the USA, Moscow city duma deputy [and
Afghan war veteran] Nikolay Moskovchenko told Ekho Moskvy.

"However strong is our sympathy with the Americans and our desire to help
them, we should not make an unconsidered hasty step prompted by emotions", he
said.

"At present, the situation is so fragile that any clumsy move can break it
down and lead to negative consequences", Moskovchenko said. "I would not
recklessly throw our resources into the maelstrom of war," he said. This is
the president [Vladimir Putin] who has to make a political choice, he added.

Moskovchenko said that Russia might get involved in the conflict one way or
another, as well as all countries of the region. If the USA starts a military
operation in Afghanistan, a flow of refugees would rush to Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan and Tajikistan creating a hotbed of tension on their borders.

The situation in Afghanistan was furthermore complicated by death of Ahmad
Shah Masud, Moskovchenko said. He believes that those who engineered Masud's
murder also masterminded the terrorist attacks in America or at least knew
about them. "If Masud was alive, he might have consolidated the region, so
somebody put him out of action in advance". he said.

******

#9
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
September 15, 2001
RUSSIA MAY PLAY ITS OWN GAME
Russian politicians and consultants discuss Russia and US retaliation
Author: not indicated
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
RUSSIA'S FOREIGN POLICY IS PRAGMATIC ENOUGH. RUSSIA SHOULD NOT JOIN THE US IF IT STARTS AN INDISCRIMINATE ATTACK ON ALL THE COUNTRIES IT VIEWS AS POLITICAL PARIAHS. AT THE SAME TIME, RUSSIA SHOULD SUPPORT AMERICA'S EFFORTS IN THE FIELD OF COMBATING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

The experts we spoke with are certain that Russia's foreign
policy is pragmatic enough. The US has already announced that
retaliation for the recent terrorist attacks is inevitable. The
countries which could face retaliatory strikes are Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Algeria, and Sudan. Many countries are expressing their
readiness to assist the US in this campaign, letting America use their
military bases, territories, and military resources. However, the
terrorists and the organizations that commissioned them to the terror
attacks in New York and Washington have not been traced yet. Thus, it
is not proven yet that these terrorists were trained by the
aforementioned "pariah states" viewed as "unconditionally deserving
punishment" by the US. What should Russia do in this situation? Should
it join America's revenge campaign or retain the status of the
intermediary between the West and the East? Should Russia change its
security concept, especially as far as arms sales to the so-called
pariah states are concerned? Should Vladimir Putin continue his
foreign policy contacts with countries suspected of supporting
terrorism?
Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky: International terrorism is a
politically abstract force, while war is a quite concrete thing.
Thoughtless acts of revenge as a response to terror only lead to new
victims. It won't do to continue violence. The recent terrorist
attacks in Washington and New York were the beginning of the new era,
in which cooperation between the largest countries, such as the US and
Russia, in the sphere of combating international terrorism is
inevitable. However, international relations should not use methods
that may be used in personal relations late at night on a dark lane.
Today it is necessary to trace the roots of international terrorism
and do everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks in the future.
You may remember that there was a lot of talk during Clinton's
presidency about frequent murders committed by children using weapons
at school, suicide cults, etc. There are a lot of such things in the
US. However, this talk was not continued after the presidential
election of 2000. However, it is not ruled out that terrorism is
connected with domestic problems of the country. Perhaps there are
serious problems in the society...
Igor Bunin, Director of the Political Developments Center:
Countries of the North have adopted a hard-line stance toward the
South. For instance, not long ago Israel was criticized by the West
for using army detachments against Arab extremists. Now there is no
such criticism. Even Lord Judd, who is notorious for his negative
position toward Russia's actions in Chechnya, does not rule out the
use of military force against extremists today. Russia has taken a few
symbolic steps as a sign of support for the US: it has canceled the
exercises of the Air Force in the Pacific Ocean and has decided not to
take any emergency security measures that may be interpreted by
Americans as a response to their hasty actions.
As for Russia's policy regarding pariah states, this issue is
unimportant now. As a matter of fact, Putin used contacts with Cuba,
North Korea, and other such countries in order to retain the position
of the intermediary between the West and the East. Russia wanted to
show the world that it had mechanisms of pressuring pariah states in
order to look like a superpower. However, the issue of Cuba is of no
importance for the West. In any case, if the Russian president wants
to contact leaders of some pariah states, he will have to coordinate
his policy with the international community.
Duma deputy Vladimir Ryzhkov: Russia should not rush into the
embrace of the West, nor should it offer its services as an
intermediary. Russia must not act as an intermediary between
terrorists and America.
In my opinion, Russia has already assumed an absolutely clear
position when Vladimir Putin decreed on the mourning minute of silence
on September 12 and offered Russia's help for tracing and searching
terrorists having to do with these terrorist attacks. Russia and the
US are equally interested in combating international terrorism,
therefore it is together with the civilized part of the humanity.
By the way, the position of Beijing was just as strict. Thus, the
entire civilized world has taken the same stance.
I don't think that Putin's contacts with leaders of pariah states
harm Russia's interests. Putin has not visited Iraq and I hope he will
not. He has not visited and will not visit Afghanistan for natural
reasons. His visit to Cuba was an economic visit. As for Russia's
contacts with North Korea, it is only trying to minimize the threats
which alarm the US. Besides, Russia has economic interests in North
Korea. I think the president is conducting a balanced and pragmatic
foreign policy.
Duma deputy Viktor Iliukhin: Russia should act as a containment
factor in this situation. Today it is very dangerous to make
retaliatory strikes without having traced the organizers of the
terrorist attacks in the US. These strikes will lead to senseless
casualties among civilians. Therefore, Russia should not support the
US - if it does not want a global catastrophe - although it should
cooperate with America is the field of combating terrorism.
Russia's foreign policy regarding the so-called pariah states is
absolutely correct. It is the US and Western European countries that
have forced these contacts. Russia is still not in favor on world
markets. Neither the G8 nor the European Union makes up for Russia's
damages caused by this fact. It is impossible to reconsider the
concept of military-technical cooperation within a short time.
Gleb Pavlovsky, Director of the Effective Policy Foundation:
America is in a difficult situation. It understands that most of
people, especially in the third world countries, are more glad about
its humiliation than sympathetic to it. The US administration is
apparently eager to change the situation by means of terror so that
the world will discuss not the events of September 11 but America's
response to them. For instance, the US may use tactical nuclear
weapons, although it is more likely to threaten the world with this
and then give up these plans, conceding to the opinion of the
international community. The US will pick targets for the attack
according to the principle of political convenience, and so Russia
should be extremely cautious. Russia should not become a hostage to
America's policies. We should assist the US in the field of combating
terrorism but be careful not to get into an unsettled situation. Of
course, America should be an object of Russia's sympathy and a partner
in combating those who are really behind the attacks, but it should
not be viewed as a skilled expert and the leader of the anti-terrorist
coalition. In my opinion, the US has displayed its inability to lead
an anti-terrorist coalition. It is necessary to support the US as long
as our values and national interests coincide.
Konstantin Kosachev, deputy leader of the Fatherland-All Russia
Duma faction: Russia's foreign policy now depends on changes of the
foreign policy of the US. If the US starts cooperating with Russia in
many international fields, Russia will have to support America too.
However, it is not ruled out that the US will choose self-isolation
and will solve their problems on their own accord. In this case the US
may want to deal with anyone it does not like: Castro, Hussein,
Kaddafi, etc. using its current moral advantage. In this case Russia
may be forced to make some items of its international policy stricter.
As for Russia's military-technical and economic relations with some
countries viewed as pariahs by the US, I think Russia and the US will
come to a compromise in this sphere.
Gennady Raikov, leader of the People's Deputy group: Russia's
foreign policy will not change, since the Russian president has
repeatedly said that the international community should unite against
terrorism. However, it is not clear what methods should be used in
this battle. These methods should be thoroughly considered. Vladimir
Putin has already suggested that a G8 meeting and a session of the UN
General Assembly be conducted on this topic. It is necessary to make
some political decisions at these meetings.
(Translated by Kirill Frolov)

*******

#10
Moskovsky Komsomolets
No. 205.
September 15, 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
YEVGENY PRIMAKOV COMMENTS ON US TRAGEDY
The world is holding its breath, as the United States gets
ready to retaliate for terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington. Meanwhile quite a few Russian politicians believe
that the ill-conceived use of force would only serve to
escalate terror still further. Their list includes former
Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov, who believes that one
can't fight terrorism with the help of terrorism. In his words,
Moslems should also crack down on fanatics. We must prevent the
world's division into Christian and Moslem regions because this
would pave the road toward disaster, Primakov noted. We must
see to it that Moslems also start fighting terrorists, he added.
Incidentally, there exists the required ideological foundation
for doing this, Primakov stressed, noting that pure Islam had
nothing in common with terrorism. In fact, PRIMAKOV voiced this
opinion time and again during our interview.

Question: Mr. Primakov, everybody says that the world is
going to change after these terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington. What can you say about the gist of such changes?
Answer: Many people still obviously don't comprehend the
profound nature of specific changes that should take place
inside the entire global order after this outrage. They keep
saying that the United States must take its revenge on the
terrorists. It goes without saying that terrorists must be
liquidated; moreover, the anti-terrorist struggle must involve
force. However, one should not respond with terror to terror
because this would only entail additional violence and terror.
One can say that all existing or projected state-security
systems have proved completely ineffective. It turns out that a
decision to double the defense budget, the mightiest military
alliances, as well as the most effective air-defense systems,
can't cope with the terrorist threat. Besides, the latest
tragedy shows only too clearly that anti-terrorist missions
should not be entrusted to secret services alone. You see, they
simply don't have all the required information for preventing
similar situations. Naturally enough, various national secret
services must coordinate their activities more effectively.

Question: So, what can be done?
Answer: We must fight the disease itself. Terrorism is
bred by existing hot-beds of international conflicts, in the
first place. Such hot-beds alone induce would-be suicides to
perpetrate terrorist outrages. We must study ways of defusing
the entire international situation, also trying to more
effectively coordinate the activities of all countries in their
efforts to settle the afore-said conflicts. Believe me, there
still exists a colossal untapped potential here, provided that
every power stops thinking about its own interests alone.
What we need is special international anti-terrorist
legislation. I'm not very happy about the "rogue-state"
concept, all the more so as it has acquired a false meaning at
this stage.
Some countries are now referred to as rogue states just because
they don't tread in the wake of other countries' policies.
However, any countries found guilty of financing or covering up
terrorism must become real rogues. The world community must
turn its back on them.

Question: Some politicians think that these acts of
terrorism can trigger off a global conflict between two types
of civilizations. What do you think on this score?
Answer: These discussions are both erroneous and highly
dangerous. Should we wage an all-out war against Islam? How can
one make such statements? By the way, Moslems account for 20
percent of Russia's entire population. On the contrary, we must
unite positive elements of all religions and nationalities for
the purpose of fighting terrorists. Quite a few Moslem
countries, such as Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey and Iran, disapprove
of Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

Question: Many people think that possible US strikes
against Afghanistan meet Russian interests, as well.
Answer: They seem right, at first glance, because the
Talibs have, among other things, displayed a threatening
aggressive attitude toward Central Asian republics of the CIS.
Such possible strikes would also weaken terrorist accomplices
in Pakistan and other countries. Still I oppose attacks against
any specific country because, as I have already said, this can
spark off another wave of terror.

Question: What do you think about any possible Russian
involvement in a projected anti-Talib operation?
Answer: To my mind, our direct involvement in such an
operation on Afghan territory must be ruled out. We should not
forget our previous Afghan experience. However, this doesn't
mean that other means for backing US anti-terrorist efforts
should be renounced.

Question: What can you say about the possible use of US
nuclear weapons against Taliban?
Answer: This must be prevented from happening. The use of
tactical nuclear weapons would induce terrorist cells to do the
same. Therefore I hope that the US side won't do this.

Question: What should be done about any particular state
responsible for a terrorist outrage?
Answer: I don't think the latest terrorist act was
master-minded by any specific government. The world's countries
may be headed by good or bad people, pleasant or unpleasant
people. Still one finds it hard to imagine that they could do
this; the self-preservation instinct should not be ruled out
either.
If the guilt of any specific country is established, then
the world's countries should hold a conference, deciding what
they should do. An international ultimatum demanding the
extradition of culprits should be issued to that country.

Question: You are talking about the need to isolate those
specific countries, which back terrorism. However, the United
States keeps accusing Russia of countering the isolation of
Iran, Iraq and Libya.
Answer: Is there any evidence that any of these three
countries supports terrorism? Well, such evidence is lacking.
Take Libya, for one. All terrorist-training centers were
bulldozed there many years ago. Libyan citizens suspected of
blowing up a passenger airliner over Scotland in 1988 were
extradited to the West.
Incidentally, we knew for sure that Chechen bandits used
to receive money and supplies via Turkey. Does this mean that
the Government of Turkey supports terrorism? One should not
pose this question so bluntly? True, the Turkish side didn't
take adequate action in order to prevent terrorists and their
accomplices from using Turkish territory.

Question: Can we prevent the appearance of lone terrorists?
Answer: Most importantly, we must do everything possible
in order to rule out any favorable conditions for their
appearance.
Moreover, we must comprehend their deranged mentality. Such
people, who want to kill as many civilians as possible,
consider themselves heroes. We must show their insignificance.
Their brethren-in-faith should be the first to do this; and I
hope they will act in such a way.

Question: Is it theoretically possible to defeat terrorism?
Answer: We'll never be able to eradicate terrorism
completely. However, we must do our best in order to rule out
such terrible consequences of terrorist attacks because mankind
would otherwise commit suicide.

Question: How could the world's most lavishly financed US
secret services, overlook preparations for this terrorist
outrage?
Answer: This problem bedevils both US secret services and
those of many other countries. Had Russia known about
preparations for the latest terrorist attacks, it would have
informed the US side about such preparations in no time at all.
There is every indication that no one had any preliminary
information whatsoever. How could everyone overlook terrorist
preparations? The answer to this question is obvious -- the
terrorist cell took special precautions, with secret services
failing to monitor its activities. By all looks, secret service
informants knew nothing about that cell.

Question: Can the latest terrorist attacks in the United
States spark off a third world war?
Answer: There will be no third world war or economic
disaster. Armageddon won't happen.

Transcript by Mikhail ROSTOVSKY.

*******

#11
Solzhenitsyn hails controversy on Jews book, finished second volume

MOSCOW, Sept 17 (AFP) -
Russia's Nobel Prize-winning writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn has welcomed the
controversy roused by his recently published book about Russia and its Jews.

"I understood that the book may provoke different opinions, but it is filled
with the spirit of balance and peace, and I thought it was important,"
Solzhenitsyn told RTR television late Sunday, speaking about his book "200
Years Together, 1795-1995."

"I think that everything in history has a right to be written about, but the
most important thing is what spirit you write in," said the writer, who is
often accused of holding anti-Semitic views.

"The fact that it sparked diverse opinions is wonderful," Solzhenitsyn said,
adding that the second volume of the book is already finished and may be
handed over to the publisher by the end of the month.

The 500-page work begins with the division of Poland which saw a great number
of Polish Jews becoming Russian citizens.

The first volume ends with the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and deals with the
relations between the Jews and the tsarist authorities and within the
embryonic Communist movement.

The 82-year-old writer said he was working on the footnotes to the completed
second volume of the controversial book, which he hoped would mend the rift
in Russia's divided society.

A prominent leader of Russia's Jewish community condemned the book as a
future source for anti-Semitism, slamming it as an unbalanced and unfair
representation of the Jews' impact on Russian history.

*******

#12
The Guardian (UK)
17 September 2001
Kursk salvage decried as Putin's face-saver
Even the victims' relatives are no longer anxious to see the submarine raised
Ian Traynor in Moscow

The hazardous attempt to raise the stricken submarine Kursk from the bed of
the Barents Sea north of Russia is crawling rather than racing against time
and the elements, accompanied by growing criticism grows that the operation
is one of political expediency.
A 122-metre Dutch barge bristling with hi-tech gadgetry is due to leave
Kirkenes in the far north of Norway today to rendezvous 85 miles north-east
of the Russian Arctic port of Murmansk on Wednesday, at the spot where the
nuclear-powered submarine sank with the loss of 118 lives just over a year
ago.

The huge barge, Giant 4, is the key element in the bold attempt to raise the
greater part of the 18,000-ton Kursk more than 90 metres (300ft) down. The
intention is to bring the vessel to the surface, complete with its two
nuclear reactors, 22 Granit missiles, and the remains of 106 submariners, and
tow is to a dry dock outside Murmansk.

"It's a unique operation. Nothing like this has been attempted before," said
Igor Kudrik, an expert on the Russian navy at the Bellona Foundation, a
Norwegian environmental watchdog. "There are lots of problems."

Relatives of the dead are no longer eager to see the submarine recovered.
Locals are anxious that the operation may go wrong and compound the tragedy.

Members of the Russian navy are scathing about the effort. Experts say the
unprecedented salvage operation is driven by politics and perpetuates a
cover-up of what caused the disaster on August 12 last year.

Environmentalists say the £90m being spent on the recovery could be much
better spent on the graver problem of the Russian navy's radioactive
contamination of the Arctic. And with the operation already 10 days behind
schedule, and the end of the month regarded as the deadline for a successful
hoisting, there is widespread doubt whether the Kursk will be raised at all.

"The official information gives the impression that the work is being
conducted too quickly, chaotically, and is of a purely political nature,"
Vladimir Kuznetsov, a nuclear expert at the Russian branch of Green Cross,
the international organisation founded by the last leader of the Soviet
Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, said.

Retired Vice-Admiral Yuri Senatsky, sometime head of the Soviet navy's
salvage operations, said the Kursk was being brought up solely to redeem
President Vladimir Putin's pledge to the relatives of the dead that it would
be raised.

"Nobody will tell the president that his promises are worthless," he said.
"Many of the admirals agree with me. Putin says the main thing is to bring up
the bodies. But the main thing now is to find out the reasons for the
sinking, because we have another nine submarines like the Kursk."

That investigation will be inconclusive because the operation passed a
crucial stage last week when remotely controlled cable saws eventually
succeeded in cutting through the hull, detaching the 18-metre bow section,
where the two explosions that sank the sub occurred, from the rest of the
vessel.

Officially, the bow section was cut off because of the danger of unexploded
torpedoes and to avoid the possibility of the vessel splitting in two when it
is lifted by 26 cables. But officials have been routinely contradicting one
another about the reasons. They have promised to bring up the bows next year.

Secrets are in the bow

"There are many who know the reason for the sinking, but they're not allowed
to say," Adm Senatsky said. "The reasons can be found in the first [bow]
section. It needs to be raised, dried and examined. Now they're saying that
the Russians will lift it next year. But we don't have the capacity to do
that."

Officials in Roslyakovo, the small port outside Murmansk where the Kursk is
to be dry-docked, have been telling the worried locals that there is no risk
of radiation leaks from the two reactors that powered the submarine.
Nevertheless, evacuation plans have been drawn up in case they are wrong.

"The worst-case scenario is that the submarine overturns when it is being
lifted and falls to the seabed with a jolt that could damage the reactors,"
Mr Kudrik said. "But that's not probable."

There are 113 rusting Russian submarines laid up in the Kola peninsula, the
area east and south of Murmansk, 70 of them still carrying nuclear fuel in
their reactors. Naval accidents have left another 13 reactors from vessels on
the bed of the Kara Sea, six of them still with their fuel.

Sailors vapourised

The bill for the Kursk operation is almost twice the annual budget for
running the navy's fleet of submarines. In this situation the salvage
operation seems almost a luxury, critics says.

When the Giant 4 joins the flotilla of ships already at the scene of the
disaster, the painstaking work of attaching the winching cables through 26
holes already bored into the inner and outer hulls of the Kursk will begin.

According to the latest timetable, the Kursk is to be lifted by September 25
and snuggled under the Giant 4, which will then be towed - a three-day
journey to two specially built pontoons, which will ease the submarine in to
dry dock at Roslyakovo.

Only then will the remains of the submariners be recovered. But 68 of them
were vapourised in the extreme temperatures generated by the two explosions,
naval sources say. Twelve bodies were eventually recovered in last year's
botched rescue effort, leaving the remains of 38.

Russian officials and Mammoet, the Dutch contractors, say the success of the
operation will hinge on the weather in the Barents Sea.

Adm Senatsky engineered the salvage of dozens of ships and submarines during
a 30-year naval career. "It will be the end of September, beginning of
October, several days being tugged," he said.

"It's just about possible. We'll be praying to all the gods."

*******

#13
Financial Times (UK)
17 September 2001
Russia starts paying dividends: Shareholders are benefiting from improved
corporate governance
By ANDREW JACK

Shareholders of Sibneft are gearing up for a welcome contribution of cash
this week, to match the months of talk of improved corporate governance at
the Russian oil group.

They will be the latest beneficiaries in a growing trend by Russian companies
to take dividend payments more seriously. This reflects self-interest by
corporate management at a time of record corporate profits, as well as
tougher tax legislation that cuts down their margin for manoeuvre. And, just
possibly, some signs of an improved attitude towards minority investors.

Sibneft is set today to implement a pledge to pay out Dollars 612m in
dividends, against 2000 net profits under US accounting principles of Dollars
675m. That makes the size of the dividends a record in absolute terms, but
also part of a broader trend among Russian chief executives to share their
profits.

"Dividend payments are one of the first signs that Russian companies are
implementing good corporate governance, in a global market that is pretty
unforgiving," says James Fenkner, chief equity strategist at the Moscow
brokerage Troika Dialog.

Alexei Miller, who took over in May as head of the gas monopoly Gazprom after
intense criticism by minority shareholders of the need for better management,
has pledged a long-term dividend policy and proposed a ratio of dividends to
net profits of 15 per cent, defined by Russian accounting standards.

Oil group Yukos has charmed investors with a 12 per cent dividend ratio as a
proportion of last year's earnings, and promised regular payments rising
towards international levels. Rival LUKoil has pledged a ratio of 20 per cent
by 2005 and 40 per cent by 2008.

Oil and gas group Surgutneftegaz remains more recalcitrant when it comes to
sharing its substantial cash reserves, and its share price has been penalised
as a result. But UES, an electricity group, Norilsk Nickel, and Severstal, a
steel manufacturer, have started talking about paying substantial dividends.

Mr Fenkner says that of the 60 large quoted Russian companies followed by his
analysts, total dividends have increased from Dollars 90m in 1998 to Dollars
487m in 1999 and Dollars 1.29bn last year. In the oil and gas sector, the
ratio of dividends to net income last year stood at 7.3 per cent.

Why has this happened? As investors in Russia have increased leverage over
companies through board representation and greater access to management, they
have been increasingly pushing for dividend payments.

High commodity prices have given a number of companies enough cash to pay
dividends. This has helped to mend bridges damaged by the default of 1998 and
abuses of minority shareholders in the past.

"You never know how much profit Russian companies are really making or how
much real cash they have unless they actually pay it out to shareholders,"
says Alexander Branis of the Investor Protection Association, representing
Moscow-based fund managers.

But while minority investors may be happy with the latest trend, Russian
company managers privately concede one of the main reasons for more generous
payouts is the latest modifications to the tax code.

New legislation has removed tax loopholes, including those that allowed oil
companies to use transfer pricing to reduce declared profits in Russia.

Possibly through shrewd planning, Sibneft, whose majority shareholder is
Roman Abramovich, was particularly adept at paying below its headline tax
rate, paying about 10 per cent.

But other companies too - including Russian Aluminium, in which Mr Abramovich
also has a substantial stake - have begun closing offshore subsidiaries and
consolidating their operations within Russia.

To comply with the law, they have to declare higher profits and pay higher
taxes. They must also show the true extent of their financial operations to
minority shareholders, who are just as keen to have a share of the proceeds
as the tax inspector.

James Henderson, head of research at the Renaissance brokerage, says that
while dividend ratios have significantly increased, they are modest by
international standards, where they often reach 50 per cent or more.

It seems that Sibneft has offered an exceptional payout largely because Mr
Abramovich, who with his partners controls some 87 per cent of the company,
needed cash for other activities. In other companies, too, managers are
usually similarly significant personal beneficiaries of large dividends.

But there is at least one compensation. If in the past they made such
payments to themselves behind minority shareholders' backs, at least they now
seem willing to share some of their profits through official dividends. At
least for now.

********

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/