October 1, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5469 • 5470

Johnson's Russia List
#5470
1 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Washington Post: Boris Nemtsov, In Afghanistan: A Russia Ready To Assist.
2. Interfax: Russian Communist leader warns of consequences of US strikes on Afghanistan.
3. Vek: Alexei Bogaturov, LOVE'S COMEBACK. Russia's second attempt at partnership with the West.
4. Los Angeles Times: Maura Reynolds, Separatists Send Kremlin Mixed Messages. Caucasus: Fierce rebel battles belie Chechen president's apparent peace overtures.
5. Obshchaya Gazeta: Yegor Yakovlev, CHUBAIS WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
An interview with Anatoly Chubais.
6. www.fednews.ru: NTV, INTERVIEW WITH STATE DUMA DEPUTY AND FORMER PRIME MINISTER YEVGENY PRIMAKOV.
7. Washington Post: Susan Glasser, New Allies Seek Payback. Central Asians Expect U.S. to Ignore Abuses In Return for Help in Anti-Terror Campaign.
8. Financial Times (UK): Stephen Fidler, Former Soviet republics may play critical role in campaign: Support for US prompts fears of longer-term impact.
9. Wall Street Journal: Bhushan Bahree and Taddeus Herrick, OPEC's Move to Maintain Output Alerts Russia to Possible Price War.
10. Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie: Alexander Sharavin, THE THIRD THREAT. Russia is overlooking the increasing military might of China.]

*******

#1
Washington Post
October 1, 2001
In Afghanistan: A Russia Ready To Assist
By Boris Nemtsov
The writer is a Russian political leader and former deputy prime minister.

MOSCOW -- The Russian people recognized instantly that the tragedies of
Sept. 11 were attacks on the fabric of the whole civilized world. As we
watched on television, no country could avoid imagining the same types of
attacks happening in their homeland. Russia stands even nearer to the
likely conspirators than does New York. And representatives of more than 60
nations died in the World Trade Center, including some of our own Russian
citizens.

Perhaps it may be remembered that Russian men, women and children were
blown up in their beds by terrorist bombs in Moscow apartment buildings a
few years ago. Then, we felt the same shock and horror when we watched
ruined and smoking apartments on television. More than 1,000 innocent
Russian civilians have been murdered without warning by hate-filled
extremists, in subways, in pedestrian underpasses and driving in cars. Our
hearts are united with Americans in their feelings of loss. Russians
gathered in great numbers in Moscow to share in America's grief.

As a member of Russia's parliament, I want to say that the Union of Right
Forces Party, which I am pleased to lead, stands strongly with the American
nation and the rest of the civilized world in the determination to smash
these criminals. The Union of Right Forces will support President Vladimir
Putin in his determination to fight terrorists worldwide.

But we now face many possible paths. Russia's experience shows that
military force is often not the answer. I frequently have said in Russia's
Duma that Russia's war in Chechnya is a costly mistake. When one terrorist
is taken down, another rises to take his place. Our party has often called
for an end to the fighting in Chechnya and for an autonomous government there.

The world's new coalition should explore all law enforcement methods. We
can destroy many of these criminal groups simply through better tracking of
the terrorists' money, arresting known suspects at national borders and
jailing terrorists with improved law enforcement. In fact, the $30 million
reward for the arrest of Osama bin Laden may enjoy more success than a
military invasion.

We hope that America can appreciate Russia's concerns about a war. How
might Americans feel if a major nation were fighting near the U.S. border?
Naturally, Americans would feel disturbed and nervous. So it is
understandable that Russians also feel that way. Wars are notoriously hard
to control and to contain in only one place, no matter what is planned at
first.

And the world also needs extensive dialogue to explore how to stop all
examples of terrorism. The political party I lead in the Duma is strongly
opposed to the fighting in Chechnya. Yet there is very little understanding
in America of the trauma and difficult problems to which Russia is trying
to find answers. In attacks similar to those on the World Trade Center,
Chechen extremists have murdered thousands of Russian civilians. It is not
easy to ask Russians to simply forget, any more than Americans simply could
forget the people killed on Sept. 11.

There are no easy answers. But if there must be military action, the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is offering to provide 25,000 soldiers who
are ready now to fight the Taliban. These friendly Afghans lack only food,
guns and supplies. Supplies for this group can be purchased in neighboring
countries and trucked in. Letting these native Afghans defeat the Taliban
would show the world that this is not the West fighting Islam.

The civilized world must not merely inflame terrorism but eradicate it. The
Taliban do not have the support of the people. Their power grew only by
brutal conquest. Here is an obvious way to remove the support for
terrorists and arrest Osama bin Laden by letting Afghans reclaim their own
country.

If U.S. soldiers invade, they will be fighting in Afghanistan for a decade,
at the cost of billions. Regrettably, as a byproduct of the unfortunate
Cold War, America armed and trained the Mujahadeen to repel Soviet troops
and taught them American methods. Now, some of these mujaheddin have 20
years of experience at killing in guerrilla warfare in remote mountains. In
past decades, when America and the Soviet Union opposed each other, we
overlooked the terrorists. Now we should unite with the forces of all the
civilized world and fight evil forces on earth. Russians stand ready to
assist.

*******

#2
Russian Communist leader warns of consequences of US strikes on Afghanistan
Interfax

Moscow, 1 October: Russian Communist Party Leader Gennadiy Zyuganov sharply
criticized US plans for retaliatory strikes in Afghanistan.

"If they go ahead with the plan, a large war may break out. None of the
goals of fighting terrorism will be achieved. The strike will lead only to
more sorrow," he told a news conference in Moscow today.

Russia must act very cautiously, Zyuganov said. "They (the Americans) will
flee from there in a week or two while we, if we get dragged into it, will
stay on the Jalalabad-Kandahar line," he said.

The Russian army cannot do much now, Zyuganov said.

US activities are moving the planet 500 years back, "to the times of
brigandage and banditry", he said.

*******

#3
Vek
No. 38
September 28, 2001
LOVE'S COMEBACK
Russia's second attempt at partnership with the West
Author: Alexei Bogaturov
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

RUSSIA DOESN'T SEEM TO BE LEARNING ANY LESSONS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 11 EVENTS IN THE US. IT APPEARS THAT THE KOZYREV ERA OF RUSSIA'S RECKLESS DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY WITH THE WEST IS STAGING A COMEBACK. WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT SPECIFIC FORM THE KREMLIN'S LOVE FOR THE US MAY TAKE AND WHAT CONSEQUENCES MAY ENSUE.

In mere days, the security ministers have emerged from months-
long oblivion and come into the limelight of newspaper frontpages and
TV footage. To everybody's (and, it appears, their own) surprise,
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, Security Council Secretary Vladimir
Rushailo, and Chief of the General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin have found
themselves in the center of public attention and started to head
various important negotiation missions, offer their comments, give
interviews, and use all other ways possible of showing the high
political demand for themselves. Well, this could not have been
otherwise: when war is in the air, everybody's eyes are subconsciously
searching for military men, let them even be wearing civilian clothes.
President Putin's resolute declaration of Russia's readiness to offer
the belligerent US its active (although selective) support certainly
implied a sharp increase in the intensity of his interaction with the
security departments, a growing significance of military expertise,
and, as a consequence, an objective raise of the said security
departments' influence on the head of state and the Russian politics
in general. There is nothing new or strange about this scenario. A
paradox is to be found elsewhere; namely, the security bloc has always
been reputed for the most conservative patriotic and pro-Kremlin mood
and the least sympathy for the US and the West in general. It would be
logical to expect the increase n the security bloc's political role to
render Moscow's policy more anti-American. However, this is not (and,
apparently, will not be) the case. To the contrary, the current
increased attention to the Kremlin's military and security instruments
is added to by the Kremlin's unprecedented desire to align itself with
Washington and actually assist the US, even if to a certain limit.

Provision of intelligence, technical support of the impending US-
led retaliation operations, the granting of Russian airspace to
American warplanes, and - which is especially important - assistance
with the Americans' acquiring the right to deploy their forces at
Uzbek and Tajik (i.e. former Soviet) military airfields - all these
gestures are far from being merely symbolic. President Putin has been
acting fairly decisively. The question is: did the security ministers
support him or just acquiesce? Outwardly, it appears that the Kozyrev
era of Russia's reckless democratic solidarity with the West is
staging a comeback. Does it mean that the Kremlin is dominated by
cosmopolitan liberals after all, rather than by patriotic state
administrators?

On the other hand, this is not a philosophical issue. What
matters is what specific form the Kremlin's love for the US may take
and what consequences may ensue. Will this love, for one, move the
Russian power to imitate the unusually new traits of the American life
after September 11 which are treated with understanding by Americans
and with a mixed sense of amazement and envy by Russians? For
instance, despite the sacred traditions of worshiping the freedom of
information, the US Administration had enough wit to ban Mullah Omar,
the head of the Taleban regime, from making statements to the US
media. This is something the Russian media might memorize in the sense
of, so to speak, the ethics of understanding Russia's state interests
when reporting on Chechen bandits.

Another peculiar innovation is the Americans' resoluteness with
regard to sanation of dubious deposits and accounts of individuals and
organizations indirectly involved in catering for terrorists and
potential terrorists. Another reason to grieve: over the past decade,
none in Moscow has raised a finger to sanate banking accounts,
authorized capitals, financial flows, and personal accounts of Chechen
(and initially Chechen which then turned Russian (and not only
Russian)) money! No wonder, then, that the creeping war in Chechnya
won't stop, now that the financial network in Moscow (established by
Chechen shady monetary affairs in the early 1990s) continues to
function and sustain its owners. Alas, the terrorist acts in Moscow
failed to have the same effect on Boris Yeltsin's policies as the New
York attacks have had on the policies of George Bush. Only now have
reports come in that the Main Department of the Federal Tax Police
Service for the Central Federal District has uncovered 65 commercial
structures suspected of financing Chechen armed groups. The Americans
appear to have finally decided on restricting de-facto promotion of
terrorism on TV. At last have they made the seditious (by American
standards) statements that pre-paid shows in the form of live coverage
from the terrorist attack area and primetime interviews with victims
and perpetrators are not only heroisation of terrorism but also - in a
way - a training course in terrorist methods. Has anything changed on
Russian TV screeds? We are supposedly in for a flood of third-rate
Hollywood horror and disaster movies at discount prices: now that
nobody in the States will watch this dreck any more (and won't be
allowed to, in the first place), it will be bought for a song and fed
to Russian viewers. Globalization has unpleasant aspects to it.

Still, this is not the main thing. The 1991-1996 Yeltsin-Kozyrev
attempt at solidarity with the West reduced Russia's international
influence to naught and failed to result in anything resembling an
alliance with the US and West Europe. The current sequel attempt at
partnership is characterized by courage and strength of will, but
still rests on many an overrated expectation and risk. Can courage
alone win a battle?
(Translated by Andrei Bystrov)

********

#4
Los Angeles Times
October 1, 2001
Separatists Send Kremlin Mixed Messages
Caucasus: Fierce rebel battles belie Chechen president's apparent peace
overtures.
By MAURA REYNOLDS, TIMES STAFF WRITER

MOSCOW -- About the time that President Vladimir V. Putin's ultimatum to
the rebels in Chechnya expired, the television in Khalamo Chagayev's home
in the Chechen village of Avtury suddenly started showing Chechen fighters
killing Russian prisoners.

"A fighter on the tape said that this was their reply to the ultimatum,"
Chagayev said.

It was a week ago that Putin went on national television and gave the
Chechen separatists 72 hours to turn in their weapons and contact Russian
authorities. In the days since, public debate has focused on whether
Putin's statement was, in fact, an ultimatum to surrender or whether it was
a veiled invitation to begin peace talks. There is little clarity about the
Chechen position either. In the hours before the deadline expired Thursday,
an envoy from Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov met with a Russian
government representative to discuss peace moves. That was the first time
since the war in the republic began two years ago that the two sides
acknowledged speaking to each other directly.

But at the same time, as Maskhadov was apparently signaling a readiness to
talk peace, Chechen fighters began to come out of the mountains. For the
last three days, sometimes fierce gun battles have raged in the republic.

On their official Web site, the rebels claim to have launched a major
offensive, with operations underway in half a dozen regions of Chechnya.
They also claim to have seized control of several major roads. However,
attacks on only three villages could be confirmed.

In Kurchaloi, rebel fighters assaulted a police station, killing at least
two policemen. In Shali, they attacked the military commandant's quarters
and burned a local courthouse, killing two policemen and kidnapping a
third--according to official Russian reports. The rebels' Web site claimed
the death count reached 50 Russian servicemen.

"The fighters have started to act more brazenly, in an open manner, as if
they are flaunting their prowess," said Sharip Alikhodzhiyev, head of the
Shali district administration. "They want to intimidate the rest of the
people in Chechnya by showing contempt for Putin's words."

A few miles away in the village of Avtury, where Chagayev lives, rebel
fighters seized control of the local TV station and forced it to broadcast
their grainy and gory videotape before fleeing.

"This speaks for itself," the 39-year-old Chagayev said. "None of the
fighters intends to lay down his weapon and surrender to the federal side.
It is clear that it has all gone too far. Many fighters do not see a way
out for themselves except either defeating the Russian troops or dying."

After Putin's deadline expired, Kremlin officials downplayed the suggestion
that it had been an ultimatum. Presidential advisor Sergei Yastrzhembsky
argued that an ultimatum is a threat and that Putin had not said what would
happen after the deadline passed.

Other observers noted that Putin for the first time made a mention of the
possibility that some fighters were not simply "bandits and terrorists" but
may have taken up arms for a cause. This was seen as a move on the
president's part toward peace talks.

"This, undoubtedly, is a rather important change in the position of the
president, who in public has always been strongly and categorically against
any kind of negotiations with Chechen terrorists," said Yevgeny Kiselyov,
anchor of the weekly magazine show "Itogi" on Moscow's TV6 station.

But others saw Putin's language as deliberately vague.

Similarly, it was unclear whether the mixed signals on the Chechen side
were an indication of discord between Maskhadov and his field commanders or
part of a deliberate strategy. Russian officials have long said that
Maskhadov no longer has much, if any, control over Chechen commanders.
Still, no other figure on the rebel side has more political authority, and
it is possible that the rebel side was also seeking maximum advantage by
sending mixed signals.

In Chechnya, few residents believed Putin's deadline was anything other
than an ultimatum, and for the most part they described it as
ill-considered, disingenuous, or both.

"It is unreal to expect fighters to turn in their weapons in 72 hours--this
is how we understood Putin," said Muslim Dadashev, a 46-year-old resident
of the town of Argun. "When the Russian leadership was making that
ultimatum, it knew well in advance that the idea would never work."

Several noted that there were no procedures established for arms surrenders
and no depots arranged to store any weapons.

"Today, the republic is a total mess, there is lawlessness everywhere,
there is looting, there are summary executions," said Lomali Tibishov, a
32-year-old resident of the Chechen capital, Grozny. "The situation is
unstable, unclear and dangerous. And it is in this situation that fighters
are urged to lay down weapons? Do the federals think the Chechens are out
of their minds?"

As for Chagayev, he's now preparing for the worst. He believes that no
Western group claiming to stand for human rights will bother to protest
Russian actions in Chechnya anymore.

"The fighters have shown their monstrous and brutal answer to what seemed
like a civilized and humane request of the Russian leadership to lay down
weapons," he said. "This is exactly what the Russians needed to prove their
point to the Council of Europe. . . .

"They can do whatever they want in Chechnya, and the rest of the
world--having heard what Putin said and having seen the tape--will not even
consider stepping in."

Special correspondent Mayerbek Nunayev in Chechnya and Alexei Kuznetsov of
The Times' Moscow Bureau contributed to this report.

*******

#5
Obshchaya Gazeta
No. 39
September 27, 2001
CHUBAIS WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT
An interview with Anatoly Chubais
Author: Yegor Yakovlev
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

ANATOLY CHUBAIS BELIEVES RUSSIA IS LUCKY TO HAVE VLADIMIR PUTIN AS PRESIDENT. IN THIS INTERVIEW HE DISCUSSES THE RUSSIAN ELECTRICITY
SECTOR AND REFORMS. HE ALSO COMMENTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL SITUATION IN THE WAKE OF SEPTEMBER 11, AND HIS OWN POLITICAL FUTURE.

Question: Russia had never known rolling blackouts until you
assumed the post of chair of the Russian Unified Energy Systems (UES).
I personally have lived all my life in Moscow; I never heard the word
before.

Anatoly Chubais: You are right to mention Moscow - no blackouts
have ever been here. Bout for Russia in general cutouts of electricity
are no news. It is only that in the Soviet era they did not affect the
population as much as industrial enterprises. There were very strict
electricity quotas distributed by the Central Committee and regional
committees of the CPSU. The basic principle of that system was
uninterrupted power supply, Nobody cared whether or not expenses were
recouped. The swift changes of the 1990s, even the establishing of the
Russian UES stock company, did not eventuate in any conceptual changes
in power engineering, which remained an isolated island of socialism
operating on the same principles as in former decades, the major of
them being the cost-is-no-object approach to pricing.

As a result, in the past decade the Russian electricity sector
has fallen into a financial abyss. In 1998, when I took over the
reigns, there were 21 bankruptcy suits against the largest power
plants and energy systems whose aggregate salary arrears amounted to
six months. This means that in a number of systems and facilities
employees were not paid salaries for up to one year. This meant not
even strikes already but hunger-strikes. The financial structure of
power engineering was lying in ruins. Politicos with a taste for
florid style asserted that power engineering had financed the rest of
economy in the hard times of reforms. In reality, however, nobody
financed anybody. The system was being consistently ruined by the
principle of uninterrupted power supply.

I will remind of yet another factor which only contributed to
criticism of my policies. Each Russian region has a power network of
its own. As a rule, that network does not go directly to consumers,
and municipal authorities act as resellers of electricity. Now, this
chain of the link is even more debilitated than the general power
engineering system. It is the grazing field for local powers-that-be
which profit from taxpayers' money - and taxpayers DO pay. The Russian
UES have only 21 million consumers, whereas the overall number of
power consumers in Russia are 150 million citizens plus tens of
millions of legal persons. However, those are not our consumers but
rather those of resellers, who decide for themselves whom to cut off
from power supply.

Question: Is this not the fault of those resellers that we pay
more and more for electricity every month?

Chubais: Well, it would be unjust to blame resellers alone for
the constant growth of electricity tariffs. Part of the fault is mine,
part of it goes to my suppliers. Energy production requires gas, or
oil, or coal. If you look at the dynamics of gas and coal prices'
growth in the past several years you will see the prices are steadily
growing. Now, if the gas prices have grown, I am obliged to purchase
gas at a higher price. Naturally, this prices growth eventually
affects the ultimate consumer. One specific feature of the Russian UES
is that technologically we have the consumer in front of us and
Gazprom with its gas, oil companies with their oil, coal-mining
enterprises with their coal, and nuclear plants with their nuclear
energy behind us.

The electricity tariff may be reduced only if the Russian UES
company is restructured and split into competing companies that would
offer different prices on electricity - some would offer one and a
half cents per kilowatt, others would charge 1,4 cents per kilowatt,
still others would offer a 30% discount at nighttime and pay you a 50%
remuneration on the contract cost for every cutoff. There would be a
market, and consumers would have something to choose from. This is the
essence of the restructuring we have started. Incidentally, this means
me intentionally demonopolizing the company I am the chair of. That is
what I have been engaged in for all of the past year and a half.

Question: What is your attitude towards the recent incident with
Boris Nemtsov's initiatives regarding the possibility of peace talks
in Chechnya?

Chubais: The essence of the problem boils down to this formula:
we will destroy terrorists and hold talks with peaceful Chechen
politicians. Well, I fully agree with this formula. As for the
situation in Chechnya, it is far from normal. We have gotten bogged
down in that republic. Perhaps the main thing we are lacking are new
serious ideas.

Question: Do you feel implicated in the notorious scandal with
NTV and what is your appraisal of the situation with freedom of speech
in Russia?

Chubais: The rumors that the seizure of NTV was in fact a secret
operation by Mr. Chubais who apparently sent Alfred Kokh in are
overrated, to say the least. At the same time, my vision of the
situation with NTV is not monochrome. For instance, one day after
Vladimir Gusinsky's arrest I was one of those who gathered a press
conference and censored the government's actions. I consider such sort
of pressure via the prosecutor's office to be absolutely unlawful.

Still, I am certain that if the owner decides to replace the
manager, then the owner is right to do so. If there is an owner he has
the right to make managerial decisions. And the making of such a
decision does not at all require that the manager commit a crime of
any sort. Crimes are within the scope of the Interior Ministry and the
Federal Security Service. The owner's dissatisfaction with the
manager's style of work is enough. On the other hand, all the legal
formalities should be observed. As for inner censorship and the fear
the media have developed - well, that's the question to be asked of
those who feel that fear.

Question: What can you say about the recent events in the US? Do
you share the widespread opinion that the world has changed after the
terrorist attacks in New York, or do you threat this as an ordinary
publicist phrase?

Chubais: What has happened in America is totally unprecedented.
When I saw the World Trade Center towers implode I had an absolute
feeling it was the beginning of a war. Still, I don't think the world
has changed in an instant. True, what has happened is a strong sign of
the world having entered the 21st century. True, now the confrontation
is between the north and the south, not between the west and the east.
But I don't think this confrontation will develop politically all that
soon. And if it does, then not in the way many think of.

So far, only sketchy schemes are seen. If the south confronts the
north, this does not mean that the southern countries will merge,
Russia will join NATO, and we will start bombing the Talibs together.
Unprecedented though these attacks are, the international political
inertia is too enormous. Nobody will manage to reorient the
international community's way of thinking within a month - or even a
year. This is not the beginning of a new epoch but rather the
beginning of the end of the old one.

Question: Aren't you planning to run for president?

Chubais: No, I'm not. Every person has a perception of his or her
own strong and weak sides, especially when applied to a concrete task.
To be frank, I'm not excessively modest when it comes to self-esteem.
There are many tasks in Russia I am capable of coping with (and have
already done so). At the same time, I am convinced the array of
requirements a person running for president is to meet differs greatly
from what I can offer. Therefore, if I decide to assume this post I
would have to change immensely. Why bother, then?

I may tell you absolutely sincerely I have long since abandoned
the well-known careerist logic: the higher the post the better. For
instance, I am currently very interested in small and medium-sized
businesses. I have no experience whatsoever in this sphere. But I
would find great pleasure in, say, building a gas station and watching
this business develop.

Question: Does this mean you are not a careerist?

Chubais: On the contrary, I am. It is simply that the dominating
motive in my ongoing career development is my interest in the content
of what I am about to do. In this aspect, I take an interest in
various forms and types of work - the types of work I can cope with
without stepping over myself. A president must suppress his own
desires by 100%. Presidency absolutely excludes any possibility of a
normal human life.

Question: Who is Mr. Putin, then?

Chubais: I'm afraid my answer will be superfluously
complimentary. Of course, any normal Russian intellectual is moved to
retch when spoken to about the acting head of state. But I think that
President Putin conforms to his post to a greater extent than anyone
could have possibly imagined when the decision was made to nominate
him as a candidate for president. Our country is very lucky to have
such a president.

(Translated by Andrei Bystrov)

*******

#6
TITLE: INTERVIEW WITH STATE DUMA DEPUTY AND FORMER PRIME MINISTER YEVGENY PRIMAKOV
[HERO OF THE DAY NVT PROGRAM, 19:30, SEPTEMBER 27, 2001]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)

Anchor: Hello and welcome to Hero of the Day program on NTV
channel. I am Savik Shuster. Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Middle
East. Events in these regions will in the coming period determine
the foreign and indeed the military policy of Russia. There is no
doubt about it. And there is hardly another top-ranking politician
who knows the Middle East as well as Yevgeny Primakov. And Yevgeny
Primakov of course knows the West very well too. Good evening,
Yevgeny Maximovich.

Primakov: Good evening. You are exaggerating my potential and
knowledge a bit, but I am ready to share such knowledge as I have.

Anchor: I think it is very important in these dramatic days.
It so happened that for a second day in a row we have former prime
ministers in our studio. Yesterday we had Sergei Stepashin here.
And Sergei Stepashin in an interview advised the Kremlin to use
Primakov's potential more. Do you feel that your potential is being
used?

Primakov: I don't grumble. I make constant public statements.
I see that our policy is going in the right direction. I believe
that the position taken by President Putin in connection with the
tragedy on September 11 is optimal.

Q: After the tragedy on September 11, many politicians in
Russia have said that the country has been presented with a unique
chance. Do you agree that Russia has got a unique chance precisely
after September 11?

Primakov: You can't build you happiness on the misfortunes of
other people. So, I don't want to talk about any unique chance that
emerged from a tragedy. But in principle everyone should take a
different look at the international situation, and that includes
Russia, of course. This is a climactic moment which requires a
reappraisal of much of what was in the past and a reassessment of
much of what we expect in the future.

Q: When you say Russia too should review its attitude, do you
mean a rapprochement with the West or a different role?

Primakov: I mean the strengthening of international
coordination, international efforts and so on. I don't mean a
rapprochement with the West against the East, for example, or the
struggle of two civilizations as some people would like to present
events in the context of this struggle, especially between
Christianity and Islam and so on. Not only do I think that it is
wrong, it is also very dangerous. So, I wouldn't speak about a
rapprochement with the West. I would speak about a rapprochement
with all those who are willing and able to fight against terrorism.

I for one believe that the weakest point of our policy in
Chechnya has been our failure to separate the civilian population
in Chechnya and the militants. This accounts for the biggest
weakness of our policy.

I am afraid that if we talk about the division of the world
into two civilizations and so on, into Muslims and Christians, we
will never be able to get the Muslims to take an active part in the
struggle against terrorism. And that is necessary and that is a
goal to be sought.

Q: Most of the talk today focuses on a possible strike against
Afghanistan. But there are other strategic thinkers who believe
that the target need not be Afghanistan or only Afghanistan.

Primakov: I probably belong to the people who prefer a broader
view of the retribution action. You know, listening attentively to
the speech of President Bush to Congress I realized that there was
of course an emotional element and a rhetorical element in his
speech, but at the same time I was struck by two things that gave
me pause.

He was speaking about the act of retaliation, but he referred
to it as a war and a protracted war. He said that it was not going
to be a one-off action, but an action that would stretch over
years.

Q: Yes, they even mentioned the figure of ten years.

Primakov: Yes. And the second point that struck me was that he
said that the watershed now is between those who are with the
United States fighting terrorism and those who are not with us.
That is, those who are not with the United States. As a former
politician, if you like, and a person who still follows intentional
developments, I am not happy with this kind of watershed. Because
I think that if we are to identify different forces on different
sides of the barricades, then on one side you have those who are
fighting against terrorism and on the other side the terrorists.

Because if somebody fails to support an American action should
he instantly be included in the enemy camp? This is not the way.

Q: What other targets can there be in addition to Afghanistan?

Primakov: Iraq. I am very much afraid of this. Because there
are very strong groups in the United States that consider the Iraqi
regime to be almost the No. 1 enemy of the United States. At least
it used to be said.

Q: And what could be the consequences of such a strike?

Primakov: The consequences can be very dangerous for the whole
world. Certain actions against terrorism are needed and a
retaliation action is needed. I am not against such an action. But
it should be an aimed action if you like. It should be aimed at
those who are really organizing international terrorism and who
were really involved in organizing this criminal bloody act in New
York and Washington. We should think about it. But not only that.
I am afraid, I think I could say that, because everybody is
obsessed with the idea of revenge, of retribution. One can
understand it, but one should go further.

It is necessary to liquidate the soil on which terrorism
grows. And that soil chiefly is the existing international
conflicts. And, you can take my word for it, the international
community has vast opportunities for pooling the efforts in order
to liquidate many of these conflicts.

Q: We have a conflict inside our country, the Chechen
conflict.

Primakov: Yes, we have a conflict.

Q: You are suggesting that a charter be set up to combat
terrorism including various states? And one of the obligations the
members would undertake would be liquidation of hotbeds of
terrorism on their own territories.

Primakov: Definitely so.

Q: So, Russia would have to immediately liquidate terrorism in
Chechnya. But how do you go about it?

Primakov: Not by exterminating the whole population of
Chechnya along with the terrorists. This cannot be allowed to
happen. As to how, in principle all methods should be used --
political, economic.

Q: And the fact that President Putin for the first time
extended a hand of negotiations to Aslan Maskhadov, as many people
think, including Kadyrov?

Primakov: I think that President Putin played his hand very
precisely, well, perhaps this is not an appropriate term to use,
but I use it considering the current situation in the world. The
way I see it, what did Vladimir Vladimirovich propose? He said that
now those who were guided by considerations that obviously are not
relevant or viable or acceptable should now break their links with
international terrorist centers and within 72 hours establish
contacts with his representatives.

And in his statement Putin identified the framework of the
contacts. He said firmly that in the course of these contacts it
should be agreed that there should be disarmament and that the
disarmed people would be integrated into peaceful life. Of course,
that involves contacts, negotiations and so on. But there should be
a clear-cut program. Nobody is suggesting that the negotiations
should be on whether or not Chechnya should remain part of Russia.
This is not on the agenda from my point of view.

So, he made this move and the Chechen side, and when I say
that I mean the militants, the side that is in conflict with us,
including armed conflict, that side should respond somehow.

Q: But it's impossible to do within 72 hours. Or do you think
it is possible?

Primakov: It is possible to start contacts. Disarmament within
72 hours is, of course, impossible.

Q: The start of the contacts is possible, but we won't know
about the start of the contacts.

Primakov: Why not? We will know. Maskhadov has made a
statement. Perhaps, some contacts will begin with the President's
representative. We shall see.

Anchor: Thank you. This was Hero of the Day program and the
speaker was the former prime minister of the Russian Federation
Yevgeny Primakov.

******

#7
Washington Post
October 1, 2001
New Allies Seek Payback
Central Asians Expect U.S. to Ignore Abuses In Return for Help in
Anti-Terror Campaign
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan, Sept. 30 -- In President Islam Karimov's Uzbekistan,
more than 7,000 political prisoners are in jail, many of them religious
Muslims accused of no more than sporting a beard or circulating religious
leaflets. The political opposition has been thoroughly crushed. There is no
independent mass media. And the few who do speak out are routinely beaten,
harassed, arrested or driven into exile.

Economic conditions are just as bad. The average wage is officially $20 a
month, and unofficially much lower than that. Most of the few Western
businesses that operated here have left. Even the International Monetary
Fund pulled out a few months ago, expressing dismay over reforms that never
happened.

But instead of criticizing Karimov's record, the United States is courting
Uzbekistan's president, along with other authoritarian leaders throughout
the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. As they sign up for America's
coalition to fight terrorists based in neighboring Afghanistan, they are
banking on less scrutiny of their abuses at home and more concrete aid from
a distant superpower that never needed their help before.

Many critics at home and abroad fear that, in the search for new allies,
the United States will abandon its former concerns, changing its stance on
everything from Russia's brutal war against Islamic rebels in Chechnya to
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. And nowhere could such flip-flops be
more significant than in newly relevant Central Asia, where all five former
Soviet republics are economically struggling and politically repressive,
governed by Communist Party bosses renamed presidents.

"They have promised us that America will not sell out human rights to get
Karimov's friendship," said Mikhail Ardzinov, who runs one of Uzbekistan's
few independent human rights groups. "But we know that the tone will change
now."

Sitting in the apartment where he was beaten by Uzbek police two years ago,
Ardzinov interrupted an interview to retrieve the blood-stained shirt he
was wearing that day. He showed photographs of the wounds on his face. He
said his phone is bugged and that he is followed by the secret service the
Uzbeks still call the KGB.

But, he said today, not at all bitterly, "Terrorism is now the greater evil."

And in that fight, Uzbekistan is offering the United States an
unprecedented military foothold on former Soviet territory: use of several
strategically important air bases without which strikes over the border
into Afghanistan would be much harder to launch. Karimov talked by
telephone last week with President Bush and publicly spoke of his readiness
to allow his airspace "to be used in the fight against terrorism for
humanitarian and security aims."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met his counterpart from Kazakhstan on
Saturday, and said the State Department was in touch with all the Central
Asian countries. "We've been very pleased with how forthcoming they have
been, with respect to condemning the acts of the 11th of September, of
offering support in various kinds of ways," he told reporters.

Uzbek officials and independent analysts said much broader cooperation has
been agreed on. Several U.S. transport planes have reportedly landed at
military facilities here, including one today just outside Tashkent, and
several sources said the Uzbek military has received orders to prepare
their bases to receive U.S. warplanes.

In exchange, Uzbek leaders have begun to speak of the new attitude they
want from the United States, "guarantees" of a different, less critical
relationship with their strategically located country of 25 million people.

"We want to show in reality, not just words, our readiness to cooperate in
a real way with the Americans. Maybe after that, in America there will be
more appreciation of our problems," said a top-ranking Uzbek official who
spoke on condition of anonymity. "We don't want America to limit itself to
criticism, but to help constructively."

They also want promises that the United States will not unleash a war on
Uzbekistan's borders that could destabilize its government. Karimov's
government fears both a flood of refugees from Afghanistan and renewed
incursions by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, an extremist group that
aims to overthrow Karimov and install an Islamic fundamentalist government.
Karimov blames the movement for explosions in Tashkent that killed 16
people two years ago; the group came over the border from Afghanistan in
1999 and 2000 to stage armed confrontations in Uzbekistan and neighboring
Kyrgyzstan.

"We should receive a guarantee of security for our territory and our
borders," Karimov said last week. A senior Uzbek official was even blunter.
"We want a guarantee that America will not begin a conflict and then just
leave us to deal with the consequences," he said.

Reflecting the new pragmatism he said he hopes the United States will
embrace, this official said Uzbekistan would be able to allow democratic
reforms only after the threat of Islamic terrorism from Afghanistan has
been eliminated. "It is in our interests to help deal with this problem.
Then we can spend money that we would have spent on defense on reforms," he
said.

The United States has already muted its criticism in recent years. Despite
campaigning by human rights groups, Uzbekistan was not on the State
Department's 2000 watch list of countries where religious freedom is not
respected; a government commission recently produced its list for 2001 and
Uzbekistan was not on it.

"Obviously, there are geopolitical concerns of the U.S. at play in this
decision," said human rights activist Ardzinov. "We believe Uzbekistan is
an authoritarian regime under the personal power of the president, and it
should be on the list of those countries where the worst repressions of
human rights occur. This regime must be on this blacklist."

Instead, Bush made a huge bow to Karimov's government by mentioning in his
speech to Congress last month the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as a
terrorist threat. He argued that the rebels being fought by Karimov's
government are tied to Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect in the Sept. 11
attacks against the United States.

"This was a major victory for Karimov," said Anvar Nazirov, a researcher at
the French Institute for the Study of Central Asia here. "Bush's speech
made a great impression on Uzbekistan."

Nazirov and even some human rights activists argued, however, that there
may be a positive side to unprecedented cooperation with the United States
by a country still struggling to deal with the legacy of Soviet
totalitarianism.

"There is a hope that rapprochement between Uzbekistan and the United
States will push Uzbekistan to serious economic reforms and that through
economic reforms we may eventually come to democracy," he said.

But Nazirov said it is not hope but fear that has caused Uzbekistan to ally
itself with a former Cold War foe. "Fear unites the entire Uzbek society,"
he said, "fear of terrorism and fear that we could become like
Afghanistan," devastated by war, run by religious extremists and cut off
from the rest of the world.

Such fears are easily encountered at the bus station in Tashkent's old city
on a sultry Sunday. Teacher Gulchekhra Mirsadikova ticked off a list of the
wars that have plagued the former Soviet republics in the last decade:
Armenia versus Azerbaijan, civil wars in Georgia and Tajikistan, not one
but two Chechen wars inside Russia. "God willing," she said, "we don't want
it here."

Sitting on a nearby bench, Tijabayev Abdumova was more focused on the
retaliation that Uzbekistan's new partnership with the United States might
provoke from Afghanistan's Taliban regime. "We don't need a war," said
Abdumova, a trader at the market. "Things are hard enough here."

******

#8
Financial Times (UK)
1 October 2001
Former Soviet republics may play critical role in campaign: Support for US
prompts fears of longer-term impact
By STEPHEN FIDLER

For years known dismissively in Washington as the "Stans", the states of
central Asia seem set to play a critical role in America's war against
terrorism.

At least two of the five former Soviet republics to the north of
Afghanistan - Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - are set to become bases for a
US-led military and intelligence effort to tackle Osama bin Laden, the
alleged mastermind behind last month's terror attacks, and his al-Qaeda
network. Other countries, including Russia, are also expected to provide
assistance.

The US is pleased with the co-operation it has won but some specialists
fear the longer term impact of stepping into a region with intense
interstate rivalries and growing Islamic radicalism.

The US has looked to central Asia in part because of worries about the
internal stability of Pakistan, Afghanistan's southern neighbour.

Some in Washington are heralding the developments as a sign that the region
is at last asserting its independence from Russia. One US official welcomed
this newly exercised freedom of action, dismissing the notion that the
co-operation resulted from a deal cooked up between Washington and Moscow.

The US had in central Asia the "freedom it needs to make its plans", the
official said, acknowledging talks would take place on what would be
requested in return. Some of this is likely to be enhanced US co-operation
with, and financing of, these country's security efforts.

The official said there were no plans for a long-term US military presence
in the region, though the size of the US diplomatic presence in some
countries would be enlarged on a permanent basis.

While all governments in the region have offered some kind of support, the
responses have varied. Turkmenistan has declared itself a neutral state,
making overt co-operation with the US difficult. Though retaining its
reservations, it has also been the closest to the Taliban of all five
governments, hoping to use Afghanistan one day for pipelines to export its
energy resources.

Kazakhstan, geographically more remote from Afghanistan than the other
four, has offered use of its airspace while Kyrgyzstan's backing has been
lukewarm, partly from fears that refugees will flood into its territory.
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have refugee concerns too. Tajikistan is unique
among the five in still having a significant Russian military presence, so
any US operation from there would have to be closely co-ordinated with
Moscow.

After a civil war through much of the 1990s, Tajikistan is ruled by a
precarious coalition of Islamic and secular groups that some fear could be
riven by the US-led action.

The country has been an important conduit for support for the Northern
Alliance, the largest opposition movement to the ruling Taliban in
Afghanistan. The alliance is composed largely of ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks
who are not represented in the Taliban.

Uzbekistan, with the most western oriented leadership in the region, has
been the one to answer the US call most enthusiastically.

US co-operation with Uzbekistan is not new and has included joint military
exercises. According to some officials, the country has also been used to
base intelligence and other assets for US covert efforts over the last
three years to track down Mr bin Laden.

In his September 20 speech to Congress, President George W. Bush named just
two international groups linked to al-Qaeda: the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), which wants to overthrow the
autocratic government of President Islam Karimov and set up Islamist states
elsewhere in the region.

Fiona Hill, of the Brookings Institution, a policy think-tank, said there
were concerns that Mr Karimov used the IMU as a pretext for action against
its neighbours, particularly Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Other specialists
are worried that Mr Karimov's clampdown on those expressing Islamist views
is in danger of radicalising a new generation.

This suggests to some that the US is in danger of submerging other foreign
policy interests in central Asia - such as support for democracy and human
rights - to the goal of fighting terrorism.

But US officials say they are aware of this danger and deny that they are
ignoring other objectives. "Our marching orders are to do what we have to
do in the battle against terrorism. At the same time our other fundamental
policies won't change," said one.

Martha Brill Olcott, of the Carnegie Endowment of US policymakers, said the
Russian and Uzbek governments had for some time sought to involve the US in
their struggles against Islamist extremism. "The difference between now and
then is that the US is looking for their help, rather than the other way
around. That's a whole different ball game."

******

#9
Wall Street Journal
1 October 2001
[for personal use only]
OPEC's Move to Maintain Output Alerts Russia to Possible Price War
By BHUSHAN BAHREE and THADDEUS HERRICK
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

VIENNA -- In agreeing not to cut production even as oil prices fell, OPEC
was responding to U.S. pleas to keep prices down. But the group had another
motive: To warn Russia that OPEC is willing to engage in a market-share
battle that could lead to a price collapse.

Russia's oil output has surged this year by about 500,000 barrels a day,
while the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has slashed its
production by about 3.5 million barrels a day. Next year, output from
Russia, the world's second-biggest petroleum producer, is expected to rise
an additional 350,000 barrels to more than seven million barrels a day,
bringing its output near that of world leader Saudi Arabia.

OPEC is increasingly concerned about losing market share to Russia,
especially as demand for oil slows along with the world economy. The group
would like Russia to join other non-OPEC oil producers, such as Mexico and
Norway, that in the past have agreed to scale back exports to help keep
prices solidly above $20 a barrel. Russian oil minister Igor Yusufov
rebuffed demands from OPEC counterparts to restrain production. And at
OPEC's formal meeting here last week, Russia, which has observer status
with the organization, refused to sign a joint declaration.

The last time world oil producers tussled in a market-share battle prices
collapsed to as low as $11 a barrel in 1997. Only a joint agreement between
Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico in early 1999 turned prices around.

Now OPEC ministers are deriding Russia as a freeloader that is profiting at
OPEC's expense. "They can't go on like this," said Rilwanu Lukman, the
Nigerian oil minister who is due to take over as OPEC's president at the
start of the year.

OPEC President and Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil said that Russia's
rise in exports during OPEC's recent production cuts has yielded Moscow
some $5 billion in additional annual revenue. "Russia hasn't paid for
that," he said. While everyone will lose if prices collapse, Mr. Khelil
said Russia stands to lose more than most because its oil is expensive to
produce and it relies heavily on natural-gas exports that are linked to the
price of oil.

The Russians say OPEC's request to restrain production took them by
surprise. "It was very sudden for us," said Alexander Misyulin, a senior
Russian energy ministry official here for the OPEC meeting. "We didn't come
here with a mandate or instructions." He acknowledged that "OPEC is now in
a very difficult position," but he said energy exports account for half of
Russia's federal budget.

While they battle behind the scenes, OPEC ministers are promising publicly
that they will cut oil production even before their next scheduled meeting
in November if oil prices don't recover. Those comments have caused prices
to climb slowly, with the U.S. benchmark rising 69 cents on Friday to close
at $23.43 a barrel after tumbling as much as $10 a barrel in the days that
followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But privately OPEC ministers say they are loath to make additional cuts,
putting the organization in a bind as the global downturn intensifies.
Indeed, even with higher prices, further cuts could result in unacceptable
revenue losses, which could trigger more cheating on oil-output quotas.
"Then you're right back in 1997," said Shokri Ghanem, former chief
economist for OPEC.

******

#10
Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie
No. 28
September 28, 2001
THE THIRD THREAT
Russia is overlooking the increasing military might of China
Author: Alexander Sharavin
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

IN ITS CONCERN ABOUT CONFLICTS IN CHECHNYA AND THE CENTRAL ASIAN CIS NATIONS, RUSSIA HAS BEEN NEGLECTING THE REAL THREAT POSED BY CHINA. IN CASE OF A WAR, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO USE RUSSIA'S ENTIRE MILITARY MIGHT TO WIN.

Fortunately, Russia has just one Chechnya, with the peak of the
conflict already in the past. Apparently, the conflict will continue
into the next few years in a "drawn-out manner", if only the
authorities don't make any major errors in the military and political
spheres and it would again be required to begin scoped military
operations. Quite a job should be done in order to create another
"Chechnya" in any other region of the country.

Therefore, a war in Central Asia - repelling aggression from the
Taliban and their affiliates against Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, and possibly Kazakhstan - could be the one potential
conflict of the "Chechnya type". However, our country's participation
in such a war would undoubtedly be limited, for purely political
reasons.

On the whole, the threat to Russia from Dudaev-Maskhadov's regime
was obvious to everyone except a few stubborn "human rights
activists." Nonetheless, attitudes toward the Chechen war remain
ambiguous; deaths of Russian soldiers, who have undoubtedly been
protecting their homeland, drew a rather painful response from our
society. A necessity to fight for the sake of preserving the regimes
which are now stable in former Soviet republics of Central Asia,
thousands of kilometers away from the borders of our country, would be
even less obvious for Russians. Russia would have to limit itself with
sending relatively small contingent (primarily the Airborne Troops,
front and army aviation), manned with volunteers alone, and supplying
armament from depots created during the Soviet era. It seems the
situation will be like this for many years in the future. It would
undoubtedly demand expenditures from Russia (lesser than the spending
on Chechnya), but founding our military doctrine "on Chechnya" and "on
the Taliban" would at least be improvident. This danger exists, but it
is likely to be of theoretical and ideological character. The army
would fail to save from both these reasons - this is a headache of
politicians and special services.

A thesis that "democratic countries do not start a war" collapsed
on March 24, 1999 simultaneously with NATO's first missiles and bombs
being dropped on Yugoslavia. The possibility of NATO (US, to be more
precise) aggression has to be considered seriously once again, since
after winning the Cold War Washington started to understand the jus
gentium in accordance with medieval canons of the epoch - that who has
a bigger club is right.

However, the Yugoslavian war demonstrated another interesting
fact. A loss of a single soldier is thought if not unacceptable than
very painful for NATO members. On the one hand, humanism of the
democratic system must be praised, and on the other hand, the army,
which wishes to warfare without casualties, is not an army already.
NATO does not like to lose the manpower and the military hardware
both. The gigantic scientific and industrial resources of the West
permitted constructing weapons with perfect characteristics but also
having the highest prices.

Producing and then losing such weapons would be a very expensive
pleasure. Taxpayers may fail to understand it. Therefore, not a scoped
aggression alone, which may develop into exchange by nuclear strikes
(that is cause deaths of millions of people on both sides), but also
"the Balkan variant" is very unlikely. Even in its current state
Russia is not Serbia, and the quantity and quality of Russia's air
defense forces and the Navy cannot be compared with either
Yugoslavia's (or, for instance, Iraq's) military force, and an
aggressor would inevitably incur heavy losses, which would
automatically remove the issue of resuming the "action".

Now, a few words about the third type of war. A real military
threat to Russia from China has not merely been ignored; it has been
denied by Russia's leaders and nearly all of the political forces.

Let's see some statistic figures at first. The territory of
Siberia and the Russian Far East comprises 12,765,900 square
kilometers (75% of Russia's entire area), with a population of
40,553,900 people (28% of Russia's population). The territory of China
is 9,597,000 square kilometers and its population is 1.265 billion
(which is 29 times greater than the population of Siberia and the
Russian Far East).

China's economy is among the fastest-growing economies in the
world. It remains socialistic in many aspects, i.e. extensive and
highly expensive, demanding more and more natural resources. China's
natural resources are rather limited, whereas the depths of Siberia
and the Russian Far East are almost inexhaustible.

Chinese propaganda has constantly been showing us skyscrapers in
free trade zones in southeastern China. It should not be forgotten,
however, that some 250 to 300 million people live there, i.e. at most
a quarter of China's population. A billion Chinese people are still
living in misery. For them, even the living standards of a backwater
Russian town remain inaccessibly high. They have absolutely nothing to
lose. There is every prerequisite for "the final throw to the north."
The strength of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (CPLA) has been
growing quicker than the Chinese economy. A decade ago the CPLA was
equipped with inferior copies of Russian arms from late 1950s to the
early 1960s. However, through its own efforts Russia has nearly
managed to liquidate its most significant technological advantage.
Thanks to our zeal, from antique MiG-21 fighters of the earliest
modifications and S-75 air defense missile systems the Chinese
antiaircraft defense forces have adopted Su-27 fighters and S-300 air
defense missile systems. China's air defense forces have received Tor
systems instead of anti-aircraft guns which could have been used
during World War II. The shock air force of our "eastern brethren"
will in the near future replace antique Tu-16 and Il-28 airplanes with
Su-30 fighters, which are not yet available to the Russian Armed
Forces!

Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese
army, which, if full mobilization is called, is comparable in size
with Russia's entire population, which also has nuclear weapons (even
tactical weapons become strategic if states have common borders) and
would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few
million of the servicemen would be acceptable for China). Such a war
would be more horrible than the World War II. It would require from
our state maximal tension, universal mobilization and complete
accumulation of the army military hardware, up to the last tank or a
plane, in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles"
like Talebs and Basaev, but this does not guarantee success either).
Massive nuclear strikes on basic military forces and cities of China
would finally be the only way out, what would exhaust Russia's
armament completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental
ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles, whereas the general
forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. In the long
run, even if the aggression would be stopped after the majority of the
Chinese are killed, our country would be absolutely unprotected
against the "Chechen" and the "Balkan" variants both, and even against
the first frost of a possible nuclear winter.

An aforementioned prospect is, undoubtedly, rather disagreeable
and we would not like to believe it can be true. However, it is a
realistic prospect - just like a war against NATO or Islamic
extremists.

(Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin)

******

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