October 2, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5471 • 5472

Johnson's Russia List
#5472
2 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: Russia says ex-Soviet states won't join US strikes.
2. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
3. Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - Busting with pride (re The Northern Alliance & Soviet-made arms).
4. Moscow Times: Boris Kagarlitsky, Russia as Rudderless Vessel.
5. Moscow Times: Megan Twohey, Russia Waits for NATO's Embrace.
6. AFP: Putin's Kursk pledge a gamble with environment: ecologists.
7. BBC Monitoring: Russian presidential envoy outlines terms for Chechnya peace.
8. Human Rights Watch: EUROPE: STAY FIRM ON CHECHNYA.
9. Washington Post editorial: Unlikely Allies.
10. Izvestia: Georgy Osipov and Kirill Palshin, WALKING TOGETHER. Russia invited to partricipate in the new split of the world.
11. Kommersant: Yuri Chernega, PATRIOTS ARE READY TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY...within a year. Russian left parties propose national policy.
12. T. S. White: Russian event in the San Francisco Bay area.
13. strana.ru: Russia to arm and feed Northern Alliance. Rivalry is again emerging between Kremlin and White House over influence on Afghan regime.
14. Wall Street Journal: Robert Greenberger, Antiterror Drive May Prove a Hindrance For Administration's Missile-Shield Plans.
15. Financial Times (UK): David Stern, Tashkent thrust into front line of campaign.
16. Reuters: Russians in Tajikistan dodge bullets, await strike.]

*******

#1
Russia says ex-Soviet states won't join US strikes
By Sergei Yakovlev

DUSHANBE, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Russia's security chief said on Tuesday that
ex-Soviet states would not participate directly in a possible U.S. strike
on Afghanistan but would give wide assistance.

"There will be no participation of regular armies or other force units (of
CIS states)," Nikolai Patrushev, head of Russia's FSB domestic security
service, told reporters in the Tajik capital Dushanbe.

Russia has strong influence in the ex-Soviet Central Asian states north of
Afghanistan, which are now members of the Russian-dominated CIS. Russian
forces guarantee security for Tajikistan's volatile border with Afghanistan.

"I believe the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) should not take
part in the military action in Afghanistan, but nonetheless we must take
part in fighting international terrorism," Patrushev said.

Last week Russia appeared to give its first official consent for its
Central Asian allies to provide a launchpad for U.S. strikes on
Taliban-ruled Afghanistan by hinting that Tajikistan might offer the use of
Dushanbe airport.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also said Russia would deliver
humanitarian aid and weapons to the anti-Taliban alliance controlling
northern Afghanistan.

On Monday, Uzbekistan, the springboard for the Soviet Union's ill-fated
invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, agreed to open its airspace to U.S.
military operations.

But Patrushev, who held talks with Tajik President Imomali Rakhmonov on
Tuesday, said the assistance would stop there for now.

RETALIATORY ATTACKS

Washington, which blames Afghan-based Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden
for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, is continuing its
massive military buildup within striking distance of Afghanistan.

Patrushev, who presided over a two-day meeting of security chiefs of former
Soviet states, said Moscow and CIS governments were sharing intelligence
with Washington and its allies about bin Laden's whereabouts.

"The resolve of our actions will depend on how the situation develops
eventually in this region," Patrushev said, without elaborating.

A joint declaration signed by the security chiefs hit out at the "double
standards applied by certain states" to the issue of terrorism.

Russia has long seen the hand of the hardline Muslim Taliban and that of
bin Laden in the separatist rebellion in its southern region of Chechnya.

But until recently Moscow had been criticised by the West for what it
described as Russia's disproportionate use of force there.

*******

#2
ORT Review
www.ortv.ru
Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba7@bu.edu)
Research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and
Policy at Boston University

HEADLINES,
Monday, October 01, 2001
- Colonel Yuri Budanov, accused of killing an 18-year-old Chechen girl,
may receive an amnesty. Budanov is currently undergoing a psychological
evaluation at the Serbsky Institute in Moscow.
- Another escape took place at Moscow's Butyrskaya jail. Prisoner
Vinogradov escaped en route to the visiting room, where he was to meet his
relatives. Upon exiting the prison complex, Vinogradov showed guards an
employee pass.
- Russian national television celebrates its 70th anniversary today. It
was a Russian engineer -- Konstantin Perskii -- who patented the transfer
of visual information at a distance and a Russian-born American --
Vladimir Zworkin -- who made television a reality. Regular broadcasting
in the Soviet Union began on October 1st, 2001. This day has been
considered the birth of Russian television.
- Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Emergencies Minister Sergei
Shoigu, who reported on the results of reconstruction work in
flood-damaged Lensk. President Putin thanked the construction workers and
asked the members of the government commission in charge of overseeing the
work not to rush to leave until he comes to inspect the work personally.
Putin also asked Sergei Shoigu to begin working on another project --
organizing the deliveries of humanitarian supplies to Afghanistan. The
first flight is slated to go out tomorrow.
- A monument to Oleg Yefremov -- actor, film director and former artistic
director of the MKhAT (Moscow Arts Theater) -- has been dedicated at the
Novodevichye cemetery in Moscow.
- In response to the offer of Georgian President Edvard Shevarnadze to
mediate in the talks between the federal center and Chechen rebel leader
Aslan Maskhadov, presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky declared that
Russia needs no aid from without. At the same time, Yestrzhembsky noted
that Georgia could do something constructive for the fight against
terrorism -- it could hand over to Russia thirteen Chechen fighters
arrested on the republic's territory this summer.
- Edvard Shevarnadze announced on national radio that he may go to Sukhumi
-- a city that came completely under the control of Abkhaz military
formations in 1993. In preparation for the meeting with Abkhaz leader
Vladislav Ardzinba, Shevarnadze spoke about possible cardinal changes in
the solution of the Georgian-Abkhaz problems.
- The trial of Yuri Shutov has began in St. Petersburg. The 55-year-old
was arrested three years ago and accused of carrying out a series of
scandalous contract murders. The accused was not present at the hearings,
as he is currently in the prison hospital recovering from neurosurgery.
- Representatives of the Norwegian Mammut firm have announced that work on
the Kursk nuclear submarine will be resumed shortly. Deputy Prime
Minister Ilya Klebanov told journalists that, technologically, everything
is ready for the raising of the Kursk. Now the operation depends only on
the weather conditions in the Barents Sea.
- A state of emergency has been declared in the Khabarovsk Krai in the
aftermath of forest fires in three settlements. Over 45,000 hectares of
forest have been enveloped by the fire.
- Infamous terrorist Abu Yakub, the head of intelligence for Chechen Field
Commander Khattab, was among the three fighters killed in Chechnya. Yakub
was suspected in the kidnapping of American Kenneth Gluck.
- A group of twenty Chechen fighters killed six civilians in the Avtura
settlement in Chechnya's Shalinsky region.
- Special service leaders of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States)
nations will meet in Tajik capital Dushanbe today to discuss the problem
of international terrorism. The coordination of intelligence activity and
exchange of military-technical information will be at the top of the
agenda.

********

#3
From: "Peter Lavelle" <plavelle@metropol.ru>
Subject: Contribution
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001

Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - Busting with pride
(re The Northern Alliance & Soviet-made arms)

Bursting with pride, like a grandfather talking-up his grandsons, Defense
Minister Ivanov extolled the qualities of vintage Soviet military hardware
last week. He went as far as to claim "The Northern Alliance only loves
Soviet-made weapons". The oddity of this should be obvious. These same
weapons failed the Soviet Union in its war in Afghanistan. Dissecting the
Minister's words a bit speaks volumes of the Soviet Union's lack of strategy
and leadership during that war. These weapons in the end did little to help
the Soviet war effort. Actually, just the opposite - Soviet weapons in the
hands of the Afghans helped to defeat the Soviet Union and further the
country's collapse. Now Russia (and the American-inspired coalition) hopes
that this time around Soviet-made weapons - even if they are borderline
antiques - will serve Russian national interests. It seems appropriate that
the Northern Alliance should like out-dated arms. The Northern alliance is
much like the military hardware they desire. They are traditionalists.
Few wish to dwell on such trivial details for now; to the world their only
great virtue is that they are not the Taliban. It also shouldn't surprise
anyone that Russia has been quietly arming them for a number of years.
Supporting any group that somehow makes up for its humiliating defeat will
suffice. Given Russia's recent imperial past in Central Asia, the raw
material the Northern Alliance should not be a mystery. The American people
on the other hand have little idea as to what they are up against. The
terrorists responsible for the attacks on the US are technologists of power.
The US is a convert and preacher of technology as an end in and of itself.
Thus the playing field consists of those who are believers in the power of
technology and those who are believers in the technology of power. Those
who adhere to the latter are infinitely more dangerous to those beyond its
belief system. The former turns to inventing a better mousetrap for that
possible evil mouse which one-day may come to be. There was a time though
when Americans talked about winning the hearts and minds of people. Will
Ivanov's grandsons serve the interests of the grandfather and his newfound
friends in the spirit intended?

Peter Lavelle
Head of Research
IFC Metropol
Moscow, Russia
plavelle@metropol.ru

******

#4
Moscow Times
October 2, 2001
Russia as Rudderless Vessel
By Boris Kagarlitsky

Vladimir Putin's main political virtue is his ability to be all things to
all people. To some, he appears to be a Western-leaning, liberal reformer,
while others are convinced he is reviving the traditions of the Soviet
state. To some, he promises that order will be established without balking
at the use of tough measures. To others, that human rights will be
observed. Alas, this situation is not compatible with making serious
decisions.

To give our president his due, however, he has managed to occupy the
presidency for more than a year without making a single decision of
significance for the fate of the country (reorganization of the
administrative apparatus doesn't count, as it doesn't affect the lives of
ordinary citizens). The favorable economic situation has allowed the
country to drift along in an unclear direction without hitting any reefs so
far. The fall of 2001 could see an end to this.

The conflict in Afghanistan and the war in Chechnya require that the
Kremlin takes a decisive stance. The defeats meted out to Russian forces in
Chechnya in August and September demonstrate the pointlessness of military
operations there. Talk of new, tougher measures to be taken by the military
are little more than a bluff. Everything that could have been done already
has been. Regarding Afghanistan, the Kremlin cannot ignore a potentially
huge conflagration on Russia's borders. The Russian authorities must
therefore resolve two issues at once: Whether to make peace with the
Chechen fighters and whether they are ready to get involved in the Afghan
conflict on the American side?

The Kremlin's response is very revealing. Putin has proposed negotiations,
but only on terms of unconditional capitulation. Furthermore, the offer was
couched as an ultimatum. The result came as no surprise: Had the rebels
planned on surrendering, they would have done so with or without an
ultimatum. It is comical to propose that your enemy surrenders when he has
just beaten you in Vedeno and Gudermes. Of course there was no surrender,
but Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov received Putin's proposal positively.
He understood that Putin was simply unable to offer him negotiations in any
other form. It's another matter that the offer of serious negotiations
means that Moscow has made serious concessions (the war began with Putin's
promise that there would be no negotiating with bandits).

Words and actions are therefore at odds with one another. Moscow is ready
to give in but expresses its readiness by demanding that the other side
capitulate.

The situation with Afghanistan is similar. Putin promises participation in
the American operation but not in military operations. Rather, he says,
Russia will provide "humanitarian supplies" and "search and rescue
operations." Moscow seems to think American bombardments will be some kind
of natural disaster. However, in practice, Moscow's promises serve an
entirely different purpose. While not offering Moscow's direct assistance
in military operations, Putin has opened up the possibility of the country
gradually being dragged into war. Humanitarian supplies could mean
transport, foodstuffs, and medical supplies for the Americans and their
allies. "Search and rescue operations" could include covert operations
conducted by Russia's reconnaissance units to make sure that U.S. missiles
hit their targets.

The mass supply of military hardware to the Northern Alliance will sooner
or later lead to the arrival of numerous military instructors, followed by
tank divisions made up of volunteers and could end with full-scale
intervention.

While in Chechnya a path has been opened for escalating the peace
negotiations, in Afghanistan it has been opened for the escalation of
military efforts. But while the results of the decisions adopted appear
contradictory, the method is the same. The Kremlin is avoiding an
intelligible and unambiguous position. No matter what Putin's
administration does, it will reserve the option of pulling back. It allows
its words to be interpreted ambiguously and even disowns them if necessary.
The Kremlin clearly considers this to be the highest form of political
wisdom. Nothing has been decided for sure, and thus no one has to take
responsibility for anything.

The Russian authorities may, however, find themselves hostage to processes
beyond their control. Storm clouds have replaced the political calm of the
past 1 1/2 years. By allowing itself to be carried along by the waves, the
administration risks sooner or later being smashed against a reef.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist.

******

#5
Moscow Times
October 2, 2001
Russia Waits for NATO's Embrace
By Megan Twohey
Staff Writer

In the buildup to the meeting between President Vladimir Putin and NATO
Secretary-General George Robertson in Brussels on Wednesday, there's been
speculation about whether Russia might ask to join NATO.

Putin was asked about this possibility during his visit to Germany last
week. "Everything depends on what is on offer," he told reporters. "There
is no longer a reason for the West not to conduct such talks."

Yet, despite a new climate of cooperation between Russia and the West,
which surfaced in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United
States, it is unlikely that Russia will become a member of NATO anytime
soon, experts say. Instead, this week's meeting may open up careful
discussions on how Russia and NATO can reconfigure their relationship to
better serve both parties' needs.

"Putin won't ask for membership," said Robert Nurick, director of the
Moscow Carnegie Center. "But he is likely to continue to use the new
anti-terrorist movement as a way to put in place a Russian-NATO agenda that
gives Russia more decision-making power."

Russia doesn't need to become a member of NATO in order for it to have
stronger ties to and more influence in the alliance. Russia and NATO now
communicate through the Permanent Joint Council. The council, which was set
up in 1997, was designed to give Russia a voice instead of a veto.

But Russia has longed viewed the council as a platform through which NATO
simply announces its decisions. NATO may now try to draw Russia closer by
reforming the council so that Russia is actually consulted ahead of time
about key NATO decisions, Nurick said Monday.

Even if Russia did want to become a member of NATO, the country would have
to undergo some severe internal transformations. For starters, it would
have to comply with current NATO rules, which require full civilian control
of the military, a policy that is not in place in Russia.

"There can't be more than seven or eight lines on military spending in the
preliminary budget the Duma just adopted for next year," said Alexander
Savelyev, head of the military policy section at the Institute of World
Economy and International Relations at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"That's certainly not enough to claim that the Duma controls military
spending."

Russia has given no signals that it is anxious to transform in order to be
admitted to NATO. In fact, the messages coming out of Moscow are quite the
opposite. They suggest that Russia isn't interested in joining NATO unless
NATO changes.

"Some people are saying that the new question is whether Russia should join
NATO," said Sergei Markov, a Kremlin-connected political analyst. "The real
question is how should NATO change so that Russia can join."

To become a member, Russia would want, among other things, for NATO to
decrease its military forces and weaponry, Markov said. It would also want
NATO to deny membership to Latvia and Estonia. NATO members have been
discussing that possibility informally for some time.

If such barriers were overcome and Russia became a member of NATO, the
alliance's role in the world would be transformed. With membership, Russia
would receive veto power. Because Russia is sometimes at odds with NATO, as
was the case with NATO's military action over Kosovo, its right to veto
NATO decisions could cripple the alliance's ability to take action
supported by Europe and the United States.

Perhaps most significant would be the extension of NATO's land borders to
China. Such an extension would force NATO to take China into consideration
when debating whether to use the Article V mutual-defense clause. "I doubt
NATO members would be happy to assume responsibility for the
Russian-Chinese border," said Savelyev.

And, of course, if Russia really wants to become a member of NATO, it will
have to apply like everybody else. The Soviet Union made a request in 1953,
after the death of Stalin. When Nikita Khrushchev asked to join, the United
States and Britain refused.

*******

#6
Putin's Kursk pledge a gamble with environment: ecologists

MURMANSK, Russia, Oct 2 (AFP) -
Possible nuclear leaks, missiles and unexploded torpedoes have made
President Vladimir Putin's decision to raise the stricken Kursk submarine a
gamble with the environment, according to Russian and international ecology
groups.

The Norwegian group Bellona has accused the Kremlin of failing to take into
account all the many dangers they say could turn the operation, ordered by
Putin to honour a pledge given to the families of the 118 doomed
crew-members, into a major ecological disaster.

"We believe the main danger lies with the unexploded torpedoes," Bellona
representative Nils Bohmer told AFP, referring to the blasts which, during
a naval exercise on August 12 last year, ripped through the front section
of the submarine and sent it to the bottom of the Barents Sea.

Russian naval officials have said all the 20 or so torpedoes aboard the
Kursk exploded in the as yet unexplained catastrophe, when western
seismological centres detected two separate blasts nearly two minutes apart.

Moreover the torpedoes were housed in the Kursk's front section which was
detached from the main body of the 20,000-tonne submarine in an elaborate
sawing operation that took several weeks and was completed early last month.

The Russians themselves say the Kursk's 22 missiles represent an altogether
more serious hazard.

"The missiles in the prow may no longer be water-tight," said Rear-Admiral
Mikhail Motsak, chief of the Northern Fleet general staff who is overseeing
the salvage operation.

"They are not dangerous for the moment," he stressed, but admitted that it
would probably be "risky to take them out of the containers where they are
currently stored."

Naval engineers are planning, once the Kursk has been raised and placed in
dry dock, to dismantle the containers around the missiles rather than
extract the missiles from the containers.

Bellona also fears possible leaks from the Kursk's two nuclear reactors,
despite reassuring noises from Rubin, the construction firm that designed
and built the Kursk and its reactors, to the effect that they are
absolutely safe.

"Clearly the consequences should a leak occur while the Kursk is in dry
dock would be worse than if it happened on the seabed," Bohmer said.

"The salvage operation has begun too quickly. There has not been enough
close analysis of the possible ecological consequences," he warned.

Alexander Nikitin, the former submarine captain who was cleared of treason
charges for campaigning over ecological issues earlier this year, noted
that the "haste" with which the Kursk salvage operation has been carried
out reflected its political nature.

"Putin said 'Raise the Kursk', and everyone jumped to raise the Kursk,"
said Nikitin, who now works for Bellona.

Putin promised the families of the seamen who perished in the disaster that
their bodies would be recovered and has appeared determined to make good on
the pledge, even though many family members are now opposed to the operation.

Another declared reason for raising the Kursk is the need to determine the
causes of the accident, though according to one member of the government
commission of inquiry into the disaster, Rear-Admiral Valery Dorogin, "the
evidence was destroyed" in the initial explosions "and we may never be 100
percent sure what happened."

Nikitin however was dismissive of the claim. "It is a matter of concern
that the reasons for the catastrophe have not been made public. I am
convinced that the causes were determined a long time ago," he said,
voicing an opinion widespread among the Russian population.

*******

#7
BBC Monitoring
Russian presidential envoy outlines terms for Chechnya peace

Moscow, 2 October: Viktor Kazantsev, presidential envoy in the Southern
Federal District, does not rule out that he may meet Chechen separatist
leader Aslan Maskhadov. Kazantsev said this in an interview published in
the Tuesday [2 October] edition of the newspaper Moskovskiye Novosti.

Kazantsev said he had talked on the telephone with Akhmed Zakayev,
Maskhadov's envoy. "I once again explained the Russian president's
statement to him. There will be no negotiations. There will be dialogue on
those points that the (Russian) president outlined," Kazantsev said.

If the Chechens again start talking about a treaty between Russia and
Ichkeria, "no dialogue will be possible," he said. "There is the Chechen
Republic, which is part of Russia, and this is what we will proceed from.
To be more exact, we will be talking about the procedure of handing in
weapons and the peaceful contribution of every rebel. As for Basayev and
Khattab, everything is clear with them. They should be isolated from
society," Kazantsev said.

"There will be guarantees for those who were not involved in bloodshed, who
did not mock their own people, who did not commit atrocities against
soldiers," he said. These people "can come out and work. As for the others,
specialists - employees of the prosecutor's office, courts, the Justice
Ministry, etc - will be working with them," the envoy said.

There are now 500 rebels in Chechnya, he said. "Tomorrow there will be
200," Kazantsev said. "The situation is developing in such a way that the
rebels will have no where to go soon. There are rumours that even Gelayev
wants to give himself up. Let him come, we will receive him," the envoy said.

The restoration of Groznyy will start only after the rebels have laid down
their arms. At the same time, Kazantsev stressed that he is worried about
"the financial question". "Money for Chechnya is going somewhere. The
consumer is only getting 15-20 per cent," Kazantsev said.

He said he is convinced that "Stanislav Ilyasov, the head of the Chechen
government, and now Moscow" should be in charge of the money allocated to
Chechnya. "Then there will be actual progress," the envoy said.

He said he doubts that Usamah Bin-Laden may be hiding in Chechnya, because
"he will be given up right away", he said. "The money factor will work,"
because "a lot of money" is promised for information about him, Kazantsev
said...

*******

#8
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001
From: Human Rights Watch Moscow <dlohman@hrw.ru>
Subject: Human Rights Watch EUROPE:STAY FIRM ON CHECHNYA

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For more information, please contact:
In Brussels, Jean-Paul Marthoz, +322-732-2009
In New York, Rachel Denber, +1-212-216-1266
In Washington, Elizabeth Andersen, 1-202-612-4321

EUROPE: STAY FIRM ON CHECHNYA

(Brussels, October 1, 2001) -- The European Union must keep a firm stand
against human rights abuses in Chechnya at the E.U.-Russia summit, Human
Rights Watch said today.

In a letter sent today, Human Rights Watch called on E.U. leaders to
tell Russian President Vladimir Putin that the common struggle against
terrorism will not mean condoning abuse in Chechnya.

"President Putin has tried to use the events of September 11 to get
carte blanche for the conduct of Russian federal forces in Chechnya,"
said Elizabeth Andersen, executive director of Human Rights Watch's
Europe and Central Asia division. "The E.U. can't allow this to happen."

Human Rights Watch has documented very serious violations of human
rights and international humanitarian law by federal forces in Chechnya,
including summary executions, torture, forced disappearances, and
indiscriminate bombing. The E.U. has been a principled critic of abuse
in the two-year old conflict. It sponsored resolutions two years in a
row at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights condemning these
abuses, as well as acts of terror committed in relation to the conflict.
The resolutions also called for the Russian government to investigate
and punish the perpetrators, and for U.N. investigators to visit the
region.

President Putin is also due to meet with NATO General Secretary Lord
Robertson. In a letter to Lord Robertson, Human Rights Watch urged that
any discussion of Russia's membership in NATO make clear that Russia
would have to comply with the alliance's standards-including respect for
the laws of war.

"NATO has to ask itself-is it prepared to have among its members a
country whose armed forces are implicated in such serious abuse?" said
Andersen. "Russia would have to clean up its armed forces before it
could meet NATO standards."

Abuse continues in the conflict in Chechnya. In response to attacks by
Chechen forces this summer, Russian federal forces conducted a series of
sweep operations in three villages that involved the arbitrary detention
of hundreds of villagers. Many were tortured, and several were the
victims of extrajudicial execution or forced disappearance.
In July 2001, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 100 victims and
eyewitnesses of these abuses.

For more information on Human Rights Watch's research on Chechnya,
please visit http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/

********

#9
Washington Post
October 2, 2001
Editorial
Unlikely Allies

WHEN THE Cold War reached Central America in the 1970s, the United States
found itself in a dilemma that was to haunt it for 15 years: Communist
insurgent movements threatened to take power in several countries, but the
only available U.S. allies were corrupt dictatorships whose brutal tactics
in fighting the rebels only worsened the situation. Now, as a new global
struggle against terrorism gets underway, the Bush administration is basing
some of its military operations in a part of the world where a similar
collection of presidents-for-life and torture squads holds sway. The former
Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan, like Anastasio Somoza's Nicaragua,
are ready to join the United States in fighting a common foe: extreme
Islamic insurgents. But as before, there is a risk the dictators' help may
do more harm than good.

The three former Soviet republics bordering on northern Afghanistan --
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan -- are all authoritarian states.
Turkmenistan's president-for-life, Saparmurad Niazov, has established a
florid cult of personality and hinted that he deserves billing with
Biblical prophets. But Uzbekistan's strongman, Islam Karimov, ranks highest
for cruelty, having imprisoned thousands of innocent Muslims in his country
for attending mosques that lacked state sanction, or for reading religious
literature not approved by the state. Mr. Karimov has wrecked his country's
economy with statist management, driven away the IMF and wasted or stolen
much of the economic aid money supplied by the West.

Yet Mr. Karimov's Uzbekistan seems to be emerging as the strongest U.S.
ally in Central Asia. It has allowed U.S. planes and troops to deploy on
its territory and may serve as a staging base for military operations in
Afghanistan. The reason is fairly simple: Mr. Karimov also is threatened by
an Islamic extremist movement that allegedly is supported in part by Osama
bin Laden. President Bush named the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan as one
of Osama bin Laden's allies in his recent address to Congress, underlining
that the United States and Uzbekistan have a common enemy.

Even before Afghanistan became a central security concern, the Clinton
administration chose to tolerate Mr. Karimov and the other Central Asian
autocrats, offering them military cooperation and economic aid in the hope
of winning access to their rich supplies of energy and other resources. Now
the Bush administration will be tempted to be even more understanding of
Mr. Karimov's excesses. But it should not be. Uzbekistan's crackdown on
devout Muslims risks making the problem of terrorism worse rather than
better, and conspicuous U.S. support for its dictator would invite an
anti-American backlash.

Now that Central Asia is a focus of U.S. security interests, the
administration should work to curb abuses of human rights by allied regimes
in the region and promote steps toward democracy. The hard lesson of the
Cold War was that only democratic regimes that respected human rights
proved reliable American allies -- and only they were able, in the end, to
defeat insurgencies by extremists promising to remake the world.

*******

#10
Izvestia
October 2, 2001
WALKING TOGETHER
Russia invited to partricipate in the new split of the world
Author: Georgy Osipov, Kirill Palshin
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
WHAT CAN MOSCOW EXPECT?
Will Russia get anything by joining the rest of the civilized world
in fighting terrorism?

On October 6, Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin will attend the meeting
of finance ministers and heads of central banks of G-7 in the United
States. So far, Kudrin has not yet received the official invitation
and neither has Russia received the official agenda. In any case, the
agenda will merely reiterate the major subject of the negotiations -
coordination of activities against sponsorship of international
terrorism. There are reasons to believe that the Washington meeting
will mark a new sharing up of the world.

The last division of this nature took place in Yalta, the Soviet
Union, at the end of World War II. This time, however, the issue is
far beyond that of lands. They concern ideological and financial
borders.

Alexander Oslon, President of the Public Opinion Foundation, is
specific about the principles of the future split. The symbolic
frontiers of the American world, the frontiers between us and them,
will be drastically revised. The gap between us and them will be
deepened and broadened. The states in the "theirs" category will be
considered barbarians, unfit to be in the civilization. The notion
itself of the border will be defined and realized in practice through
the use of "identification and control of high technologies" for whole
countries, corporations, social strata, and individuals. Russia can
join either the civilized or the other world.

What does Washington expect of Russia? A confirmation that there
will be no return to the Soviet Union which deliberately backed up the
most odious regimes. Participation in establishment of a global system
of financial tracking. It is very important for the international
community to work out the mechanisms acing terrorist finances and
their sources. Like any other developed country, Russia may become a
conduit for these finances. "The Americans cannot effectively handle
the money of their own mafia in their own financial system," says
Yelena Matrosova, Director of the Macroeconomic Surveys Center of
Unicon. "It means that the task will be complicated indeed."

Allies can traditionally rely on dividends. What can Russia
expect if it supports the United States? Under the circumstances, the
international community's grudges with regard to Chechnya retreat into
the background and these grudges do have a negative effect, indirect,
on Russia's economic contacts with the world. Sources in Kudrin's
apparatus confirm that Russia should not expect any compromises in the
matter of state debts, "It's out of the question. We are paying on
time, and the matter was not even brought up at the latest G-8
meetings." As a matter of fact, it is clear that Russia is not
prepared to pay the interest due in 2003 (almost $20 billion).
Financial reserves are not a salvation. There can be no sillier way of
managing finances than keeping them under the mattress. Money should
be working. All financial experts agree that Kudrin must discuss the
debt restructure timetable.

Everything is even more complicated with the World Trade
Organization. Optimists are confident that Russia can join the World
Trade Organization right here and now under the present circumstance.
As a matter of fact, however, the Americans began supporting the idea
of Russia's membership in the World Trade Organization in mid-summer,
when the agreements on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty were
reached. It follows that the negotiations may be only speeded up. At
the same time, talking about Russia's joining the World Trade
Organization is premature at this point. Firstly, more is needed than
the American support. All World Trade Organization members should
agree, and the Europeans have been rather adamant until now. Secondly,
the matter cannot be approved of by large European and Asian
companies. And Russians' demands may fail to satisfy them...

(Translated by A. Ignatkin)

********

#11
Kommersant
October 1, 2001
PATRIOTS ARE READY TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY...within a year
Russian left parties propose national policy
Author: Yuri Chernega
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
RUSSIAN PATRIOTS HOLD THEIR FIRST CONGRESS

THE FIRST CONGRESS OF RUSSIAN PATRIOTS TOOK PLACE IN MOSCOW LAST SATURDAY. OVER A THOUSAND DELEGATES MET IN THE BUILDING OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO ADOPT AND OFFER FOR A NATIONWIDE DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS PROPOSALS OF THE LEFT ON PRESSING SOCIOECONOMIC AND POLITICAL PROBLEMS. THE PATRIOTS PROMISE A RADICAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE SITUATION IN RUSSIA BY 2002 IF THEIR PROPOSALS ARE ACCEPTED.

"Russia needs a new course, a new policy, and a new team capable
of getting the country out of crisis," this was how communist leader
Gennadi Zyuganov began his speech at the congress organized by the
People's Patriotic Union. He called for unity, "the only constructive
way" for Russian society.

Gennadi Semigin, Deputy Chairman of the Duma and Chairman of the
Executive Committee of the People's Patriotic Union, made plain the
momentous changes the left had planned. The People's Patriotic Union
proposes a nationwide discussion of five voluminous documents, four of
which are for 2002. They include seven amendments to the Constitution
(including simplified procedures for impeaching the president and
dissolving the Cabinet), an alternative 2002 draft budget, and 68
draft laws on state construction, protection of residents' rights, and
social and economic policy.

2002 became the key year in Semigin's report. Semigin suggests
raising state budget revenues by introducing "fair taxes", increasing
effectiveness of state property and assets management, reliable
individual security, suppression of corruption, upping minimum wages
and pensions to 900 rubles, upping average salaries to 4,700 rubles,
etc. For the time being, the patriots' plans are impeded by the
liberal Cabinet, which promotes the interests of the oligarchs.

Sergei Glaziev, Chairman of the Duma Committee for Economic
policy and Businesses, continued along these lines. He said bluntly
that the economy was bound to "hit a sandbar in the absence of a
double or triple increase in level of investments". He also condemned
the government, which he said had only one priority - the interests of
foreign investors, and one objective, i.e. preservation of "the
structure of collusion of power and property, formed under Yeltsin."
"Realizing our investment program is a must for stable growth, but we
do not harbor any illusions that the government is going to accept our
proposals", said Glaziev.

Political discussions were even more vague. Duma Chairman Gennadi
Seleznev announced that "Russia should not join the capitalist world
with all its screens down". He revealed the true motives of the
terrorist acts in the United States by saying that it was "another
instance when common folks had to pay for the unfair system..."

Nikolai Kharitonov of the Agrarian faction called for
establishment of a newspaper which "will organize the patriotic
masses."

(Translated by A. Ignatkin)

********

#12
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001
From: "T. S. White" <tswrace@pacbell.net>
Subject: Announcement

For those readers of JRL that live in the San Francisco Bay area there
is an excellent opportunity to enjoy some Russian culture. On Sunday
Oct. 7, 2001, the Russian American Circle of Santa Cruz will hold its
seventh annual Russian Festival. The festival presents food, music, and
culture from Russia.
The festival will be open from noon until 6:00 PM. The fesival is
located in the Harvey West Park community building in Santa Cruz, Ca.
The park is a few blocks from the intersection of Highway 1 and River
Street. Anyone needing further directions may contact me by e-mail at
tswrace@pacbell.net.

*******

#13
strana.ru
October 1, 2001
Russia to arm and feed Northern Alliance
Rivalry is again emerging between Kremlin and White House over influence on
Afghan regime
By Nikolai Ulyanov

Russia continues extensive consultations with its allies and partners in
Central Asia on the prospect of the upcoming international anti-terrorist
operation in Afghanistan. The two events most conspicuous in this situation
are the 11th meeting of the council of the chiefs of the security and
intelligence bodies of the CIS countries and a decision of President Vladimir
Putin to grant urgent humanitarian aid to the population of Afghanistan.

Official reports say the meeting in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, of
counter-intelligence officers from the former Soviet republics is to "discuss
coordination of actions of the security and intelligence services of the CIS
states with the secret services of other countries outside the Commonwealth
on combating international terrorism." In actual fact, the purpose of the
meeting is to decide on the character and extent of aid to be given by the
CIS Central Asian republics and Russia to their new allies - the U.S. and
Britain.

As Russia has already handed over to the U.S. military intelligence data on
the location of Taliban military bases and the units of Osama bin Laden,
without which the first phase of the anti-terrorist operation (air strikes)
cannot be carried out, most likely matters of smaller importance to the U.S.
and urgent for Russia are being discussed in Dushanbe. One of the probable
issues on the agenda is preparedness of Russian border guards of the 201st
division stationed at the Tajik border with Afghanistan and Russia's partners
in the Collective Security Treaty to repel a possible Taliban attack; or ways
of monitoring the actions of Western security services in Russia's
responsibility zone in Central Asia after military units of the
anti-terrorist coalition are admitted to that zone; or finding the most
effective way of delivering to Afghanistan Russian arms, military hardware
and ammunition promised by Vladimir Putin to the Northern Alliance. Plans of
curbing possible actions of protest by a part of the Islamic population in
the republics of the former USSR, which may erupt after a massive strike of
the West at Afghanistan, are also to be discussed.

The fact that the meeting on such a high level, and the preceding meetings,
are held precisely in Dushanbe evidently is to convince our allies in Central
Asia once again that the Collective Security Treaty is a really operating
political and military mechanism. Russia is going strictly to abide by it and
reliably to guarantee the security of its allies. Russia is interested in
this not less than its Central Asian partners, for it is essential for it not
only to preserve but also to expand its political, military and economic
influence in that part of the world. It will be hard for Russia to do this
single-handed, because in the new geopolitical situation the CIS republics in
Central Asia may be drawn into the zone of long-term U.S. interests.
Precisely this threat is most likely reflected in the official agenda of the
Dushanbe meeting.

Most interesting in this context is Putin's fairly unexpected instruction to
the Russia's government to extend big humanitarian aid to the Afghan
population. This task is to be implemented by Sergei Shoigu, one of the
closest associates and friends of the Russian president, which indicates how
important it is to the Kremlin. One recalls in this connection the previous
tasks given by Putin to Shoigu - the formation of the pro-Kremlin Unity bloc
and its participation in the parliamentary elections, and restoration of the
town of Lensk destroyed by a flood. In both cases Shoigu coped with a
difficult task, which added much to the political weight of the Russian
president.

It looks like the new task given to Shoigu signals a new stage in the
Kremlin's difficult political game in Afghanistan. It is clear that
humanitarian aid will be arriving from Russia only to the Afghan provinces
controlled by the Northern Alliance. The day before Putin publicly announced
that arms and military equipment would be delivered to the Northern Alliance.
This reminds one of a phrase said by George Bush in a one-hour telephone
conversation with Vladimir Putin - you want again to install a pro-Moscow
government in Kabul.

Evidently this is true. The Kremlin has most likely decided to use the
opportunity and openly to support the Northern Alliance in the hope of
bringing to power a friendly government in Afghanistan. Americans quickly
realized this and began their own game, persuading the aged Afghan Kind
Mohamad Zahir Shah that he or his son should head a new regime after the
Taliban movement is defeated. Some media reports have announced that the
moderate part of the Taliban wants to get rid of the most odious leaders,
like mullah Omar, and to join a ruling coalition together with Zahir Shah. It
looks like these reports are nothing more than a propaganda ploy, but it
clearly reflects the direction of Washington's thought.

If this interpretation of the developments is correct, the situation is
becoming most interesting. Russia and the U.S., the allies in the
anti-terrorist coalition, are beginning again, as in the cold war years, to
rival for influence in Afghanistan and in Central Asia as a whole. Naturally
this rivalry will not be as aggressive and tough as it was in the latter half
of the 20th century. It will be fairly civilized and diplomatic, as rivalry
between good neighbors. But the fact is that history repeats itself.

********

#14
Wall Street Journal
October 2, 2001
Antiterror Drive May Prove a Hindrance For Administration's Missile-Shield
Plans
By ROBERT S. GREENBERGER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration says the U.S. vulnerability exposed
by the recent terrorist attacks bolsters its case for missile defense. But
the assaults' ripple effects could end up complicating the president's
effort as much as aiding it.

At home, much of the criticism of the plan to build a multilayered,
national missile-defense system has been temporarily shelved in the
aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
In an effort to show a united front with the White House on defense
matters, Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee have dropped an
effort to block certain missile-defense testing without congressional
approval.

Abroad, Russia, a staunch opponent of the U.S. program, has toned down its
objections to become an American ally in the fight against terrorism.
Moscow appears to have concluded that active international opposition to
missile defense at this time would be futile.

Over time, though, the administration will face a tough choice when this
hiatus comes to an end. The need to keep the initial coalition intact, and
particularly to keep Russia within it, may make it difficult for the
administration to push ahead on missile-shield testing.

Do you support fast action to build a missile-defense shield to guard
against nuclear strikes? Participate in the Question of the Day.

In addition, the administration's now-silent domestic critics are sure to
argue that the risk of breaking the antiterror coalition is so high that
the U.S. should put off its missile-defense dreams to focus on what Mr.
Bush has called his top priority, the terror fight.

"My plea [to the administration] is to leave this missile-defense fight for
another day. Let's focus on what we need to focus on," says Sen. Joseph
Biden, the Delaware Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and a leading critic of the missile-defense plan.

Other critics warn that if the U.S. breaks out of a 1972 treaty proscribing
national missile defense, it risks touching off an arms race that could
ripple out to the very region of the world that is now ground zero in its
war on terrorism.

China, another ally in the antiterror fight, might respond to a U.S.
missile-defense system with a rapid buildup of its now-small arsenal of
nuclear weapons, causing India to ratchet up its nuclear program. That, in
turn, might prompt Pakistan -- India's foe -- to respond. Then the U.S.
probably would feel compelled to penalize Pakistan, even though Pakistan is
the country the U.S. most wants on its side in battling Osama bin Laden.

In the near term, though, the administration is likely to focus instead on
the argument that the Sept. 11 terror strike, by showing American territory
is vulnerable to rogue attacks once thought impossible, has illustrated why
the U.S. needs to be ready to repel missiles as much as guard against
hijacked airliners.

"America's concept of national security is shifting very rapidly toward a
traditional territory-based notion of defense: border control, airspace
control and, of course, that means missile defense," says Loren Thompson,
an analyst at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va., nonpartisan
defense think tank.

The administration's decision on how to proceed with missile defense will
be watched especially closely in Moscow. Like the Soviet Union before it,
Russia opposes the U.S. effort in part because it can't afford to build a
comparable system.

But the Sept. 11 attacks also present Russian President Vladimir Putin with
an opportunity. His nation is offering unprecedented cooperation with the
U.S., by providing intelligence on Mr. bin Laden, the militant who is
believed to have coordinated the attacks, and by encouraging Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan, two former Soviet republics, to offer the use of bases and
logistical assistance to the U.S. military.

Mr. Putin is seeking several things in return, according to Alexander
Pikayev, an analyst in the Moscow office of the Carnegie Endowment. Mr.
Putin wants U.S.-Russian consultations on missile defense to continue well
into next year, in part to freeze the action on the U.S. program and to buy
time to complete a deal on deep reductions in strategic weapons. He also
would like to head off Lithuania's entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization under the NATO enlargement program.

In addition, Moscow, with its own terrorism problems on its southern
border, hopes its involvement in a U.S.-led antiterrorism coalition will
silence criticism of its brutal war against Chechnya, a rebellious
province. Should the fighting heat up and Russia turn its firepower on
Chechnya again, Mr. Putin is hoping Washington will look the other way.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, Russia had worked to rally protests against
the U.S. administration's plans, including proposing resolutions at the
United Nations General Assembly. Moscow also hoped Senate Democrats would
impose restraints on the missile-defense program.

But today, "there's a recognition of the reality that, at least now, it's
very difficult to build up opposition to missile defense, both inside the
U.S. and internationally, given the sympathy for the U.S. in the world
community," Mr. Pikayev says.

He adds that Russians now are counting on what he calls two
"self-restraining" factors in Washington to slow the U.S. missile-shield
efforts. The first is the hope that amid the war effort against global
terrorism, missile defense won't be as central an issue within the
administration as it might have been. And second, the Russians are counting
on a growing realization within the administration that pushing ahead
aggressively with the missile-defense program will make it more difficult
to win and keep support from other nations in the antiterrorism effort.

The Bush administration might be able simply to put off any showdown with
the Russians for a while. A person with knowledge of the testing schedule
says the next test is planned for the third week in November, and that
there are plans to conduct other tests roughly every quarter.

But experts say that, under the present test schedule, it isn't likely the
U.S. will need to break the testing limits contained in the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty until next year.

******

#15
Financial Times (UK)
2 October 2001
FIGHT AGAINST TERROR POLITICS: Tashkent thrust into front line of campaign
UZBEKISTAN'S ROLE
By DAVID STERN

From above the muddy Amu-Darya river, the Friendship Bridge looks like just
another large Soviet-era construction that has been abandoned to the
ravages of time and nature. Two guards stand watch over this potent symbol
of Uzbekistan's troubled history with its southern neighbour, built to
facilitate the former Soviet Union's ill-fated military adventure in
Afghanistan through the 1980s.

The bridge could again play a big symbolic role in Uzbekistan's fate, given
the part the now-independent former Soviet republic might play in a US-led
attack on Afghanistan's Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden, prime suspect
for the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US.

Uzbekistan has long considered itself top dog among the five former Soviet
central Asian republics. But the country has failed to live up to its own
high billing even though it has the region's largest population, a long and
colourful history and significant mineral deposits.

Now, however, geo-political reality could change that. US forces could use
the numerous Uzbek airstrips - three of which are near the border with
Afghanistan - for bombing strikes or search-and-rescue missions. If ground
troops are sent in, the Friendship Bridge could repeat its role as a
primary corridor for an invasion.

Some reports indicate that the country is already providing support for the
US campaign and that transport aircraft have landed at a number of airbases.

There is also a strong domestic imperative. Uzbekistan, from its capital
Tashkent, is fighting its own Islamic insurgency in the form of the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) - listed by US President George W. Bush as one
of the international terrorist organisations that Washington is targeting.

According to US and Uzbek officials, the IMU may have up to 5,000
followers. They also say the group receives support from the Taliban and
Osama bin Laden and that it maintains training bases in Afghanistan.

Most observers say the Uzbek government seems to have the situation under
control - at least for the time being. Security was strengthened throughout
the country after a series of bomb blasts in the capital in 1999, which
were blamed on the IMU. Small rapid reaction forces have also been formed
to take on the insurgents as they try to infiltrate the country, as they
have in the past three summers.

Support for the insurgents among the predominantly Sunni Muslim and
apolitical population seems to be limited. Many Uzbeks nevertheless still
look nervously to their southern border. Many - perhaps most - seem to be
against allowing any US military presence in the country, for fear of
becoming a target.

"I am against US troops coming to Uzbekistan, but of course the government
decides these things, not us," says a vendor in the Uzbek city of Termez,
next to the Afghan border.

There are also concerns that the country's economy - heavily dependent on
commodities such as cotton - may not be able to withstand a global downturn
or a disruption brought on by fighting. Most worrisome is the country's
high level of external debt, which is already around 50 per cent of gross
domestic product.

Hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees, many of them ethnic Uzbeks from
across the river, could also spark a humanitarian crisis in the country.
Human rights groups fear that if Afghanistan destabilises, or if the IMU
begins a new terror campaign in Uzbekistan, President Islam Karimov could
increase the political crackdown begun after the Tashkent bombings in 1999.

Human Rights Watch, the respected US-based rights group, says that up to
7,000 people have been incarcerated and often tortured, many of whom were
arrested simply for expressing an independent religious or political opinion.

One European diplomat said: "If the government decides to organise a new
and heavy-handed crackdown, this could lead to an explosion. There are
still a lot of people in prison and a lot of people in the population that
have already been touched."

Perhaps the greatest danger is the one that arises if the US campaign fails
and leaves Uzbekistan with an even more destabilised region and an angry
Taliban regime to the south.

To this Uzbek officials say that although the risks are great, the
potential benefits far outweigh the minuses. Uzbekistan stands to eliminate
at one stroke what it perceives as its two greatest security threats, the
Taliban and the IMU.

On top of this it could stand to gain foreign aid for its suffering
economy, a little sympathy for its human rights record and even some
security guarantees from the US.

"What choice do we have? Stand on the side and try to preserve our
neutrality? For us this is unacceptable," said one top Uzbek official.

Russia steps up supplies of military equipment to Afghan opposition

Russian military equipment, some of which apparently is headed for the
Afghan opposition, has been arriving regularly in Dushanbe since Russia's
President Vladimir Putin announced last week that his country would
increase support for the anti-Taliban alliance, AP reports from Dushanbe.

Russia has been supplying the Afghan opposition for the past several years
and also has 25,000 troops of its own stationed in Tajikistan to help guard
the border with Afghanistan. However, the latest deliveries at Dushanbe's
airport appeared greater than usual.

Yesterday, packed cargo was unloaded from a Russian Ilyushin-76 cargo
aircraft on to Russian military trucks. It was unclear what was in the
boxes. In recent days, Russian Su-25 jets have flown in and out of
Dushanbe, as have other cargo aircraft.

*******

#16
Russians in Tajikistan dodge bullets, await strike
By Dmitry Solovyov

KUPLETIN BORDER POINT, Tajikistan, Oct 1 (Reuters) - As the world awaits a
U.S. strike on Afghanistan, Russian border guards in next-door Tajikistan
dodge sniper fire and uneasily monitor rising tensions across the frontier.

Russian Captain Andrei Solovyov says his men have a duty to keep out drugs
and disorder associated with the Afghanistan's fundamentalist Islamist
Taliban rulers. But that is far from easy on sun-scorched plateaux a few
hundred metres from tank volleys and machine-gun fire between the Taliban and
the opposition.

"My soldiers now spend much more time hiding in trenches during intensive
shoot-outs on the other side," Solovyov, deputy commander of the base at 24,
told visiting reporters.

"But Russia's presence is vital in this region. All that happens there,
including a wave of drugs and violence, may soon move to Russia's borders."

Solovyov was interrupted by the crack of a sniper's bullet fired from the
other side of the Pyandzh river separating ex-Soviet Tajikistan and
Afghanistan, where the Soviet Union's failed nine-year war in the 1980s
precipitated its collapse.

The bullet erupted in a cloud of dust near a bunker on a slope a few metres
from the improvised news briefing.

"To leave Tajikistan would amount to moving the Afghan border straight to
Russia's southern flank," said Solovyov, a native of Russia's far east,
thousands of km (miles) away.

"Right now, the situation is more or less bearable," he said as another shot
sailed within inches of a colonel and a foreign cameraman.

The United States has identified Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden,
sheltered in Afghanistan, as its prime suspect in the attacks on New York and
Washington on September. But it is by no means clear when the U.S. riposte
will occur and what its targets will be.

RUSSIA'S ROLE

Today, Russia plays a pivotal role in Tajikistan, maintaining some 11,000
border guards and 6,000 regular army soldiers in a country riven by 1992-97
civil war between a secular pro-Moscow government and an Islamist opposition.

The military action 400 km (250 miles) south of the Tajik capital Dushanbe is
fully visible -- and audible -- on the other side of the river, with
intermittent barrages of heavy mortar and tank shells.

Taliban fighters and their adversaries from the Northern Alliance are often
seen praying, cooking or gaping across the river at the Russian base and its
visitors.

Russian officers amuse themselves by listening to an eerie concoction of
Afghan music, colourful language and rare military commands from both sides
flowing out of their walkie-talkies.

Some 20 km (12 miles) away from Solovyov's outpost, armoured vehicles and
artillery of Russia's 201st mechanised infantry division stand ready to come
to the rescue if the frontline in northern Afghanistan suddenly splashes
across the Pyandzh.

Servicemen, all ethnic Tajiks and Uzbeks except for Russian officers, are
united in resolving to contain what they see as dangerous Islamist
puritanism.

They are also aware of the risks they run.

"They're just kamikazes who love their motherland and are devoted to their
military duty," one Russian officer said. "They may just lack time before
reinforcement arrives."

Twenty-five defenders of a nearby outpost were massacred by Afghan Islamist
radicals in 1993. Help arrived too late.

There is some consolation. Russian border guards appear to enjoy the respect
of the local population with all too fresh memories of atrocities of their
own civil war.

"If Russia leaves Tajikistan, Afghanistan will definitely come to
Tajikistan," said soldier Anvar Ailayev, 20, bashful of his ungrammatical
Russian. "Therefore, we must defend Russia."

*******

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