October 3, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5473 • 5474

Johnson's Russia List
#5474
3 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
2. Reuters: Russian press blasts EU during Putin talks.
3. Reuters: U.S. sends troops to C.Asia republics - paper.
4. The Bangkok Post: John Helmer, KREMLIN'S AFGHAN ARMS DELIVERIES
HAVE STRATEGIC LIMIT.
5. UPI: Ira Strauss, How Russia can get into NATO.
6. www.fednews.ru: Eko Moskvy, INTERVIEW WITH KONSTANTIN MAKIYENKO,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, AND IVAN SAFRANCHUK, CHIEF OF THE MOSCOW REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE OF THE US CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION.
7. wps.ru: POLITICAL FORECASTS [press review]. AFGHANISTAN AND CHECHNYA: HUNTING FRO WOLVES OR DANCING WITH THE WOLVES?]

*******

#1
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,
Tuesday, October 02, 2001
- Three employees of Moscow's Butyrskaya prison have been arrested on the
suspicion of aiding and abetting Ivan Vinogradov in his escape.
Yesterday, Vinogradov walked out of the jail showing guards an
identification showing him to be a Justice Ministry employee. The two men
and one woman arrested today will be either indicted or released within
three days.
- Russian President Vladimir Putin continued his visit to Brussels today.
He declared that Russia will enter the WTO (World Trade Organization) only
if the requirements match those set for every other country. President
Putin also met with Belgian businessmen and expressed the hopes that
cooperation with European nations and business circles will help Russia
with the political approach to the WTO.
- Russian border troops have shipped the first batch of humanitarian
supplies to the Northern regions of Afghanistan. It seems, however, that
Tajik residents need help as much as the Afghans. More than 80 percent of
the population are below the poverty line because of the recent droughts.
Tajik children can be seen collecting grain that has been stored away by
rats.
- Presidential spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembsky has confirmed that the
federal center is conducting negotiations with representatives of Chechen
rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov. He also noted that four of the kamikaze
bombers who carried out the attacks in NY and DC had fought in Chechnya.
- Deputy Prime Minister Valentina Matvienko met the winners of the first
Deaf Olympics, held in Rome, at the Russian State House. One of the
athletes, swimmer Veronika Guskova, received five gold medals, one silver
and one bronze.
- The "Federation" deputies group has announced that it will support the
Land Code when it will be reviewed by the Federation Council on October
10th.
- Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov discussed the latest events in
and around Afghanistan with his Iranian counterpart Ali Shamkhani. Their
meeting began with the signing of a new agreement on cooperation in the
sphere of military technology. The ministers emphasized that the
agreement was not aimed against any other nation. Teheran will support
the operation to destroy terrorist bases in Afghanistan and against the
Taliban only if the operation is carried out within the framework of the
international community, with the approval of the United Nations.
- The search for the Altai ship continues in the Northern Dvina river in
Arkhangelsk. The ship, carrying a crew of ten, left the port for a
fishing trip on Friday despite storm warnings. Three search and rescue
vessels have been sent out.
- Bad weather is also adversely affecting the progress of the Barents Sea
operation to raise the Kursk nuclear submarine.
- Uzbek authorities have once again denied reports that permission has
been granted for the US forces to use Uzbek military bases. American
customs officers are, however, training with Uzbek border troops to
improve their skills of detecting contraband nuclear weapons.
- In Zvezdny, preparations are almost complete for the second short-term
(ten-day) scientific expedition to into space. The crew will leave for
Baikonur on October 8th and begin their mission on the 21st.
- The first trial of five participants of Basaev's 1995 raid on Budennovsk
has began in Stavropol. Ten other members of the rebel formation are in
prison, and 20 are on the federal wanted list.
- Milan's famed La Scala opera company will perform Giuseppe Verdi's
Requiem at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow.

*******

#2
Russian press blasts EU during Putin talks

MOSCOW, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Russian newspapers accused the European Union on
Wednesday, ahead of President Vladimir Putin's talks with EU officials in
Brussels, of being unfair to Moscow in its bid to secure closer relations
with the 15-nation bloc.

Moscow dailies, quoting the president's entourage, said Putin was making
little headway during his stay in Brussels -- either with Belgian or EU
officials or potential investors.

Commentators said EU negotiators had made new objections to Russia's campaign
against Chechen separatists, hindered its bid to join the World Trade
Organisation and were trying to impose an unfavourable deal on energy
supplies.

"According to presidential advisers, the European attitude to us is much
worse than the United States," the tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolet said.

"The Americans are honestly trying to keep their promises, especially on WTO
membership. The Europeans, fearing that in a couple of years we will become
economically stronger and it will be more difficult to speak on an equal
basis, are trying to place new 'catapults' around their northern neighbour."

The daily Kommersant said not a single document had been agreed with Putin's
various hosts ahead of the visit -- on matters as diverse as terrorism to EU
anti-dumping procedures and Russia's eventual accounting use of the euro
currency.

"The only clear matter is that the EU is adopting tougher economic positions
towards Moscow," it said.

Vedomosti quoted Kremlin advisers as saying that EU positions were at odds
with statements by its member states.

"One of the advisers said the Brussels bureaucrats are not in keeping with
the political will and constructive position of the leaders of Germany and
Belgium," it said.

Putin called on Europeans, in a speech to businessmen on Tuesday, to support
Russia's longstanding bid to join the WTO and spoke of unusual demands being
placed on the country.

He complained that the EU still refused to recognise the Russian economy as
market-based despite the passage of vital bills on land and labour reform.

Vremya Novostei said much of the problem focused on energy. Russia, it said,
was resisting European calls for greater access to its pipelines and a bar on
EU entry for countries with more than 30 percent dependence on one country's
energy sources -- clearly targeted at East European countries buying Russian
gas.

*******

#3
U.S. sends troops to C.Asia republics - paper

WASHINGTON, Oct 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Army has sent more than 1,000 light
infantry troops to the former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan
in a military buildup near Afghanistan to try to flush out Osama bin Laden,
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

It said the soldiers, from the 10th Mountain Division based near Syracuse,
New York, would provide ground security for any searches and rescues of
downed U.S. pilots in Afghanistan and also aid special forces.

The newspaper said the troops deployment in Central Asia marked the first
time regular U.S. army forces have gone on a mission in the former Soviet
republic.

Bin Laden, holed up in Afghanistan, has been blamed for the Sept. 11 hijacked
plane attacks in New York and Washington that killed more than 5,700 people.

Aircraft carriers, more than 300 warplanes, ships armed with cruise missiles
and special forces troops have gathered within striking range of Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan is one of the stops on U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's
current tour of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Uzbekistan, which borders Afghanistan to the north, agreed on Monday to open
its airspace to U.S. military operations against possible targets across the
border.

*******

#4
From: "John Helmer" <helmer@online.ru>
Subject: KREMLIN'S AFGHAN ARMS DELIVERIES HAVE STRATEGIC LIMIT
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001

Coming in The Bangkok Post
KREMLIN'S AFGHAN ARMS DELIVERIES HAVE STRATEGIC LIMIT
From John Helmer in Moscow

The first new Russian arms deliveries to the Afghan opposition alliance
began this week, according to Kremlin sources. They include Igla and Shilka
mobile anti-aircraft missiles; radar tracking systems; helicopters, and
armoured fighting vehicles.

President Vladimir Putin announced last week for the first time that Russia
is supplying the Afghan Northern Alliance. He pledged "more assistance
to its armed forces through arms and technological supplies."

Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said the arms deliveries would be similar to
equipment the Afghan forces are used to operating, and no new types of
arms would be included in the programme.

A Kremlin source, who asked not to be identified, told The Bangkok Post
"the aim is to create the capacity to match the firepower and mobility of
the Talibs. The Northern Alliance lacks effective anti-aircraft weaponry."

Independent news agency reports from Dushanbe, capital of Tajikistan, confirm
that Russian military deliveries have been landing at the airport, but no
details of the cargoes have been released.

"There is a big aviation need on the side of the Northern Alliance,"
Dmitri Yevstafiev told The Bangkok Post. Yevstafiev is
an expert on Central Asian security at the PIR Center, an independent
security studies group in Moscow. "The Taliban has definite superiority in
the air. The opposition forces also need anti-tank weapons, rocket and artillery
pieces and munitions; plus medical equipment."

Asked if the Kremlin has placed limits on what it will supply, Yevstafiev
told The Bangkok Post: "Heavy artillery is political sensitive, because there
is no guarantee that once provided to the Afghans, thee arms will not come
back and be used against the Tajiks or the Russian Army in Tajikistan."

Yevstafiev also said that Russian equipment deliveries are "not complex.
There is no time to train the Afghans in their use, and there is an allergy in
Russian military circles to any involvement of Russian advisors or forces on
the ground in Afghanistan. Only the weapons that fit the tactics and
munitions of the Northern Alliance are being provided. These come from defence
stockpiles, not from production lines. They will be quite okay in the present
situation."

Russian officials are now expecting US attacks in Afghanistan "will not
produce a force vacuum," according to Yevstafiev. "The US will try to install
some sort of Pushtun-led leadership in Kabul."

Russian arms for the Northern Alliance are not part of a Kremlin strategy to
enable its forces to capture Kabul and install a new government. "The
Northern Alliance is not regarded as a definite ally by Russia, because of the
potential threat it poses to Tajikistan. Tajikistan is the center of Russian
interest."

Russian strategists say that in defence of Tajikistan, they prefer a weak
regime in Kabul rather than a strong one, and stability rather than chaos in
the country. According to Yevstafiev, the Russian priority is to
create a larger buffer zone in northern Afghanistan, and reduce the flow of
guns, drugs, and refugees northward towards the border, where Russian
troops are based.

"The Americans," according to Yevsafiev, "are viewed in Moscow as having a
different objective. They want to weaken the Taliban's military authority,
and invest in a new statehood for Afghanistan."

*******

#5
Commentary: How Russia can get into NATO
By IRA STRAUSS

MOSCOW, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- In Germany last month, Russian President Vladimir
Putin raised the question of his nation's eventual membership in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. He called for NATO to begin immediate
discussions with Russia to work out the terms and conditions for Russian
membership in the alliance.

This is the only professional way to do it: to discuss and get agreement
on both sides on a plan which, in order to get mutual consent, must
necessarily satisfy the basic interests on both sides. Putin said in Berlin
that this initiative had already been delayed far too long. In light of the
terrorism crisis, it would be hard to disagree with him on this point.

Yet it is entirely possible that there will be no serious response from
NATO. Many people in NATO, as in Russia, believe that it is impossible to
achieve a solution that serves the interest of both sides. In fact, very few
people in NATO have any idea of how it could be done.

Most of them take it for granted that Russian membership would simply be
bad for NATO. Accordingly, they oppose any attempt at discussing it, fearing
that this would just be an exercise in diplomatic posturing and would end in
mutual recriminations.

How could a proposal for Russia to join NATO work to the benefit of both
sides?

There is only one concern that really matters on each side, and that is
the extent of Russia's influence in NATO. All the other concerns --
standardization of weapons, the human rights record on Chechnya, NATO's
military intervention in Kosovo, civilian control of the military, all the
supposed standards for NATO membership -- are secondary. Many of them are
even completely irrelevant.

Who needs to insist on standardization of weapons prior to achieving
membership? The original NATO members have been working on standardizing
their weapons for 50 years and still have a long way to go on it. This
hasn't stopped them from sticking together in NATO. As to civilian control,
it is a good thing, but Turkey's political powerful military has been one of
the forces keeping the Turkish nation's civilians in line with the modern
world, preventing more extreme lapses into Islamic radicalism.

What NATO really fears is that Russia will get a power of veto and will
use it to make it impossible for NATO to reach any of the decisions it wants
to reach and needs to reach. What Russia fears, or has objected to in the
past arrangements, is that, under the formula of a "voice not a veto," it
has not had enough influence to make a difference, and that NATO will never
give it any real influence.

How can Russia have real influence in NATO, commensurate with its natural
importance, without holding a veto that it could wield arbitrarily to make a
nonsense of NATO? How can NATO and Russia find a middle term between the two
extremes of "a powerless consultative voice" and "an absolute power of
veto?"

The answer is not difficult to find. Every democracy knows of a middle
term between a "voice" and a "veto." It is called a "vote."

There are many other possible middle terms. There can be "consensus minus
one." There can be voting with a 90 percent majority threshold for
decisions, or 75 percent or 67 percent or 50 percent. Votes can be taken
among countries or among individual citizens.

Each country's vote can be weighted, whether by population, by economic
size, by geographical size, by military strength, or by any other factor.
And there can be a variety of methods of taking decisions, some used
ordinarily while others are held in reserve as emergency options. In every
legislature, numerous minor matters are passed "unanimously" that is to say,
without anyone objecting, while the party leaders decide which issues need
to be put to the test of a serious debate and a vote.

The lack of compromise proposals is not the problem. The problem is the
lack of serious consideration of them, on the part either of Russia or of
NATO.

One reason for the lack of consideration is that most people believe that
every country in NATO has a right of vetoing every decision. In reality,
under the North Atlantic Treaty there is no legal right of vetoing decisions
in NATO; instead, the North Atlantic Council sets its own procedures.

The Council has, in fact, usually preferred to operate by consensus, in
the sense of getting all members to agree not to dissent publicly or disrupt
the public front of unanimity, and NATO rhetoric has emphasized this in a
manner that gives an impression that there is genuine unanimity and that
every country would have a right of veto if it disagreed.

However, agreement to waive objections is far from genuine unanimity, and
there have been occasions, particularly in the early 1980s, when even the
public front of unanimity was breached and decisions were made while
allowing the dissenters to publish their disagreement in footnotes to the
common document.

Since the North Atlantic Council controls its own procedures, let us offer
a model of a procedure that it could adopt which would satisfy both the
needs of Russia for genuine influence and the need of NATO to be safe from
the threat of irresponsible vetoes. The model is weighted voting combined
with consensus.

Consensus would remain the normal operating procedure, but an option of
two-thirds weighted voting would be held in reserve for use in case some
country or countries were being too repeatedly obstructive. The weighting of
the vote would best be by population; it is the most stable and democratic
measure, and gives everyone a sense of equal dignity.

Consensus would continue to be used as the normal operating procedure, so
there would not be a sharp break from past NATO practices and methods of
operation; but the option of voting would enhance the workings of consensus,
by putting obstreperous countries -- France, Greece, Turkey -- on notice
that they cannot gain anything by behaving too obstructively.

In this model, Russia could join NATO and gain a weight in decision-making
nearly 60 percent as great as that of the United States and twice as large
as any other European country. Each individual Russian would have the same
voting power as each individual European and American. However, neither
Russia nor the United States would have a weight large enough to give it a
veto power.

This example suffices to show that a way can be found to satisfy the
concerns on both sides and end up with a result that makes it workable to
have Russia in NATO. And by the very fact being workable, it means that both
sides benefit tremendously.

Russia would get into the main institution of European security instead
of being left isolated outside. Russia would get an influence on the common
decisions and enjoy enough weight to be able to organize coalitions around
itself and impel the alliance to pay serious attention to Russian interests.
NATO would get its expansion without alienating Russia. And above all,
Russia and the West would get one another as allies not adversaries, adding
tremendously to the ability of each side to realize its security interests.

This is not the only model. There are many workable models. The point is
that all of them, by the mere fact of being workable, make Russia-in-NATO a
matter that serves tremendously the interests of both sides. And this makes
it possible, indeed obligatory, to start serious discussions about them
between Russia and NATO.

That is what Russian diplomats could explain to NATO, when it sits around
wondering how it could possibly give a positive response to Putin.
(Ira Strauss is U.S. Coordinator for the Committee on Eastern Europe and
Russia in NATO and a current visiting Fulbright professor of international
relations in Moscow.)

*******

#6
TITLE: INTERVIEW WITH KONSTANTIN MAKIYENKO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, AND IVAN
SAFRANCHUK, CHIEF OF THE MOSCOW REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE OF
THE US CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
[EKHO MOSKVY RADIO, 14:00, OCTOBER 1, 2001]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)

Anchor: Our guests are Konstantin Makiyenko, Deputy Director
of the Center for Strategic and Technological Analysis and Ivan
Safranchuk, Chief of the Moscow Representative Office of the US
Center for Defense Information.

Today we face a totally new situation because -- how would the
Americans feel about a visit to Moscow by the Iranian Defense
Minister just two months ago or even a month ago? About the
possibility of Russia and Iran being on the same side and,
miraculously, even the United States finding itself on the same
side in a world confrontation. I would like to consider some
aspects of this situation with you, and our listeners have an
opportunity to comment and to put questions for Ekho Moskvy at
974-22-22. Let us start in. What could be the implications of the
visit by the Iranian Defense Minister in the new context. Who will
be the first to start? Ivan.

Safranchuk: I think it is a very important visit and it's
important that it is taking place at this point in time. Because
the world, experts and politicians are wondering which side Iran is
on and will the United States be more critical or less critical of
the Russian-Iranian relations?

I think that both Russia and Iran are trying to demonstrate in
the court of that visit that Russian-Iranian relations are
exclusively peaceful, including the battle against terrorism, and
that Russian-Iranian relations should develop, in particular, after
what happened in the United States. And it would be very
interesting to see the reaction to all this on the part of the
United States which have traditionally criticized Russia for close
ties with Iran and which will probably now have to tone down its
criticism. Because Iran, like many other countries, has condemned
the terrorist acts in the US.

And in general Russia and Iran take very similar stands on the
terrorist acts in the US. Perhaps, we will discuss it a little
later.

Anchor: Yes, I think we will discuss it. But right off, I have
a question for you, Ivan. Doesn't the Western world, including the
United States, overestimate the secular character of Iran, its
movement towards democracy and its engagement with Western
civilization? Because there have been serious protests on the part
of spiritual leaders of Iran.

Safranchuk: That is true, and yet not only the secular
authorities led by President Khatami condemned the terrorist
attacks in the United States, but also the religious authorities of
Iran, and the spiritual leader of Iran, Khomenei. He and the
supreme bodies of power of Iran have condemned the terrorist acts.

As for the first part of your question, namely, whether the
West is reading too much into Iran's movement toward civilization
and modernization, it should be noted that in the 1990s many
experts expected a reconciliation between Iran and the United
States, between Iran and the West. And there were some signs of it.
For example, in the mid-1990s there was a very unusual situation
when the authorities of Iran sent New Year greetings to the
American people. You probably remember that situation. And such
little steps -- cultural and religious -- took place constantly.

The current situation can either dramatically stimulate Iran's
rapprochement to the civilized world, which would be very important
considering that many try to present Islam as a militant religion,
or this situation may block for a long time the reconciliation of
Iran and the civilized world. And Russia will have a chance to play
the role of catalyst in bringing Iran closer to the civilized
world, and the civilized world to Iran.

Anchor: And especially since Russia is itself in a similar
choice situation, whose side is it on after September 11. Iran, in
spite of peaceful cooperation, is also a large market, a
technological market and American disapproval, to put it mildly,
has been slowing down these processes.

Makiyenko: Yes, that is so. Iran is a major potential --

Anchor: Potential, yes.

Makiyenko: But it is important to know that it is a potential
market for the Russian high technology, including militant
technology. Rosoboronexport reckons that Iran theoretically can
become the third biggest consumer of Russian weapons after China
and India, with purchases of about 300 million dollars a year.

Actually, the potential of Russian-Iranian cooperation is by
no means limited to military-technical cooperation because we have
interesting projects with Iran in the field of civil aviation and
space exploration. And there are serious military-political
partnerships, notably in the field of containing the Taliban
movement, and military-political containment of Turkey. There are
some interesting projects to develop transport corridors between
North and South, from the Baltics via the Volga and canals and the
Caspian Sea to the Iranian ports and further to Southeast Asia.

So, Iran is a very interesting potential market and a
military-political partner.

Anchor: Our listener Oleg has sent a question to our pager:
"The words of Islamists are worth nothing and will never be worth
anything. Russia should not supply arms to Iran. Iran is closer to
Russia and the United States is far, says Oleg. Isn't it dangerous
to arm a neighbor, especially such an unstable neighbor?"

Safranchuk: I don't think so. I don't understand why Iran is
an unstable neighbor. But the workers of the enterprises that will
get the 300 million dollars will probably be of a different
opinion.

Anchor: Yes, we will shortly consider several aspects of the
situation, partly in connection with Afghanistan. Let us look a
step and a half ahead to the situation that may emerge if the
anti-terrorist operation, its "hot" phase, is quickly and
successfully carried out, something that nobody seriously counts
on, not even President Bush.

We will continue our talk after a brief news bulletin. (News).

We continue our talk with Konstantin Makiyenko, Deputy
Director of the Center for Strategic and Technological Analysis and
Ivan Safranchuk, Chief of the Moscow Representative Office of the
US Center for Defense Information. The number of questions on the
same topic is such that they are impossible to ignore. So, I would
like to put this question to Ivan.

Several listeners -- for example, Natalya, Alexander
Vasilyevich, Oleg, Sergei -- speak about Iran's support for such
organizations as Hizbullah; Iran raises money for Chechnya, Sergei
claims. Well, I don't know where money is not being raised for
Chechnya and how one should interpret it. But the important thing
is support for such organizations as Hizbullah and the attitude to
Israel, which is not conducive to stability in the Middle East.

Safranchuk: Yes, money is raised for Chechnya in many places,
including Great Britain, which, according to press reports,
sometimes issues visas to and shelters not only peaceful citizens.
But the situation in Central Asia and in the Middle East, in the
area from the Middle East to Southern Asia, is very complicated.
Not a single big country has permanent allies and permanent
partners there. The situation on much of the globe, in the south of
Eurasia, is unstable. It's everyone for himself and everyone tries
to go it alone in this complex world.

It is true that some data prove that Iran backs some
organizations including Hizbullah that are waging war on Israel. At
the same time, very little is said about who supports other
organizations. For example, Saudi Arabia, at least some influential
families in that country, also support certain groups.

As for Chechnya specifically, Iran's position on Chechnya is
more considerate and restrained. Iran, of course, cannot back the
Russian authorities in the so-called counter-terrorist operations.

Anchor: Its forms.

Safranchuk: Its forms and probably substance. And yet compared
with Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Turkey for that matter, Iran is
behaving in a much more moderate, restrained, careful manner, which
is much more pro-Russian in its own relations with Russia and in
its relations with the Chechen emissaries. And in general, on
questions of major importance to Russia such as the question of
Chechnya, Afghanistan, the Caspian oil, Iran's position and the
position of Russia are surprisingly similar. And one can even point
out the following feature here. Russia as a rule agrees much more
quickly to soften its position on all these issues than does Iran
itself. And the last point which is also very brief.

It is the following: as I already said, in its specifics, the
attitudes of Russia and Iran to the explosions in the United States
are very similar. As to the international operation on the Afghan
territory, Russia and Iran take a largely similar attitude to it,
say on such items as that the operation must be carried out under
the UN aegis on a Security Council decision, with the least losses
of innocent lives and only if there is clear evidence, submitted by
the United States, that those attacks were carried out by Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban.

On these questions the positions of Russia and Iran coincide,
but it is only Russia that, in recognition of this position, has
become a friend of the West, unexpectedly and as to Iran, on the
contrary, it is talked about with suspicion when they say that Iran
does not quite clearly express its position.

Moderator: But it ceased to be an enemy.

Safranchuk: But in the specifics, in the substance, the
Russian and Iranian positions are very similar. They differ only in
form, in the way that they express it, like President Putin and
President Khatami. But as to the difference in form, it turns out
to be enough to perceive two similar positions as diametrically
opposite.

Makiyenko: Literally one addition. Incidentally, one year ago
there was a project which, I take it, was not implemented, when
Iran was allegedly ready to participate in financing the
rehabilitation of Chechnya, to finance the federal programs of
Chechnya's restoration and as far as I know, there was the figure
of around 25 million and allegedly the Iranian government approved
this figure.

Moderator: Why did this not materialize?

Makiyenko: I don't know. As regards support of terrorism,
indeed Iran supports Hizbullah and I take it that this is the only
organization which is now supported by Iran. It also supported some
groups in Bosnia but then the pro-Iran groups in Bosnia were
destroyed by the NATO forces. We must remember that Saudi Arabia,
for instance, or the United Arab Emirates are the principal
sponsors or rather were principal sponsors of the Taliban movement,
which is now considered to be the main enemy of the civilized
world. In this sense it seems to me Ivan uttered the key word, the
word is "perception". It seems to me that now, in the new context,
the political and military-political context, we have to break the
perception of Iran as a "devil". Because this perception was
largely molded by the United States based on internal political
considerations and I think that now we have to get away from this
perception.

Iran is a sufficiently normal state for the region.

Moderator: You know that if, say, it were not for the
explosions, if everything turned out to be well a similar dynamic
might have been observed with regard to the Taliban movement, quite
possibly in Afghanistan, i.e. first there is the "demonization" and
then a certain restoration of an image, a certain civilization and
perception of the Taliban as a normal state with an internal
evolution.

Makiyenko: But this would have taken 10-15 years.

Moderator: 10-15 years, and for how long did the revolution in
Iran last, when it began in 1979?

Makiyenko: Yes, about that time. After ten years the
"termidorization" sets in and then a normalization. So, with regard
to the Taliban this might have been indeed so.

Moderator: But now the situation has drastically changed, and
Russia quite unambiguously came out in support of the Northern
Alliance, including with arms shipments. As Defense Minister Sergei
Ivanov said, people there like simple arms and so all Soviet time
weapons could have been sold down there. What do you think,
Konstantin?

Makiyenko: I am not sure about "all weapons". Yes, indeed, the
Defense Ministry has significant surplus arms which, generally,
consume resources for their normal functioning, and this requires
money. So indeed now it is possible to dump a certain quantity of
the extra, absolutely old arms to the Northern Alliance. Actually,
this should have been done a long time ago.

Incidentally, talking about the relations between Iran and the
Northern Alliance, I think that between 1996 and 2000, that is to
say from the moment of the capture of Kabul by the Taliban and up
until recently Iran was the principal sponsor, financial, military
and technical sponsor of the Northern Alliance, because Iran has
two allied enclaves in Afghanistan. On the one hand, these are the
Shi'ites, the Khazarians who control the central regions and, on
the other, these are the "Persian speakers" like Tajiks, like
Massood and, of course, Rabani.

Moderator: Now tell me please -- and I address both Ivan
Safranchuk and Konstantin Makiyenko -- tell me please the
following: now the situation in the country has been exploded by
those blasts in America. Beginning now is the destruction, where
there is bin Laden or there is no bin Laden, but the destruction of
the regime of the Talibs is one of the objectives. Judging by
everything this will, if it comes about, change the situation in
the region and a new circle of problems will begin arising around
Afghanistan because everything will end the way it is now assumed:
the regime will be destroyed, a certain Mohammed Zakhir Shah will
install himself in Kabul and, on his behalf, a coalition and quite
pro-Western government will rule. Then these problems, that are
related with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and then other neighbors -- the
CIS countries and Russia, will arise again. What do you say about
such a perspective?

Safranchuk: In answering this question, one has, willy-nilly
to talk from the angle of the United States because the US is the
leader in this situation and it is actually the leader of this
anti-Osama-bin-Laden, possibly anti-Taliban coalition. So the
question now is, what is the substance of the interests of the
Unite States. In my opinion, the US policy in 1990s both in the
Middle East and in the Near East was not a happy choice, as a
result of which we now have this crisis.

One can say that the policy of Russia, back up by very few
resources and by a small budget, was much more successful because
we had at least a quasi ally represented by the Northern Alliance.

Moderator: You mean to say that it was during ten or thirteen
years?

Safranchuk: Yes, during ten years. During the 1990s. We
witnessed the fall of the Nadzhibullah regime. There was a civil
war in Tajikistan which Russia was actually forced to end and to
close the Tajik border. Nevertheless we have a certain stabilizer
in the region as represented by Rakhmonov and the Northern
Alliance. The United States relied on the Pakistani regime and even
on an option of carrying out a coup d'etat there -- but all this
failed and there is complete instability there for the Americans.

But as it seems to me the United States cannot change this
situation in principle, and they need to preserve a certain status
quo. The Taliban for the United States is the guarantor of the
status quo in the region. That is why I don't believe that the
Taliban regime will be completely routed an that the regime will
fall and that something new will emerge in its place.

Primarily for internal political reasons, the United States
will be forced to carry out a certain action. It will probably
conducted but I doubt where it will be of a sufficient scale and
turn into a war against the Taliban regime. I believe and this is
my forecast the regime will survive. So there will be no global
changes, as you say. But there will occur less global changes,
namely, influence in the region from Pakistan to Iran will be
redistributed. The Arab regimes -- US allies will be extremely
unhappy at this, most probably. Traditionally Iran has been
counter-balanced by Iraq in Middle Eastern politics. But we
understand Israel's desire, on the other hand, when there is noise
around, to punish Iraq as strongly as possible. And it turns out
that, on the one hand, Iran is getting stronger -- and it is a
chance to establish relations with it, and on the other, as we
know, Iraq is an intended target for bombing by the United States
to turn Iraq into a continuation of the anti-Osama-bin-Laden
operation.

That is why I think that the principal task for the US will be
to give a worthy response but to minimize its actions.

Makiyenko: I would agree with Ivan. In my opinion, we are
burying the Taliban regime a little too early. It seems to me that
the regime enjoys quite a strong support inside Afghanistan and not
only Afghanistan but also the support of North-Western territories
of Pakistan. And if one looks at the first reports that started
coming in after it became clear that the US would wish to support
the Northern Alliance, the reports said that the Northern Alliance
increased within two or three days its control from 5 percent to 20
percent and to 25 percent of the territory, when it was said that
the Northern Alliance and General Dustum would capture the city of
Mazari-Sharif very soon, but one deadline succeeds another and we
do not see any serious successes in the military area on the part
of the Northern Alliance.

In my opinion, all this indicates that, militarily and
politically, the Taliban regime is a very serious force which
cannot be overturned by the forces of the Northern Alliance. But
neither do I see any great military and technical means at the
disposal of the US and Great Britain -- of all this Western
coalition -- in order to rapidly and bloodlessly overturn and
destroy the Taliban regime.

Moderator: Two brief questions: will this coalition be able to
at least disrupt the world terrorist networks? Yes or no, very
briefly.

Makiyenko: I think not.

Safranchuk: I think not but this will have a positive
psychological effect.

Makiyenko: The source of the funds for the international
terrorist networks must be sought not in Afghanistan but in other
regions.

Moderator: In other regions? Can you name them?

Makiyenko: On the Arabian Peninsula, in my opinion.

Moderator: The Arabian Peninsula -- I hope this is not a new
target but simply a place where one must look for sources.

Makiyenko: But for the US this is not a new target, this is no
target at all.

Moderator: I thank you Konstantin Makiyenko and Ivan
Safranchuk. Makiyenko is deputy director of the Center for
Analysis, Strategy and Technology, and Ivan Safranchuk is head of
the Moscow office of the US Center for Defense Information. I would
very much like our listeners to be able to consult with you at
subsequent stages of the operation and in the developing situation
in that region. Thank you.

*******

#7
wps.ru
POLITICAL FORECASTS [press review]
AFGHANISTAN AND CHECHNYA: HUNTING FOR WOLVES OR DANCING WITH THE WOLVES?

The initial shock of the September 11 tragedy in the US is over.
The media is giving all kinds of comments on the information about
response attacks, which has flooded the pages of the Russian press.
However, the majority agrees on two things.

First of all, no one doubts that the terrorists will be taught a
very obvious and deterring lesson. Nonetheless, many believe that the
results of the US anti-terrorist operation will greatly differ from
its initial plans. At the same time, no one dares to predict
unambiguously what they are to be like.

For instance, according to the "Profil" magazine, the past years
the US has started any serious fight with the help of its major "war
axe", Tomahawk cruise missiles. Of course, it is rather impressive,
however, it is rather difficult to say whether the missiles will hit
the necessary target. "Profil" has no doubts that "the real fighting
is likely to last for years".

At the same time the magazine notes that it is also necessary to
take into consideration that "propaganda is a no less efficient weapon
than bombs". It is evident that the actions of the strategic forces of
the super power No. 1 in the world against such a technically meager
opponent as the Taliban movement are only intended to calm down and
slightly consulate the "Americans who demand a retaliation" (unlike
Milosevic, the Talibs are hardly likely to surrender after carpet
bombing).

So, "Profil" does not respond the question what the US should do
after the first attacks.

"Moskovskie Novosti" observer Andrei Grachev asks, "Is it
necessary to hunt for bin Laden?" In his opinion, if the main
terrorist remains free he will be able to play a much more important
role, "the role that before has been performed for several years by
another world outsider, Saddam Hussein". Preserving of the Baghdad
regime allowed the US to use Iraq as a "main justification for
establishment of the national missile defense system" even after the
war in the Persian Gulf ended. And now the almighty and elusive bin
Laden, who is able to "make the world knuckle under the international
instability and terror" has become for western politicians a perfect
possibility to charge the military with annihilation of the
terrorists. According to "Moskovskie Novosti", the only issue is that
the process of annihilation of terrorists may not only be delayed but
develop into a World War III.

While military observer of the "Moskovskie Novosti" newspaper
Pavel Felgengauer reminds that because of the many year drought in
Afghanistan, currently grain supply to the country fully depends on
the UN. And if this supply stops because of bombing threat, by spring
the Afghanistan people may start mass dying of starvation and the US
will have to stop its combat activities out of humanitarian reasons.
In such a case the Talibs may estimate this as they moral victory:
"Having become heroes, they will receive ever more weapons, money, and
volunteers from Islamic countries."

The "Rossiyskie Vesti" weekly is reasoning, "the war is mostly
likely to be informational - a number of obvious strikes and a great
fuss around them." On the one hand such an approach is characteristic
of the western culture with its special attention to the life of a
"Private Ryan". The majority of the western countries share this
logic, for instance recently Germany announced that if a single
soldier is wounded in Yugoslavia, Germany would withdraw its army from
the country.

At the same time, from the weekly's standpoint, a modern level of
the civil conscience in the US is so high because the generation of
Vietnam veterans has grown old already and the rest do not know what a
war is. "It is a civil conscience of youngsters who saw war only on a
TV screen. And they think a war is as easy to lead as in a computer
game," "Rossiyskie Vesti" wrote. However, they are hardly likely to
ever fight seriously: the main important thing is to demonstrate to
the whole world the response to terrorists in order not to deal with a
"Vietnam vet syndrome" again. So, "Rossiyskie Vesti" conclude, it is
easy enough to forecast the result of the action: "Afghanistan will
suffer, while terrorism will not."

German political scientists Alexander Rar foretold in his
interview with the "Vek" weekly another, a more severe theory for
development of the situation. He supposes that "after the Talibs are
defeated, the US will apparently start attacking the countries where
the terrorists escape." Mr. Rar also does not rule out that the
terrorists may carry out more terror acts like in New York in response
to the US attacks.

According to Alexander Rar the cause of the present confrontation
between the South and the North is that far from every country decided
to participate in building a new world order on the basis of liberal
ideas and values after "the failure of communism". He says, "The
Islamic world categorically rejects market and democratic principles;
Russia has tried to form working mechanisms on their basis but it has
not been a success." That is why the German political scientist
believes that at present it is necessary to accept a co-existence of
several civilizations as a fact. "But are we ready to dialogue?
Unfortunately, I am not sure about this."

Denis Dragunsky wrote in the "Novoye Vremya" magazine, "The main
objective of the moment is not to punish the terrorists...The main
thing is that the democratic North-West preserved itself in its
confrontation with the non-democratic South-East. And this means it is
necessary to dialogue with the opponent, even indirectly."

As Dragunsky stresses, it is extremely important to understand
the real reason of the recent events. And it is impossible to
understand them without thorough knowledge of the opponent.

For instance, during the "Cold War" the opposing sides had
complete information about each other, "A constant dialogue helped
retain the confrontation in reasonable borders."

Meanwhile, the goals and objective of the today's opponent are
absolutely unclear. Dragunsky believes the attack must be accepted as
a "disengagement from worst emotions", as a call, a "Fearful, brutal,
inhumane call, but we must understand its humane underlying reason. If
not because of religious and philosophical motives, but for the sake
of self-preservation. Otherwise, we all will explode."

Actually, the "so-called fundamentalism is a kind of a "mass
rebellion". It is a reaction to alien to people pro-western (as in
Iran) or pro-Soviet (as in Afghanistan) regimes. In fact, the issue in
question is the issue of modernization in all aspects, from everyday
life to social-economic to political. According to the author, the
elite of the countries under reform turned to be "amazingly careless":
while enthusiastically accustoming to the civilization fruits - from
hot water to freedom of speech - "they has not lifted a finger" to
make these fruits available for their peoples. Let alone those who
received all the national resources of these countries.

Probably, those pro-western elites simply believed that there are
not enough means for all, plus it is always easier to rule benighted
people. "However, ignorant people raise their own leaders. In some
terms, it is a good lesson for Russia," Dragunsky emphasizes. In a
word, the author concludes, it is necessary to dialogue, in order to
"de-mystify Islam", to preserve the civilization, "As we recently
understood there is only one civilization, liberal, with the man and
his personal freedom as its major value."

Political consultant Gleb Pavlovsky said regretfully in his
interview with the "Vek" weekly that the Russian expert society which
is still discussing general humanitarian issues, "what the old world
order was and who is to be accepted in the new one" are at the same
time demonstrating their intellectual disability to adequately
estimate the situation and to see new strategic objectives for Russia.
From Pavlovsky's viewpoint, September 11 was a sort of a one-day war
for America, "which unfortunately ended in a victory of an anonymous
enemy". While the forthcoming global response operation does not have
any clear borders.

As Pavlovsky notes, in these terms it is "high time to determine
the reasons and limits for necessary force application; otherwise the
remnants of international laws and alliances may disappear in this
black hole beyond the law boundaries."

At the same time, at present it is time for appearance of new
alliances, for instance, the positions of Russia, Germany, the US and
Israel are becoming closer.

Nevertheless, the head of the Effective Politics Foundation found
it necessary to stress that President Putin managed not to yield to
"Bush's thunderous postulate - "if you are not with us you are against
us" and reacted "strictly in accordance with main national
priorities", which are Afghanistan and Chechnya.

The leader of the Effective Politics Foundation supposes that the
presidential ultimatum to Chechen gunmen demanding to surrender
weapons within 72 hours, arose increased attention in Russia and all
over the world, and was addressed not actually to gunmen but to the
politicians connected with them. According to Pavlovsky, the main
result of the ultimatum is that "the president admitted existence of a
political component in the Chechen problem."

Pavlovsky announced that from now on neither the west nor the
Arabian 'friends' will support the gunmen. It is not ruled out that
terrorists are able to fight in such a situation as well, however,
isolation is a political death for politicians. And it is such Chechen
activists, if there are any, that President Putin offers to contact
with the federal forces. Pavlovsky called the president's offer a
'last opportunity for Aslan Maskhadov to separate himself from his
friends from al-Kaida'.

At the same time, another well-known political consultant Andrei
Piontkovsky estimated Putin's ultimatum as of September 24
differently. In his opinion, the part of the statement which announces
the readiness of Russia to make a contribution to the fight against
terrorism is "worthy of a modern and pragmatic statesman". It should
also be taken into account that Putin "had to suppress the resistance
of a considerable and influential part of his surrounding and the
Russian political elite" in order to make a choice in favor of
cooperation with the anti-terrorist coalition.

And the whole country must be grateful to him for his
decisiveness.

However, Andrei Pionkovsky states that the second part of Putin's
ultimatum, which expatiates upon Chechnya, is marked with the seal of
a person "who is looking for decision where there is principally no
decision at all."

According to the author, despite "obvious presence of some
elements of international terrorism in Chechnya", it is still "not
correct to conceptually include Chechnya in the context of the
developing situation in the world".

According to Pionkovsky, the truth that President Putin knows
very well is that the story of the second Chechen war that caused a
large-scale political and humanitarian disaster in the republic is
directly connected with the story of Putin coming to the power. "And I
an convinced, this truth is torturous and unbearable for him." In
particular, this is expressed in "bursts and absolutely inadequate
reactions of the president" every time the Chechen problem comes into
question. "It is a personal drama of Vladimir Putin. And
unfortunately, it is the tragedy of the country he rules."

Boris Berezovsky, who is known to be President Putin's most
successive opponent found it possible in his large interview with his
own paper "Kommersant" to approve of all the clauses of the
presidential statement as of September 24. However, he gave his own
interpretation to each of them.

Berezovsky thinks, "The president is experiencing a complicated
process of understanding the reality," i.e. is beginning to realize
that "it is not terror that has caused what is now going on in
Chechnya."

Furthermore, the president has allegedly displayed his
understanding the fact that "there are people in Chechnya who have
taken guns under the influence of false and distorted values."
Berezovsky calls Putin's revelation a sensation. According to the
tycoon, this means that the president has admitted that "here are
people who have a point of view that is different from his." "This is
beyond the field of terrorism," Berezovsky thinks. In other words, the
tycoon believes that the phrase "to pummel in lavatories" should be
viewed as "an absolutely erroneous one" despite its popularity with
the electorate.

Besides, Berezovsky displays his hope that the president has
realized that "it is not the majority that represent the correct
historical viewpoint; and it is minorities that give an impetus for
development of the society." In any case, Putin has allegedly acted as
a representative of the dynamic minority: "He has broken the system of
anticipation. Everyone had expected Russia to make its policy
regarding Chechnya stricter. However, the president has taken an
unexpected step." In Berezovsky's opinion, the president has benefited
from this step a lot. "He stopped obeying his emotions in the cause of
resolution of this conflict and made an absolutely adequate
announcement."

At the same time, Boris Berezovsky is cautious about forecasts.
He says, "If this announcement reflects the actual position of the
president, then he really intends to stop the military operation in
Chechnya within the next half year and reduce losses among Russian
servicemen and the local population."

In keeping with methods of psychology, the interview is finished
with a moderate compliment to Putin. Berezovsky says, "It is for the
first time that I've seen Putin as a politician predicting the
situation at least two stages ahead. It's not bad, although five
stages would be better."

On the next day, however, "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" expressed its
doubt that the conflicting sides have something to discuss at their
negotiations. "The first words at the round table are easy to predict:
'Give up arms!' and 'Withdraw your troops!" In the opinion of the
newspaper, it is a dead end difficult to get out of.

"Nezavisimaya Gazeta" proposes three ideal conditions for
cessation of the hostilities: Maskhadov should give his assent to
expelling international terrorists from Chechnya, then he should take
part in organization of the government of the national concord, and
Russia, in exchange, should guarantee immunity to him and his
supporters.

However, the newspaper understands that it is impossible to
fulfill these ideal conditions, since there is a third part of the
conflict represented by Basaev and Khattab, and this side is rather
hostile toward the latest "peace initiatives" of the federal
government. As for Maskhadov, the newspaper is convinced that he will
never dare start a military conflict against Basaev and Khattab.
Besides, he is sure to demand that Russia withdraw its troops from
Chechnya first. This would means a new defeat for Russia.

"Novaya Gazeta" proposes its own point of view of this situation.
Its political observer Anna Politkovskaya is of the opinion that today
Chechen opposition forces may be divided into three categories. The
first category is "the Westers" represented by Maskhadov. However,
Politkovskaya asserts that Maskhadov "is not commander-in-chief for
anyone anymore, although he may still be viewed as the president with
confirmed legitimacy." Gelaev and Arsanov may also be included in this
category with some allowances. According to Politkovskaya, "'the
Westers' are focusing their efforts on human rights in their usual
interpretation; they appeal to the Council of Europe and international
human rights organizations. Their strategic aim is an international
tribunal for those who have committed military crimes during the war."

The second category of the Chechen military-political top may be
called "Arabs." These are people connecting their plans with the
Arabian East and aspiring to Islamize Chechnya. According to their
plans, this should bring a lot of Arabian and African money to
Chechnya." Of course, it is they themselves but not Maskhadov who will
distribute this money. The most notorious representatives of this
category are Khattab and Basaev.

The third category consists of small military gangs that have
joined the military opposition in order to take their revenge on the
federal troops for deaths or disappearances of their relatives.
Politkovskaya states, "They are conducting a war of their own against
their own enemies by their own methods, and these methods and rules
are difficult to control or classify." They do not coordinate their
activities, and most of these military units will disappear as soon as
their plans of revenge are fulfilled. According to Anna Politkovskaya,
most of such groups may be viewed as oriented to the West. Thus, if
Maskhadov "wakes up and displays his resoluteness," he is sure to gain
support of most of representatives of the third category."

Meanwhile, according to Politkovskaya's sources, Russian special
services supports the "Arabs," who are much more irreconcilable than
Maskhadov. The journalist believes that there is only one reason for
this policy: "Those who are maintaining this war do not need peace so
far."

Why has Putin made his proposal to Chechens? Experts from
different periodicals are trying to answer this question. Leonid
Radzikhovsky, observer of "Vremya MN", is of the opinion that the
president hardly expected Chechen gunmen to surrender on hearing the
appeal from the Kremlin. When it was clear that the ultimatum to
Chechen gunmen was a failure, the Kremlin decided to propose peace
negotiations to Maskhadov, although the Kremlin has long been sure
that Maskhadov does not represent anyone but himself and his guards
anymore.

Radzikhovsky is trying to find an explanation of this situation.
One of the probable explanations is that Russia has decided to
withdraw its forces from Chechnya because it will need them in
Afghanistan. However, Radzikhovsky believes that Russia will not take
part in a military campaign in Afghanistan again. Besides, if Russia
withdraws its forces from Chechnya, it will mean "the new Khasavyurt."
The Kremlin understands this fact, and so the troops will not be
withdrawn from Chechnya.

Radzikhovsky does not rule out that the president's proposal is a
PR move. He thinks that this proposal is most likely to be a mere
propagandistic ruse for the Western public opinion. Mollifying its
position regarding Chechnya and simultaneously improving its relations
with NATO, Putin wants to prove that the Russian government has
assumed the same position as "the whole civilized world" in the cause
of combating terrorism.

The observer of "Vremya MN" thinks this situation to be sad,
since in keeping with the normal logic, after the recent terror acts
the West "should want its Russian ally to beat terrorists more
fiercely and teach the West how to beat them." This would be quite
relevant, since "the West's political correctness has led to the
events of September 11."

However, to all appearances, it is not Russia that will teach the
West how to beat terrorists but the West will teach Russia how to
surrender to them within the "civilized position."

Radzikhovsky believes that this fact proves "the duality of the
West's consciousness regarding itself." The US intends to start a
military operation, but it does not intend to alter its political
style that has allegedly led to the events of September 11. The US is
ready to make a strike on Afghanistan but at the same time it
preserves all radical Moslem organizations at home, as well as various
"half-military totalitarian sects and Nazi gangs." Not a single
Western parliament dares propose the introduction of the death
sentence for terrorists.

Radzikhovsky is of the opinion that there was not a change of
eras on September 11: "Western leaders are still afraid of wolves and
fear to kill wolves at the same time. They also fear to learn how to
kill them. They apparently do not fear only to dance with wolves."

The newspaper "Izvestia" cites the data of the opinion polls
conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Study Center (VTsIOM) and
the Public Opinion Foundation two weeks after the terrorist acts. If
right after the terror acts 52% of respondents were indignant at the
terror acts and 38% were sincerely sorry for Americans, the opinions
changed two weeks later. Right after the terror acts 30% of
respondents thought it served Americans right for Yugoslavia, Iraq,
Vietnam, and Hiroshima, whereas two weeks later 52% of respondents
were of this opinion. On September 13, 61% of respondents were ready
to approve of Americans' retaliatory strikes, whereas two weeks later
this figure was only 34%.

As for Russia's position, most respondents agree that Russia
should not participate in the conflict. 54% of respondents of VTsIOM
and 58% of respondents of the Public Opinion Foundation believe that
Moscow should support Washington at the diplomatic level or just
express its general sympathy. Although 24% approve of America's
military campaign against terrorists, only 1% of them would agree to
Russia's sending its troops to the zone of the conflict and 1%
believes that Russia can help America with its aviation.

A Western politician has announced, "We also would not
participate in this campaign on Russia's place."

Anatoly Chubais said in his recent interview to "Obshchaya
Gazeta" that people should not think that the world radically changed
on September 11.

Chubais agrees that the American tragedy may be viewed as a sign
of the beginning of the 21st century, in which the opposition will be
not between the West and the East but between the South and the North.
However, Chubais thinks that this opposition will not develop into
political realities very soon and will develop in a different way. "A
gigantic political inertia has been accumulated in the international
community, and nobody will manage to change the direction of the
development of the world political situation within a month or a
year." Therefore, Chubais suggests that September 11 be viewed "not as
the beginning of the new era but as the beginning of the end of the
old one."

Thus, it seems that the Russian society, from the elite to common
people, has entered the stage of a certain political and psychological
reaction after the open emotional outburst caused by the events in
America that took place three weeks ago.
(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova and Kirill Frolov)

******

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