October 8, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5481

Johnson's Russia List
#5481
8 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
DJ: I would like to hear from people in government and in the media
about whether this collection of items is useful to you, and why or
why not.

1. AFP: Afghanistan ground operation unavoidable: Russian experts.
2. AP: Russia Praises U.S.-led Attacks.
3. Reuters: Attacks on US served only to unite world - Putin.
4. Reuters: Mixed reaction from Russians on U.S. war on terror.
5. RFE/RL: Francesca Mereu, Russia: Media Divided On U.S.-Led Strikes.
6. BBC Monitoring: Russian reactions to US strikes range from cautious support to condemnation.
7. Itar-Tass: Russian MPs generally supportive of Afghan operation.
8. strana.ru: Taliban: Coming - ready or not! Uzbekistan is forced to make a decision - and fast.
9. AP: Uzbeks Take Strikes in Stride.
10. Reuters: Tajikistan says will open airspace, bases to U.S.
11. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: Edward Batalov and Victor Kremenyuk, RUSSIA AND US: FRIENDS? RIVALS? PARTNERS? America and Russia are shaping a new relationship.
12. Obshchaya Gazeta: Dmitry Furman, A RACE AGAINST APOCALYPSE. To perish or to survive - that's the question civilization now faces.
13. Reuters: Russia's Kursk sub heads home after lifting success.
14. AFP: Families of Russian plane crash victims denounce official "cover-up"
15. Reuters: Ukraine military sticks to denial in plane crash.]

*******

#1
Afghanistan ground operation unavoidable: Russian experts

MOSCOW, Oct 8 (AFP) -
Experts and lawmakers in Moscow Monday deemed a ground military operation
in Afghanistan unavoidable if the US-led military strikes are to achieve
anything, but Russia seemed determined not to get too involved.

The United States will have to "use special forces (on the ground) to
capture and eliminate Taliban Leaders and (terrorist suspect) Osama bin
Laden" since US missiles launched against Afghanistan "are only destroying
strategically meaningless objectives probably long deserted by Taliban or
terrorists," said former defense ministry senior official, General Leonid
Ivashov.

Reformist deputy and head of the SPS party, Boris Nyemtsov, agreed, saying
that the effectiveness of special forces on the ground would determine the
outcome of the conflict.

"If they are effective, the Taliban regime may fall, but if not, the
conflict will drag on," Nyemtsov said.

Whatever happens after the strikes, Russia may be willing to help the
Afghan anti-Taliban opposition with humanitarian aid or even weapons, but
not to take part in a ground military operation in Afghanistan.

Moscow voiced strong support for the US and British strikes against
Afghanistan on Sunday as President Vladimir Putin huddled with his top
defense and security advisers as the Russian capital stepped up security
measures for fear of terrorist attacks.

The Russian foreign ministry supported the US-led strikes in a statement
late Sunday, saying that "the time has come" to fight terrorism.

The Russian statement added that Moscow would continue providing
humanitarian aid to "the internationally recognized Afghan government and
its armed forces," referring to Afghanistan's anti-Taliban government in
exile and the Northern Alliance armed resistance.

But there was no mention of possible direct Russian involvement.

"Afghans must settle their problems in their country, we should by no means
try to do it instead of them," said Duma deputy speaker, Anatoly Lukin, on
the Echo of Moscow radio station.

The Soviet Union suffered a humiliating defeat in the 1980s after it
invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and its forces ultimately had to withdraw from
the country in 1989, leaving thousands of dead behind them.

Moreover, Russia is already carrying out a military operation in the
breakaway republic of Chehnya, which it has described as an "anti-terrorist
operation" since it began two years ago.

And while Moscow has repeatedly sought to link Chechen separatists with
international terrorism, including bin Laden -- whom Washington suspects of
having masterminded the September 11 suicide attacks in the United States
-- and his Taliban hosts, it has no plans for direct action against Kabul.

While Russia should "defend its national interests," it should by no means
let itself be dragged into "adventurism," said the head of the Duma's
foreign affairs committee, Dmitry Rogozine.

And Russian forces based in the Central Asian former Soviet Republic of
Tajikistan will not take part in military operations against neighboring
Afghanistan, an official with the general staff in Moscow said.

The task of the 8,000 man strong 201st division of the Russian army, which
is based in Tajikistan, "is not to carry out military operations in
Afghanistan," the official said.

In addition to the 201st division, 11,000 Russian border guards watch the
Tajik-Afghan border under a 1992 agreement between Moscow and Dushanbe.

*******

#2
Russia Praises U.S.-led Attacks
October 6, 2001
By JUDITH INGRAM

MOSCOW (AP) - Expressing firm approval of the U.S.-British airstrikes
against Afghanistan, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday the Sept.
11 terrorist strikes resulted in a ``unity of humanity'' that had severely
cut terrorists' ability to maneuver.

Following the attacks, humanity ``grew up,'' Putin said.

``They counted on modern civilization becoming flabby, sluggish, and losing
its capacity for resistance,'' Putin said. The terrorists ``did not expect
such a unity of humanity before the common enemy.''

Putin praised the U.S.-led strikes, saying they were a just response to the
Sept. 11 tragedy with its thousands of victims. He also said he was certain
the United States was doing everything possible to avoid civilian losses.

The U.S. ambassador in Moscow, Alexander Vershbow, in turn praised Russia
on Monday as being ``vital for the success of the coalition against
international terrorism'' and thanked Moscow for its ``multifaceted
support.''

Putin devoted most of his comments, which were broadcast on Russian
television, to what he called the terrorists' errors in provoking the
leading nations in the world.

With the new anti-terrorism coalition, terrorists can no longer ``maneuver
between various centers of power ... leaning first on one, then on
another... That went on for many years,'' Putin said.

Putin reaffirmed Russia's willingness to provide an air corridor for
humanitarian flights and to send weapons and equipment to Afghanistan's
opposition forces battling the ruling Taliban militia. Russia has also sent
its own humanitarian aid to Afghan refugees through Tajikistan.

The Russian Defense Ministry refused to comment on a report Monday by the
Interfax-Military News Agency that an air force transport regiment
including 24 Il-76 planes had been ordered to fly to Central Asia within
four hours.

The security heads from former Soviet republics belonging to the Collective
Security Treaty organization met behind closed doors in Dushanbe, the
capital of Tajikistan, to discuss the situation around Afghanistan.

Vladimir Rushailo, the chief of Putin's security council, said the
organization's own rapid-reaction force had already been put on alert, the
Interfax news agency reported.

Interfax reported that Russian Defense Ministry advisers were also working
in Uzbekistan, where they were to serve as liaisons with U.S. and other
NATO military units. The report could not be independently confirmed.

Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov, meanwhile, reaffirmed his nation's
permission for the United States and its allies to use its airspace. U.S.
military advisers were already in Tajikistan, said Muneo Suzuki, Japanese
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's special envoy on anti-terrorism efforts.
Suzuki said he was told that by Rakhmonov.

Uzbek troops along the border with Afghanistan were put on alert Sunday,
but remained in place, while officials ordered a partial evacuation of
civilians near the border.

Uzbekistan's president gave permission Friday for U.S. warplanes and troops
to use an Uzbek air base and the U.S. Army sent 1,000 infantry soldiers
there. They were to be on standby to come to the aid of any U.S. special
forces that might run into trouble operating inside Afghanistan.

But Mirakbar Rakhmankulov, secretary of the National Security Council, said
in the capital, Tashkent, on Monday that there were American troops in the
country.

Uzbekistan is worried about reported Taliban plans to deal it a blow so as
to punish the country for backing Washington. Russia's border guard chief
Col. Gen. Konstantin Totsky said Monday he had received reports of Taliban
fighters massing close to the Uzbek border, adding that Moscow may be
willing to help if Uzbekistan asks.

******

#3
Attacks on US served only to unite world - Putin
By Jon Boyle

MOSCOW, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin threw his weight
behind U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan on Monday, saying last month's
"monstrous" attacks on the United States served only to unite the world
against terrorism.

The Kremlin leader said the perpetrators of the September 11 suicide airliner
attacks on New York and Washington had made a grave miscalculation and would
now suffer the consequences.

The United States and Britain on Sunday launched cruise missiles and
warplanes against Afghanistan, which is sheltering Osama bin Laden --
Washington's chief suspect in the attacks on America that left 6,000 people
dead or missing.

"Such colossal losses cannot be ignored, and cannot but lead to an
appropriate response," Putin told a meeting of senior ministers in comments
broadcast on state-run RTR television.

The U.S. death toll was "twice the number the Russian Federation has lost
during all ground operations against terrorists in Chechnya from 1999," Putin
said.

The Kremlin chief says Russia's war in Chechnya is part of the same global
battle against international terrorism launched by U.S. President George W.
Bush after last month's attacks.

Russia has accused bin Laden of aiding Chechen rebels.

Putin said international terror groups were using illicit fortunes amassed
from petro-dollars and drug money to fund "monstrous strikes, monstrous in
their brutality," and sap the will of civilised countries to defend
themselves.

The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks had crystallised the
international community's will to fight back, said Putin.

Informed of Sunday's air strikes by Bush beforehand, Putin said he believed
the U.S. administration would do "all in its power to avoid civilian
casualties" in Afghanistan.

Russia's stalwart support of the U.S. air strikes contrasts with its
ferocious criticism of the NATO air war against Moscow's ally Yugoslavia
during the 1999 Kosovo conflict, which saw Moscow cut ties with the U.S.-led
alliance.

SECURITY BOOSTED AMID WARNINGS

Putin's support for the U.S.-led campaign -- Moscow has agreed to step up
arms supplies to anti-Taliban groups and open air corridors to Afghanistan
for relief supplies -- has won him plaudits in the West and a new
understanding on Chechnya.

The authorities, meanwhile, stepped up security in Moscow at embassies whose
countries are involved in operations against Afghanistan. Security has also
been boosted at metro stations, airports and tall buildings, with increased
police patrols.

But maverick ultra nationalist leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a deputy speaker
of parliament, said the U.S. military operation was simply a cover for future
attacks against Russia.

"This is the start of a Third World War," he told the Ekho Moskvy radio
station, predicting a tidal wave of refugees from Afghanistan and Central
Asia would engulf Russia.

"All this so-called war against terrorism is in actual fact a struggle
against Russia, its interests. And after bin Laden is handed over they will
continue to conduct this war."

Irina Khakamada, a senior figure in the Union of Rightist Forces political
party, said support for the United States could make Russia a target for
terrorist groups, and urged the authorities to plan for an influx of
refugees.

*******

#4
Mixed reaction from Russians on U.S. war on terror

MOSCOW, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Russians expressed mixed feelings on Monday about
the U.S.-led strikes on Afghanistan and Moscow's role in the fight against
international terrorism, despite President Vladimir Putin's strong support
for Washington.

"The United States are right. They will clear up this mess," said Viktor
Magdavoy, 50, huddled inside an army camouflage jacket against the crisp
Moscow cold.

A taxi driver who gave his name only as Vadim said the United States should
not drag out the conflict.

"I'm not saying the United States aren't right. I'm saying they should have
just dropped a huge bomb," he said.

Putin has linked the Washington-led war on terrorism to Moscow's own struggle
with rebels in its breakaway Chechnya region.

The two-year war in the mainly Muslim republic has left many Russians keen to
see the West tackle Islamic militants whom Moscow says are also fuelling the
conflict in Chechnya.

But some Russians want their country to steer clear of any involvement in the
U.S. hunt for Saudi-born Islamic militant Osama bin Laden, key suspect in the
suicide plane attacks on New York and Washington that left some 6,000 people
dead or missing.

The United States began its military campaign against Afghanistan's Taliban
rulers on Sunday after accusing them of sheltering bin Laden.

"It's none of our business," said Marina Gabrielovna, dragging a shopping
cart along a pot-holed Moscow pavement. "I am always against war. In
Chechnya, at least, Russia is on its own land."

Crouched behind her hot drinks stand sipping a warm brew, Natasha Ivanova
agreed.

"I have a 23-year-old son that has just come back from the army. And I have a
20-year-old nephew that joined the army on Sunday -- I am scared for them,"
she said.

******

#5
Russia: Media Divided On U.S.-Led Strikes
By Francesca Mereu

In Russia, only a handful of newspapers were able to rush news of the
nighttime launch of U.S.-led strikes against Afghanistan onto their front
pages. But many television networks and radio stations last night canceled
their regular programming to cover the strikes, which come in response to
last month's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. RFE/RL Moscow
correspondent Francesca Mereu gauges Russian media reaction to the strikes
against Afghanistan.

Moscow, 8 October 2001 (RFE/RL) -- In Russia, the nighttime (2030 Moscow
time, 1830 Prague time) launch of the U.S.-led strikes against targets in
Afghanistan left few newspapers able to rush the story onto their front pages
for Monday morning.

Among those that did was the "Vedomosti" business daily, which is co-owned by
the U.S.-based "Wall Street Journal." Its front-page headline read: "Now the
Taliban are going to pay." The paper applauded the U.S. and British strikes,
saying they were targeting the terrorist-supporting Taliban regime and not
the Afghan people.

The business daily "Kommersant" wrote that the attack may have taken the
Taliban by surprise. The ruling militia, the paper wrote, "were doing all
they could to please the U.S." -- including promising the release of British
journalist Yvonne Ridley, who was arrested last month in Afghanistan for
illegally entering the country.

Russian television networks and radio stations canceled their regular
Sunday-night programming to cover the events. The country's major television
networks broadcast images taken directly from the international news network
CNN.

Yevgeny Kiselev, the host of a news program on TV-6 -- which employs many of
the journalists who left the private NTV network after its takeover by the
state-controlled Gazprom gas monopoly -- was critical of yesterday's strikes.
Kiselev commented ironically that the launch of the campaign was a birthday
present from U.S. President George W. Bush to Russian President Vladimir
Putin, who yesterday celebrated his 49th birthday. The news program also said
the military campaign could result in heavy civilian casualties.

The state-run ORT news network today broadcast televised remarks by the
Russian president. Putin, addressing a meeting of cabinet ministers and
security chiefs, said terrorists "miscalculated" when they carried out the 11
September attacks:

"I do not doubt that this [strike against Afghanistan] was expected by the
terrorists themselves. They knew perfectly well what they were doing, they
knew what they were getting into, and they counted on the possibility that
things would go this way. Moreover, they are provoking the leadership of the
leading countries in the world into such a turn of events. At the same time,
I think that this time they miscalculated."

Putin, who said he was informed of the strikes ahead of time by Bush, went on
to ally himself firmly with the international coalition against terrorism:

"The terrorists were let down by their arrogance and self-confidence. They
did not expect the pulling together of the international community to face
the international threat. I would very much like this pulling together to
develop in the best way and that the terrorists will feel the results of the
joint efforts of the international community in the fight against terrorism."
Putin's strong show of support came after the release of an ambiguous
statement from Russia's Foreign Ministry, which said top diplomats were still
working out the country's "position" on the air strikes.

The president's silence earned sharp criticism from some commentators. Before
Putin's remarks were aired today, Ekho Moskvy radio commentator Andrei
Cherkisov said: "We understand that yesterday President Putin was busy with
his birthday party, but such an important event deserved a quick comment from
the Russian side." Ekho Moskvy yesterday interviewed Dmitry Rogozin, the
chairman of the State Duma committee for international affairs.

Rogozin said the world was waiting for the strikes to be launched against
terrorist bases in Afghanistan. He said the most important issue was to see
whether the U.S.-led coalition would address terrorism only in Afghanistan or
extend its range to include other countries believed to harbor terrorist
organizations.

Rogozin added that Russia would not participate in the military operation in
Afghanistan but that it would back the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance
opposition. He said: "According to our experience, only Afghans can solve
their internal problems. For that reason, we decided to beef up military aid
to [Northern Alliance] forces that are able to lead a military operation
against the Taliban.

Rogozin also drew a comparison between the U.S.-led strikes and Russia's
ongoing conflict in breakaway Chechnya, saying Chechen fighters have long
been linked to bin Laden.

In his remarks today, Putin also addressed the Chechen conflict, saying the
number of people killed in the U.S. attacks was "more than twice the amount
of losses the Russian Federation has suffered in all of its ground operations
against the terrorists in Chechnya since 1999."

*******

#6
BBC Monitoring
Russian reactions to US strikes range from cautious support to
condemnation
Source: RIA news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1750 gmt 7 Oct 01

The Russian reaction to the US strikes in Afghanistan has been cautiously
positive with a few exceptions.

The Russian RIA agency reported at 1750 gmt on 7 October that Russia's
largest liberal party, the Union of Right Forces supported the strikes,
saying that "the overthrow of the Taleban regime is in the interests of
Russia".

Ekho Moskvy news agency reported at 1900 gmt on 7 October that Union of Right
Forces leader Boris Nemtsov said that the current actions of the USA "fully
complied with Russian strategy. He said "the Taleban is the only regime in
the world that openly supports the production of heroin and other drugs,
which they mostly sell on the territory of Russia".

State Duma Deputy Chairman Vladimir Lukin said that Russia was right to join
the US-led international anti-terrorist coalition, Russian Ekho Moskvy agency
reported at 0153 gmt on 8 October. However, he said that "the coalition is a
complicated thing, and the interests within it do not always coincide". He
said that "we should exercise a measured approach, avoid getting dragged into
anything dangerous and avoid creating the impression that we are pawns that
keep following the king".

The head of the Federation Council foreign affairs committee, Mikhail
Margelov, said that "the Americans are not going to drag Russia into a ground
operation in Afghanistan", Ekho Moskvy news agency reported at 1835 gmt on 7
October. "As far as ground operations are concerned, we are carrying our part
of the burden in the North Caucasus", he said. He added that "de-facto,
Russia will noty stand aside from the operation". He said that "our secret
services are cooperating at an unprecedented level of mutual trust and
openness".

State Duma deputy Frants Klintsevich said that the international coalition
should "rely on the Northern Alliance in the war against the Taleban", Ekho
Moskvy news agency said at 1915 gmt on 7 October. Klintsevich, who once
headed an association of Soviet Afghan war veterans, said that if the
Americans "spend more than 25 days in Afghanistan, they will not be able to
leave it and nobody will rescue them".

State Duma deputy Roman Popkovich said that the war would be long and that it
would end up with the overthrowing of the Taleban regime, Ekho Moskvy news
agency reported at 1858 gmt on 7 October. He said that Russia is playing a
significant role in the operation, noting that Russian President Vladimir
Putin was among the first leaders whom US President George W. Bush phoned to
warn about the start of the operation. Popkovich said that Russia's
participation would include supply of arms to the Northern Alliance, the
rendering assistance to Uzbekistan if it comes under attack and the exchange
of reconnaissance information with the USA.

At the same time, Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir
Zhirinovskiy said that the US-led operation in Afghanistan "is a war against
Russia". In remarks reported by the Ekho Moskvy news agency at 1940 gmt on 7
October, he said that the bomb strikes in Afghanistan spelt an imminent
destruction of the Russian 201st Division deployed in Tajikistan. He said
that Russia should "urgently quit the international coalition, adopt a
neutral position, not let foreign troops enter the Central Asian states and
warn the presidents of these states that we cannot guarantee their safety".
He said that Russia should "protest against the bombing of Afghanistan,
because it is a threat to our interests". He said the current situation
reminded him of 1941 when the USSR was a member of the anti-Hitler coalition.
"At that time we were used as cannon fodder to break Hitler's backbone, after
which Churchill turned his policy against the USSR", he said.

The head of the Russian Interregional Islamic Committee, Geydar Dzhemal, said
that "the 11 September events were planned by anti-Islamic forces aiming at
general destabilization of the situation around the world, no matter who
technically executed the attacks". His remarks were quoted by Ekho Moskvy
news agency at 2110 gmt on 7 October. He said that Russian Muslims should
perceive the US bombing of Afghanistan as an attack against them. "These
attack will widen the abyss separating the leadership of Russia and its
multi-million Muslim population", he said.

Chechen rebel President Aslan Maskhadov's special envoy to Moscow Mayrbek
Vachagayev said that "Chechnya would not be the best place for Usamah
Bin-Ladin to seek shelter". He denied that Chechen rebel leaders had any
contacts with Bin-Ladin. "Those Chechen leaders who are suspected of having
such links are either dead or removed from political life in the republic,"
he said. He said the decision of the spiritual leaders of Afghanistan to
start a jihad "will remain within the framework of this country's Muslim
community". "We are in a completely different situation", Vachagayev said in
remarks reported by Russian Ekho Moskvy news agency at 2115 gmt on 7 October.

*******

#7
Russian MPs generally supportive of Afghan operation
ITAR-TASS

Moscow, 8 October: Deputies to the State Duma have received with
understanding the news about the American and British missile strikes at
Afghanistan, where camps for the training of international terrorists are
located and where Usamah Bin-Ladin, the chief suspect on the case of the acts
of terrorism staged in the USA, is hiding.

"International terrorism can be routed through the pooling of all
international efforts," said Vladimir Lukin, deputy chairman of the Duma.
"The Taleban regime and Bin-Laden are like Siamese twins. Russia has
supported the action, which, in my opinion, was an absolutely correct step."

At the same time, Lukin rules out the possibility of the participation of
Russian troops in combat operations in Afghanistan.

"The only way to fight international terrorism is struggle against the
countries which give shelter to terrorists and which help them stage acts of
terrorism," said Vyacheslav Volodin, head of the parliamentary faction of
Fatherland-All Russia. He stressed that Afghanistan had become a refuge for
terrorists, and numerous bases of terrorists are located on its territory. As
a consequence, the USA and Britain started an anti-terrorist operation
against it.

According to Volodin, Russia has chosen the optimal and the most correct way
of fighting international terrorism: our soldiers will not take part in that
war.

At the same time, Aleksandr Gurov, head of the Duma committee for security,
believes that the USA is trying to resolve the most important problem with
the help of the missile strikes: to destroy bases of terrorists and the
terrorists themselves, and to localize totally the hotbeds of international
terrorism. "The situation is developing by way of a spiral: the distance
between the spark and the flame is very small," he said.

In the opinion of Deputy Speaker of the Duma Irina Khakamada, the US armed
operation in Afghanistan can be regarded as a retaliatory measure only from a
formal point of view. "Actually the operation is being used to reach definite
strategic and political goals, specifically, the creation on the territory of
that country of a regime, which would be more loyal to the USA, with the
silent support of some Arab countries," she said. At the same time, she
continued, the US armed operation in Afghanistan is in line with the
interests of the recently-created anti-terrorist coalition. But the
consequences of the bombing of Afghanistan may be very grave. Reply acts of
terrorism on the territory of countries supporting the USA should not be
ruled out.

Frants Klintsevich, first deputy head of the Unity faction in the Duma,
believes that the USA started the operation "in too much haste". The USA
obviously underestimates Russia's experience in staging special operations
against terrorists in Chechnya. The experience shows the inefficiency of
massive bombing and the use of missiles, he said. Klintsevich expressed doubt
over the possibility of the Taleban regime starting armed operations against
the Central Asian republics bordering on Afghanistan. At the same time, he
believes that in case of a large-scale US operation in Afghanistan, the USA
will be regarded as an aggressor, which may have unpredictable consequences.

There are people at the Duma who have their own opinion of the latest
developments. For instance, Nikolay Kovalev, ex-director of the Federal
Security Service, regards the operation in Afghanistan as "a gross strategic
mistake made by the USA". "The nation, the religion and the country should
not be held responsible for the actions of a handful of terrorists," First
Deputy Speaker of the Duma Ms Lyubov Sliska said.

*******

#8
strana.ru
October 8, 2001
Taliban: Coming - ready or not!
Uzbekistan is forced to make a decision - and fast
By Victoria Whall

Last week, The Russian Observer reported on rumblings of uncertainty being
voiced among the ranks of the anti-terror coalition about offering all out
support to the U.S. in its efforts to eradicate international terrorism.
Uzbekistan was one of several Central Asian CIS members to express doubts.
President Islam Karimov had cold feet about letting U.S. forces use
Uzbekistan air bases in its military effort, despite reports that U.S. planes
had been utilizing the bases for the past week. Evidently something had
scared the president, in the interim - or someone.

At a meeting on October 5th, Mr. Karimov parried Mr. Rumsfeld's attempt to
get Uzbekistan back on side, by giving the U.S. permission to use its air
space and one of its air bases. Moderate though it was, this concession was
apparently as far as Mr. Karimov was prepared to go.

According to intelligence gathered by the American Forces Press Services,
Islam Karimov made it very clear that access would be limited to cargo
aircraft and their crews, helicopters and troops, and that the sole purpose
of such deployments would be to engage in search and rescue operations.
Karimov announced that " We are against the usage of our territory for land
operations against Afghanistan, and we are against air strikes executed from
the territory of Uzbekistan", adding that U.S. special operations troops
would not be allowed to operate from Uzbekistani territory. "We are not ready
for that" , he said.

This is a theme that the Russian newspaper "Izvestia' appears to be echoing
in an article due to be published Tuesday. Discussing the Afghan-Uzbek border
- which for Russia is currently a matter of great concern since Uzbekistan
lies on Russia's southern border - the author of the article says that
although Russia is morally prepared to secure the Afghan-Uzbek border,
materially it is not. More to the point, he continues, neither is Uzbeskistan.

If "Izvestia's' assertions are to be believed, the U.S. lacks the necessary
political will to commit itself to maintaining the border for as long as it
takes to rid the region of Taliban insurgency threats. The paper estimates
that such a commitment would involve American forces remaining in the region
for up to five, ten or even a hundred years.

With 8,000 Taliban soldiers positioning themselves on the Afghanistan side of
the border early Monday, this threat must be on President Putin's mind.
Donald Rumsfeld is being pressured from all sides of this security issue.
Uzbekistani President Islam Karimov, according to an article due for
publication in "Vremya Novostye', wants Washington's word of assurance that
all U.S. subdivisions will be withdrawn from the country as soon as the
Afghanistan operation is complete, so that it can minimize the fallout from
domestic Taliban sympathizers.

In the same article, the author was quick to note that given Uzbekistan's
geographical position, "no one can guarantee that the U.S. will not change
its task in the course of the ant-terror campaign and that it will not
replace search and rescue operations with assaults and attacks".

Having similarly assessed Uzbekistan's undeniable geographical value in its
military campaign, and perhaps fearing Mr. Karimov would buckle again, the
U.S. was anxious to gain a more solid foothold. It wasted no time in sending
approximately one thousand American troops from the 10th Mountain Division at
Fort Drum New York to an undisclosed Uzbekistani air base on Friday.

"Izvestia' suggests that Central Asia - meaning Uzbekistan - is at risk of
losing its independence during the conflict, and that only the U.S. and/or
Russia will be in a position to protect Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the long
run. If "Izvestia's' analysis warrants serious consideration then the
question remains: To whom will President Karimov ultimately turn - the U.S.,
Russia, a combination of the two, or even Islamic extremists?

*******

#9
Uzbeks Take Strikes in Stride
October 8, 2001
By BURT HERMAN

TERMEZ, Uzbekistan (AP) - The U.S.-led strikes against Afghanistan did little
to disturb the daily routine Monday in neighboring Uzbekistan, where laborers
headed to cotton fields and children marched off to school as they do every
day.

Life went on as usual in this hard-scrabble Central Asian nation despite
Sunday's missile attacks and air raids on Afghanistan. While Uzbekistan is
separated from Afghanistan only by the Amu-Darya River, Uzbeks say they have
virtually no fear of their neighbors to the south.

``People in Termez already know war. They are not afraid,'' said 43-year-old
Yeshdavlat Khodshankulov. ``If the Taliban shoot at us, then we will also
make war. It's our homes, our families. We will guard our homes.''

Uzbek troops along the border with Afghanistan were put on alert Sunday while
officials ordered a partial evacuation of the civilian population from areas
near the border. Uzbek troops remained in place, Mirakbar Rakhmankulov,
secretary of the National Security Council, said in the capital Tashkent on
Monday.

``There have been no movements of military units on the territory of
Uzbekistan. The (Uzbek) troops remain at the places of their permanent
stationing,'' he said, reading from a statement at the Uzbek Foreign
Ministry.

Uzbekistan's president gave permission Friday for U.S. warplanes and troops
to use an Uzbek air base and the U.S. Army sent 1,000 infantry soldiers
there. They were to be on standby to come to the aid of any U.S. special
forces that might run into trouble operating inside Afghanistan.

But Rakhmankulov on Monday denied there were American troops in the country.
``There are no Rangers, no special forces, no soldiers from the 10th infantry
division'' on Uzbek soil, he said.

He also announced that President Islam Karimov had postponed a trip to
Austria that was to take place this week.

Meanwhile, security was increased at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent.

At a former Soviet air base in Khanabad, about 90 miles north of the
Uzbek-Afghan border, a large military transport aircraft was seen taking off
around dawn Monday and heading south.

There was no sign of heightened activity at the border. Workers continued
previously planned reinforcements, stringing barbed wire along an electric
fence along the border. Local United Nations officials said there appeared to
be no immediate need for emergency supplies in the area.

Before the U.S. attacks began, the Taliban said in a statement that they had
sent thousands of troops to the border with Uzbekistan. The claim could not
be independently verified.

Russia's Interfax news agency reported Saturday that Taliban troops were
moving long-range artillery and multiple rocket launchers toward the border,
including some within range of Termez. But Rakhmankulov said such reports
were ``false'' and were aimed at causing confusion and anxiety.

``No amassing is taking place near the border of Uzbekistan,'' he said.

Many Uzbeks took the potential threat in stride - even in Termez, which was a
major base for the Soviet army's failed 1979-89 campaign in Afghanistan.

``War is war. We're not afraid,'' said a woman who gave only her first name,
Maya. ``Afghanistan is far away.''

*******

#10
Tajikistan says will open airspace, bases to U.S.

DUSHANBE, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Tajikistan said on Monday it was prepared to
allow U.S. forces to use its air bases for military actions in Afghanistan,
some 24 hours after their first strikes in the country.

"The Republic of Tajikistan has declared its readiness to open its airspace
to the U.S. air force and, should it prove necessary, its airports for
carrying out measures against terrorism," a government statement said.

This was the first such declaration by the central Asian republic, which has
a 1,300-km (800-mile) border with Afghanistan. Tajikistan had previously said
only that it was ready to help the fight against "terrorism," without any
specific measures.

Japanese envoy Muneo Suzuki had said earlier on Monday, after meeting Tajik
President Imomali Rakhmonov, that agreement had been reached to allow U.S.
forces to use the bases.

"We, Tajikistan and Japan, have one and the same position towards the fight
against terrorism, and we... support the U.S. action," Suzuki said.

"Tajikistan confirmed that it would allow the use of air space for the
Americans and also the use, if necessary, of aerodromes for American troops,"
Suzuki told a news conference.

Meanwhile, security chiefs from Russia, Tajikistan and four other former
Soviet republics, alarmed by the prospect of a flow of refugees from
Afghanistan, worked out measures to tighten border security at a meeting in
Dushanbe, Russian Security Council secretary Vladimir Rushailo said.

This would mean boosting security along the borders of the six countries,
tightening visa procedures and stepping up the activity of internal forces
and military units, he told journalists.

The other four countries belonging to a collective security treaty tied to
the Commonwealth of Independent States are the Central Asian states of
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus and Armenia.

Tajikistan was swift to support Sunday's air strikes against Taliban-ruled
Afghanistan.

"Tajikistan has more than once suffered from terrorism and supports...the
U.S. government and its forces in dealing with the fight against
international terrorism," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

"The Tajik government noted... that it would cooperate with countries in the
spheres of exchanging information on terrorism, extremism and radicalism."

The impoverished Central Asian state, racked by civil war fuelled by an
Islamic fundamentalist uprising in the 1990s, had previously said it could
not get involved in another country's conflict.

"The (Tajik) army will not get involved in any kind of conflict or military
action in other countries... The military is only used for the country's
defence," a Defence Ministry spokesman told Reuters.

He said the border with Afghanistan was quiet.

Neighbouring Uzbekistan, like Tajikistan a Muslim former Soviet republic, has
also made an airport available to U.S. forces but said it would only be used
for humanitarian or rescue missions in Afghanistan.

*******

#11
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
October 6, 2001
RUSSIA AND US: FRIENDS? RIVALS? PARTNERS?
America and Russia are shaping a new relationship
Author: Edward Batalov, Victor Kremenyuk
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

THE TRAGEDY OF THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US HAS BECOME A DIVIDING LINE IN MODERN HISTORY. IN TIME, RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES WILL HAVE TO SHAPE A NEW RELATIONSHIP. WHAT THIS WILL BE LIKE REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT IT HAS TO INVOLVE A REJECTION OF SOME OLD HABITS.

Now, after the tragedy that struck the United States on September
11, everything about that country is being viewed from the standpoint
of that Tuesday's frightening events and their possible fatal
consequences. This includes the relationship between our countries.

The relationship between the US and Russia may also develop
differently in the near future. But this relationship has its own
history and logic, determined by a number of factors. At present,
trying to clarify this history and logic, to understand why much of
what each nation wanted has not come to pass, and how our relationship
can develop further, is no less important than an adequate response to
the challenge of international terrorism.

DO WE NEED EACH OTHER?

A question arises: do our two countries need each other in the
present circumstances? Seeing that America is not yet its friend,
although no longer an enemy, would it not be better for Russia to turn
its back on the US and look for partners and friends elsewhere?

Evidently not. Russia needs America if it wants to follow the
path of democracy and progress in future.

Well, does America need Russia? The question is all the more
relevant, seeing that the keynote in numerous statements by American
politicians and publicists is as follows: "The US can do without
Russia." Not that Russia would be totally ignored, but interaction
with it would basically be limited to its "nuclear role".

VIEWPOINTS

In considering the question of reviving constructive relations
between Russia and America, it is worth outlining certain general
viewpoints from which both parties could resolve the political,
economic, military and other problems they are concerned about.

For Russia, this means:

- fundamentally rejecting anti-Americanism as a political creed
and the basis of military, political, and economic alliances with
other countries. Whatever coolness or even temporary breach in
relations between Russia and the US might occur in future, this must
no longer serve as grounds for another transformation of America into
our "enemy";
- rejection of unnecessary confrontation with the US (as long as
this does not contradict our national interests), toward which Russia
could be pushed by certain internal and external forces;
- rejection of attempts to compete with America (as the USSR did)
in every arena of global interaction. Well-founded, selective
"isolationism" for a certain period may prove useful for Russia;
- rejection of making relations with the US the core of Russian
foreign and defense policy, i.e. not centering this on the US. The
optimal choice seems to be coordinating policy on the United States
with policy in other areas, and considering relations with the US in
the general context of Russia's foreign and defense policy.
Now, what could the US viewpoints on with Russia be like? They
should probably include the following:
- rejection of any kind of "crusades" aiming at making Russia
happy. Russia has every right to structure domestic policy any way it
pleases, corresponding to its national interests;
- rejection of anti-Russianism as a political creed and the basis
of military, political, and economic alliances with other countries;
- rejection of publicly humiliating Russia.

It looks like these viewpoints could help to settle some specific
issues.

These are international security issues where both parties have
particularly similar interests.

These are the so-called regional questions: Europe (above all,
the Balkans), the Middle East and Persian Gulf, South Asia, and the
Far East.

These are bilateral relations issues concerning trade, scientific
(including space) and cultural cooperation, the status of the Russian
community in the US and interaction between the two countries'
citizens, development of cooperation in the sphere of education, and
so on.

Now, this agenda needs to be extended to at least one other
issue: the battle against international terrorism.

NOT THE STATE ALONE

Who should assume the heavy burden of working to restructure the
Russian-American relationship? First of all - the executive branch,
headed by the president.

A significant role in shaping foreign policy, including policy on
the United States, could be played by our two houses of parliament, as
the example of the US Congress shows.

However, international relations cannot be reduced to relations
between governments. An important role in foreign policy in democratic
countries is played by non-government organizations and citizens'
associations defending the interests of both society in general and
specific sectors. Which institutions in Russian society could take
part in shaping a new relationship with the US? First, business and
the media.

Our academic community should also be among the participants in
this process.

Youth groups, women's groups, sports organizataions, and
professional associations (doctors, lawyers, artists, etc.) could also
contribute to shaping a new Russian-American relationship. Besides,
thousands of Russian citizens working or studying in the US could also
make their presence felt. Participation of Russian non-government
organizations and associations in shaping a new relationship between
yesterday's enemies, one which is in the interests of both Russia and
America, as well as the rest of the world, could serve as a
substantial positive incentive to this process and in time pave the
way for solving the problems which Russian and American governments
are not yet able to overcome.

NO HURRY FOR DEFINITIONS

What kind of relationship are we going to shape with the US?
Friendship? Alliance? Partnership? Or maybe something else - something
unprecedented in the history of global politics?

In this situation, we think it reasonable to reject any a priori
definition of the type of relationship between Russia and America in
the near future. No one needs a "friendship", "alliance", or
"partnership" that exists only on paper.

Instead, today we need a calm, sober, purposeful, and systematic
dialogue between these two great nations and their leaders. There is a
need to seek mutually acceptable solutions. To put it another way,
there is a need for persistent, serious work. Preferably without any
utopian dreams. But if the joint effort results in an actual
"strategic partnership" or something similar, Russia, it seems, can
only welcome this.

(Translated by P. Pikhnovsky)

******

#12
Obshchaya Gazeta
No. 40
October 4, 2001
A RACE AGAINST APOCALYPSE
To perish or to survive - that's the question civilization now faces
Author: Dmitry Furman
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

A GLOBAL ORDER IS PRESENTED AS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO AN INEVITABLE APOCALYPSE. COUNTERING THE RISK OF DISASTERS SIMILAR TO CHERNOBYL CATASTROPHE, THE KURSK SINKING, REGULAR OIL LEAKS FROM TANKERS, MUST BE INTERNATIONAL - JUST AS THE THREATS POSED BY THEM ARE INTERNATIONAL.

The terrorist attacks in the US resemble a first attack of a
disease, which has for long been progressing in an organism, and felt
even as a common ailment but has not been realized. Now the disease
has crossed the barrier and one cannot disregard it anymore.
Tremendous destructive abilities of terrorist groups seem to be one
manifestation of our "man-made fragility."

As is seen more or less clearly what the disease is about, it is
also clear where doctors and pills must be sought. We would not reject
equipment, and would not stop the "globalization." The only way is to
seek for a rescue in the source of dangers - the aforementioned
equipment and "globalization."

Hotbeds of terrorism may appear again and again. In the long run,
it makes no sense destructing the existing terrorist networks and
admit at the same time that the national authorities, which frequently
follow extremely narrow and self-interested motifs, would create new
hotbeds of terrorism wherefrom it would afterwards spread worldwide.
If combating terrorism must be a cause of the entire "civilized
humanity," prevention of "terrorist-caused situations" like those in
Chechnya or Palestine must also be the cause of the entire "civilized
humanity." Moreover, fragility of our world displays itself not in
perils of the terrorism alone. Countering the risk of disasters
similar to Chernobyl catastrophe, the Kursk sinking, regular oil leaks
from tankers, must be international - just as the threats posed by
them are international.

Thus, it is clear that a creation of a whole system of world
power, which would finally finish in establishing a united world
state, can be the only response to global threats posed to the
rallying and fragile world. This is a clearly outlined agenda of the
21st century. The making of it is underway already. Court-martials in
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, arrests of Lazarenko, Pinochet and Borodin,
various "inspections" of the UN, OSCE, and the Council of Europe,
NATO's operation in Kosovo and many other examples - are numerous and
diverse manifestations of this process. However, terrorist attacks on
Washington and New York would become its powerful moving force. It was
not the US the terrorists delivered the most dreadful strike on. On
the contrary, the US's role as a leading power in the cause of
combating the world terrorism is even likely to increase now.
Terrorists delivered a blow on the principle of non-intervention in
the interior affairs and the state sovereignty. At the time even we,
who had painfully perceived NATO's actions in former Yugoslavia, do
not mind against actions in "sovereign Afghanistan" and "intervention"
into its "interior affairs."

The process of establishing an integral world system of power
would be accelerated now. However, it would still be a long-lasting
and painful process of "detecting" principally new forms of legal
order and organization, which would clash with colossal and diverse
resistance.

Finally, this process must result in appearance of a worldwide
democratic society, where the principle "one person - one vote" would
be realized. A similar society alone complies with our values and such
a society alone can provide for a real stable order. Even though the
final target can be like this only, the process of establishing a
world state envisages elements of paternalism and dictate, and the
liberal minority, imposing the standards which, in case they are not
observed, would bring to cessation of all. The civilized humanity must
now inevitably assume the authoritative role of a policeman, a
teacher, and of a "civilizer." No other way exists and, as we see, now
the "civilized" states with the US at the head have been making
decisions of the future of Afghanistan, at best seeking for advice of
individual "civilized" Afghans. Very importantly is to keep in mind
that the "value" of an Afghan's personality is worth that of an
American or an Englishman, and that finally this principle must
obligatorily be shaped legally.

"Civilized" humanity has entered the path at which they would
have to combine incompatible, to go against their own principles
without disavowing them and keeping them in mind. This is a path at
which it is very easy to be "carried away" with the position of one's
leadership and dictate and yield to a natural yearning to ensure it;
it is also very easy to "mix" the task of humanity's survival with
one's own profits, rescue of global civilization with saving General
Motors. It is the way, which requires colossal endurance, intellectual
honesty, a difficult-to-obtain mixture to be ready to claim
responsibility and realization of one's own narrow-mindedness. It is a
long and difficult path, which would occupy the whole of the century,
which has begun with such scary events. However, there is merely no
other way and we have already treaded on this path. It is not that we
cannot follow it, since there is a sole option to establishing a world
order and world power - an apocalypse, the rehearsal of which we could
watch on TV.

(Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin)

*******

#13
Russia's Kursk sub heads home after lifting success
October 8, 2001
By Natalia Andreassen

MURMANSK, Russia (Reuters) - The wreck of Russia's Kursk nuclear submarine
headed to port Monday after a marathon salvage operation raised it from the
Arctic seabed, more than a year after it sank with the loss of all 118 crew.

Larissa van Seumeren, spokeswoman for Dutch salvage contractors Mammoet, said
the wreck of the Kursk was secured to the Giant-4 barge about 7 p.m. (11 a.m.
EDT).

The operation to raise the 18,000-ton Kursk 330 feet off the seabed took a
little more than 15 hours.

The barge then set a course for dry dock in the town of Roslyakovo, outside
the northern port city of Murmansk, where the Kursk was to be delivered, she
said. The voyage would take about two days.

Experts there will try to determine the cause of the Aug. 12, 2000 disaster,
and cut out the submarine's arsenal of cruise missiles.

Two massive explosions sent the Kursk, one of Russia's most modern vessels,
to the bottom of the Barents Sea. The successful completion of the salvage
operation is unlikely to end the mystery surrounding the Kursk's demise.

Salvage teams sawed off the badly damaged bow section -- containing the
torpedo tubes that are thought to have been the epicenter of the blasts. That
part is due to be lifted in a separate operation next year.

Officials have said that all primary evidence as to the cause of the
explosions was likely destroyed by the blasts.

When experts have finished studying the wreck, the Kursk will be sealed and
towed to a nearby shipyard at Snezhnogorsk, where its nuclear fuel will be
unloaded and the vessel cut up.

KURSK COMING HOME

The nerve-racking task of freeing the giant submarine from the muddy sea
floor started after divers installed radiation monitors at the wreck and made
last-minute checks.

The Kursk finally rose off the ocean floor late Sunday, more than three hours
after crews began trying to winch the vessel's stern from the muddy seabed.

The lifting pressure was then transferred slowly forward in a delicate
operation aimed at retrieving the submarine intact. Once free, the
492-foot-long vessel was raised at the pace of about 33 feet an hour.

The Kursk disaster and the botched efforts to rescue the stricken crew
shocked Russia, and saw President Vladimir Putin attacked for his failure to
break off a Black Sea vacation to handle the crisis.

Putin later vowed to raise the Kursk at any cost and return the sailors'
remains to their families for burial.

An official commission is mulling three main theories into the sinking: a
torpedo malfunction; a mine; collision with another submarine.

The lifting operation was set for Sept. 15 but was delayed by bad weather and
technical difficulties.

******

#14
Families of Russian plane crash victims denounce official "cover-up"

SOCHI, Russia, Oct 8 (AFP) -
Distraught families of the victims of the Black Sea plane crash accused the
Russian authorities Monday of trying to cover up the causes of a mid-air
explosion that has been linked to a misfired Ukrainian missile.

Around 100 relatives of the mainly Israeli victims gathered in a hotel in the
Black Sea resort of Sochi to be briefed on the possible causes and legal
consequences of Thursday's tragedy.

Russia initially blamed a terrorist attack for the blast on the Sibir Tupolev
airliner around 180 kilometres (110 miles) south of Sochi which cost the
lives of at least 76 people.

But Ukraine sent a top-level delegation to Sochi Monday after persistent
reports that an S-200 ground-to-air missile could have accidentally shot down
the plane during military exercises in the Crimean peninsula.

Ukraine's President Leonid Kuchma refused to rule out the possibility that a
Ukrainian missile was responsible for the tragedy.

"It is technically impossible" that a missile hit the plane, but "everything
is possible theoretically," Kuchma told journalists in Kiev.

"We are interested in learning the truth as never before, no matter what the
truth might be."

Defence Minister Olexander Kuzmuk has vehemently dismissed the missile
theory, and General Volodymir Tkachov, head of the air defence corps, said
Monday that "all the data shows that Ukraine is not implicated in this
catastrophe."

US authorities have said they believe a Ukrainian missile was involved in the
blast on the Sibir flight from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk.

In Sochi, angry relatives turned on Russian officials, accusing them of
"doing nothing" to solve the mystery of the crash, or "not giving straight
answers" or even "lying."

"We have done nothing but listen to a lot of hot air since we have arrived
here," one female relative cried in rage.

"Will you finally tell us what caused the catastrophe? On television, they
say they found pieces of a missile in the plane," a man demanded, referring
to reports that "foreign parts" had been recovered among the wreckage.

"The Americans say they have seen the missile. But you hide the truth from
us, who have the right to know what truly happened," an elderly mourner said.

Alexander Saltanov, a senior Russian foreign ministry official, sought to
calm tempers at the meeting by explaining that experts and crash
investigators were still searching the wreckage for clues.

"Until the investigation is completed, I cannot tell you whether it was a
missile or something else, or whether the plane was blown up from the inside
or the outside," Saltanov added.

Some Israeli relatives berated Sibir airline's management for its reluctance
to pay their expenses in Sochi beyond Wednesday, even though the
investigation could drag on for much longer.

"You can stay here after October 10 if you want, but that will have to be at
your own expense," Sibir boss Vladislav Filev told the relatives.

Russian salvage teams have so far recovered the bodies of only 15 of the
estimated 76 people who were aboard the stricken plane.

*******

#15
Ukraine military sticks to denial in plane crash
By Olena Horodetska

KIEV, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Ukraine's military continued to deny Monday that a
rogue missile blew up a Russian airliner last week, killing 78, as angry
and grieving relatives visited the Black Sea crash site.

But President Leonid Kuchma, facing pressure from Russia to disclose more
about the missile exercises on the Crimean peninsula last Thursday, stopped
short of ruling out that a Ukrainian rocket could have gone wildly off
course.

"Technically it is impossible, but theoretically everything is possible,"
Kuchma told reporters. "Following a catastrophe all theories should be
discussed, but only by experts."

The Defense Ministry insisted for the fifth consecutive day that it had not
caused the mid-air explosion, but it backtracked on previous statements
about where exactly its missiles fell.

Speculation as to the cause of the crash has increasingly turned to a
missile strike, after U.S. officials said spy satellite data showed a
missile plume near the crash area.

Russian investigators said they had found debris at the wreck site that
could not have come from the Tu-154 jet that was flying from Tel Aviv to
Novosibirsk in Siberia.

But the man in charge of the missile launches, Lieutenant-General Volodymyr
Tkachyov, said Monday a fresh review of launch data showed his troops were
not at fault.

"All the data we have shows that the Ukrainian anti-aircraft corps were not
involved in this accident," he told reporters.

Tkachyov displayed military maps and video footage of long-range S200
missiles, designed to knock planes out of the sky, being launched from the
Crimean coast.

UKRAINE MILITARY BACKTRACKS

He said one S200 had been fired at the time of the plane crash and it
landed in the Black Sea about 50 miles from the shore, while the plane
crashed about 167 miles away.

The Defense Ministry had previously said all 23 missiles fired had remained
within a 25-mile zone of the launch site. Tkachyov gave no reason for the
discrepancy and declined to say how many of the missiles launched were S200s.

Controversy surrounding the plane crash comes 18 months after Ukraine's
Defense Ministry spent days denying that a rogue missile blew up an
apartment block in the town of Brovary, killing four.

It admitted responsibility only when rescue workers found a piece of the
missile in the ruins.

There have been few concrete clues in the Russian probe so far and the
black box flight recorders remain more than 3,300 feet below the surface.

Air traffic controllers heard a short scream from the cockpit just as the
plane disappeared from radar screens.

More bereaved relatives arrived in the Russian Black Sea port of Sochi late
Sunday on a special flight from Tel Aviv.

So far just eight of 15 bodies in a local morgue have been identified.

A group of 46 relatives left the port early Monday for the 6-hour voyage to
the crash site, where salvage workers say rough seas and strong winds are
hampering their efforts to recover more bodies and debris.

Russian-born Lesya Sirovsky, 27, traveled to Sochi from Israel and was one
of the few to identify a victim -- her mother who had been returning home
to Siberia.

"I think it's because of this missile and so do all the other relatives,"
she said. "They may say whatever they want. But sooner or later the truth
will be known to everybody. Whoever is guilty should be made to pay for
this."

******

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