October 9, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5482

Johnson's Russia List
#5482
9 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. Vremya MN: Leonid Radzikhovsky, SOMEONE ELSE'S WAR. What ordinary Russians think of the strikes against Afghanistan.
2. Christian Science Monitor: Fred Weir, Terror war fallout could create Central Asia fronts.
3. BBC Monitoring: Russian military expert sounds note of warning on consequences of Afghan strikes. (Leonid Ivashov)
4. BBC Monitoring: "Hundreds" of Russian military advisers with Afghan Northern Alliance - TV.
5. Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - A progressive revelation or "Who is Putin", part II.
6. Robert Chandler: Happy Moscow event.
7. Moscow Times: Boris Kagarlitsky, Lessons in Passing the Buck.
8. Washington Post: Sam Nunn, Our New Security Framework.
9. Trud: Yevgeny Primakov, THE WORLD AFTER SEPTEMBER 11.
10. New York Times: Michael Wines, Tying Russia to West, Putin Unveils Strategy, but Risks Backlash.
11. Reuters: Ukraine seeks to dispel jet crash missile theory.
12. Reuters: Tajikistan says will let no U.S. troops on its soil.]

*******

#1
Vremya MN
October 9, 2001
SOMEONE ELSE'S WAR
What ordinary Russians think of the strikes against Afghanistan
Author: Leonid Radzikhovsky
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

RUSSIA CONSIDERS THE WAR AGAINST AFGHANISTAN TO BE SOMEONE ELSE'S WAR. IT MAY BE CONDEMNED, IT MAY BE SYMPATHIZED WITH, BUT PUBLIC OPINION WILL NOT TOLERATE RUSSIA'S INVOLVEMENT. THIS IS THE PUBLIC OPINION THE AUTHORITIES MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, NO MATTER WHAT POLITICAL GOALS THEY MAY BE PURSUING.

Russia's official position is known. The Russian government is
making a clear and significant "turn" to the West. Gorbachev and
Yeltsin created in Russia a socioeconomic system copied from the West
and integrated Russia into the global Western economic system; and it
is now up to Putin to take the next step. He has to enter into a
formal military-political alliance with the West, join NATO, and
integrate Russia as an equal into the global Western military-
political system. The American-Afghani war gives Russia a unique
chance to do it all.
But Putin is president of a relatively democratic nation. Whether
he wants to or not, he has to take public opinion into account. Public
opinion is known too. 60% of the population of Pakistan condemns the
United States. I think figures in Russia are approximately the same.
It is a different matter altogether that no one in Russia is going to
declare a jihad on America. There will be no anti-American
demonstrations like those in front of the US Embassy during the
aggression against Yugoslavia.
... All the same, the people will repeat the words about
"American terrorists", they will gleefully speculate on America's real
or imagined failures, losses among noncombatants, etc. Moreover, there
will be constant speculations in the kitchens about American invasion
of "our" Central Asia.
All this is more or less clear. Something else is more
interesting - the motives of the persistent anti-Americanism in
Russia. Conscience of an average Russian is split into "thought-tight"
compartments. Trust in Putin is in one compartment. Rejection (radical
rejection, essentially) of his policy is in another. Rejection of
terrorists in Russia is in the third, and sympathies towards
terrorists in Palestine and Afghanistan and disapproval of the
American counter-terrorism operation in Afghanistan is yet another.
Putin's attempt to bring down these walls (his words about
international terrorism, bin Laden's connections with the Chechens -
in short, an attempt to explain that Russia and the West are facing a
common enemy) has failed.
Motives of the obstinate "anti-American itch" felt by millions of
Russians are clear. They involve envy of the wealthy, self-confident,
and frequently tactless America. They involve the paranoid habit of
attributing everything in the world to the cunning plots of the United
States and "Zionists".
There are more pathological motives as well. "Do Russians want a
war?" Everyone knows that they do not. So, understandably enough,
Russians fear that the United States may get just a bit too careless
with matches close to the Russian powder keg - and ignite it all. This
is probably the general feeling and desire in Russia. Anything other
than war. Anything but involvement in a massacre initiated by someone
else. This is a feeling that defies all possible objections.
Objectively, it is going to work against the Americans. After all,
Russia fears a war in relation to their actions.
There is another interesting psychological nuance here. The
Russian public sympathizes with the West, but does not take
"international terrorists" seriously. It fears war against them.
Russians do not fear terrorists, they do not perceive them as a
personal threat. Many Russians condemn and even hate Islamic
terrorists but they do so out of general ideological considerations,
not because of any personal involvement. The terrorist attacks in New
York do not scare Russian citizens. The experience of six years of the
Chechen war tells Russian citizens that they don't suffer from it
personally (unless they happen to have a son of conscription age); nor
do they come to any harm from terrorists, even those operating in
Russia, not in distant America. Terror is somewhere else - somewhere
it does not affect me directly. That is why all arguments about the
deadly danger of Islamic terrorism and "war between civilizations"
remain purely academic speculations. The fear that Russia may find
itself drawn into a war in Afghanistan or Central Asia (regardless of
whether or not the war is just) is more tangible.
Russia considers the war unfolding on its borders to be someone
else's war. It may be condemned, it may be sympathized with, but
public opinion will not tolerate Russia's involvement. This is the
public opinion the authorities must take into account, no matter what
political goals they may be pursuing.

*******

#2
Christian Science Monitor
October 9, 2001
Terror war fallout could create Central Asia fronts
Uzbekistan is rushing soldiers to its border with Afghanistan, as US sends
1,000 troops to area.
By Fred Weir
Special to The Christian Science Monitor

MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin applauded US-led strikes on
terror bases in Afghanistan yesterday, but Russian experts warn that the
situation could fly out of control if the Taliban decide to widen the war
into Central Asia.

"The Taliban have made it clear that they intend to invade Uzbekistan, and
this has Uzbek leaders very worried," says Andrei Grozin, head of the
Central Asia section of the Russian government's official Institute for
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Studies. "Uzbekistan is rushing
troops to the border and urgently beefing up its defenses." On Saturday,
the US Army dispatched 1,000 soldiers to the Central Asian nation.

A Taliban incursion across the Afghan border into Uzbekistan "would change
the whole map of the fighting" says Mr. Grozin, perhaps forcing Russia to
intervene.

"The Uzbek army is not capable of resisting any major Taliban attack, and
Russia would almost certainly have to come to its assistance," says Sergei
Kazyonnov, an expert with the independent Institute of National Security
and Strategic Studies.

The Taliban claim to have 10,000 troops massing on the Uzbek border.
Russian experts say that even if that is a gross exaggeration, the threat
is dire. The most likely type of incursion would be groups of a few dozen
Taliban guerrillas who slip through Uzbek lines, says Grozin - a threat the
Uzbek Army is ill-prepared to combat.

Last year, a group of about 100 armed militants of the Taliban-connected
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan killed scores of Uzbek soldiers, and
penetrated to within 62 miles of the capital, Tashkent.

Neighboring Tajikistan is less vulnerable, Grozin says, but also very
unstable. About 30,000 Russian troops are in the country, including the
210st Motorized Rifle Division, which guards the Tajik-Afghan border.
"Without the Russians, Tajikistan would fall apart," Grozin says. "There
are a lot of unofficial armed groups in the mountains, who remain a serious
threat. Tajikistan is quite vulnerable to penetration and subversion," by
Islamic extremists.

Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are also concerned that they will be unable to
cope with a potential wave of refugees from Afghanistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has pledged to share intelligence, make
available three Russian air corridors for "humanitarian assistance" to the
war zone, drop his former objections to US use of military bases in
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, provide arms to Afghans fighting against the
Taliban, and perhaps participate in non-combat "search and rescue missions"
inside Afghanistan.

On Monday Russia openly began supplying some $45 million in old Soviet-made
guns, artillery, and tanks to the Afghan resistance fighters, known as the
Northern Alliance.

But Russia may be doing much more in secret. Two experts say that the 201st
Motorized Rifle Division in Tajikistan began throwing pontoon bridges
across the Pyandzh River and establishing positions inside Afghanistan last
week. The bridges are to transport military and humanitarian supplies to
the Northern Alliance.

"Russian troops are already fighting in Afghanistan, to protect their
bridgeheads against Taliban attacks," says Pavel Felgenhauer, a leading
Russian military expert. "Unmarked Russian fighter bombers have been seen
hitting Taliban positions in recent days. The reality is that Russia is
already in this war".

Grozin agrees: "It is not officially admitted, of course, but Russian
military advisers are already fighting with the Northern Alliance against
the Taliban. Russia is already seriously involved in the conflict, and will
fulfill all its commitments to the limit of its resources. Though Russia is
already fighting in Chechnya, and can ill afford a second front, the
Taliban represent the worst threat and have to be opposed. If the Taliban
are not stopped before CIS borders, the dangers will multiply out of control."

******

#3
BBC Monitoring
Russian military expert sounds note of warning on consequences of Afghan
strikes
Source: NTV, Moscow, in Russian 1800 gmt 8 Oct 01

[Presenter] The current situation in Afghanistan poses a particular threat to
the southern borders of the CIS, for Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
The fact is that the Taleban effectively announced today that they were
declaring war on Uzbekistan, which is host to what are at the moment only
small numbers of Americans.

Our guest is Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical
Problems [and former head of the Defence Ministry's main department for
international military cooperation].

Hello, Leonid Grigoriyevich. How real then is the threat right now of the
southern Central Asian states of the CIS being dragged into the Afghan
conflict and, indeed, Russia itself since one way or another we have a
geographical presence in the region. We have interests there.

[Ivashov] Good evening, Aleksandr. The point is that this demonstration of
the military might of the United States and all the strikes currently being
dealt Afghanistan right now are not making the situation in the region any
simpler. What's more, they're making it more confused and more complex.

After all, you can't fail to see that since the acts of retribution began,
relations between the region's states and political forces have deteriorated.
There was talk today that Pakistan is becoming more wary as regards India.
Within Pakistan there are two possible ways out of the situation - either a
military dictatorship or a coup and then, nuclear weapons could end up in the
radicals' hands. President Musharraf took an incomprehensible stance today
regarding the Northern Alliance [saying they should not receive outside
support]. And, even if in the near future, as a result of support from US and
British air strikes, the Northern Alliance does achieve some military
victories, naturally, it will not be able to control the whole of
Afghanistan. And the same situation of war and chaos will go on.

[Presenter] Leonid Grigoryevich, excuse me for interrupting but we don't have
much time and I want to ask you about Uzbekistan. Is there a real threat?

[Ivashov] Yes. For our CIS republics and for Iran, the first threat lies in
the mass exodus of refugees that might head their way. The Taleban could
abandon their weapons and merge with the refugees. Secondly, we are not
currently convinced that the Northern Alliance can even hang on to
Afghanistan's northern provinces and, in this event, an exacerbation of the
situation near the borders of the CIS countries cannot be ruled out. Nor can
the possibility of a deterioration in the situation within the CIS states be
ruled out, including Uzbekistan. There are plenty of Taleban supporters
there, after all.

For this reason, Russia, which is linked to Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and
Kyrgyzstan in the Collective Security Treaty and by what is virtually the
same only a bilateral treaty with Uzbekistan, plus our obligations through
the Shanghai forum - these will force Russia to get involved, perhaps not
directly through military action but through support for our allies in the
region. So, a real danger to the CIS countries does exist and what is needed
are fairly powerful, flexible and coordinated measures regarding that danger.

*******

#4
BBC Monitoring
"Hundreds" of Russian military advisers with Afghan Northern Alliance - TV
Source: TV6, Moscow, in Russian 1500 gmt 8 Oct 01

The supply of Russian weapons to the Afghan Northern Alliance means there are
now hundreds of Russian military advisers in Afghanistan, while a prominent
MP has even suggested that Russian aviation may be used to provide air
support to the offensive against the Taleban. The following is the text of a
report on Russian TV6 on 8 October:

[Presenter] Are there Russian advisers or even servicemen in Afghanistan,
with the Northern Alliance army?

As President Putin told a government conference earlier today, the extent to
which Russia will participate in an international antiterrorist operation in
Afghanistan has been determined and will not change after the operation has
been launched.

Yet most Western and many Russian media continue to take an active interest
in whether it is only military hardware Russia is supplying the Northern
Alliance with, or, indeed, its part in the campaign is after all greater than
that the Russian authorities have admitted to.

[Correspondent] The Kremlin will tolerate the presence of US forces on the
territory of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other republics of Central Asia.
Moscow is even ready to share the information gathered by its intelligence
services: After all, its GRU [Main Intelligence Directorate army intelligence
service] operatives are considered to be among the best in Afghanistan and
Iran. In all, cooperation on a scale which would have been inconceivable
during the Cold War is in evidence.

President Putin was also among the first to offer his condolences to Bush in
the wake of the US terror attacks. He will now allow Russia's air space to be
used for flights towards Afghanistan, and has spoken of Russia's role in
humanitarian operations.

[Putin, addresses cabinet] The Russian Federation has already set out the
parameters for its involvement in the antiterrorist operations. These remain
unchanged.

You know that, among other things, we are sending humanitarian aid of all
kinds to the people of Afghanistan and we will be stepping up our efforts in
this area.

[Correspondent] For Russia and its CIS neighbours to the south, too much is
at stake: Should it back the USA and join in the civilized coalition, on a
crusade against barbaric terrorism, with the full realization that the
campaign may well fall through or get bogged down, and that it can then
easily lead to an escalation on its doorstep, in the crisis areas of Central
Asia or the Caucasus?

[Frants Klintsevich, deputy chairman of the State Duma Unity faction] If
troops are used on a large scale and there is an operation on the ground, and
if that issue is not sufficiently thought through, there is no doubt that it
will lead to unification among the diverse elements in Afghanistan, in
particular the Taleban and the Northern Alliance. That is something that is
inherent in the Afghan mindset, and Oriental overall.

[Correspondent] It is yet to be decided who will form Afghanistan's new
government, one that would take account of the interests of its Pashto,
Uzbek, Tajik and Hazara communities, and end the civil war.

[Arkadiy Dubnov, political commentator with Vremya Novostey newspaper] It is
much more important for them to deal with the situation themselves,
internally, than, shall we say, to be carried into Kabul by the force of a
Russian or American operation. So we should take care that it does not
happen. Tread with care in our relations with Afghanistan.

[Correspondent] Russia is organizing weapons supplies to the Northern
Alliance, on the offensive against the Taleban. The Alliance's commanders and
soldiers alike come mainly from the post-Soviet Central Asia. They know how
to handle a Kalashnikov, drive a T-55 tank or skilfully pilot an Mi-8
helicopter. They like Russian weaponry, reliable whatever the weather, and do
not want anything else. These are old reserves, however, the Alliance eager
for modern hardware and, some say, already in receipt of it - possibly tanks,
antitank and air defence systems, and helicopters. This means that there are
hundreds of Russian advisers or instructors now in the areas controlled by
the Northern Alliance.

[Aleksey Arbatov, deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Defence,
Yabloko faction] It is quite probable that the need will arise for the use of
Russian aviation, in order to provide air support to the Northern Alliance
offensive.

[Correspondent] The Tajik border is guarded by Russian troops, and the Uzbek
sector by the Uzbeks themselves. Any mountain border is notional, with free
movement of drugs, arms, money and militants across them. Add to that the
flood of refugees about to engulf the region, with - quite probably -
terrorists among them who will thus attempt to enter Russia, and the picture
is complete.

[Konstantin Totskiy, Federal Border Guard Service director] Other groups may
well attempt to go through our checkpoints at our very open, freely
accessible borders. We are extremely concerned about that.

[Correspondent] Russia's participation in the retaliatory strikes is likely
to be confined to what it is now, with both the USA and the coalition as a
whole appreciative of the fact that Russia is still suffering from
Afghanistan syndrome, and would prefer not to be asked for anything more than
it already is doing.

Some of Russia's most experienced generals know Afghanistan first-hand. It is
they who will resist another attempt to draw Russia into the conflict.

******

#5
From: "Peter Lavelle" <plavelle@metropol.ru>
Subject: Untimely Thoughts
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001

Peter Lavelle: Untimely Thoughts - A progressive revelation or "Who is
Putin", part II

Putin remains an enigma. Again we are faced with the already boring, but
important, question - Who is Putin? Is he really a friend or foe, a
democrat or garden variety Russian autocrat, internationalist or Russian
nationalist, visionary or cynical strategist, a modern or a Soviet
throwback? If he is the true generalissimo of anti-terrorism, why he is
trying to make contact with Chechen militants to end hostilities? If he is
now on our side, why is Russia trying to convince us Iran is not really a
supporter of international terrorists and other anti-western groups? Two
years on, Putin still defies definition. Even I am willing to consider the
man has a new vision for Russia. But how far and how fast can he take his
own military establishment without engendering intense doubt? Putin is
signaling changes in foreign policy that asks Russia to turn away from some
very old assumptions defining the country's security interests - while Ms
Rice isn't giving much ground despite some encouraging words. The clear and
present danger of the Taliban is a relatively easy issue prompting the US
and Russia to work closely together. Though it is not entirely clear Russia
can financially afford to change its foreign policy priorities in the way
Putin appears to desire. At present, Russia's macroeconomic reality
undoubtedly dictates it cannot be more than a (very) junior partner to west.
Is Russia prepared for this? Then there is what the average Russian thinks.
Clearly public opinion plays a different role here. The authorities mostly
want to know that they are not unpopular. According to one poll taken last
week, 41% of Russians still distrust the US. Living here, it is obvious to
me most (Muscovite) Russians are having a hard time understanding the post
September 11 world as defined by Putin. Most ask, with good reason, how
western overtures to Russia will impact the country's relative economic
stability. In the short run, western support of Russia's membership in the
WTO, debt forgiveness, and politically friendly decisions concerning
enhancement of Russia's oil and gas sector will obviously benefit the
country. Somehow 'understanding' Russian policy in Chechnya may have
disastrous results. In the long run, however, western good will may have
just to the exact opposite effect. Russia needs to enter the world economy
and political arena on its own strong feet. Special favors may perpetuate
some of this country's worst habits. The last decade has demonstrated that
short cuts and turning a blind eye to corruption only slows real reform. It
is it not difficult to see the smile of a Cheshire cat amongst a number of
Family members. It is quite possible we are finally seeing the real Putin;
an international crisis is allowing him to progressively reveal his true
intentions of what kind of Russia he desires to create. Or maybe Putin is no
different than Russia itself - maybe he is just making it up as he goes.
Like many of his western counter-parts, turning to foreign policy is a
convenient (and often exhilarating) relief from the mundane and frustrating
domestic policy front. Irrespective, Putin's brave new world has significant
consequences for this country's future.

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

******

#6
Subject: HAPPY MOSCOW
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 01
From: Robert Chandler <kcf19@dial.pipex.com>

Readers who happen to be in Moscow on October 25 are
invited to come to a talk and reading to launch our translation of Andrey
Platonov's great unfinished novel, "Happy Moscow" (Harvill Press).

The most often repeated slogan of the 1930s was Stalin¹s claim that ³Life
has become better, life has become merrier². In "Happy Moscow", first
published in Russia only in 1991, Platonov takes a quizzical look at
Stalin¹s cultured, prosperous and merry new capital. ³Every day², writes
one of the novel¹s heroes, ³new housing is being occupied and newly
invented machines are working away at speed. Different, splendid people
are appearing too -- only I remain as I have been, because I was born long
ago and have not been able to lose the habit of being myself.²

The talk will take place on Oct 25, at 7 pm. Location:
`Anglia' Bookshop , Khlebnyi pereulok 2/3 (Metro station Biblioteka Lenina,
next door to the USA & Canada Institute), 2nd floor.

******

#7
Moscow Times
October 9. 2001
Lessons in Passing the Buck
By Boris Kagarlitsky

Speaking in Belgium, President Vladimir Putin explained to European
politicians, softened by many years of peace, that you needn't worry too
much about civilian casualties when going to war. The rich experience of
the Chechen campaign taught the president that innocent civilians
inevitably suffer when you do battle with terrorists, but that blame for
this can be apportioned to the terrorists. Western politicians listened and
apparently liked this line of thought.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, a multitude of experts, pundits and politicians
are all repeating the same line: Now the West will review its attitude
toward Chechnya, now they will understand us. Finally they will abandon
their double standards. Although it is not said exactly what the West
should approve of, it is implicitly stated that the West should jettison
its annoying ideas about human rights. Or to be more specific: The West
needs to understand that human rights only apply to white-skinned
Christians and that applying such European inventions to Muslims and other
enemies of civilization is a "double standard."

The state should be entrusted with a license to kill; moreover, without
trial or investigation. While terrorists used to be considered those who
attack civilians, now any innocent civilian in proximity to a terrorist not
only forfeits his right to protection by the state, but can also be killed
by the state in the name of the "common cause."

By adopting such an approach, the dividing line between terrorists and a
state's armed forces ceases to exist. However, there is still a difference:
Due to better arms and numerical superiority, an army can kill many more
innocent civilians than the world's terrorists combined. And on top of
that, all the blame falls squarely on the terrorists' shoulders.

This greatly simplifies the work of law enforcement agencies. Previously,
for example, hostages had to be freed, putting at risk the lives of special
forces operatives. Now, they can quietly be wiped out along with the
terrorists.

Sadly, Western civilization's newfound defenders correctly divined a trend
that is strengthening in the West. Putin's words struck a chord with many
in Europe and even more in the United States. During the Balkan conflict,
military propagandists coined the phrase "collateral damage." This means
that casualties among civilian populations do not count, so to speak, if
they are unpremeditated, i.e. we're the good guys, so if we killed some
innocent people, well, we didn't do it on purpose. The bad guys, on the
other hand, are being bad intentionally. In Chechnya, collateral damage
accounts for tens of thousands of lives; in Iraq, the trade embargo has
probably taken hundreds of thousands of lives. In Chechnya the war is not
against innocent civilians but against Shamil Basayev and Khattab. The
Iraqi people are not the target of the embargo, only Saddam Hussein. The
tragedy is that innocent civilians are dying in droves, while Basaev,
Khattab and Saddam continue to thrive.

War does not come without casualties, and losses among civilian populations
are unavoidable. For precisely this reason any responsible politician
should do everything within his power to avoid resorting to force.

However, justifying civilian casualties in advance and giving the military
carte blanche to commit war crimes is not only amoral and irresponsible,
but also politically shortsighted. By relieving the military of blame,
politicians transfer it to themselves. This already happened in the Third
Reich, and the Nuremberg Trial dealt with the consequences.

While Arab countries have been trying (in their own interests) to
discourage Western leaders from rash actions, Russia and other states of
the former Soviet Union have come out in support of the harshest of
measures. They seem to adhere to the logic that the more blood spilled and
the more brutally the West behaves, the easier it will be for them to
justify the horrors that occur at home.

Political expediency does not always coincide with moral principals. And
Putin's position remains shortsighted. The experience of contemporary
Russia teaches us just how futile and ineffective reliance on the unlimited
use of force is.

The victors are rarely indicted for war crimes. However, not even a very
powerful army can always win, and for this reason political responsibility
comes into the equation sooner or later. The new crusade has been
proclaimed in the name of democratic principals, but it seems that it will
end up going precisely against these principals. So, it seems that it is
not just from terrorists that freedom must be safeguarded.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist.

******

#8
Washington Post
October 8, 2001
Our New Security Framework
By Sam Nunn

Yesterday's military strike in Afghanistan is the most dramatic and visible
decision President Bush has made so far in the campaign to protect the world
from terror. But it will not be the only one.

When an enemy strikes suddenly and catastrophically, decisions and actions
that would normally take five to 10 years are made in a few months. We have
an imperative now to integrate this accelerated fight against terrorism into
a new security framework that addresses the full range of dangers we face.
This strategy must contain both short-term urgent initiatives and longer-term
strategic thinking. To do so, we must understand what changed on Sept. 11,
and what did not change.

What changed was not our vulnerability to terrorism but our understanding of
it. To most Americans, the attack was unthinkable. Now our nation knows
better. The terrorists' capacity for killing is limited only by the power of
their weapons. We lost our sense of invulnerability, but we also lost our
sense of complacency.

What did not change is this: The most significant, clear and present danger
we face is the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The
question is not whether we must prepare for terrorism or for attacks with
weapons of mass destruction. These two threats are not separate but
interrelated and reinforcing, and if joined together, become our worst
nightmare.

For a half-century, the people of the United States and much of the world
have lived under threat from nuclear weapons. Many believe the end of the
Cold War was the end of that threat. It was not. The danger of a conventional
war with the former Soviet Union escalating into a nuclear holocaust has
almost disappeared, but other threats have multiplied and grown more complex
and dangerous. The specter of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass
destruction is a clear case of this.

As these new threats have multiplied, both the United States and Russia have
continued to invest large resources in nuclear strategies left over from the
Cold War days: maintenance of strategic forces with thousands of nuclear
warheads ready for immediate launch. In today's world it no longer makes
sense for either nation to stake its security so disproportionately on its
ability to promptly launch a nuclear attack with thousands of warheads. These
nuclear postures are not relevant in stopping proliferation; they compress
decision time for each president to a matter of a very few minutes; they make
an accident or misjudgment more likely, particularly with Russia's diminished
weapons survivability and decreased warning; and they multiply the
consequences of a mistake by either Russia or the United States. We must
think anew.

The threats we faced during the Cold War -- a Soviet nuclear strike or an
invasion of Europe -- were made more dangerous by Soviet strength. The new
threats -- false warnings, accidental launches, the risk of weapons,
materials and know-how falling into the wrong hands -- are made more
dangerous by Russia's weakness. We addressed the Cold War's threats by
confrontation with Moscow. There can be no realistic comprehensive plan to
defend America against weapons of mass destruction that does not depend on
cooperation with Moscow.

As the nation has begun to realize, we now face great danger from the
proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Osama bin Laden
has said acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a religious duty. And so we
find ourselves, at the dawn of the new century, in a new arms race:
Terrorists are racing to get weapons of mass destruction; we ought to be
racing to stop them.

We also must come to an agreement on missile defense -- a debate that has
been set aside since the terrorist attacks, but not because it has been
resolved. The proliferation of missile technology poses the danger that a
rogue state could develop the capability to launch a missile with a weapon of
mass destruction at a U.S. city. From my perspective, this threat is not an
immediate danger, but it cannot be dismissed because it is more distant or
because it would -- for the attacking nation -- amount to national suicide. I
believe, however, that protecting our deployed military forces is a much more
urgent threat, and mobile theater defense should be our priority focus.

Over the longer run, to the extent we can develop the means to shield
ourselves from attack through a limited missile defense, we should do so --
so long as it does not leave us more vulnerable to threats that are more
likely, more immediate and more potentially devastating. We must understand
that threat reduction, diplomacy, cooperation, military power and
intelligence are our first lines of defense against the spread of weapons of
mass destruction and terrorism. National missile defense is our last line of
defense. We have to guard against overinvesting in our last line of defense
and underinvesting in all the others.

Nuclear force posture, nonproliferation, missile defense and the fight
against terrorism each address separate elements of the threat from weapons
of mass destruction. But they must be integrated into a comprehensive
defense. In setting priorities, we must start with an objective,
comprehensive intelligence estimate that assesses each major risk, ranks
every major threat and helps us devise a broad strategy that confronts the
full range of significant dangers in a way that defends against one without
making us more vulnerable to another.

Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin will be meeting soon in Texas. They could
use the occasion to commit each nation to a course of action ensuring that
our nuclear weapons and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials
are safe, secure and accounted for with reciprocal monitoring. Making sure
that weapons of mass destruction and materials don't fall into the hands of
rogue nations and terrorists is either a priority or an afterthought. If it's
an afterthought, after what? What comes before it? If it is a priority, is
that reflected in our effort and investment? Are our friends in Asia and
Europe doing their share? If not, why not?

I also suggest that the two presidents issue an order directing their
military leaders, in joint consultation and collaboration, to devise
operational changes in the nuclear forces of both nations that would reduce
toward zero the risk of accidental launch or miscalculation and provide
increased launch decision time for each president. Such an order should
emphasize that it is the intention of the United States and Russia to stand
down their nuclear forces to the maximum extent practical consistent with
their security interests.

Finally, when Russia was developing biological weapons, it also was
developing vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. When it was devising
dissemination mechanisms, it also was working on detectors and protective
devices. At this moment, the United States and Russia could combine their
biodefense knowledge and scientific expertise and apply these considerable
joint resources to defensive and peaceful biological purposes. The two
presidents could promote a research endeavor that could motivate other
nations to join.

*******

#9
Trud
No. 183 (October 8?)
2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
THE WORLD AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
Yevgeny PRIMAKOV, a renowned statesman, deputy of the
State Duma, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Towards Multi-Polar World
The tragedy in New York and Washington was, to some
extent, prepared by the development of the international
situation. Humankind entered the 21st century with a positive
luggage. International relations became de-ideologized. There
is no longer confrontation between the two opposing systems,
which earlier threatened humankind with a global disaster. A
movement has begun from a two-polar to a multi-polar world.
The super-powers have ceased to exist. Some say that only one
of them, the USA, has remained. Yes, indeed, the USA today is
the most powerful country in economic and military terms and
the most influential one in political terms. The USA acquired
all these qualities in the 1990s, especially after the
disintegration of the USSR, which I regret up to this day. But
I must say that a super-power means not so much quantitative as
qualitative characteristics. During the Cold War period
conglomerates of states in confrontation with each other were
formed around the two super-powers. The super-powers not only
provided security for their allies but also dictated their
terms, the rules of the game, if you will.
Today this is no longer the case, as the world (let me
repeat) has moved away from the confrontation of the two
systems. The creation of the multi-polar world is prompted by
the absence of two rivalling super-powers that are in constant
confrontation with each other. New centres of force are
emerging. Economically, China is developing quickly and
countries of Western Europe have come close to the level of the
USA. All this indicates that the world order can become
different after the end of the Cold War period.
However, unfortunately, these positive changes do not yet
guarantee the stable and safe development of humankind. Why?
This is mainly due to the fact that there is a discrepancy
between objectively emerging conditions, which influence
favourably this development, and politics. I would say that
there has appeared a trend of "super-powerism." Some US
politicians believe that it is necessary to take efforts to
provide for hegemony and the existence of a one-polar world, in
which the USA would determine and ensure its own interests.
This dangerous trend especially manifested itself in the
Balkans, during the bombing of Yugoslavia. When I was Russian
foreign minister, I used to tell Madeleine Albright and, I
hope, other politicians also told her the following: pay
attention to the fact that as a result of the policy pursued by
you a triangle is emerging with its corners in the Balkans,
Afghanistan and Chechnya. There is a flow of weapons and money
for militants-extremists between the corners of the triangle.
In the meantime, the Taliban movement is acquiring the nature
of the main centre that feeds terrorism. This is dangerous.
Earlier the USA settled its accounts with Iran. But Afghanistan
has become much more dangerous. This is the first Sunni regime
supporting terrorism while Sunnits account for 90 per cent of
the Muslim population. Besides, Shi'ite Iran has moved away
from the support of terrorist organisations.

Inertia of Cold War
Both the Pakistani intelligence and the CIA participated
in the creation of the Taliban movement. This inertial policy
of the Cold War period created a serious danger. The latest
events directly testify to this. Besides, they have showed how
imperfect are the measures which the states have taken for the
sake of their security. The problems of the protection of their
borders and territories remain but the states must not protect
their borders by antagonizing other states.
For example, the process of NATO enlargement to the East
is under way. An ever greater number of new states is being
included in the military bloc, which was created in the period
of the Cold War and still preserves its military bias. So, this
bloc that has not yet grown into a political organisation is
moving ever closer to the borders of Russia. But is Russia a
potential aggressor in relation to East and Central European
states?
It is perfectly clear that through such NATO enlargement
certain circles are trying to keep their influence and
interests which have nothing to do with the interests of other
peoples.
Or let us take the national missile defence system. The
motives of its creations are not convincing. Officially, its
aim is to provide protection from "rogue states," which are on
the threshold of producing their own nuclear weapons and are
seeking to create their own inter-continental missiles. That is
why, the USA is allegedly trying to protect itself against
them.
Let us assume that North Korea or Iran create in 15 years
2 or 3 inter-continental missiles. But is it necessary to
create today, in response to that a deep-echeloned system of
national defence? Both Russian and Chinese military and
politicians may come to believe that this is directed against
them. It is perfectly clear that the creation of this system
does not guarantee the security of the USA and its own people.
Perhaps, now the USA would be wise enough to put this process
on hold.
Therefore, I would like to stress once again that the
means of protection must not be created on the basis of
opposing one's interests to the interests of other states.
This is one of the conclusions which politicians need to take
into account today.

Reasons That Generate Terrorism
Further on, the September 11 events took place and
everyone concentrated on the retaliation action. A question
immediately arises: in which form can it be carried out? One
can understand the emotional reaction and the sentiments of US
society but what will it result in? Will there be a strike
against the country that will affect the local population or
will there be an action against several states? President Bush
said that this will not be a one-time action but a war against
international terrorism that will possibly be carried out
during 10 years. A question arises: if this is a war, how many
goals does it pursue? Won't the USA strike against those
regimes, which, to put it mildly, it does not like much? This
immediately gives rise to some caution. And the main thing: is
it correct to concentrate fully on retaliation actions (it has
to be said that most of the world population supports them) or
is it necessary along with them to eradicate those illnesses
and causes that generate terrorism?
I would name international conflicts among these illnesses
in the first place. The main of them is the Middle East
conflict. There were many attempts to settle it but it is hard
to be settled. When I was Russian foreign minister, I made a
lot of trips to Arab countries in 1996. I visited Israel as
well. It was necessary to agree on a sort of a "cross." A
"vertical" means consistency and continuity of the policy of
all states. In other words, if some accords were reached, the
politicians who come to power again must accept them and not
begin Middle East negotiations from scratch. A "horizontal" is
the need to make progress on the issues of settlement in all
directions. For example, while agreeing with the Palestinian
side, it is necessary to take into account the need to reach
agreement with Syria.
Russia proceeded from these positions but, unfortunately,
its position was not supported. Mainly, as a result of that, a
wave of violence continues to unfold in the Middle East.
Israel does not only respond to the actions of violence that
lead to deaths among civilians. Its top military commanders
initiate actions that prevent the possibility of creating a
Palestinian state on the Western bank and in the Gaza strip.
The September 11 events must let the process in the Middle
East get off the ground. The USA, Russia, the countries of the
European Union, Egypt and Jordan (two Arab states that have
diplomatic relations with Israel) should come up with a
mediatory mission and determine a balanced and compromise-based
platform for the settlement of the conflict.
The latest events have proved once again the need of the
development of the legislative base against international
terrorism. It is very important to prepare an international
charter that would be adopted by all the states of the world.
It should clearly define such requirement as the liquidation of
all branches of terrorist organizations. It should also
stipulate the procedure of extraditing terrorists staying on
the territory of one state on the basis of documentarily
substantiated demands of another state. If some state refuses
to sign the charter, only in this case will it be possible to
determine "rogue" countries. These will be the states that will
not sign the charter, rather than the ones that are not liked
for some or other reasons. In this case, it will be possible to
speak about the true struggle against terrorism.
In this case the entire humankind will turn its back to them
and will use even military means but only through the UN
Security Council. Today we can say that a moment of culmination
has come. Some call it a moment of truth, a watershed between
the past and the future.

The Main Thing Today
The most dangerous development of events may occur, if we
imagine that the September 11 explosions mean such a watershed
in the world where there are civilised countries on the one
hand and "rouge states" on the other hand, the Christian world
on the one hand and the Muslim world on the other hand. This is
not only an erroneous but also an extremely dangerous
conclusion. By its essence traditional Islam has nothing to do
with extremism. Those who are imposing anti-Islamic sentiments
today are either ignoramuses or, what is worse, instigators.
Muslims must become an active part of the anti-terrorist
struggle. This is one of the main tasks today.
It is necessary to do everything possible to create a
single front of struggle with international terrorism. Russia
is behaving optimally in this respect. The statements by
Vladimir Putin testify to the fact that we have chosen the
right way in this direction: Russia will not directly
participate in the military action of retaliation. At the same
time, the President laid down an explicit programme of support
for anti-terrorist actions, which aims to eradicate the very
disease - it contains specific proposals on the unification of
all forces to destroy the nutritive environment for the
development of international terrorism.
Transcript by Andrei STEPANOV.

*******

#10
New York Times
October 9, 2001
Tying Russia to West, Putin Unveils Strategy, but Risks Backlash
By MICHAEL WINES

MOSCOW, Oct. 8 -- Until this month, critics here dismissed President Vladimir
V. Putin's foreign policy as little more than tactics -- a trip to Cuba to
appease nationalists, one to Germany to mollify liberals -- trying to placate
everyone, but offering no strategy for Russia's future.

Now Mr. Putin has been forced into offering an almost breathtaking vision of
the country's future. And suddenly, the question is whether he has the
tactical skills to achieve it.

There is broad agreement that last month's terror attacks on New York and
Washington effectively pushed Mr. Putin into choosing between a Russia allied
with no one, and a Russia bound to the West — and that he chose the latter.

His statement today at a government meeting here could have been lifted
intact from recent speeches by British Prime Minister Tony Blair: a ringing
condemnation of terrorist strikes "monstrous in their brutality," aimed at
sapping civilized people's will to resist.

"But humankind has matured after the horrible tragedy on Sept. 11," he said.
"I think their arrogance and self-confidence has been the terrorists'
undoing. They did not expect the international community to show such
cohesion in the face of a common threat."

Mr. Putin's own challenge is to create cohesion in his own country. Anecdotal
evidence and public opinion surveys suggest that his internationalist stance
is, for once, far ahead of not just the average Russian, but of the military
and political elites on whom his power partly rests.

In a poll conducted from Sept. 21 to 24 by Russia's National Center for
Public Opinion and Research, 48 percent of respondents expressed sympathy for
the plight of the United States after the attacks.

But 50 percent said that "it served the Americans right," and 54 percent
called for Russia to remain neutral in the conflict. Russian Communists, who
still command the votes of a quarter of the electorate, are calling the
crisis an excuse for the United States to seize control of Central Asia. Many
in the military echo that.

"If you listen to the elite types, many of them, he's fighting the pack,"
said Dmitri Trenin, an expert on Russian geopolitics at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace Moscow Center. "Many would still say he's
selling Russia for a song; that he's giving and giving and giving and not
receiving anything in return.

"As someone put it," Mr. Trenin said, "the Yeltsin-Gorbachev syndrome of
unilateral concessions may now be prolonged into the Putin presidency."

For all their popularity in the West, Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin are
almost universally seen here as the agents of the demise of Soviet greatness.
Tarring Mr. Putin with the same brush could be politically fatal for him.

So far, he has tugged Russia into the alliance against terrorism on the
strength of his own immense popularity. More than 7 in 10 Russians
consistently approve of Mr. Putin's performance in most polls.

But many experts believe that that rests in part on Russia's surprising
economic rebound in the last year. That could be strangled by any crisis that
causes a steep recession.

In a speech in the United States last week, President Bush's national
security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, praised Mr. Putin for engineering a
historic turn in East-West relations. But to sustain any turn to the West,
many analysts say, Mr. Putin needs not praise, but a response.

The United States and Germany have tacitly agreed to take a second look at
the role of terrorists in the conflict in Chechnya, the breakaway region in
Russia's south. And last week, the American trade representative, Robert B.
Zoellick, spoke in Moscow of accelerating Russia's entry into the World Trade
Organization.

Apart from that, Mr. Trenin and other Russia experts say Mr. Putin has little
to show for his efforts so far. But the dance between Russia and the West is
still in its early stages.

Robert Legvold, a Columbia University historian with ties to American
government specialists on Russia, suggested in a recent interview that Mr.
Putin also may be seeking relatively narrow forms of assistance from the
West, like intelligence on Central Asian hot spots.

Mr. Putin already is pressing for greater economic integration not only into
the world trade structure, but the European Union. And he has called publicly
for speedy consideration of Russia's entry into NATO — a practical
impossibility, but something which might be symbolically achieved through a
mutual security pact between the Western military alliance and Moscow.

Such an agreement would resolve a host of Russian questions about its own
exposure in the developing war against terrorism. Russians frequently
complain that they have been asked to contribute to that struggle with none
of the security guarantees offered to European and North American nations
fighting the same battle.

"People in the West don't realize that now that he's made a strategic move
—
not just in foreign policy, but in many ways the boldest move he's ever made
as president of Russia — the domestic constituency that supports him is
rather weak," Michael McFaul, a Russia scholar at Stanford University's
Hoover Institution, said in an interview.

Mr. McFaul offered his own list of slights: Russia still labors to win
most-favored-nation trading status under the Jackson-Vanik amendments, which
were intended to punish Soviet restrictions on Jewish emigration. NATO
nations remain barred from buying Russian weapons, although a Russian threat
to NATO is vanishingly small.

"The military doesn't support him. The military-industrial complex doesn't.
Even the liberals are divided. And even societal attitudes, they're rather
split," Mr. McFaul said.

"So that leaves him exposed," he continued. "If he doesn't show that Russians
get something out of this new full-fledged reorientation toward the West, he
could easily back away toward what he did before — back toward the
tactician,
finding the medium on every issue."

One longtime Russian student of East-West relations, Georgi Arbatov of the
government's United States- Canada Institute of Studies, believes that
unlikely.

"Before, he was a very modest man in intelligence and couldn't think about
such global matters. Now, and I think it is encouraging, he changes himself.

"He becomes a real statesman," Mr. Arbatov said. "And of course, we don't
know how far he will go. But there is hope."

******

#11
Ukraine seeks to dispel jet crash missile theory
By Michael Steen

KIEV, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Ukraine's defence minister said on Tuesday he hoped
to prove once and for all that his military did not shoot down a Russian
airliner last week, killing 78 people, as accusations mounted that a
missile had gone astray.

The former Soviet state has come under increasing pressure to prove that
one of its missiles did not accidentally lock on to a Sibir airlines Tu-154
jet which exploded over the Black Sea last Thursday during Ukrainian
military exercises.

Ukraine has denied involvement, but U.S. officials say they saw a rocket
plume on a spy satellite image of the crash area.

Russia's Interfax news agency quoted unnamed investigators as saying on
Tuesday they had found what appeared to be shrapnel from an anti-aircraft
missile among the plane's wreckage.

Ukrainian Defence Minister Olexander Kuzmuk told parliament his troops were
not to blame, and said he hoped to prove it.

"We are looking into the possibility of studying the area in the Black Sea
where, according to our technical data, the missile fell," he said. "I have
put together a Navy group to investigate."

The military says it launched an S200 anti-aircraft missile at about the
time the Russian airliner exploded in mid-air, but it maintains the
Ukrainian missile crashed into the sea up to 200 km (125 miles) from where
the plane came down.

If the Ukrainians could prove their missile landed well short of the
airliner, speculation on the cause of the crash might turn back to a bomb
or catastrophic mechanical failure on the plane which was flying from Tel
Aviv to Siberia.

UKRAINE DENIALS LESS VEHEMENT

Despite initial Ukrainian objections that it was a "theoretical and
practical" impossibility for any of their missiles to hit the airliner,
military experts say the plane probably was within range of an S200 missile.

Kuzmuk appeared to concede as much on Tuesday when he said the defence
ministry "does not exclude other theories."

"A group of experts is working on investigating whether it was
theoretically possible for the aircraft to be hit by an anti-aircraft
missile," he said, but added this was "one of thousands of theories."

The incident has threatened to cause a major rift between Ukraine and
Russia, and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, himself a former rocket
engineer, has chosen his words carefully when discussing the crash.

He said on Monday all theories surrounding the crash should be
investigated, and offered to redouble the help Ukrainian officials were
offering Russian investigators.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted as saying at the weekend that
he was unhappy with the information Ukraine had provided so far.

******

#12
Tajikistan says will let no U.S. troops on its soil
By Elizabeth Piper

DUSHANBE, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Ex-Soviet Tajikistan placed limits on its
agreement to help U.S.-led strikes in neighbouring Afghanistan on Tuesday,
saying it had no plans to allow U.S. troops on its territory.

Tajikistan and other central Asian states have become the focus of
considerable speculation as Washington moves into the third day of its
bombing campaign to root out Osama bin Laden, blamed for last month's attacks
on the United States.

"American land troops have not and are not passing through Tajikistan to
Afghanistan," Amirkul Azimov, secretary of Tajikistan's security council,
told reporters.

"American specialists are here and are considering how to distribute
humanitarian aid...The question (of land troops) has not been considered."

On Monday, Tajikistan made its first government statement on the U.S.
campaign, expressing readiness "to open its airspace to the U.S. airforce
and, should it prove necessary, its airports for carrying out measures
against terrorism."

Security chiefs of Tajikistan, Russia and four ex-Soviet republics were
wrapping up talks in Dushanbe on tightening border security ahead of any
influx of Afghan refugees.

The other states, part of 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 is the poorest of the ex-Soviet republics, with a 1,300-km
(815-mile) long border with Afghanistan, far longer than either Uzbekistan or
Turkmenistan. It hosts up to 20,000 Russian troops to maintain stability
after a 1992-97 civil war pitting the secular government against Islamist
opponents.

BASES FOR HUMANITARIAN AID

Azimov said Tajikistan's air bases would be used for distributing
humanitarian aid but not necessarily for future U.S. action in Afghanistan,
where bin Laden has been sheltered by the hardline Muslim Taliban movement.

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

U.S. officials last week said 1,000 U.S. light infantry troops were on their
way to Uzbekistan.

The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the Pentagon planned to send a
significant number of additional ground troops to the Middle East and Central
Asia for the second phase of its military campaign in Afghanistan at the end
of the week.

Tajikistan was swift to support the air strikes after they got under way on
Sunday, saying the country had "more than once suffered from terrorism."

But a Defence Ministry official said this week that Tajikistan had no wish to
"get involved in any kind of conflict or military action in other
countries..."

A spokesman for Russian troops patrolling Tajikistan's border with
Afghanistan said he had heard the strikes against Afghanistan, but there had
been no shooting close to the border.

"It has been quiet...we have increased our numbers here but not by a
significant amount," he told Reuters.

*****

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