October 10, 2001

This Date's Issues:   5483 • 5484

Johnson's Russia List
#5484
10 October 2001
davidjohnson@erols.com

[Note from David Johnson:
1. AP: Russian House OK's Land Bill.
2. BBC: Alex Kirby, Russia's threadbare forests revealed.
3. Moscow Times: Maria Danilova, Freedom of Choice Tyrannizes My Generation.
4. Rossiyskaya Gazeta: Status, History, Future of Anonymous Informing in Russia Examined.
5. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review.
6. Reuters: Russia warns U.S. of over-reaching in Afghanistan.
7. The Times (UK): Vanora Bennett and Oksana Yablokova, Russian pride rises with Kursk.
8. Moscow Times editorial: Proof of the Pudding Is In the Plane.
9. UPI: Ex-general: Don't send troops to Afghanistan. (Gromov)
10. Washington Times: Janusz Bugajski, Beware of Putin bearing gifts.
11. wps.ru: POLITICAL FORECASTS (press review). THE WAR BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH HAS BEGUN, AND AS USUAL RUSSIA IS IN BETWEEN.
12. Moscow Times/Reuters: Bernhard Warner, E-Mail Turns 30 Years Old in Fall.]

*******

#1
Russian House OK's Land Bill
October 10, 2001

MOSCOW (AP) - The upper house of Russia's parliament approved a bill
Wednesday permitting limited sales of land, a key development after a decade
of efforts by Russia's leadership to ease Soviet-era land sale restrictions.

The bill was then to go to President Vladimir Putin, who was expected to sign
it. The Communists and their allies have opposed the measure.

The Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, approved the new land
code 103 votes to 29, with nine abstentions. The State Duma, or lower house,
voted 257 to 130 on Sept. 20 for the new land code in the last of three
readings.

Land purchases are currently regulated by many complex laws and regulations
approved by local legislatures. The absence of coherent land legislation has
also been a deterrent to foreign investors and slowed Russia's economic
development.

The code, which applies to sales of nonagricultural land, was strongly pushed
by Putin but faced stiff resistance from Communists and their allies, who
insisted the legislation would destroy Russia by putting its land in the
hands of foreigners and mobsters.

Most land remains government property, as it was during Soviet times when
Communist ideology demanded that the state own the means of economic
production.

Russia's 1993 constitution permits Russians to buy and sell land, but
parliament has balked at passing legislation that would put that right into
effect. This time the government was able to muster a majority because the
Duma is now dominated by pro-government parties.

Still, the government left the even more difficult issue of farmland to a
separate bill to be considered later.

It was not immediately clear how much land would be affected by the new code,
with official estimates varying from 3 to 10 percent. The code would set up
legal procedures for land sales, including a system of registering deeds.

*******

#2
BBC
9 October 2001
Russia's threadbare forests revealed
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Only a small part of the northern forests of European Russia remain in
relatively intact large sections.

Russian experts who have spent five years mapping the forests say much of
what is left is in jeopardy.

They say the best parts of the forests enjoy no protection in law, and are
ripe for exploitation.

Yet conserving the remainder would be comparatively cheap and simple.

The Russians used a combination of satellite imagery and more traditional
methods to compile their maps, entitled The Last Intact Forest Landscapes of
Northern European Russia.

They are being published in Moscow by Greenpeace Russia, and in Washington DC
by Global Forest Watch, part of the World Resources Institute (WRI).

Unprotected

The researchers found that only 32 million hectares, about 14%, of the
region's forests remain in relatively undisturbed large blocks of at least
50,000 ha each.

Only blocks this big, at least the size of a square with sides 14 miles (22
kms) long, are judged large enough to be able to remain intact, conserving
populations of large animals and also coping with natural processes like
storms and fires.

But the researchers say what little is left of the forests is at risk, as the
parts likeliest to attract exploitation have no protection under federal or
local law.

They say the main threat comes from logging roads, geological survey lines,
and the fires that usually follow them.

Dr Alexander Isaev, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a former
Soviet minister, was one of a team of scientists from Russia, Sweden and the
US to review the researchers' report.

He said: "The significance of this work goes far beyond Russian forestry.

Irresponsible loggers

"These are the last big forest wilderness areas of Europe, and an important
part of our common European heritage. We need to keep them wild and protected
by law."

Dr Lars Laestadius of WRI told BBC News Online: "The best forests have
already been logged, and many of the surrounding areas are depleted.

"The main threat is fragmentation, together with the fact that some logging
companies do not pay the real cost of responsible forestry.

"Forest degradation is often thought of as being only a tropical issue. This
report shows that there is serious forest degradation in the north as well."

The report's authors said protecting the forests would not cost much: "No
forest guards are needed. The same remoteness and low productivity which has
protected them until now will continue to do so.

"Our last remaining examples of wild nature can be protected even under the
very restrictive Russian budget for nature conservation."

The researchers worked by first looking at existing maps and excluding all
obviously disturbed areas near roads and towns.

Field check

They then examined detailed satellite images for further signs of disturbance
like logging and mines, which they also eliminated. That let them identify
the remaining large blocks of forest.

To check their work they then inspected 67 areas on foot, to ensure they had
correctly interpreted the satellite images.

Later this year Global Forest Watch and its partners will produce a similar
map covering all Russia's forests. Maps of forests in Chile, Venezuela,
Indonesia, Brazil, Canada and the US are in preparation.

********

#3
Moscow Times
October 10, 2001
Freedom of Choice Tyrannizes My Generation
By Maria Danilova
Maria Danilova is a fourth-year student at Moscow State University.

"You don't have any meat, right?" asks a man on entering a grocery store.
"What we don't have is cheese," the shop assistant replies. "It's the other
department that doesn't have any meat." This is the punch line of an old
Soviet joke.

I very much doubt that my 12-year-old sister would understand this
once-popular anecdote. And why should she, after all? Not long ago, when I
sent her to a food store to get some cereal for breakfast, she returned
half an hour late because the poor girl could not decide which of the 30 or
so brands she really wanted.

When I was a little bit younger than my sister is today, I also did grocery
shopping on occasions. However, my experience was quite different. I
remember coming home from school one afternoon and seeing a huge line in
front of a food store, which was very eloquently and originally named
Moloko, or Milk. I was a girl of sound mind and understanding. I right away
figured out that if there was a crowd of people inside and outside the
store, then there was something to "get" there. Not to buy, not to
purchase, but to "get" -- a verb that was widely used in Soviet times.

It transpired that milk was just about the scarcest product available in
the Milk shop. So I stood in a long milk line, with 50 or so people ahead
of me, another 50 odd people behind me, and was very proud of myself,
imagining how amazed my family would be if I returned home with some milk.
I didn't care which brand it was. In fact, the idea that milk could come in
several brands was completely alien to me. The stark reality was a simple
choice between milk or no milk.

I must admit that this story doesn't end as gloriously as it begins. I was
only 10 years old, the line seemed to go on forever, the people were
frustrated and rude in their quest to get hold of some milk, the shop was
dirty and stuffy, and the warm weather outside was inviting me to go home
and play. And so I did.

Milk or no milk? Oh well. Forget it, no milk. Some day I will recount this
story to my sister, but I suspect she will just dismiss it as another weird
old Soviet story.

Of course, now I enjoy the new way of shopping. Just stand in front of a
shop window and take your pick. (Once you've made your selection, it only
comes down to money.) Every now and then, however, I run into a store that
is faintly redolent of the old times due to the odor emanating from
vegetables that are somewhat past their sell-by date, to the rude manner of
the shop assistant, or due to the poverty of the selection of goods.

At such moments my mind teems with emotions, I become very proud of the
changes our country has achieved and happy about all the new opportunities
we now possess. We don't need to run around constantly in pursuit of staple
products and everyday commodities. We no longer need to grab and hold on to
the first pair of shoes that catches our eyes. We can stop. And pause. And
make our choice.

By contrast, whenever my parents tell me about their youth, they always
stress that their generation was completely deprived of the right and the
opportunity to choose. Whether it was going to a grocery store and being
happy to find that there was at least one kind of cheese, or showing up at
a polling station to vote, although the outcome was known well in advance,
making choices was simply not a part of their lives.

Indeed, today when the shops are all filled with an exuberant variety of
goods and services, when all our borders are open and travel agencies are
to be found on every corner, I can hardly remember what things were like
before the collapse of the Soviet Union. But as it turns out, these new
opportunities and choices that we have gained are not always as enjoyable
and easy as picking out your favorite cereal.

When our parents were young, whatever profession they decided to pursue in
life, whatever career they dreamed of, their choice was limited to a
maximum of two or three good universities and then a couple of places to
work after graduation, not to mention the joy of acquiring a small
apartment of their own and living there until the end of their days.

They were doomed, it first seemed to me. They were stuck in the places
where they lived, in the schools they attended and in the institutes where
they worked. But what had always escaped me was that to some degree they
were actually fortunate to be "stuck" with their friends and relatives in
their natural habitat. They were condemned, so to speak, not to face the
choice of leaving everybody and everything they loved and cherished so much
in pursuit of something unknown, something seemingly greater. And for that
reason their fate was not to experience the fear of having made the wrong
decision or of having chosen the wrong life path.

Today, in contrast to our parents, we have a whole sea of opportunities
before us. For one thing, we can apply to a great many universities at home
and abroad for both undergraduate and graduate programs. Moreover,
practically every student magazine advertises various work-and-study-abroad
programs, not to mention summer youth camps.

"What a great achievement it is to have all these horizons and
opportunities open before us," I tell myself. Sure, it's quite a leap that
our country has made it from no cheese in grocery stores and closed borders
to this. However, what I also have come to realize is that with the freedom
of choice that we have acquired, there has come a tremendous burden and
responsibility of actually making choices.

With all the universities, firms and organizations scattered around the
world that are now open for us to conquer, our decisions regarding what to
do and where to go tomorrow become much harder and more complicated because
each decision can drastically change our lives, if not turn them upside down.

Soon the time will come for me to take some life-determining decisions. I
must admit that while realizing how little choice my parents had, I still
envy them to a certain extent. When they stood at the crossroads of their
life, the decisions they had to make were so much easier. Whereas now, when
the whole world has opened up for us and there is a myriad of directions we
can go in, choices become frustrating and painful.

Now that our country has finally broadened its horizons, we should
definitely take advantage of what life has to offer. However, as ironic as
it may seem, the freedoms that our parents could not have imagined even in
their wildest dreams sometimes seem to be stumbling blocks. And this is
something that my generation still has to come to terms with.

********

#4
Status, History, Future of Anonymous Informing in Russia Examined

Rossiyskaya Gazeta
4 October 2001
Article by Vitaliy Dumarskiy: "To Inform or Not to Inform? This is a
question of almost Shakespearean proportions for Russia"; with comments
from lawyers Anatoliy Kucherena, Genri Reznik

Civil rights campaigners believe that informants
and agents are usually employed to track down terrorists rather than
anonymous pieces of information. But is this the whole truth? The
question becomes especially pertinent if we consider that the Americans
are willing to pay crazy sums of money for information about Bin Ladin -
even information from anonymous sources.

A "roundtable" was held yesterday in the Andrey Sakharov Social Center to
discuss the following theme: "On the Legalization of Anonymous
Information". The debate was generated by an instruction on the
procedure for examining proposals, statements and complaints made by
citizens to the organs of the FSB. In the opinion of those present,
this amounts to official encouragement for the process of informing.

The all-Russian social movement "For Human Rights" has already appealed
to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation [RF] on two occasions to
have the instruction declared "partially invalid". On both occasions
Femida took the side of the law-and-order structures. The judges
believe that there are no grounds for revoking the instruction.

Those present at the "round table" noted that in accordance with the
above-mentioned instruction the law-and-order bodies have the right to
conduct a "routine investigation" on the basis of an anonymous
communication. Moreover, according to the law, the term "routine
investigation" includes both external observation of the subject,
eavesdropping on telephone conversations and questioning of witnesses and
neighbors.

Informing, whether anonymous or otherwise, has for decades served as an
effective means of "restoring social justice" in our country: people
would report "to the proper quarter" about a neighbor's spare living
space, a work colleague's dubious connections or a boss's suspicious
sources of income. Informing in its various guises was also transformed
into an instrument of political struggle, and became a particularly
efficient instrument in the thirties.

Yet since time immemorial the very term "informer" has carried very
negative connotations in Russia - a fact that remains unchanged today.
And a person who voluntarily took upon himself the function of a "fellow
traveler" (naturally "in the interests of business") inevitably found
himself faced with a moral dilemma: whether to pass as an informer or to
"issue warnings" for personal gain but under the guise of concern for the
good of society or the state. Help was at hand to overcome the
difficulties associated with making such a moral choice - the anonymous
telephone call. It spared the author from the need to explain himself
to those around him and likewise from being branded with the disdainful
label of "stool pigeon".

In 1988 the Supreme Soviet of the USSR adopted a law that prohibited
state bodies from accepting anonymous communications. It is probably
true that of all the large-scale democratic transformations that were
made in the time of perestroyka, few people remember this law, but it may
well have been one of the final embellishments made to the totalitarian
past. We can understand peoples' concern about an apparent revival of
the old practice: it was legalized last year by an FSB instruction that
the Supreme Court examined last summer but did not reject. Aren't we
simply returning to what we have only just begun to abandon over the past
one-and-a-half decades.

Of course we may refer to the situation overseas in responding to this
question. In the West, it is a noble thing to make an anonymous
telephone call to the police to inform them that your neighbor has parked
his automobile incorrectly or is making a lot of noise after 10 o'clock
in the evening. But in the West there is an entirely different level of
legal awareness, and this applies not only to the population but also to
"competent bodies". They may be tempted to repeat the Soviet experience
of the thirties, but they are dependent upon political will, public
opinion and democratic institutions.

If these conditions are observed, and if a clear distinction is made
between spheres of operation and the use of anonymous information, it is
quite probable that such information should not be disregarded -
especially in the present situation, which requires citizens to be
particularly vigilant. The most important thing is that any action must
be taken in accordance with the law and not on a departmental whim.

VITALIY DYMARSKIY

Trust Telephones

The FSB gives repentant citizens the chance to avoid criminal prosecution
for spying against Russia by making a call on the trust telephone: the
number is 914-22-22. The FSB press service informed us that in the
first six months of 2001 (the most recent data currently available) a
total of 357 people called this number, although it is true that only 15
of these calls were of professional interest to our counter-intelligence
agents.

The Federal Tax Police Service [FSNP] also has its own trust telephone.
If you have decided that you neighbor is guilty of tax evasion, do not be
afraid to call 921-43-91. The automatic answering machine will record
your information. According to FSNP officials, the various
administrations of the tax service follow up about 20 calls of this kind
every week.

What the Lawyers Think

Anatoliy KUCHERENA:

- Personally I take a negative view of anonymous information. Indeed
the law does not permit us to use anonymous information against a
specific person. It is my deep conviction that the practice of
anonymous informing has no place among the principles of a democratic
state.

Genri REZNIK:

- We must not give official approval to anonymous telephone calls. But
it is permissible to carry out a routine check of the information
contained in such calls. After all, situations do arise in which a
person really does fear for his life when he communicates true and
necessary information to official bodies.

*******

#5
ORT Review
www.ortv.ru
Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba7@bu.edu)
Research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and
Policy at Boston University

HEADLINES,
Tuesday, October 09, 2001
- The cause of the TU-154 catastrophe may become clear soon. Russian
experts have found fragments of an S-200 missile at the scene of the
crash. Russia hopes that Ukraine will make the difficult, but correct,
decision to admit responsibility for the tragedy.
- Chechen fighters are pushing Georgia and Abkhazia to the brink of a new
war. The situation has intensified. Reports from Sukhumi indicate that
fighting continued throughout the night, and that, at about 4 in the
morning, 2 Georgian airplanes bombed village settlements. Reserve troops
in Abkhazia have been partially mobilized. Abkhaz Vice President Valerii
Arshba has announced that full mobilization will be declared today.
- Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov met with his British counterpart,
Geoffrey Hoon, to discuss international cooperation in the struggle
against international terrorism. Ivanov declared that an international
anti-terrorism coalition "has already been formed," but noted that the
fight against terrorism will be a lengthy one. "We have a common
understanding of the long-term character of the struggle with the evil of
the XXI Century and we know that it will not be limited to military
methods.
- Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Orenburg today. During his
short visit he met with the producers of the famous Orenburg bread,
visited several local enterprises, and attended a meeting of the Orenburg
State Council.
- The Chairmen of the Security Councils of CIS (Copmmonwealth of
Independent States) nations met in Dushanbe. Russian Security Council
Chairman Vladimir Rushailo told journalists that a unified political line
in the struggle against international terrorism has been developed. The
CIS nations have also announced their willingness to "actively cooperate
in forming an international anti-terrorist front."
- Discussions of the Land Code have been slated for tomorrow's Federation
Council meeting. Senators predict that discussions will be heated, but
that the Code will be accepted.
- Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has accused the Georgian
authorities of incompetence in regulating the situation in the Kodor
Gorge. He said that it is becoming absolutely clear that the Georgian
government either cannot control the situation on its territory or is
deliberately using the terrorists for its own interest.
- After meeting with Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov, Russian Security
Council Chairman Vladimir Rushailo declared that the situation at the
Tajik-Afghan border is under control.
- The "last voyage" of the Kursk nuclear submarine continues. The Kursk
is being towed towards the Roslyakovo dock by the Gigant barge under the
escort of 14 fighter ships.

*******

#6
INTERVIEW-Russia warns U.S. of over-reaching in Afghanistan
By Jack Redden

ISLAMABAD, Oct 10 (Reuters) - The United States should be wary of getting
caught in the Afghan "quicksand" and should not seek excessive permanent
influence in the region, the Russian ambassador to Pakistan said on
Wednesday.

"It is our very good wishes to them that they not go too deep into
Afghanistan because it is a very particular country and it is quicksand,"
Eduard Shevchenko said in an interview with Reuters.

He readily admitted the Soviet Union had made a mistake in its 1979 invasion
of Afghanistan and subsequent decade-long effort to occupy it.

His advice to Washington: "Please don't go into Afghanistan: It's easy to go
in but difficult to get out."

Shevchenko said Russia solidly backed the current U.S. campaign against the
Taliban regime ruling most of Afghanistan because the hardline movement,
advocating an Islamic state modelled on the seventh century society of the
Prophet Mohammad, was a threat to Russia and Central Asian states.

But he also said Washington should not seek permanently to expand its
influence in the Central Asia region, most of which was part of the former
Soviet Union and is still closely linked with Moscow.

"The United States must understand their presence should not be overwhelming
in areas far from the United States. They should not use this situation to be
overrepresented in this part of the world," Shevchenko said.

RUSSIAN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

The United States has won the cooperation of states in Central Asia to use
their airspace. Uzbekistan has also allowed U.S. troops to be stationed,
although maintaining that they will be engaged only in humanitarian work.

"The Americans have good relations in Central Asian states but they should
understand it is a Russian sphere of influence," he said. "Our presence there
is known and well recognised."

However, Shevchenko emphasised Russia was no longer waging a "Great
Game"-style competition over Afghanistan, describing its position as
defensive to prevent the spread of the Taliban rather than an offensive to
spread Russian influence.

Shevchenko said Russia sought a broad-based, democratic government in
Afghanistan and recognised that the anti-Taliban forces of the Northern
Alliance, which it is arming, could not rule all of the country. But he said
they had to be recognised in any post-Taliban division of power.

"It is a reality now. The Northern Alliance will move and occupy other
territory and some warlords will change to their side. Their weight will
increase," said the ambassador.

Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf has publicly objected to
any increase in the influence of the Northern Alliance, which it says is
backed by Russia, Iran and India.

Shevchenko said Pakistan was now seeking Pashtun figures who it felt could
replace the Taliban, its previous choice for Afghan rulers, in a future
government.

Although noting their backing of the Taliban had strained Pakistani-Russian
relations, the ambassador said Pakistan had a valid interest in ensuring
there was not a hostile government in Afghanistan.

"We hope our relations with Pakistan will drastically improve after this
moment," Shevchenko said. "Our problems were purely over Afghanistan."

*******

#7
The Times (UK)
October 10, 2001
Russian pride rises with Kursk
FROM VANORA BENNETT IN MOSCOW AND OKSANA YABLOKOVA IN MURMANSK

THE wreck of the Kursk was heading for port yesterday after a successful
salvage operation that lifted the nuclear submarine from wintry Arctic
waters, boosting Russian national morale and reinforcing President Putin’s
popularity.

“The hardest job has been done,” a jubilant Ilya Klebanov, the Deputy Prime
Minister, said after leaving the northern port of Murmansk, having overseen
the lift. He said that there was no danger from the nuclear reactors on
board the craft.

Bad weather and technical complications have dogged the three-month
operation, scheduled for completion on September 15. Salvage teams finally
lifted the Kursk from 370ft below the surface on Monday using 26 giant
22-tonne steel cables.

The 450ft submarine, now fitted snugly under a barge, the Giant-4, is being
towed to a dry dock inside the Arctic Circle. A support ship, the Mayo,
will stay at sea until today to clear up equipment used to winch up the boat.

By the end of the week, the Kursk will be examined and emptied of weapons
and bodies before being destroyed. “We worked as a single team in which a
climate of trust prevailed,” Jacob Hogedorp, the Dutch captain of the Mayo,
said of his Russian colleagues.

Few would have predicted this outcome a year ago. When the Kursk exploded
and sank on August 12, 2000, killing all 118 men on board, the unexplained
tragedy awakened all Russia’s post-Soviet fears of decline and humiliation.
The weakness and secretiveness of the Armed Forces was on display; the
President’s failure to break his holiday and go to Murmansk to handle his
first emergency as ruler was condemned. The outcry was a lesson he took to
heart. His promise made then to raise the Kursk from the ocean bed and
recover the bodies for relatives to bury was an important first step in a
battle to regain his people’s trust.

Russia is more optimistic than a year ago. Its economy is buoyant and being
reformed. Presidential efforts are even overcoming local shortages —
including the seasonal one of winter heating fuel — in parts of the country
long neglected.

While many Russians are bewildered by the pace of international change
since September 11, and anxious about the possibility of more war in and
around Afghanistan, they are far from unenthusiastic about Mr Putin’s
diplomatic breakthroughs to the West. After dipping 10 per cent over the
Kursk fiasco, the President’s popularity is steady again at more than 70
per cent. Yet the tears of relief shed by salvage workers on Monday bore
witness not only to the tensions of the lifting operation, but also of the
bigger project of restoring Russian self-esteem.

It had seemed all but impossible that the operation could succeed. Two
unexplained explosions had ripped apart the submarine’s nose, packed with
weaponry, leaving a gaping hole. On board were two nuclear reactors and
about two dozen cruise missiles. Other submarines had been lifted in the
past, but none as large as the 18,000-tonne Kursk. Five nuclear submarines,
two American and three Russian, remain buried at depths of up to 16,000ft
because raising them was judged too expensive.

Russia spoke not only of the importance of recovering bodies, but of the
need to avoid environmental damage from the boat’s nuclear reactors,
because of the relatively shallow waters. About £44.5 million was spent on
the operation, organised by its Northern Fleet and the Dutch contractors
Smit International and Mammoet.

Relatives of the dead submariners must wait before being allowed to
identify or bury any bodies, Colonel Andrei Mayorov, of the Military
Prosecutor’s Office, said. First military investigators, forensic medics
and explosives experts will inspect, investigate and remove weapons. In
today’s more understanding atmosphere, this last delay is one that the
families may be better able to accept.

*******

#8
Moscow Times
October 10, 2001
Editorial
Proof of the Pudding Is In the Plane

President Putin's decision to support the U.S. anti-terrorism operation --
and to nudge Russia's Central Asian satellites to do the same -- was
perceived as something of a turning point in Moscow's relationship with the
West. And legitimately so, for the move implied: We may not be full
partners, but we are clearly no longer enemies.

But perhaps a more accurate litmus test of the degree to which Russia has
shed its Soviet-era mentality will be its stance on last week's crash of a
Tu-154 passenger jet, which the Pentagon has blamed on a Ukrainian missile
gone astray during military exercises.

The blast, which killed 78 people, demands a merciless investigation that
could reveal some nasty truths about Ukraine, Russia's strategically
important neighbor with whom relations are just starting to warm up.

Moscow must apply the full force of its influence on Kiev to ensure the
probe is as thorough, transparent and conclusive as possible. And this will
be politically riskier than the decision to support Washington's strikes.

With that decision, Putin may have angered some hawks by implicitly backing
the deployment of U.S. troops in Russia's backyard, but, overall, his move
put Moscow in a win-win situation: It kept the nation from becoming an
outcast, placed a brawny American buffer between Russia and the imminent
warfare on its southern flank and helped tone down Western criticism of the
Chechnya war.

All that in return for some intelligence data that Russia, on its own,
couldn't have used much anyway and a bit of illusory independence for its
Central Asian neighbors. Not a bad deal.

With Ukraine, the stakes are higher: a $1.4 billion gas debt Moscow still
hopes to collect, a promising market for Russian firms and a slew of
up-in-the-air treaties.

Putin has shown that he understands how badly his image could suffer -- in
the West, at least -- if he blindly defends Ukraine's military and allows
Kiev to withhold information.

While he initially said he had "no reason to doubt our Ukrainian partners,"
two days later, as Washington became ever firmer in its claims, Moscow said
the president was "not satisfied" with the evidence from Ukraine.

Putin has drawn fire once before for hush-hushing a military accident --
recall the Kursk disaster, which Putin himself has called the lowest point
of his presidency.

With the Tu-154 probe still in full swing, it seems especially symbolic
that the Kursk has finally been lifted, rattling its chains like the Ghost
of Christmas Past -- a sobering reminder of how not to handle an
investigation, even one that threatens to shame the military and dampen
relations with an old neighbor.

If Putin ever wished for a way to make amends for Kursk, here's his chance
to start.

********

#9
Ex-general: Don't send troops to Afghanistan

MOSCOW, Oct. 9 (UPI) -- The United States should not send ground troops to
Afghanistan as the move would not yield much military success, a former
Soviet general said Tuesday.

"A military operation on the ground is deprived of the element of surprise
and will hardly bring positive results," Boris Gromov told RIA Novosti news
agency.

Gromov, currently governor of the Moscow region, was the last man out of
Afghanistan as the Soviet troops withdrew from the country in February 1989
conceding defeat in a futile 10-year military campaign.

The Soviet army says it lost more than 15,000 troops in the decade-long war
with Afghanistan's Mujahideen guerrillas. Western military sources say that
more than 50,000 Soviet troops were killed in Afghanistan.

Despite his pessimism over a possible military effort by U.S. ground forces,
Gromov supported the White House in launching the fight against terrorists.

"The actions of the U.S. government in leading a military operation in
Afghanistan are right," said Gromov.

The former general also warned of the potential consequences that such
actions may entail.

"One needs to fight the ideologists of terrorism. We need to defeat the
ideology itself," added Gromov.

"That is hard work that could take decades, but it needs to start today."

Gromov is one of a number of former Soviet military officials who have urged
Washington to exercise caution in confronting Afghanistan militarily.

Gromov said no analogies should be drawn between the U.S. crackdown on Iraq
in 1990 and a potential military operation in Afghanistan where local
fighters would fiercely oppose a U.S. intervention with prospects of losing
personnel by thousands if ground forces were deployed.

The Pentagon is considering sending ground troops to Afghanistan to capture
Saudi dissident, Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 6,000 civilians.

*******

#10
Washington Times
October 10, 2001
Beware of Putin bearing gifts
By Janusz Bugajski
Janusz Bugajski is the director of East European studies a the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

In the critical and long-overdue campaign against international
terrorism, the Bush administration must be careful that it does not sacrifice
its long-term security interests for transient and unpredictable cooperation
with Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Since Sept. 11, the Kremlin has been manipulating Western fears of
terrorism in order to achieve three overriding objectives: to dampen calls
for NATO enlargement, to give Russia a role in NATO decision-making and to
allow Moscow to expand and consolidate its influence in Central Asia and the
Caucasus. All three goals are contrary to American and allied interests.

During his recent visit to Berlin, Mr. Putin confirmed his willingness
to cooperate with the West in the struggle against "Islamic terrorism."
However, Russia will not engage in military actions against rogue states and
their terrorist proxies out of fear of becoming a target and falling out of
favor with its allies in Iraq, Iran and Syria. This cooperative new Kremlin
has its sights clearly set on gaining political and strategic advantages from
America's eagerness to forge a global coalition against terrorism.

In Mr. Putin's words, "it is time to stop making a fuss about NATO
expansion and create structures together with Russia that facilitate the
unification of Europe." At a time when Washington is preoccupied with Osama
bin Laden, the Kremlin has calculated that it can take the steam out of NATO
enlargement, enlist European support for its security proposals and
exacerbate any latent transatlantic divisions over such issues as missile
defense.

The notion of Russian membership in the Atlantic alliance is primarily
a means for undercutting NATO's rationale as an effective military structure
that can operate outside the zone of member states. It is also an attempt to
weaken the American-European security relationship and to expose the former
Soviet satellite states to renewed Russian influence, a prospect that is only
welcomed in Belarus.

In the midst of America's anti-terrorism campaign, the Russian
leadership is seeking access to NATO decision-making. It wants to influence
U.S. policy from the Balkans to Central Asia. For instance, a NATO withdrawal
from the Balkans would assist Moscow in expanding its political and economic
influences and help ensure the permanent exclusion from the alliance of
states such as Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania.

The Kremlin is also canvassing for an international seal of approval as
the primary "peace-keeper" in Central Asia and the Caucasus. This would
entail significant leeway in dealing with domestic separatist movements and
conducting military operations in neighboring states regardless of the
opposition of local governments.

Russia has already been rewarded for its rhetorical commitment to the
anti-terrorist campaign. In a clear shift of policy, the White House has
stated that the al Qaeda network played a role in inciting rebellion in
Chechnya, where Russian forces continue to employ indiscriminate force
against civilians and commit numerous human rights abuses. Moscow now
believes it has obtained a green light for state terror within Russian
borders.

In claiming that Muslim radicalism is a threat to Russia and its
Central Asian neighbors, Moscow will camouflage its campaign against
independence in Central Asia and the Caucases as a struggle against
fundamentalism and terrorism.

Claims of Chechen ties to bin Laden could be widened to include
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and other states that remain opposed to
Russian domination. Moscow is calculating that the United States will simply
look the other way as Russia increases pressures on its "near abroad."

The White House will do well to remember that many of the terrorist
cells active in the Middle East were aided and abetted by the Soviet regime
during the Cold War. Moreover, contacts persist between Russian intelligence
services, the global Russian Mafia and terrorist groups linked to bin Laden
who are intent on gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

Washington must therefore be careful to gain accurate information from
Russia on the nature of the terrorist threat. It must be wary of
disinformation designed by the Kremlin to gain allied support in the campaign
against legitimate political forces struggling with Moscow's attempts at
reimperialization.

Indeed, America's international war on terrorism could become a
valuable opportunity to secure more reliable partners in countries such as
Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan that are resistant to both Russian pressures and
radical Islamicist threats and are eager for a more significant American
presence.

Moreover, Washington should remain adamant that the case for NATO
enlargement will only be strengthened by the support and performance of
candidate countries in the unfolding "new war." The struggle against
terrorism must provide leverage for enhancing U.S. strategic interests —
not
opportunities for rivals posing as partners to undermine them.

*******

#11
wps.ru
POLITICAL FORECASTS (press review)
October 9, 2001
THE WAR BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH HAS BEGUN, AND AS USUAL RUSSIA IS IN BETWEEN

"In the face of today's new threat, the only way to pursue peace
is to pursue those who threaten it," said President George Bush on
television an hour after the first missiles were fired at Afghanistan
(cited from the [Vedomosti] newspaper).

The major goal of the US military action is to eliminate the
terrorist bases in Afghanistan, as well as to destroy the military and
the industrial structure of the Talib regime until its total
liquidation. Besides, [Vedomosti] reports, the US believes that the
bombing will lead to a change of the Taliban forces in the country and
thus, will make at least some of the Talib commanders desert or to
join the Northern Alliance. Moreover, the US also hopes that deserters
will provide the necessary and true information on where Osama bin
Laden and his associates are hiding. The paper cites a statement of an
anonymous representative of the US administration, "We understand that
we are unable to "get" Mullah Omar and bin Laden by our bombs, but we
hope that the side effect will work."

It is rather doubtful if these goals are real to achieve. And all
who are aware of the Afghan reality have many doubts about this. For
instance, the [Kommersant] paper states that the first and foremost
practical objective of the US air strikes - to protect the US Air
Force from anti-aircraft fire - is most unlikely to be achieved. A
quarter of a century ago, during the first Afghan war, the US gave the
Afghan Modjaheds a thousand Stinger missiles, which were used for
shooting down Soviet planes. After the Soviet troops left Afghanistan,
the Pentagon tried to buy out the remaining Stingers, and offered very
big money for this; however, all it managed to return was about 200
systems. So, at present the Talibs have several hundreds of rather
compact anti-aircraft systems, which are very easy to take away from
the bombed area if necessary.

The [Komsomolskaya Pravda] newspaper informs where exactly the
military equipment of the Talibs may be hidden. Referring to an
anonymous officer, a participant of the first Afghan war, the paper
writes that Afghanistan is pierced by a tremendous amount of mines and
tunnels, which were once made in the mountains for pumping melted
water to the driest areas. The length of some of such tunnels amounts
to ten kilometers. And it was these tunnels that gave the Modjaheds a
possibility to not only mysteriously get out of surrounding, but to
also take their weapons and combat equipment out. In those underground
labyrinth Afghan guerrillas are almost absolutely safe; at least the
Soviet troops did not have a necessary weapon to fight against them.
So, [Komsomolskaya Pravda] writes, perhaps, the US has such a weapon,
but it should also be taken into consideration that over the past 25
years the Afghanis must have improved and strengthened their
underground shelters.

Meantime, the Russian press has no doubts that Afghanistan is not
the only country to be involved in the war, whether if bin Laden is
caught or not.

According to the [Novye Izvestia] newspaper, the US will also
want to "put in order" the countries neighboring Afghanistan, in order
to "deprive radical Arabian countries, in particular those where,
according to Washington's estimates, terrorists hide themselves and
are trained, of any chance to threaten the national security of the
US, even in the far future."

So, after the Afghan Talib regime, it may be the turn of Syria,
where the combat units of the Kurdish Labor party are hiding
themselves, and where the camps of Arabian extremists who carry out
terrorist acts in Israel are supposed to be situated.

Iran and Iraq are not forgotten either; especially after these
countries have protested against the US "revenge acts".

According to [Novye Izvestia], as for Iraq, "it is planned to
intensify the scheme of people's rebel against Saddam Hussein with US
weapons, instructors, and aviation cover". Recenlty, Tarik Aziz said
in his speech on CNN channel that the US will never find bin Laden,
and if Bush younger ever decide to attack Iraq, he will be taught a
lesson no worse than his father had been taught once.

In fact, as [Novye Izvestia] remind, ten years ago the US gave
Saddam Hussein a chance to preserve his regime. However, at present
the US politicians are close to decision to finish up with it.
According to the paper, the US plans to finish its "big war against
international terrorism" in Baghdadi.

As George Bush in the aforementioned television address to the US
nation, "we did not want this mission but we will fulfill it."

At the same time the Russian analysts can see many drawbacks in
the US plans, and not only from the point of their realization. For
instance, the [Novoe Vremya] magazine says the discussion about
fighting against terrorism is an "empty chatter".

However, the magazine agrees that "it is necessary to make all
the effort to prevent a terrorist raid every time it is being
planned". Defensive objectives of such actions are quite clear; in
these terms it is sensible to discuss only the necessary spending. As
for offensive objectives, things are much more complicated about them.

As [Novoe Vremya] writes, "retribution actions only heat the
conflict up and increase the probability of the next terrorist raid."
It is clear that responding attacks are carried out in order to weaken
the opponent and to prevent new terrorist acts, but they are unable to
radically resolve the issue, to stop the war. They only lead to
permanent increase of the violence level, as it has happened in the
Middle East lately, and now is going on all over the world. "The war
like a chameleon is changing its forms depending on the multiple
circumstances," the magazine emphasizes.

Besides, [Novose Vremya] writes, there is a question: is it
possible to preserve untouched the traditional liberal values of the
North in case of the inevitable escalation of the war between the
North and the South, the civilization and the middle ages?

The forecasts are rather sad: because of the natural course of
events, the threat of increasing authoritarian elements will be
constantly growing. Thus, a necessity to concentrate the resources,
control transportation, transferences and cargo transportation, as
well as spreading information will emerge (actually, has already
emerged). "And Russia and Russians know better than many other
countries what regime is likely to be finally established, covered by
all these plausible pretexts," the magazine notes, "There is no
grounds to believe that it will be different."

In any case, [Novoe Vremya] believes, still a certain combination
of slavery and freedom is possible, like it used to be in the US
before abolishment of slavery or in the SAR before the apartheid
regime was eliminated. "From the standpoint of those locked in
ghettos, there was no liberalism and democracy. While 'full-value'
citizens could enjoy all that." So, according to the paper, now
something similar may happen to the US and to the rest of the world.
"If war escalation goes on and on, the zone of democracy and freedom
will keep narrowing; however, it will exist even under the war
conditions for a rather long time." As [Novoe Vremya] notes, it would
be good to "fin ourselves within this zone, in its comfort and warmth,
and not to stay outside in the cold."

The viewpoint of the [Profil] magazine is rather similar to the
aforementioned. [Profil] is convinced that attacking Afghanistan and
even defeat of the Talibs "is not a full-value response to the
international terrorism" for all this is most unlikely to increase the
extent of security of the US and the rest of the "civilized world".
What this world is unanimous now is understanding of the
ineffectiveness of the prior defense methods, "International pacts,
aircraft carriers, antiaircraft defense systems and other that was
invented for defending against an external enemy is absolutely
helpless against a single kamikaze with a test-tube of killing virus
in a pocket."

Moreover, today's post-industrial civilization is so complicated
that from time to time disasters happen without any terrorist acts -
the Kursk nuclear submarine disaster is one of the most convincing and
frightening instances. And the vulnerability of the present
civilization is undoubted - it contains too many vitally important
joints, and attacking any of them can provide for a real "domino
effect".

Evidently, it is absolutely impossible to control the whole
infrastructure of a developed country. That is why, according to
[Profile] "it will occur to everyone rather soon that it is much
cheaper and efficient to control people (and in present situation any
person is potentially dangerous) than to dumbly keep watch over
communications and put agents to every plane."

It is especially easy in the west because along with improvement
of democracy and development of the freedoms a process of gathering
and accumulation of information (including the most confidential one)
on individuals has bee on: for instance, on those who become bank
clients, or takes a new job, or fills out a tax declaration form -
which means about almost everyone without an exception.

As [Profil] writes, "there is a file for each citizen of Europe
and America, sometimes several files," and this allows to make an
absolutely full database over a very short period of time.

While if there is a total control there is always a possibility
and a temptation to manipulate the behavior of a person. And everyone
knows what it is like, either from the history of his or her own
country or from futuristic anti-Utopia novels.

The [Obshchaya Gazeta] newspaper proposes its own way for
salvation of the world in an articles titled "Racing the apocalypses".
The paper writes, "New man-made disasters can be prevented only by
means of improvement of the safety measures. While the total danger
globalization can be prevented only by globalization of fighting
against them."

According to [Obshchaya Gazeta], in present situation the
terrorism centers are almost impossible to eliminate, "In the long
run, it is senseless to liquidate the presently existing terrorist
networks and to simultaneously allow the leaders of national states,
who often have extremely narrow and selfish ends to create new
terrorism centers, which will allow terrorism to spread all over the
world."

That is why the only response to the more and more global threats
to the modern more united and more fragile world can be only
"establishment of a united world authority system, and in the long run
- a united world state." This is, according to [Obshchaya Gazeta], the
"clearly determined agenda for the 21st century."

The paper notes that this state is already being established, and
the already past stages are international tribunal court ob Yugoslavia
and Rwanda; various UN, OSCE and Council of Europe's inspections; as
well as NATO operation in Kosovo and arrests of General Pinocet,
former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavel Lazarenko, and even Russian
official Pavel Borodin.

As [Obshchaya Gazeta] believes, the September 11 events
considerably intensified this process. Terrorists attacked not only
New York and Washington but also the principle of state sovereignty
and non-intervention to interior things of other states, "Today even
Russia, that had reacted so painfully to NATO's actions in former
Yugoslavia, does not object against actions in 'sovereign Afghanistan'
and 'intervention' into its 'interior affairs'".

At present the civilized world is forced to act as "authoritarian
policeman, a teacher, a 'civilizer'". The paper is convinced that
there is no other way out at present.

At the same time, it is undoubted that at present the situation
is extremely complicated and contradictory, "The 'civilized' mankind
has entered the way on which it will have to connect unconnectable
things... This is a way on which it is very easily to 'get infatuated
with one's own leading and dictating position' and to give up to the
natural intention to fix it; it is very easy to 'mix up' the
objectives of survival of the mankind and one's own profit."

From the standpoint of the paper, it is a very long and difficult
way, which demands 'colossal self-restrain and intellectual honesty'
and so on. As a result, this way is to lead to "creation of a global
democratic society where the principle 'one man- one voice' is to be
realized. This means everyone will have the right to influence the
course of events."

[Obshchaya Gazeta] writes that only such a society can guarantee
preservation of liberal values; only such a society can be really
stable and we should constantly remember about it as about our final
objective.

While so far "using of paternal and dictating elements, as well
as imposing to liberal minorities the norms without which the mankind
will die" is inevitable. Well, it is another version of a classical
Utopia: "let's drive the mankind into happiness with an iron hand". It
seems everything has already been said about noble aims which are
justifying not very civilized means.

Meanwhile, the journal [Expert] views the situation in quite a
different way, and its opinion rules out prospects of creation of a
global democratic state.

Alexander Privalov, observer of the journal, cites an article
from The International Herald Tribune devoted to the military campaign
in Afghanistan that states that an undesirable or disappointing result
of this campaign could provoke an isolationist reaction in the US. The
new American isolationism is most likely to be based on a new narrowed
alliance that would apparently include NAFTA countries, Israel,
Taiwan, and probably Japan. [Expert] draws the reader's attention to
the fact that the US does not intend to ally with Europe anymore.

The quoted article states that the new alliance may become the
dominating military force of the world and may become a commercial
competitor of its former enemies and allies.

Alexander Privalov stresses that this article clarifies the
situation: "Never mind the North or the South! There is America and
its closest satellites that should be protected by all means including
ballistic missiles and restrictive import duties."

However, there have not been any official announcements about it.
At the same time, the observer of [Expert] believes that Russia now
has a chance to take advantage of the disagreements between Europe and
the US. Moreover, he is of the opinion that America does not leave any
other chance for Europe but alliance with Russia. "That is why
President Putin's speech in Bundestag had such an effect!"

In the opinion of the journal [Novoe Vremya], this speech is
Putin's attempt to use the same style in Europe that helped him gain a
success in Russia during the presidential campaign.

The journal thinks that the "American tragedy gave Russia a
chance to take advantage of anxieties of any European audience,
including parliament members, prime ministers, and presidents." Putin
used this chance when he called for the West "to transform the cold
war into the anti-terrorist war." Europeans and almost the whole world
now feel the same as Russians felt after the explosions in Moscow,
Buinaksk, and Volgodonsk in 1999.

Of course, the West may understand the Kremlin's game and adopt
it only as much as it corresponds to its foreign political interests.
However, these topics and disagreements are at the background.

In the opinion of [Nezavisimaya Gazeta], Russia has adopted an
extremely unprofitable role in the "third world war." The newspaper
stresses that President Bush has not mentioned Russia among America's
allies - actually, he has not mentioned it at all. The only thing left
for Russia is to hope that Bush implied it when he said, "The whole
world supports us in this operation." Thus, [Nezavisimaya Gazeta]
states that Russia's place in this military campaign "is somewhere
between Israel and Muammar Kaddaffi."

The newspaper notes that Russia is bound with the Northern
Alliance by partnership relations. Russia has already begun to deliver
weapons and military hardware to the Afghani Northern Alliance.
Meanwhile, it is clear that the Northern Alliance does not have the
necessary number of specialists able to manage this equipment. "Thus,
the Russian military may soon trail the same mountain paths as their
Soviet predecessors used to. It is also not ruled out that Russian
detachments will be in the avant-garde while attacking Kabul."

[Nezavisimaya Gazeta] states that the involvement of Russia in
the new war in Afghanistan means that it will have one more front. In
this connection it is clear why Shamil Basaev recently announced his
intention to support the Afghani people against aggressors.

Meanwhile, the newspaper is convinced that the US will never be
Russia's ally in the Caucasus, whereas its military participation in
this conflict "is a matter of time."

In other words, the US insists of the whole world's joining its
revenge campaign, whereas Russia is taking a risk to "be as isolated
in the 'Second Great Patriotic War' as it was in 1941" if it joins
America's campaign.

However, according to the newspaper [Vremya Novostei], Vladimir
Putin is clearly displaying signs of keeping a distance from the
operation in Afghanistan. Russia is actively delivering humanitarian
assistance to Afghanistan, but it rules out Russia's military
participation in the military operation there. The newspaper states
that both most of the military and of the Russian society consider
Putin's support for America's military operation to be too strong,
which is hazardous for his image of the president supporting interests
of its voters.

The newspaper cites data of some opinion polls stating that 61%
of Russians did not approve of even the very intention of the US to
perform the revenge operation. Sociologists are sure that this figure
is much larger after the recent missile strikes against targets in
Afghnaistan. Director of the All-Russian Public Opinion Study Center
(VTsIOM) Yury Levada says, "The painful memories of the events of
September 11 have been mollified, and now people see new victims on
TV."

According to VTsIOM's opinion polls, before the military strikes
87% of Russians thought America should have displayed wisdom instead
of aggression. Currently, 72% of Russians fear that the military
operation in Afghanistan may develop into a new world war.
Leonid Radzikhovsky, observer of the newspaper [Vremya MN], is of
the opinion that the main feeling uniting the Russian society is the
fear of war. Since there is nothing to soothe Russians so far, their
fear is developing into a stronger hatred for Americans because "the
tension and fear experienced by most Russians are caused by Americans'
actions."

Leonid Radzikhovsky believes that in reality most Russians,
including those sympathizing with the West, are not afraid of
terrorists. "Russians are not scared by explosions in New York." Even
those who hate and curse Moslem extremists do this out of their morals
but not because of the fear for their security. However, a large-scale
war that may involve the whole country in a bout of deaths is much
more frightening.

For the past six years of the Chechen war people have learnt to
think that they do not suffer from terrorists personally unless they
have a son who can be called to the Army. Meanwhile, the fear of being
involved in a large war in Afghanistan or Central Asia is a reality.
Leonid Radzikhovsky states, "Russia views the war that has been
unleashed in Afghanistan a completely foreign war, and its citizens
absolutely rule out any possibility of the country's participation in
this war on whatever side."

The Russian government will apparently have to count with this
opinion of the society because Russia is known to be a democratic
country.

Mavra Kosichkina

(Translated by Arina Yevtikhova and Kirill Frolov)

*******

#12
Moscow Times
October 10, 2001
E-Mail Turns 30 Years Old in Fall
By Bernhard Warner
Reuters

LONDON -- As great inventions go, e-mail had a rather ho-hum
beginning back in 1971.

In fact, Ray Tomlinson, the American engineer considered the father of
e-mail, can't quite recall when the first message was sent, what it said, or
even who the recipient was.

"I have no idea what the first one was," he said.

"It might have been the first line from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address for all
I know. The only thing I know was it was all in upper case."

Tomlinson, principal engineer at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based BBN
Technologies, finds himself in the spotlight again after all these years,
having to answer questions about the computer program he designed as it
reaches its 30th birthday in the coming weeks.

He modestly calls his baby "no major tour de force." It was just 200 lines of
code, he says. And the inspiration -- one computer program to enable file
transfers and a second crude messaging program -- already existed, he said.

But the infant programs had their flaws. For example, the message program
only enabled a user to send a communique to a colleague's mailbox as long as
that mailbox was located on the very same computer as the sender's.

Tomlinson got around this by creating remote personal mailboxes that could
send and receive messages via a computer network.

Tomlinson also conceived the idea of using the now-famous "@" symbol to
ensure a message was properly sent to a designated recipient.

The end product, he said, was simply the combination of the two existing
programs, enabling a person to send a message for the first time to a
specified computer user on any computer hooked up to the ARPA Net, the
predecessor to today's Internet that was developed by the U.S. Defense
Department.

Thirty years on, e-mail has clearly become a vital form of communication.

Last month, e-mail became the only reliable link for many frantic souls
during the hijacked plane attacks in the United States.

It connected friends and family in New York and Washington as telephone
circuits became overloaded in the hours after three hijacked planes toppled
the twin World Trade Center towers and blew apart a section of the Pentagon.

Poignant e-mails from survivors have circulated to family and friends around
the world, filling in clues about harrowing escapes and daring rescue
attempts.

A week after the Sept. 11 attacks, it was e-mail that helped spread the
damaging Nimda computer virus, knocking out corporate computer networks
around the globe and inflicting hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of
damage.

Then there are the thousands of hack-ins -- mostly mere nuisances but some
with headline-grabbing results, such as the jamming of popular web sites
Yahoo! and CNN in February 2000 or the recent theft of thousands of
credit-card numbers from online merchants.

Like all essential communication devices, e-mail has a love-hate relationship
with its users. For every pick-me-up message of praise or joke sent
electronically it seems there are an equal number of unsolicited e-mail
reminders that we can lose weight overnight, make money working from home or
earn an honorary college degree.

But back in the autumn of 1971 -- Tomlinson says he can't recall which month
-- e-mail was a relatively small success.

The reason, he added, was simply because there were just a few hundred users
of the ARPA Net that could put it to use.

And the top-of-the-line modem connection at the time operated at a snail-like
300 baud, roughly 200 times slower than today's standard 56.6 kbps modem.

It made only the most concise message practical.

"Reliance took a few years to happen," said Tomlinson.

It wasn't until the personal computer boom in the mid-1980s that e-mail
trickled into the lives of computer enthusiasts and millions of university
students.

Another major stage in its development came in the mid-1990s when the first
web browsers introduced the World Wide Web to the home-loving couch potato.

As Internet usage grew, so did e-mail.

Over the years, Tomlinson said, complete strangers have sent him notes of
thanks and a few of criticism for his invention -- all by e-mail, of course.

******

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