October 29. 1999    
This Date's Issues: 3593 • 3594 

Johnson's Russia List
#3594
29 October 1999
davidjohnson@erols.com


[Note from David Johnson:
1. Reuters: U.S., Russia agree to keep Armenia on peace path.
2. Itar-Tass: Ivanov: West Supports RUSSIA'S Anti-Terrorist Struggle.
3. Boston Globe: Dmitry Shalganov and David Filipov, Citing Kosovo, Russia justifies Chechnya raids.
4. President Clinton on Chechnya October 28.
5. Moscow Times: Jonas Bernstein, For Kremlin, Council Rule Beats Election.
6. Itar-Tass: Bloc Leaders Hope to Reach Yeltsin through Open Letter.
7. Troy McGrath: response to Hough re: Mendelson/State Dept. 
8. J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. re: 3587, Mendelson/student visas.
9. The Economist editorial: To cool the Caucasus. Russia's bombing of 
Chechnya gives the entire region the jitters. 
10. Rossiyskaya Gazeta: 'Moscow Connection' in Ukraine Election Campaign Eyed.
11. Michael Kagalenko: Hough on English proficiency.
12. US Department of State Foreign Media Reaction:
RUSSIA'S 'ESCALATION IN CHECHNYA': WHAT CAN THE WEST DO?]
********


#1
U.S., Russia agree to keep Armenia on peace path

MOSCOW, Oct 29 (Reuters) - U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott
and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov agreed on Friday they had to help
Armenia recover from the slaying of its top leaders and pursue peace talks
with Azerbaijan. 


Talbott said after talks with Ivanov that the killing of Armenia's prime
minister and other top officials on Wednesday ``cast a pall'' over attempts
to resolve Armenia's dispute with Azerbaijan over the territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh. 


``The horror, the outrage, the murders that took place in Yerevan two days
ago cast a pall over the entire region and, alas, perhaps over the peace
process as well,'' Talbott said. 


``What we all need to do is be as supportive and sympathetic as we can to
Armenia and get it through the aftermath, including the business of peace.'' 


He said he would travel to Yerevan on Friday to offer Washington's
condolences for the shootings in the Armenian parliament. 


``Foreign Minister Ivanov and I agreed that the presidents in the region
have been doing good and important and potentially promising work
together,'' Talbott told reporters. 


He said he and Ivanov agreed the talks must continue and that Russia, the
United States and France, sponsoring the process, would help bring it to a
successful end despite the killings. 


Armenia has been plunged into mourning after the slaying by gunmen of Prime
Minister Vazgen Sarksyan and other officials. 


The killings came as Armenia and Azerbaijan inched closer to a deal over
Nagarno-Karabakh, where ethnic Armenian separatists fought a war with
Azerbaijan which killed 35,000. 


Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and his Azeri counterpart, Haydar
Aliyev, have met several times and analysts say they have never been closer
to settling the dispute over Karabakh, where a 1994 ceasefire ended the
fighting. 


Talbott had been in Yerevan for talks on the peace process and left just an
hour before the gunmen burst into parliament. 


He said that in Yerevan he would meet Kocharyan, who on Thursday spoke with
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. 


``She (Albright) asked if he (the president) would receive me very briefly
for me just to shake his hand, look him in the eye and express in person
the sense of shock and sympathy which all of us feel,'' Talbott said. 


********


#2
Ivanov: West Supports RUSSIA'S Anti-Terrorist Struggle.


MOSCOW, October 29 (Itar-Tass) - The West regards with understanding
Russia's actions, aimed at eliminating the hotbed of terrorism in the
Northern Caucasus and creating conditions for a normal life of people in
that region, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Friday,
addressing journalists in the Moscow Institute of International Relations.
He attended there a conference, devoted to the 450th anniversary of the
Foreign Affairs Prikaz (the name of foreign ministry in old Russia). 


"A final settlement of the situation in Chechnya can be and will be of a
political nature," Ivanov stressed. With this in view, "special conditions
should be created, and one of the conditions provides for the liquidation
of terrorist gangs, which have disrupted political agreements all along,
during the whole of the conflict." 


According to Ivanov, the Russian leaders have stressed on more than one
occasion that all measures are being taken during the operations against
illegal armed units for avoiding casualties among the civilian population
and in the federal troops. "This is the task set by the Russian leaders,
which will be put into effect," he said. 


"Attempts are being made to distort the meaning of the developments in the
Northern Caucasus, which are well orchestrated," Ivanov continued. A lot of
disinformation is sent directly from Grozny and is coming from the Western
mass media, which is circulated with the help of Internet. Ivanov said the
Russian authorities were prepared for it and were doing their best to
explain what is really going on in the Northern Caucasus, and what actions
are taken in Chechnya. 


********


#3
Boston Globe
29 October 1999
[for personal use only]
Citing Kosovo, Russia justifies Chechnya raids 
By Dmitry Shalganov and David Filipov


HAWK MOUNTAIN, Russia - Russians keep comparing their military's offensive
in Chechnya to NATO's air strikes against Yugoslavia - but Kosovo was never
like this.


Alexander Kortunov's troops nearly stumbled into an ambush when they
happened upon two Chechen tanks half-hidden in trenches on this high ridge
overlooking Chechnya's capital, Grozny. Under fire, the men called in jets
and choppers and mortar from Russian positions farther down the ridge.


In the heat of the battle, Kortunov put a grenade into a trench and earned
himself a medal for valor. The Chechens retreated and the firefight ended.
Kortunov's unit emerged, their faces black with soot and grime. One Chechen
lay dead; three of Kortunov's comrades writhed in pain in the grass.


It was the kind of close fighting that Kortunov's commander, General
Alexander Belousov, is trying to avoid. Russian commanders say they studied
NATO's campaign against Yugoslavia before sending troops into Chechnya.
Like the alliance, Russia's military would like to rely on air power and
missiles to limit its own losses.


''We work over enemy positions with aviation and artillery, and if the
enemy resists we work them over some more,'' Belousov said yesterday.


But Kosovo was never like this. Even with such precautions, in a month
since ground troops entered Chechnya, the Russians admit to losing nearly
200 men; hundreds more have been wounded.


The battle gave the Russians control of Hawk Mountain, a 1,500-foot hill 10
miles north of Grozny that provides a spectacular view of Chechnya's
capital. Meanwhile yesterday, Russian warplanes and artillery pounded
Grozny hard for a second straight day, flying 100 sorties in the heaviest
bombardment since federal troops entered Chechnya to crush the rebels.


Reports of heavy civilian casualties, including an Oct. 21 rocket attack in
a crowded Grozny market that killed as many as 300 people, have stirred
increasing concern from the United States and its European allies.


But Moscow has dismissed criticism and pushed ahead with its offensive.
After all, Moscow says, NATO largely ignored its pleas for restraint in the
Balkans.


Gennady Seleznyov, the speaker of the lower house of Parliament, summed up
Moscow's mood by saying NATO countries did not have ''the moral right to
tell Russians how to settle'' the conflict after they bombed Yugoslavia
during the Kosovo crisis.


Yesterday, thousands of Grozny residents fled the city for rebel-occupied
territory, but nowhere looked safe. West of Grozny, Russian forces were
shelling the highway heading out of the region, blocking off the road that
190,000 refugees had used to flee since fighting began.


The Russian military said 250 militants were killed in yesterday's raids,
which were called ''pinpoint strikes'' against rebel units; Chechen reports
indicated heavy civilian casualties and indiscriminate bombing of
residential areas.


Planes bombed the villages of Samashki and Shaami-Yurt along the highway,
and artillery hit the ruins of the city of Sernovodsk, destroyed during
Russia's last war in Chechnya. The Russians say no one but rebels are left
in those villages.


The Interfax news agency reported bombs exploded near a cemetery in Stariye
Atagi, south of Grozny, and killed several people in a funeral cortege. It
quoted a spokesman for Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov as saying the
mourners were burying those killed in earlier bomb attacks on the Chechen
capital. A Reuters reporter quoted a woman from Samashki as saying her
small children were trapped in the village.


The Russians say they are targeting Islamic militants, whom they blame for
two raids on a neighboring Russian region last summer and a wave of deadly
bomb attacks in September. The rebels deny involvement in the bombings.


What started for the Russians as an ''antiterrorist campaign'' has begun to
look like total war. Russian generals say troops will soon surround Grozny,
allowing them to attack guerrillas in the city and in the south. 


The Chechens by all accounts have been unable or unwilling to try to halt
the Russian offensive. Rebel leaders say they are preparing to defend
Grozny; The Russians, expecting an easy victory, say the separatists are
divided and weak. But the Russians said all that the last time they fought
in Chechnya, up until the day in 1996 their beaten troops were forced to
withdraw.


Fearing a repeat of the 1994-96 Chechnya war that cost tens of thousands of
civilian lives, Western leaders have urged a halt to the fighting and
immediate negotiations. Some Russian commentators find that ironic.


''We have no need to justify ourselves before the West,'' wrote journalist
Maxim Yusin in the usually liberal Izvestia newspaper. ''Russia is not
doing anything today in Chechnya which the Americans, British and French
did not do in the recent past in Iraq or in the Balkans.''


When NATO planes mistakenly bombed civilians during the Kosovo campaign,
officials subsequently admitted errors. The Russians insist they attack
only military targets and dismiss claims of civilian casualties, and
Russian officials have made no statements of remorse for civilian deaths.


While NATO errors in Kosovo roused strong Western public concern, there has
been little negative public reaction in Russia to federal troops' mistakes
in Chechnya.


Many Russians blame Chechens for a rise in violent crime in Moscow and the
Caucasus, and the war has strong popular support. With parliamentary
elections approaching, few politicians dare buck the popular wave of
support for the campaign.


Opponents also use the Kosovo parallel, but in a different way. Sergei
Kovalyev, a federal lawmaker and human rights activist, recently reflected
on what he saw as similarities between Kosovo and Chechnya: A brutal
crackdown on a breakaway Muslim region, indiscriminate violence, and tens
of thousands of refugees.


''In Chechnya,'' Kovalyov concluded, ''Russia is using NATO's methods to
achieve Milosevic's ends.''


Shalganov reported from Chechnya; Filipov, from Moscow.


********


#4
Excerpt
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary October 28, 1999 
PRESS CONFERENCE BY PRESIDENT CLINTON AND PRESIDENT OBASANJO OFNIGERIA
Presidential Hall 4:25 P.M. EDT 


Q. Mr. President, Russia appears to have intensified its offensive
against Chechnya this week with heavy bombardment and with ground
troops approaching the capital, Grozny, from three directions. Do you
think that this offensive may ultimately backfire on Russia and lead
to greater bitterness among the Chechens toward Moscow, and ultimately
sow deeper seeds of conflict both in the region and also possibly that
may bring itself back to Russian soil?


PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it depends upon whether ultimately there is
a political solution or not, or whether the Russian government
attempts to find a military solution. I have never believed that
ultimately, there could be a solution to any of these problems that
was not a political one, that recognized the extraordinary complex
tapestry of ethnic and religious groups across the belly of Russia and
just to the south.
As you know, it's an explosive part of the world -- not just in
Chechnya, but we've had difficulties in Dagestan; the Georgians have
had their challenges. We had the terrible, terrible shooting in
Armenia yesterday and the loss of the Prime Minister and seven others.
It has been our experience, that's all I can tell you, it's been our
experience that in every place where there are genuine ethnic and
religious difficulties, and particularly when they're combined, that
sooner or later people have to stop fighting and start talking; and
that any military strategy ought to be designed to do nothing more
than create the conditions within which a negotiated settlement can be
reached. Because in the end I think that's what will have to happen.
And what the United States hopes, since we also have a big stake in
the success of democracy and freedom and prosperity in Russia, is that
we will see a minimization of the casualties and that we will hasten
the day when there will be a negotiated solution that all the parties
can live with.


*******


#5
Moscow Times
October 29, 1999 
PARTY LINES: For Kremlin, Council Rule Beats Election 
By Jonas Bernstein
Staff Writer


The idea that next year's presidential election might be canceled reared its 
ugly head again last Sunday, when NTV's Yevgeny Kiselyov spoke darkly about 
President Boris Yeltsin's undying lust for power and rumors that the Kremlin 
was considering a state of emergency. Yet Kiselyov's guests, the former prime 
ministers Viktor Chernomyrdin, Sergei Kiriyenko and Sergei Stepashin, all 
predicted that Yeltsin, eyeing his historical legacy, would do the right 
thing, and that next summer's vote would take place. 


This happy ending is neither inevitable nor even likely, nor is Yeltsin's 
psyche necessarily crucial to what happens. To borrow from the Marxists, 
other, more "objective" factors are likely to determine the outcome. 


Next year's election poses a serious problem for Russia's political elite. 
That elite is split roughly in two. On one side are the regional bosses, led 
by Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov and former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov under 
the Fatherland-All Russia banner. On the other are the central government and 
state apparatuses, the oligarchs and the Kremlin "family" (all overlapping). 


The former group has potential popular support; the latter, the country's 
main power levers. And even if Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has given the 
latter group an advantage, his approval rating is contingent on the Chechen 
war, and the pro-Kremlin group is clearly not unanimous in backing him as the 
heir apparent. But there is only one presidency - the post provided with the 
overwhelming preponderance of state power under Russia's Constitution. 


All this makes next summer's vote a zero-sum game with extremely high stakes 
- a good recipe for unprecedented dirty tricks or even violence. But a 
shooting war would be bad for business. What to do? Have a sit down. 


The idea of a national ruling committee has cropped up in other periods of 
political crisis. Just prior to the 1996 presidential election, the idea of 
canceling the vote and setting up a "national unity" government or "state 
council" was backed by, among others, 13 oligarchs, led by Boris Berezovsky, 
then presidential bodyguard Alexander Korzhakov and Gennady Zyuganov, the 
Communist Party's leader and presidential candidate. Later that year, as 
Yeltsin prepared for heart surgery, then Kremlin chief of staff Anatoly 
Chubais strongly hinted at something similar. Next June is even more fraught 
with peril, so the idea ought to start popping up again soon. 


The West, of course, wouldn't like it. But would it, as punishment, turn 
Russia into an economic pariah? Certainly not - particularly if the ruling 
council found a good front man. Just ask Pakistan's General Pervaiz 
Musharraf. The International Monetary Fund might temporarily cut Russia off. 
But it might do so anyway if Russia continues to pave Grozny. Anyway, with 
all the IMF's new demands for audits, etcetera, the loans have become less 
attractive. Why not, instead, take Alexander Lukashenko's advice and just 
sell a couple of S-300 missile systems? 


What is more, the Belarus strongman's idea of uniting with Russia might 
provide the Russian political elite with the fig leaf it needs. It provides a 
good excuse for postponing Russia's presidential vote; the two peoples, after 
all, need time to work out the details of their "voluntary union." It also 
comes with a ready-made Supreme State Council. 


*******


#6
Bloc Leaders Hope to Reach Yeltsin through Open Letter.


MOSCOW, October 29 (Itar-Tass) - An open letter to President Boris Yeltsin
is the only way to reach the head of state, a high- ranking official for
the Fatherland/All Russia (OVR) election bloc told a news conference on
Friday. 


In an open letter to Yeltsin, OVR leaders called on him to sack the most
notorious figures of the Kremlin administration and meet journalists to
tell them what is going on in Russia. 


The letter is "the only possibility to bring the bloc's concern home to the
head of state," a deputy director of OVR election headquarters, Sergei
Yastrzhembsky, said. 


"The bloc's leaders are concerned over (the fact that) the president is in
political and partly informational isolation, does not receive information
adequate to what is going on in the society, does not monitor the reaction
of public opinion to the events that are happening in the country,"
Yastrzhembsky said. 


Yeltsin's reaction to the letter will show whether he has been allowed to
peruse it, he said, adding "there is a great stockpile of possibilities" to
keep the message away from him. 


Yastrzhembsky, who used to be Yeltsin's spokesman, said he was sure that
the letter the OVR leaders had sent him about two months before had either
failed to reach the head of state or been read too late. 


"Unfortunately, the president has not met leaders of parties, movements or
political associations," he said, adding Yeltsin speaks only to those
political leaders who are controlled by the Kremlin. 


******


#7
From: "troy mcgrath" <troy_mcgrath@hotmail.com>
Subject: Subject: response to Hough re: Mendelson/State Dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 


Dr. Troy McGrath
University of Kansas


Subject: Re: 3590 Hough comments about Mendelson/Student Visas, (3587).


Both as an educator, and as someone in the fSU/EE field, I feel it necessary 
to defend Sarah Mendelson's views regarding the US State Department's visa 
policy. To begin with, the "facts" that Dr. Hough uses to support his 
criticism of Mendelson are out of date. I spent 1991-1998 teaching at the 
university level in a variety of countries and programs throughout the 
region, which provides me with a solid empirical basis for commenting upon 
the abilities, backgrounds and motivations of students from there.


1) the duration of visits: while short-term visits are certainly useful, 
particularly because they do not drain away valuable teachers and scholars 
from the region for too long, it is of far more use to participants to spend 
enough time somewhere so that they can have a real feel and appreciation of 
the resources available in Western institutions and locations. Most programs 
build in a specific time period, such as a semester, or a year, which seem 
to me reasonable amounts of time. Many of us criticize scholars who make 
quick trips to the region, then claim to have great insights about the 
politics, people, culture there. The same thing works in reverse. If we want 
scholars and leaders to appreciate our system as a whole, they need 
sufficient time to do so.


2) knowledge of English: Hough's claims that those who know English in the 
region are almost exclusively children of the nomenklatura is simply 
inaccurate. While this was truer in 1990, it is no longer the case. I know 
this because I taught undergraduates, in English, at Universities, and my 
colleagues did so in high schools, as far back as 1991. Also, many schools 
and universities, private and otherwise, teach courses in English. Add to 
that the fine work done by people working for the British Council, the US 
Peace Corps, etc., etc., and you have opened up English-language education 
to a very wide range of people. Dr. Hough might recognize some names from 
the old days, but he himself is the one who needs to leave those days 
behind. I could send him the names, CV's, etc., of hundreds of graduate 
students from the region that I interviewed and taught, who come from 
families that were not "connected" in the former system.


3) Dr. Hough's examples in Russia: It is sad to hear that Dr. Hough's 
contacts for the program he mentions lack the language skills to access 
exchange opportunities in the US. Dr. Hough simply needs to look a little 
harder, or to utilize the talents of the hundreds of us in the field who 
know personally, or know of, those thousands of talented, deserving, 
professional, English-speaking scholars and officials now working in Russia.


4) the provinces: Hough is correct in saying that we need to do a better job 
of recruiting visitors, scholars, etc. from the provinces, rather than from 
EE and fSU capitals. This supports Sarah Mendelson's argument. Maybe 
stronger support that targets the provinces could be the first step in doing 
what Hough suggests is necessary, " develop a democratization program that 
really tried to support democracy.


Let me finish by saying that I am not blind to the abuses that accompany 
exchange schemes. There will always be people who take advantage of such 
programs, just like there are thousands of US exchange students who go 
abroad supposedly to study a culture, but end up mostly drinking and fooling 
around. In all these cases (Eastward and Westward bound), the programs and 
institutions that sponsor exchanges should be vigilant in their selection of 
candidates, as well as in the implementation of their programs. As "real" 
experience and accurate understanding of Western institutions, ideas, and 
practices helped to undermine the mentality that helped to maintain the 
communist systems, increased exchanges will help provide a more balanced 
perception of what the West is really like. This, more than any IMF loan or 
NATO exercise, will undermine the distorted notions of democracy and 
capitalism now fuelling rampant crime, intolerance, and nationalism in the 
fSU and East Europe. We can afford to keep bringing people to the US. The 
money spent by all the exchange programs ever funded by the US government or 
even private institutions pales in comparison to the money wasted in our 
efforts to try to "bring democracy" to Bosnia and Kosovo, to punish Saddam 
Hussein, or to prop up the corrupt Yeltsin regime. Maybe the State 
Department should leave students and scholars alone and focus upon those who 
really have undermined the US position in the world. Clearly, they won't 
have to look too far.


*******


#8
From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@jmu.edu>
Subject: re: 3587, Mendelson/student visas
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 


I would like to agree with David Wheeler
that the problem of visa rejections has become
very widespread. We now have a visitor from
China on our campus. His visa application
was initially rejected and we learned that the
US government has stopped processing any
visa applications coming through the China
Scholars Abroad, the Chinese equivalent of
the Fulbright. Fortunately for us (and our visitor)
we were able to use senatorial sources to get
around this and get his application treated more
fairly. But, there does seem to be a broader
effort going on to "crack down" and reject many
visa applications from other countries involving
scholarship-related visits.
J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.
Professor of Economics
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 USA
email: rosserjb@jmu.edu
website: http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb


******


#9
The Economist
October 30-November 5, 1999
[for personal use only]
Leader/Editorial
To cool the Caucasus 
Russia's bombing of Chechnya gives the entire region the jitters 
ALL the signs are that the Russian government thinks it is going to swat its 
pesky Chechen rebels and reassert itself over the country's turbulent 
southern rim by force. It is unlikely to succeed. The government's military 
campaign has so far been a bit less crass, though hardly less brutal, than it 
was in 1994-96, when perhaps 80,000 people were killed, Chechnya won de facto 
independence and Russia was humiliated. But the Chechens are no less tough 
now than they were then. Today, moreover, the entire Caucasus, not just 
Chechnya, is a dangerous mess, and Russia is making it worse. In the last 
Chechen war, the rest of the world stood aside, vaguely muttering that it was 
an internal Russian affair. This time, with several neighbouring countries 
threatened by the convulsions, outsiders have every reason to use their 
influence to promote a settlement. 


Fortuitously, a good moment for trying to do that is at hand. The 
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is soon to hold 
its first grand summit for three years. Among the club's members are the 
United States, Russia, Turkey, three ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus 
(Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) and all the other countries of Europe. The 
OSCE has come up in the world, mainly as an organisation that can discuss 
human rights and other delicate issues. It also happens to be Russia's 
favourite forum. Its gathering in Istanbul in three weeks' time provides the 
ideal opportunity to seek a general settlement in the Caucasus. 


Halting the bloodshed in Chechnya is the most urgent task. The way to start 
would be for Russia, which now declares itself to be in a position of 
strength, to offer a ceasefire. It could then negotiate with Aslan Maskhadov, 
Chechnya's elected leader, and grant Chechnya at least the wide measure of 
autonomy promised three years ago. That would provide the best hope of 
winning the Chechens' co-operation in the battle against Islamic terrorism in 
Russia's cities, which is supposedly a large part of the reason for the 
Russian campaign. 


The Russians will insist that this war in Chechnya, like the last one, is an 
internal matter. But the international aspects cannot be brushed off. At 
least 180,000 Chechens are said to have fled their homes; many have gone west 
to Ingushetia, a neighbouring republic within Russia; some have gone south to 
Georgia. Disgracefully, the Russians are blocking the exodus of more, and are 
being less than helpful to charities such as the International Committee of 
the Red Cross. 


The newly worried near abroad 

Russian meddling is feared well beyond its borders, especially in countries 
sympathetic to Chechnya. So Georgia, which has a general election on October 
31st, suspects it is once more in Russia's baleful sights. Azerbaijan, which 
wants the lion's share of the Caspian oil that Russia covets, is equally 
nervous; its foreign minister was fired this week. Armenia, Russia's oldest 
ally in the area, is convulsed in political turmoil after its prime 
minister's assassination on Wednesday. The Turks—blood-brothers of the 
Azeris and therefore, in Russian eyes, a leading strategic foe—are watching 
warily. 


But not all the signs are bad. The Russians may now be ready to accept that 
most of the newly discovered oil being pumped from Baku, the Azeris' 
Caspian-shore capital, will go via a pipeline through Turkey to the 
Mediterranean and not, as they would prefer, across their own land to the 
Black Sea. Russia might even help fix a deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia 
over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. 


Yet a settlement of the big arguments in the area should not mean letting 
Russia trample roughshod over the small peoples, Chechens included, as the 
price for accepting its loss of influence in the southern half of the 
Caucasus. The whole region is combustible. One bit affects another. The 
summiteers in Istanbul should insist that making peace in Chechnya is just 
one part, albeit the most urgent, of the business of bringing stability to 
the entire Caucasus. 


*******


#10
'Moscow Connection' in Ukraine Election Campaign Eyed 


Rossiyskaya Gazeta
27 October 1999
[translation for personal use only]
Report by Ivanna Gorina: "'Moscow's Hand' Being Sought in Kiev" 


Kiev -- The Ukrainian election campaign again could 
not do without the Russian phantom. All the country's special services 
are engaged in the search for a "Moscow connection" in the election 
battles, money, and techniques. 


A special work procedure has been introduced for law enforcers in 
Ukraine. One of the reasons is that the "designer" of the Russian bomb 
attacks has been detected in the country. He personally telephoned the 
police and introduced himself in full: first name, last name, place of 
residence --Ivano-Frankivsk. His "comrades in arms" stated their 
intention to plant mines in the Ukrainian parliament. Attempts to detect 
an explosive device there were fruitless. However, the Supreme Council 
passed a resolution condemning terrorism and introduced a procedure for 
special protection of public and government buildings. 


Ukrainian economists have detected a "Russian connection" also. National Bank 
Chairman Viktor Yushchenko has accused Russian banks of provoking the 
plunge of the hryvnya [H]. Its exchange rate, indeed, dropped by H0.2 
[against the dollar] within one week and a half. Not the recent emission 
of H4 billion but "Moscow's intrigues" were deemed the reason. 


In the preelection period Ukraine has started complaining about 
Russia's political pressure. Allegedly, Moscow insists that Kiev revise 
its commitments to the United States (Ukraine has promised to give up the 
construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran). In exchange it 
acquired hefty U.S. investments. Now Russia is "forcing" Ukraine to 
return to Bushehr. Then Moscow will hand over to Ukraine a proportion of 
orders for the production of equipment for the nuclear power plants 
Russia is building in India. Kiev has been offered a tasty morsel for the 
sake of which it has to renounce its international commitments. 


Obviously to intensify the impression, a "Russian connection" was detected in 
the attempt on the life of presidential candidate Nataliya Vitrenko. The 
grenades that wounded her and 32 other people were thrown by Russian 
citizens Andrey Samoylov and Vladimir Ivanchenko. The terrorist attack 
was discussed in detail at the Russian Federation State Duma; even a 
special session was held. The Duma Committee for Geopolitical Issues 
received a letter from the arrested Ivanchenko seeking protection against 
"unlawful methods" being applied by the Ukrainian special services 
against the Russians. 


The Duma deputies did what the Supreme Council did not indulge in: They 
obtained and publicized a protocol of V. Ivanchenko's interrogation. 
According to it, the attempt on Nataliya Vitrenko's life was a sham 
staged by the two Russians for $3,000. 


The role of Moscow media is being particularly emphasized in the 
preelection period. The special services assert that attempts are being 
made to use the Russian press to destabilize the situation. 
It is worth pointing out that none of the candidates, even Leonid 
Kuchma to whom Boris Yeltsin has pledged support, emphasize their ties to 
Russia. 


However, Kiev politicians want to know what Moscow comrades think about their 
"presidential prospects." Preelection commentaries by Russian politicians 
have been publicized in Ukraine. For instance, statements by Aleksandr 
Vengerovskiy, chairman of the Russian Federation State Duma Subcommittee 
for Foreign Intelligence, to the effect that Ukrainian communists have no 
chances for victory in the election (although all L. Kuchma's major 
rivals are "left-wingers.") The conclusions drawn by Vladimir Lukin, 
chairman of the State Duma Committee for International Affairs, are also 
known in Kiev. He explains to Ukraine that its preelection situation is 
very reminiscent of Russia's in 1996, when all the media worked for one 
candidate. 


Today, Ukrainian voters no longer assess politicians from the perspective 
of their relations with Russia. It was in the past that Leonid Kuchma was 
deemed a strong president because he had managed to sign the large-scale 
treaty with the Russian Federation, whereas Yevhen Marchuk was regarded 
as an excellent premier, because he had obtained from Moscow a deferral 
in the repayment of Ukraine's debts. Now the electorate wants to see what 
their elected representatives have accomplished inside the country. 


*******


#11
From: "Michael B. Kagalenko" <mkagalen@coe.neu.edu>
Subject: Hough on English proficiency
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:50:42 -0400 (EDT)


Prof. Hough apparently refuses to acknowledge his errors, so I would
like to provide some accurate inforamtion on English language
instruction in the SU/Russia. It is grossly incorrect that only children
of party members/nomenklatura have reasonable English skills in
Russia. English language was taught in virtually every secondary/ high 
school in the SU. The quality of instruction varied, but in many
cases it was adequate. English (or, more rarely some other foreign
language) was the required part of the curricula in most colleges
and univerisities, and in all the good ones (and the admission to the
three best Moscow institutes in physics, for example, was
competitive and fair, based on tough entrance exams, rather
then protection). One of my college friends studied German in
school, and English in college, yet was able to pass standardized tests,
gain admission to the US Graduate program in Physics, and successfully
participate in schoolwork and researcch there. It is also untrue that
specialized schools with enhanced instruction of English were he
province of privileged. Moreover, even before the Gorbachev reforms,
for-fee instruction in English was always available for those willing to
make an effort and/or pay (and the fees were not exhorbitant). 


*******


#12
Excerpt
US Department of State
Foreign Media Reaction
October 27, 1999


RUSSIA'S 'ESCALATION IN CHECHNYA': WHAT CAN THE WEST DO?


The escalation of Russian attacks in Chechnya as federal troops advance
toward Grozny led commentators outside of Russia to ask anew what can be
done to "stop this bloodbath." Opinionmakers from nearly all regions
continued to register sharp disapproval of Russia's action, referring to it
variously as "genocide temporarily camouflaged as an 'anti-terror action'"
and a "campaign of attrition and human rights violations." Several stressed
that Moscow has again embarked on an "unwinnable war" and warned, as did a
Belgian writer, that Russians are "wrong if they believe that, this time,
they will be able to force Chechens to their knees quickly." Editorialists
also were unsparing in their criticism of the West. Citing recent
statements by EU and U.S. officials, most judged the West's "lukewarm
condemnation" of Russia's military campaign to be "too little, too late."
Contrasting the West's reaction to "the massacres in Bosnia, Kosovo and
East Timor" to the "very softly" stated reprimands directed at Moscow
following the Grozny marketplace attacks, some revived the idea that a
Western "double standard" is at play. The "U.S. warning" that the Kremlin
"should not conquer Grozny with force," according to an Italian paper,
"reflects the caution of an administration that feels an urgent need to put
the strategic dialogue with Moscow on the right track." Citing Washington's
interest in obtaining Russia's okay to revise the ABM Treaty, a Belgian
pundit added, "One does not blame people from whom one asks a favor."
Russian papers remained largely supportive of their government's offensive,
and reserved their editorial ire for what they saw as unwarranted Western
scrutiny of an internal matter. "Russia is no Yugoslavia. The Yankees must
know that," warned a nationalist/opposition daily. Additional highlights
follow:


VIEWS FROM RUSSIA: Holding that "Russians have not done anything in
Chechnya that the Americans, British or French did not do in Iraq or the
Balkans," reformist Izvestiya echoed a typical view in asserting, "We don't
have to make excuses to the West" for "fighting against terrorism." Among
those supporting "use of force," however, opinions differed on whether or
not to engage the Chechens in talks. While one advised that "we should use
political means as well" as force to avoid a "long war," another held that
until "Maskhadov turns in terrorists...talks make no sense." A far lesser
number criticized the military operation, with one contending that the
"explosions in Grozny suggest that the feds and the militants are using the
same methods." 


'NO EXCUSES FOR SILENCE': Commentators saw the stepped-up Russian offensive
as evidence that Moscow believes it can afford to disregard appeals for an
end to the fighting from the EU and the United States. Concluding that "in
fact, there isn't much [the West] can do," a French commentator noted
soberly, "This economic and moral dwarf wears the nuclear and strategic
boots of a giant. We cannot afford to push it around. And it is well aware
of it." Nevertheless, an increasingly vocal contingent of analysts from
France, Germany and Italy joined others in Europe, the Middle East, Asia,
Latin America and Canada in urging the West to "make its condemnation of
Russia's actions...clear." "Beyond mere verbal indictment," argued a
Pakistani pundit, "the West must consider intervening and taking punitive
action, like a suspension of aid or embargoes." Conceding that "nobody
wants to start a fight with a nuclear giant," a Berlin pundit held,
however, that "clear words and the threat to impose sanctions and reject
future calls for...credits are the minimum that one could expect" from
Western capitals. 


EDITOR: Katherine L. Starr


EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 56 reports from 23 countries,
October 20-27. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from
each country are listed from the most recent date.


EUROPE


RUSSIA: "Nobody Dares Blacken Army" 


Viktor Pritula stated on page one of neo-communist Slovo (10/27-28): "Today
nobody dares to urge a halt to the fighting, and even less to speak ill
about the army, as in 1995-1996. But some people, primarily pro-Western
politicians, would like to do that. The West is 'concerned' over the
Russian army's action. In fact, it can't think of a better opportunity to
try to put Russia in its 'proper place.' For the Americans, Chechnya is a
chance to try to secure Russia's agreement on ABM." 


"One Million For Basayev's Head" 


With a one-million-dollar reward set for the capture of number-one
terrorist Shamil Basayev, reformist business-oriented Kommersant Daily said
(10/27): "The reward may indeed cost less than a special operation to find
and destroy the terrorist, which, apart from material expenses, may involve
the loss of lives among the federal troops. But even if the government and
unnamed businessmen are ready to pay, this will hardly help seize Basayev." 


"Chechens Refuse To Talk" 


Maksim Yusin noted on page one of reformist Izvestiya (10/26): "Chechnya's
top governing body, a national defense committee, has made a statement,
virtually refusing to hold talks with Moscow. The Chechens have put forward
obviously unacceptable demands. Many of those demands are downright absurd.
Grozny's demarche makes things easier for Moscow in its dialogue with the
West. It is completely unlike an innocent victim of an 'unprovoked
aggression' to be so daring and provocative. How do you talk to someone who
does not want to talk to you? You can force the Chechens into talks, of
course, but what will the West say to that? The West is against the use of
force, whether in a noble cause or not." 


"Public Supports Army" 


Vyacheslav Nikonov stressed in reformist Izvestiya (10/26): "It is good to
see Russia determined at last, after three years of fully conniving in
building a Chechen gangland before the whole wide world. One cannot help
but admire our brave soldiers, from private to general, and their resolve
to finish what they were not allowed to finish in the previous campaign.
Now they have better opportunities to do that, with the Russian public, the
main political forces, and the media strongly behind the use of force....
But the use of force alone spells a long war or unacceptable casualties. So
we should use political means as well." 


"Every Chechen Doesn't Like Terrorists" 


Vera Alyokhina and Aleksandr Alf pointed out in centrist Nezavisimaya
Gazeta (10/26): "Not all Chechens like the leaders of international
terrorists who kill indiscriminately. The feds can find support among those
who want to run Chechnya on their own, including as part of Russia." 


"Lack of Government" 


Svetlana Babayeva said on page one of reformist Izvestiya (10/26): "A lack
of strong government in Russia worries foreign leaders who have always been
loyal to Yeltsin, as well as the Russian electorate.... 


"The current authorities have long since been unable to think rationally
and to plan at least a step ahead. Whoever the premier is, the host of
problems, including the economy and corruption, will be handled, but not
before the presidential elections. In the meantime, the focus is on keeping
the incumbents safe." 


"Feds, Chechens Use Same Methods" 


Andrei Viktorov remarked on page one of reformist Segodnya (10/23): "Last
Thursday's explosions in Grozny suggest that the feds and the militants are
using the same methods. If that is so, we are in a war without rules." 


"We Have to Accept Losses" 


Valery Yakov contended in reformist Noviye Izvestiya (10/23): "Numerous
casualties among the peaceful population--including those from
'unidentified flying objects,' of which there were many also during the
previous campaign--are unavoidable this time too, as are heavy losses among
the attacking troops. This is something we have to face up to, sad as it
may sound. The truth will out, no matter how the authorities try to hold
back on the losses. We failed to prevent them, so we should learn to live
with them." 


"We Don't Have To Make Excuses To The West" 


Maksim Yusin stated on page one of reformist Izvestiya (10/23): "As we talk
to the EU leaders, we should first of all use the right tone. We are ready
to lay down our cards and share our plans with them as our partners and
allies, hoping to secure their sympathy and possibly cooperation. After
all, we are on the same side of the barricade, fighting against terrorism,
Islamic bigotry, obscurantism and the slave trade. But Putin must under no
circumstances make excuses. There is nothing for which we should make
excuses to the West. The Russians have not done anything in Chechnya the
Americans, British or French did not do in Iraq or the Balkans." 


"Milosevic's Terrorists Did Not Blast NY Apartment Buildings" 


Yevgeny Umerenkov argued in reformist youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda
(10/23): "Lots of things happened during NATO's 11-week air war in
Yugoslavia. To win in the Balkans, it had to drop almost a quarter of a
million tons of bombs. More than 600,000 refugees streamed out of Kosovo,
fleeing NATO's bombs, not the Yugoslav army. Now they choose to forget
that, focusing on Chechnya--What are the Russians doing there? Aren't they
bombing too often? Won't it cause a humanitarian catastrophe? Hey you there
in Moscow, you have to be more careful. Yugoslavia is a foreign land to
NATO. It is not even in NATO's zone of responsibility. By contrast,
Chechnya is part of Russia." 


"Premier's Modest Success" 


Viktor Sokolov, commenting on the EU-Russia summit in Helsinki, said in
centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (10/23): "Javier Solana and his colleagues
only chided Russia, hinting at a need for 'proportionate action' in
Chechnya. But the joint statement, signed in Helsinki, came as a success,
albeit modest, for the Russian premier who tried to keep the West from
seeing things in the North Caucasus in a way that would be disadvantageous
to Russia.... The U.S. stand on Chechnya, as voiced by a White House
spokesman the other day, sounds hypocritical. On the one hand, the United
States recognizes Russia's (territorial) integrity and right to counter
terrorist actions. On the other, Washington is worried over the escalation
of fighting which results in victims among the civilian population. From a
country which bombed Yugoslavia quite recently, it sounds really strange." 


"An Equal Among Equals" 


Reformist weekly VEK (10/22) had this comment by Grigory Chernenko on the
G-8 anti-crime ministerial in Moscow: "The important thing is that Russia
acted as an equal among equals at the summit. Severely battered by economic
and political crises, corruption, crime, and home-grown and international
terrorism, Russia is pushing on down the road of democracy, its government
undaunted by the challenges.... Putin is probably the first premier in many
years to clearly and unambiguously pledge himself to fight terrorism, which
is finding understanding and, more often than not, sympathy within and
without." 


"What Will Europe Say?" 


Yuri Chubchenko said on page one of reformist, business-oriented Kommersant
Daily (10/22): "The current EU summit is to determine relations between
Moscow and the West. The United States has already made its choice, wishing
to isolate Russia; Europe has yet to make up its mind.... An agreement [to
end the fighting] in Chechnya would seriously improve Putin's popularity
rating in the West. But he really does not need that. In fact, he should
avoid it, knowing that Yeltsin is jealous of others' winning acclaim
abroad. Scoring political points at home is safer. The current campaign in
Chechnya is likely to make Putin more popular [in Russia]. So Europeans
trying to scare him with isolation or a lack of investments would be
beating a dead horse. There is no need at all to break off with Europe. A
promise to carefully study its proposals would be enough."


"Why An Immediate Attack On Grozny?" 


Aleksandr Koretsky queried on page one of reformist Segodnya (10/21): "Who
needs an immediate attack on Grozny? A handful of generals and politicians
eager for 'unpredictable' moves--from replacing the premier to cancelling
the elections. A headlong assault would be a defeat for the whole campaign,
with unpredictable political consequences. Even if Grozny falls, the feds'
casualties will be appalling and the public, unprepared, will be
demoralized. A victorious march will instantly turn into the 1994-1996 kind
of war, unwinnable. Then, faced with the danger of social unrest, the
Kremlin strategists hope, the Federation Council will accept a state of
emergency. For the family, it is the only chance to survive." 


"Divide And Rule" 


Nationalist/opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya (10/21) front-paged a piece by
Guriya Murklinskaya in Makhachkala, Dagestan: "Roused by NATO, the ugly
ogre of separatism, terror and disintegration is at work in Europe. There
is nothing new in that. The divide-and-rule principle is as old as the
world. The war in the Balkans has helped the United States suppress Europe
economically and politically. Any country attempting to disobey will be
punished, as was Yugoslavia.... The breakaway model is universal and can be
applied to any state. All it takes to make it work is a strong sponsor like
NATO or the United States.... Up against Russia, the Chechen regime has
played Judas recently, with Maskhadov asking NATO for help. But Russia is
no Yugoslavia. The Yankees must know that." 


"Deprive Chechnya Of Its 'Independence' Now; Talks Later" 


Ivan Yastrebov said in reformist, youth-oriented Moskovskii Komsomolets
(10/21): "We surely need to talk but not now, just when we have a chance to
deprive Chechnya of its 'independence.' We will talk once Maskhadov turns
in terrorists. Before he does, talks make no sense." 


"U.S. Stand On Chechnya Tolerable" 


Yevgeny Antonov commented in reformist Vremya-MN (10/21): "The Kremlin's
efforts in the last few days to secure understanding, if not support, from
the Americans on Russia's Chechnya policy seem to pay off. Considering the
approaching elections, Washington's position on the delicate Chechnya issue
is quite tolerable."


"Victory May Be Worse Than Defeat" 


Dmitry Furman wrote in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (10/21): "To
conquer Chechnya is not only hard but unnecessary. It is the kind of
victory that is worse than defeat. It is like winning a time bomb in battle
and bringing it home proudly as a trophy. From a strictly rational
perspective, the Russians and the Chechens are after the same thing. The
Russians want to get rid of Chechnya as a destabilizing and criminal
factor. Similarly, the Chechens, including the majority of the pro-Russian
opposition, want to get rid of Russia, which, in their minds, is associated
with the past century's war of attrition and this century's deportation and
two Yeltsin wars. With a common fate and experience of coexistence like
that, the two peoples would do well to separate--for them, living together
is not only difficult but excruciating. It is just unthinkable." 


"Moscow's First Success" 


Maksim Filimonov remarked on page one of reformist Vremya-MN (10/21): "The
just-ended G-8 conference was Russia's first real success in trying to
separate 'money laundering' from 'the Russian authorities.' The BoNY
scandal has made many in the West blame Moscow for not being active enough
in fighting the outflow of capital and even for letting Western aid be
stolen. That attitude has changed somewhat by now. Attorney General Janet
Reno, visiting in Moscow, did not say a word of reproach with regard to
Russia's being inactive.... Now Russia needs to do its utmost not to fail
expectations, if it does not want its small diplomatic victory wasted."


"Good News For Clinton Administration; Spotlight Turns To Chechnya" 


Reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily (10/20) front-paged this
commentary by Konstantin Levin: "Janet Reno could celebrate a victory.
After meeting with her...Vladimir Putin promised to have a law on
money-laundering adopted soon. 'There is a good chance,' Putin said
contentedly. There certainly is. For the Clinton administration. Janet Reno
can now tell her opponents that the Russians are so scared by an avalanche
of exposes in the U.S. media and Congress' inquiry into the BoNY case that
they are willing to cooperate with Washington to check their corrupt
officials and mafiosi. As for the exposes in the Western media, we have
been told that they will stop shortly to give way to reports with gruesome
details about military action in Chechnya. Janet Reno yesterday approved of
Putin's anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya, but she is not the one in
Washington with the final say on Moscow." 


"Corruption Is Costly" 


Reformist Vremya-MN (10/20) published this commentary by Leonid Grigoryev:
"The link that the current spate of incriminating materials has to
America's campaign 2000 has probably been exaggerated too much. Still it is
hard to understand the Republicans as they moralize on Russian corruption.
It was back in George Bush's days that Russia made its decisions to
transform the economy, and international financial institutions approved
them.... Corruption and the flight of capital need to be scaled down as an
economic necessity, not just as an element of Russia's image. It is good
that our government agencies are going to join global anti-crime effort.
The time for tolerance is over. Now is the time to standardize the norms of
behavior for politicians and businesspeople. 


"Let us put wild capitalism behind us. It is in this country's interest to
change the situation radically so that the image of a Russian will not be
associated with total corruption."....


********