#5 - JRL 8032
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004
From: Frederick Starr <sfstarr@jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: 8027-Dunlop [re: Moscow Hostage Crisis, Apartment Bombings]

To David Johnson:

I would like to comment briefly on the recent exchange concerning John Dunlop's analysis of the Nord-Ost incident and related Chechen affairs. I do so as a non-expert on Chechen matterss, but as one who participated in both of the then secret meetings, held in Caux, Switzerland and in Liechtenstein, between representatives of the Maskhadov government and prominent Russian politicians, military figures,and journalists. On both occasions I was struck by the non-ideological and thoroughly practical approach taken both by the Maskhadov team (including Messers. Zakaev and Akhmadov) and by the Russian politicians, military folk, and journalists. I was left in no doubt that, between them, they could easily have arrived at a workable solution to the Chechen crisis that would have been acceptable to both sides and which the Russian White House itself could have supported had it been interested been in resolving that terrible conflict. In particular, I observed the Maskhadov team's bitter resentment towards Basaev (who, of course, was not present) and their strong feeling that somehow Basaev and the security forces had discovered a common interest in prolonging the affair. In light of this, I find it impossible to accept Mr. Rutland's assertions regarding Maskhadov and Basaev. For the same reason, I consider Mr. Dunlop's careful statements regarding possible collaboration between Basaev and the FSB to be a reasonable hypothesis, and one that can only be disqualified by advancing similarly detailed evidence on the other side. To date, such evidence has not been forthcoming. Until it is, John Dunlop's argument must stand, and its grave implications taken seriously.

Frederick Starr,
Chairman, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, SAIS
Washington DC.