From: CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU ("VALENTINE M. SMITH")
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Response to Vladimor Zhivov and Artavazd Khachikian posts on
              TPS-L...
Date: 20 Nov 92 05:57:48 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.bitnet>

Date: 14 Nov 1992 08:09:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "(Vladimir Zhivov)" <vzhivov%ALFRED.CCS.CARLETON.CA@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: RE: Back to actual politics
Comments: To: tps-l@indycms.iupui.edu, val-l@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu,
russia@indycms.iupui.edu

>>In <1992Nov14.044319.13007@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>>arto@leland.Stanford.EDU (Artavazd Khachikian) writes:

AK>>Although this groups is called talk.politics.soviet, hardly
AK>>anything posted here refers to the actual subject of it. I am not
AK>>even considering the Argic/Mutlu soap opera that seems to never end.

VZ>Amen to that. Enough of the Argic crap; let's talk about something
VZ>interesting and worthwhile.

I never say anything to the afore-mentioned "soap opera," it has a
life of its own. I agree on "interesting and worthwhile." What
follows on the part of Mr. Zhivov I believe to be a dark but perhaps
quite accurate viewpoint, I can only hope that you judge my remarks
not too harshly.

>>I would be very interested to discuss the actual politics
>>in  the CIS countries, especially Russia, both internal and external.
>>I wonder if there are any International Relations or Political Science
>>students here who can enlighten us on that subject.

>Well I am only a lowly Soviet history student, but I'll do my best.

I, too, am a lowly history student, and middle-aged and gray-haired
in addition, but I will also try my best.

>>I am following the recent developments in the Moscow
>>with concern. The activization of the political struggle between
>>the Russian President and the Parliament may lead to further
>>deterioration of the situation and, god forbid, instability in
>>Russia. There was some talk on today`s Russian news about the
>>declarations by the Armed Forces saying that they will not intervene
>>and will not take any unconstitutional steps in the struggle between
>>the Parliament and the President. The very fact of declarations of
>>this kind is alarming. December is 3 weeks away, and it looks like
>>it is going to be a hot December.

Not just Moscow, but across Russia and around the CIS, there appears
to be a great deal going on just below the surface we just aren't
hearing about, or it is being minimalized here. But, a more
interesting question is - what will the military do IF this struggle
DOES arise? Who will the police follow? Yeltsin? (I think Yeltsin for
now, but a "putsch," attempted or only feinted at, could extend
Yeltsin's "emergency powers" that expire 1 December, and allow a
"declaration of emergency to appear, or to really be, more
legitimate. So, a suspicious person might say the stage COULD be in
the process of being set up for a dramatic denouement.

>You may find this interesting. About a week ago the Russian Officer's
>Union called for Yeltsin to step down and for firmer central
>authority. It's not clear how much influence this Union has or what
>its membership numbers are, but things are definitely getting
>interesting. Political freedom and economic collapse are a lethal
>combination (see Weimar Germany), a lesson that Chinese leaders have
>taken to heart. The situation is especially difficult in Russia
>because the country has never known anything other than authoritarian
>rule, and it is not surprising to see calls for "firmer" leadership.
>Perhaps democracy can survive, but I don't believe it: in the end the
>Russians will choose a full stomach over freedom of the press. For
>example: the Communist election victory in Lithuania a couple of
>weeks ago.

But, to take your last example first, Brazauskas appears to be a
fairly popular "ex-Communist," and either they succeeded in
persuading the voters that they were in favor of a democratic social
program, but a more "mixed bag" approach to economics, which may
include elements of the "old" command economy. I think most everyone
calling for a "firmer hand" understand full well that "authoritarian
regime" is what IS desired, I think bits and pieces I've seen about
"a longing for Stalin's time" are quite accurate. What we don't know
is how widespread this attitude is. I agree with Vladimir's
assessment about choices - save for a few "true believers,"
"..."russian will choose a full stomach over freedom of the press."
Thus, a demagogic appeal that comes in the wake of a "catastrophe,"
whatever form that takes, could well reinstate authoritarian rule.

Tonight, I saw Robert Strauss, out-going US Ambassador to Russia,
stating that Russia would stay on the democratic course, that
Yeltsin's opposition was "disorganized," that he would survive and
stay in power. One of the Val-L people and I have made "predictions"
about Yeltsin's longevity as leader - I said 1/93, he said 12/93. (He
predicted Gorbachev's fall closer than I - he said December, 1991, I
said January, 1992). I am pessimistic only because the scant evidence
SEEMS to indicate an awful lot of disaffection, regardless of how
disorganized it is. Part of that appears to be military, and I agree
that public articulation of their views, in the face of a ban, as I
recall, by the Defense Minister from political remarkings by the
Generals says to me that disaffection is QUITE great. And the silence
of the Security Ministry is quite intriguing, if for no other resason
than the silence. For me, the question here is who is allied to whom,
and for what reasons and ends?

>>The growing instability in the Northert Caucasus is another
>>source of concern. Although some order was restored after the deployment
>>of the Russian troops, Russian News reported today about some Chechen
>>troops and tanks being moved to the border of Chechnia. Let us count:
>>Georgia-Abkhazia, Georgia-Osetia, Ingushia-Osetia, Chechnia-Georgia,
>>Chechnia-Russia, Russia-Georgia did we forget anybody - well, to say
>>nothing about the good old Karabakh which is already old news for every one:
>>so we have + Karabakh-Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan-Armenia, Armenia-Nakhichevan
>>(so far the link ends here). The demarches of the Turkish Army on Armenian
>>frontiers in the spring of this year were stopped by Russia. So far so good.

You left out Russia-Moldova, Russia-Tajikistan at the least but your
message IS clear - lots of turmoil IS brewing the old empire, now
coming apart because of a variety of factors, and how far can Russia
go in the stemming of the tide of rising nationalism and ethnic
battles, how far will it go?

>Russia and Georgia were pretty close to coming to blows earlier in the
>week, though cooler heads seem to have prevailed in Tbilisi. The Turks
>are raising their heads again (see Argic) which will only play into
>Russian hands - i.e. Georgia and Armenia can only look to Moscow for
>help.

Well, some would argue that the Union's disintegration was a bad
idea, and others who say that not only Georgia and Armenia have to
look Moscow's way for help, I believe this is probably also the
course Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and the Balts will at least have
to think of first - what will (or won't) Moscow do? Cooler heads have
so far prevailed in lots of places, one has to be curious as how long
this course can be maintained - I'd like to hope improvement is
possible. Strauss said he thought the situation demanded more
American aid more "deeply applied" - technical support and Western
investment were his planks - and that the Russians had to come to
their own brand of democracy AND market economy. But, he also
suggested that the Parliament had to unbend and pass land ownership
law, protection of contracts, land ownership, profits, and "free
exchange,"(ie taxes).

The Parliament and the President are on quite divergent courses. The
body appears quite organized, against Yeltsin. Civic Union has a
program of "go slow," and a deal is cynically touted AND denied that
would see Gaidar and Co. sacked. Strauss alluded obliquely to Yeltsin
perhaps having to "trim a little here, give a little there" - but if
one makes a deal with an outfit who has no answer for hyper-inflation
but to turn the economic course away from the hard decisions being
played out now for a more "easy," slower approach, the "new bosses"
could quite excerbate the situation. Khasbulatov's course appears
VERY unclear, save that as Parliament's leader, he could take a even
more leading role "in opposition" in the next few weeks than he has.

>>So far Russia manages to play some stabilizing role in the region.
>>Mediating in Karabakh, sending observers to Armenia and Azerbaijan,
>>mediating in Osetia, deploying peace-keeping forces in Tskhinvali,
>>mediating in Abkhazia, mediating and deploying troops in
>>Osetia-Ingushia etc.

Over-extended though, and how long can they maintain all these
behaviors in all these directions?

>>It is frightening
>>to think what would happen if this December undermines the Russian
>>stance in the Caucasus, leaving it to the mercy of militant gangs.
>>The real anarchy is still to come. We are not talking blown pipes.
>>We are talking thousands of deaths, full stop in communications,
>>chaos, hunger, war, hostages, terrorism, destabilization and
>>disintegration. If it is not the case yet.
>>It would be interesting to hear a qualified opinion and
>>receive information on this subject.

I tend to agree, but as I have pointed out before, "Cassandra-like"
comments about Russia's future always seems to outrage the nets - how
dare you be so gloomy?, what do you know? and so on. I can offer a
"opinion," it remains up to you whether you accept my view.

>I'm sad to say, but I think we are going to see a much more serious
>civil war in the future. It was utter madness for Armenians and
>Georgians to break away. Their fared very well in the Soviet Union
>(relatively speaking), and were in position to write their own ticket
>after upheavals in Moscow. In the end they will have to rely on
>Russia to defend them against the Turks, Iranians, Iraqis and Azeris.
>Armenia's plight is especially tough, as it is surronded by predatory
>Muslim neighbours. Well that's my two cents worth. Let's get some
>serious discussion going and flame the Argic types who pollute this
>group with moronic drivel. Vladimir

"Utter madness" the breakaways may have been, but I think it might be
OK to be under a Russian "security blanket" while still being
"independent" economically and politically. Ditto for Georgia, and
probably Kazakhstan too. But, I believe Turkey WILL the "power of
choice" for Uzbekistan, Turkmenstan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan over
the long run. I agree that serious discussion on these issues ought
to transcend "moronic drivel," but I disagree about flaming. Ignore
Argic and Company. Talk about what YOU think instead of reacting to
others - offer some commentary as to what YOU think will occur. I'm
curious, and this would be more substantial than the afore-mentioned
"flame war" on TPS-L. THe times are most intense, and while what we
say really has no long term ability to affect, perhaps we DO have the
potential to influence minds inside Russia, or at least offer a few
views from the "intellectual West." Tell me what you think. VMS
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.turkish