X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @VAL, @CIS, @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:00:27 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Comments on the Directions in Russia ..., (#793)
Comments: To: val-l@ucf1vm.bitnet, jwales@iubvm.bitnet, olsenj@stolaf.edu,
          kousen@rayleigh.res.utc.com, klur@maristb.bitnet, christic@igc.org,
          blank@physics.ucla.edu, 76701.103@compuserve.com

Comments-

Feel free to delete, this is an opinion piece, and not chock full of
new information.

In the past week or so, I've written about the fate of the "CIS," and
concerns I have about Russia. A few have written me to tell me that
my view is unnecessarily dark, and that I ought to take a page out of
Robert Strauss's "book" and be more optimistic about Russia, and the
"CIS'" future.

I think Bob Strauss is an able and relatively competent man, but
whose contact with Russia has been with those in power, those in
control of the mechanism now, and not with the disaffected. Though
today, it appears that the Congress of People's Deputies may not go
for Yeltsin's head, but at the very least, extreme pressure will be
brought to bear to bring down the Gaidar government.

Lots of other "forces" remain hard to perceive, especially in terms
of what they might do if "all hell breaks loose," which at least some
thing COULD occur. Groups like the army are considered fragmented,
split between opposition and favoring the government - but this
element of Russia is considered a "bulwark" of Yeltsin's base at the
same time. The Ministry of Security is QUITE shadowy, as befits its
past roles, and I believe it is completely unknown to anyone what
this definite force in Russian society might do.

Then, there are at least two other "forces," both currently
"outlawed," but extant regardless of what is said on paper - the
groups and people interacting via the mechanism of the so-called
"National Salvation Front," and the people of the ex-CPSU, all
fifteen-eighteen million of them. These two groups appear the most
alienated by the rapid transformation of the USSR into Russia and the
"CIS," and it appears to this observer that many are still "in place"
in government or other "official" apparatuses. If disruption happens,
and change, violent or otherwise, occurs, it would seem that that
these two elements will be quite involved.

This week's Washington Post Weekly discussed Zhirnovsky's
"imperialist rantings" at length. It would seem, from this great
distance, that such idiocy as invading Germany and "taking" what
Russia "needs" is as idiotic as Hitler's invasion the other way fifty
years ago, and fraught with as much possibility for failure as that
earlier stupidity. The so-called Black Colonel Alksnis' predictions
of a disintegration of the Baltic states in "five to ten years,"
while applauded by many Russians on the nets as "right, as usual"
begs the question of how will that be accomplished - over a new
prostration of the Baltic peoples, a new imperialism that Russia
perhaps should shy away from?

Why does Russia have to have "it" the "way it was before?" Is it so
painful to have the third largest country in the world, and probably
the second-best armed, with much to applaud in the way of resouces
and potentialities, without the futility of "reimperializing" those
areas "now lost" to the empire that the "Soviets" let go of last
year? What pricetag would re-imperialization have for the main of the
Russian population? Is it worth the cost to try to put Humpty Dumpty
back together again?

It seems that Russia COULD survive all this immediate dislocation and
again wax mighty on the world's stage WITHOUT attempting to grab back
all the places they once controlled. I, for one, hope mightily that
it can turn from the dark past of the Soviet period to a better
tomorrow, while fully recognizing the difficulties that probably will
ensue to accomplish such a feat. But, turning down the byway of
revolt, or coups, or attempted reconquering, appears the height of
folly - wasting Russia's treasures that could be used to rebuild on a
vain attempt to re-capture past might and glory via the blood of many
who want no part of Russia.

One hopes that Yeltsin can survive. I'm not as enthused about his
"democratic adherences" as many others, but I do realize that he IS
the legitimate leader of the country, and that one year in power is
not enough to clean up the Augean stables that Russia has become
under 75 years of "Communism." He has a chance to succeed, but will
he be allowed to do the draconian things necessary to make Russia
into a REAL twentieth century state, and not just another
authoritarian government as has been the case for three quarters of a
century?

The future holds great peril, but also great promise. Which path
Russia will take is very unclear. No one seems to know for sure what
the chances are in any direction of what will occur, and that doubt
alone ought to make those of us watching nervous. Curious, fascinated
and quite puzzled, VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU