The President’s(Putin) Second Front

www.strana.ru ^ | 9/26/2001 | by Marina Volkova

[Solson]

The President’s Second Front
Marina Volkova

Vladimir Putin has made a very difficult decision. Neither the Kursk tragedy, nor Chechnya stands anywhere near the enormity of the issues the Russian president has had to tackle this September.

No matter how cautious Vladimir Putin was in formulating his televised address, one thing is abundantly clear: Russia stands the enormous chance of being drawn into an armed conflict between the United States and countries Washington sees as deserving punishment for the September 11 terrorist acts.

Russia stands the enormous chance of being drawn into an armed conflict between the United States and countries Washington sees as deserving punishment for the September 11 terrorist acts.

Only one of Putin's five points is related to peaceful cooperation with America. Russian special services are ready to supply their American counterparts with intelligence reports on bases training gunmen, a point that had gained wide currency even before his address. All other points he made deal with military matters in one way or another. They demonstrate that Moscow has failed to preserve its neutrality by confining itself to giving moral and intellectual support to the United States in the fight against terrorism.

Putin couched the loss of neutrality in brilliant phraseology. The wording of his speech was so oblique that the first response of most Russian politicians was that of delight with what they thought was Russia's refusal to be involved in an armed conflict. For their part, Western newspapers exuded disappointment with Moscow's restraint.

Moscow has failed to preserve its neutrality by confining itself to giving moral and intellectual support to the United States in the fight against terrorism.

But if Russia were to get involved in some "reconnaissance and rescue" operations in Afghanistan's mountains or elsewhere, would not that pave the way for its direct involvement in war? By the same token, if Russia were to open its air space, would not that give the green light to its involvement in the conflict, especially against the background of the remark about the possibility of closer cooperation with the United States? What about taking supplies of military hardware to the Rabbani government? Of course, it has been done before, but so far it has been a hush-hush affair and the scope of the supplies has been kept at a fairly low level. Would not further supplies mean direct involvement in the conflict? To say nothing of Tajikistan, which may allow the Americans to use its bases with Moscow's consent (the Russian 201st Division is deployed on the Tajik border with Afghanistan).

Although war is still in the offing, Russia is already suffering losses...

Although war is still in the offing, Russia is already suffering losses, second only to the United States. Politically, the loss of neutrality, albeit couched in appropriate rhetoric, is not a very pleasant development for Russia. The benefits are dubious. Handling the Taliban would play into Moscow's hands but leaving that to the Americans is preferable. Paradoxically, Russia has found itself ahead of the whole of Europe with the exception of Britain - it was only natural for that country to be the first to declare all-round support for Washington. News of that sort has so far come from no other European countries. The EU is still pausing. By all appearances, the prospect of Russia being drawn into a military conflict is not dictated by Moscow's altruistic wish to help Washington fight terrorism. Far from it. Nor is Moscow pursuing pragmatic goals, which is regrettable.

The prospect of Russia being drawn into a military conflict is not dictated by Moscow's altruistic wish to help Washington fight terrorism.

President George W. Bush made it abundantly clear in his speech before Congress that nations must support America unconditionally. Certainly Chechnya cannot be regarded as a Russian "condition." So far, Moscow has been quite comfortable with Western criticism of its actions in that part of the Russian Federation: it has largely ignored it and continued behaving as it sees fit. What Putin said about Chechnya in his televised address was above all meant for domestic consumption: it was an attempt to offset the radical measures Russia is ready to take by the desire to tackle domestic problems. It is in effect an attempt to reconcile two opposing points of view within the country. Those who want Russia to give support to the United States should be satisfied. Those who want Russia to distance itself from the conflict should be delighted with Moscow's readiness to radicalize its actions in Chechnya and carry them through to the end.

The United States stands to benefit from the collapse of oil prices, but it is catastrophic for Russia.

Russia is also suffering economic losses. Apart from the fact that military spending will have to be increased to cover aid to the Rabbani regime in Afghanistan, oil prices too have played a foul game with Moscow. This may prove disastrous for next year's budget. Although it has already been put together, strictly speaking, it needs rewriting. Russia may also fail to get the anticipated supplementary revenue this year. The United States stands to benefit from the collapse of oil prices, but it is catastrophic for Russia. Is it the price Russia will have to pay if Saudi Arabia is to be let alone or does that mean that Russia is doing everything within its powers to help Washington fight terrorism? Does that mean that Washington accepts help from other countries with conditions after all?

[Dog Gone]

Sounds like this writer is suffering a guilt trip.