RE: Closing the deal

[Lawrence DeBivort]

Ed, what is your take on why Russia would allow the ‘Stans, Georgia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Armenia , etc to become independent,  but not Chechnya or some others?   I can confirm your observation that the Russians were very concerned about the disintegration of the USSR. I gave a talk in 1991 to the USSR Academy of Sciences Presidium on the value of diversity and variety, and on an organizational structure that might serve the interests of both Russia and the many republics that were talking about eventual independence; it was a very hot and contentious topic, and while we had a spirited discussion with many differing views expressed by the attendees, it was clear that it was a passionate worry and one that would not be easily resolved.    And agreed, this has nothing to do with al-Qaida; Putin and Sergei Ivanov are stealing a page out of Bush’s Pandora’s Box. Quite rightly, the Russians figure if the anti-terrorist theme is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.  I’m sure this does ender Bush and his theorists to the Georgians!   Cheers, Lawry       -----Original Message----- From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 7:51 PM To: Karen Watters Cole; Futurework Cc: Keith Hudson; Lawrence de Bivort; Arthur Cordell Subject: Re: Closing the deal   When I was in Russia a few years ago, the real problem with Chechnya was that if that small republic broke away, others would be encouraged to do it too.  At the time, 1995, about a dozen small republics or regional governing entities were not happy with being part of Russia and there was a fear that Russia could begin to disintegrate if the Chechyns could pull off getting out from under.  It has nothing - or very little to do with Al Qaeda.  The Chechyns have been trying to assert their independence for a very long time.   Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax     (613)  728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: Karen Watters Cole To: Futurework Cc: Keith Hudson ; Lawrence de Bivort ; Arthur Cordell Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: FW: Closing the deal   We are trolling for W. African oil and have Russian oil being delivered in the Gulf of Mexico; Bush is pushing Congress for a broad approval to act preemptively “in the region” not just in Iraq; the markets are down with latest monthly reports and performance earnings.  The push is on to close the deal in a hurry.  I saw the Brokaw interview w/ Russian Defense Minister Ivanov and he was no country bumpkin.  Possible Iraq-for-Georgia Deal Could Seal Baghdad's Fate @ http://www.stratfor.com/fib/fib_view.php?ID=206246 17 September 2002 Summary: Washington and Moscow appear to be discussing a possible deal in which Russia would not veto a U.S. attack on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council in exchange for Washington's tacit agreement on a Russian counterterrorist operation in Georgia. If the deal holds, Iraq's fate will be soon sealed, but the consequences could hurt Russia as well in the end. Analysis: Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened Sept. 11 to send troops into Georgia's Pankisi Gorge unless Tbilisi deals with Islamic militants -- including alleged Chechen rebels -- within its borders, the BBC reports. On Sept. 12 Putin also warned the United Nations that Russia would take "necessary measures" to defend itself against cross-border Islamist attacks if Tbilisi cannot control the gorge. The Bush administration, which until just a few days ago publicly supported Georgia against such Russian threats, recently said through statements by U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow that al Qaeda agents are operating not only in the Pankisi but also in Chechnya. Vershbow also met with Russian officials Sept. 12 for talks on anti-terrorism cooperation and Iraq. It appears that the United States and Russia may be close to some form of an "Iraq-for-Georgia" deal. This likely means that Moscow will not veto an American attack on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council in exchange for U.S. acquiescence to a planned Russian operation in Georgia. It also suggests that one of the last obstacles for a U.S. war on Iraq is being removed and that Baghdad's fate soon will be sealed.   On the other hand, Russia may be playing both positions until it gets an offer it can’t refuse… The New Republic:  White House Watch – Two Tones @ http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020930&s=lizza093002 Rumsfeld continues to undercut Powell’s UN efforts, but Russia’s defense minister may have dealt the final blow, saying in interviews that Russia has seen no evidence of nuclear development in Iraq and doesn’t believe a resolution is necessary (to veto). “Powell's credibility is now tied to winning in the Security Council.  While hawks remain dubious about his U.N. strategy, officials at State insist the diplomacy will deliver a new resolution.  But Bush may have indicated how much confidence he has in a U.N. victory when he asked Congress to speed up its vote authorizing the use of force.  Meanwhile, the Pentagon is moving "rolling stock" (tanks, jeeps, etc.) into the region, setting up a new command center in Qatar, flying B-2 bombers to Britain's Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and escalating its attacks on Iraq's air defenses in the no-fly zones.  All of that probably sends a louder message to Iraq than that one line that was taken out of Bush's speech.”