Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

. Last Updated: 07/27/2016

Reporting, Comment Perceived as Pro-Chechen

In response to The Moscow Times reports on the war in Chechnya and to "Learning from Parallels" by Dmitry Babich, Aug. 10.





In front of me lies another issue of The Moscow Times and another photograph, a touching photograph, of a "Chechen fighter" on the front page. Yesterday was the same thing. In your publication there is always the concerned attitude toward the Chechen separatists and a careless attitude toward Russian soldiers.


Your correspondent Carlotta Gall herself has become one of the accomplices of the enemies of Russian unity. The Moscow Times gives space only to a one-sided, Dudayevite version of events in Chechnya. What makes you publish anti-Russian articles, which you receive even from the United States?! Why do you interfere in internal Russian affairs?!


You are taking advantage of great freedom of speech and movement! Would Carlotta Gall be able to relay her material while located in a Serb-controlled area to a pro-Serbian paper in Zagreb?


In Russia, it's possible to fearlessly help the enemy of state unity because the government is too soft.


Why do you publish your commercially unprofitable paper with an anti-Russian, pro-Chechen bias? Answer: to weaken Russia!


Foreigners should not interfere in the internal affairs of another nation, particularly if they eat the bread of that nation ...


Furthermore, I am surprised at the shallowness of Babich's view on Chechnya and his ignorance in comparing Chechnya with Algeria [in its fight for independence against the French]. I am also surprised at the simply criminal ease with which he would "let out" the Dudayev camp from Russia.


Know this: Algeria was an overseas d?partment of France, and its "departure" in no way created the problems that the "departure" of Chechnya from Russia would create.


Dudayev and his supporters have understood from the word go that little Chechnya is hardly able to survive on its own. They counted -- and count -- on the breaking away of Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkar, etc. from Russia. Imagine what a blow, a horrible blow, Russia would receive to its vital sectors, grain from the Kuban, for example, if the South turns into a belt of anti-Russian, Moslem republics!! Believe me, terrorists and bandits will appear in no small numbers in Russia (And what can they do? They've got to make a living -- and that's easier to do at Russia's expense) and then disappear back into their sovereign Chechnya ...


Algeria "left" France, but this in no way affected France's communications system. If Chechnya secedes, rail links with Dagestan, Azerbaijan, Georgia can be threatened and blocked off at any time.


Chechnya's secession will become a constant example for other peoples not to live as one family (e.g., Tatarstan) and to stage rebellions and fight the Russians. Who has created an independent nation? The Basques? The Corsicans? The Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia? No!


If Russia grants autonomy to the rabid Dudayev pack (i.e., to a part of Chechnya), it will be in the eyes of the world a worthless, helpless ruin, which can be scorned and slighted with impunity.


They say that at some meeting during the 1930s, one of the comrades in attendance suggested to Mikhail Kalinin that the [monumental] Alexandrovsky Garden, by the Kremlin wall, be destroyed. Kalinin answered: "Did you plant that garden?!" I'm indifferent to Kalinin, but that answer was pretty good.


So I ask Babich: Did he create Russia? Then he should shut his mouth and not say that "the loss of Chechnya isn't the end of the world"!


I. Volgin





Treaty Not 'Crafty Tool'


In response to "Serious Disarmament," Aug. 16.





In making his arguments for "serious disarmament" and its relationship to the current negotiations on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or CTBT, Mr. Power misses the mark on several points. Advocates of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation are mistaken in attempting to hold the CTBT hostage to the long-sought commitment from the nuclear powers for a politically binding timetable on nuclear disarmament.


In May 1995, "now or never" cries for a disarmament timetable were heard when the extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was negotiated. The successful outcome of that conference resulted in the Treaty's indefinite extension, a commitment to conclude a CTBT in 1996, and an incremental but historical increase in the political obligation of the nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals. Supporters of nuclear disarmament should strive for another small step forward in the text of the CTBT.


Arguing erroneously that the CTBT has been perverted into a "crafty non-proliferation tool" is not convincing or helpful. The idea of a CTBT was originally put forward as a nonproliferation measure: to stop the nuclear arms race that was called "vertical proliferation" by India and other leaders of the nonaligned movement. Mr. Power argues that, because of the nuclear powers' abilities to simulate tests using computers, a CTBT is too late to stop the arms race. In fact, the international political pressure to stop testing and conclude the CTBT curtailed the testing programs of all five nuclear powers and extracted from them domestically controversial commitments to conduct no further tests.


India and other states must consider whether renewed testing is preferable to a CTBT that even slightly increases the pressure on nuclear states to disarm. The negotiation of a CTBT is not an opportunity to wrest the dream of a timetable on disarmament from the nuclear powers. It is not a solution to any state's security problems. But it is an opportunity to take another step in an accelerating process leading to a world free of the danger of nuclear weapons.


Darrell Stanaford


Committee for Critical Technologies


and Nonproliferation, Moscow





A Road Less Traveled


In response to "Detour through Dmitrovskoye," Aug. 10.





Being a fan of Kolya Kachurin's Fast Lane, I'd like to point out an imperfection in the route from Yaroslavskoye Shosse to Dmitrovskoye Shosse.


Living on Yaroslavskoye Shosse, I know that the part of the route between Severyaninsky Puteprovod and Ulitsa Dokunina (the very end of Prospekt Mira) is a notorious bottleneck. There is another, much faster route from Yaroslavskoye Shosse to Beryozovaya Alleya: As you descend from Severyaninsky Puteprovod, make a right U-turn into a small street that runs along the viaduct.


Drive straight along this street until you reach an intersection. Make a left turn, driving around a small "island" with trees, cross the street and tram track, and you're on Proyezd Serebryakova. Drive straight ahead, and soon you'll come to an intersection, after which the street name changes to Beryozovaya Alleya.


Timur Kadyshev