Dear Dr. Gray:

Thank you for your comments on my FW Eye piece.

As I am sure you are quite aware, the Russian state is now quite "broken" since it is unable to fulfill most of a state's functions. It is unable to maintain its economy, the health of its populations is a disaster, the military is unable to function, the government is not able to maintain a legal system to the extent of state borders and least of all is it able to command the loyalty of large numbers of its claimed population.

Many people said that the USSR could not collapse and disappear overnight, but it did in December 1991. If you carefully read the history of the modern state you will see that it has not been enormously successful. Indeed since 1305 Russia has experienced many disappearances. The instability of a number of modern states including the Russian Federation raises important questions about the utility of the state apparatus for some populations--there may be yet another type of structure needed. Russia is as much a basket case as is Burma, Somalia, and Tajikistan.

It is clear I did not go into all of these aspects of the "broken Russia" theme, but the point of the piece was more to emphasize the importance of recognizing that Chechnya need not be the whipping-boy for what is wrong with the Russian Federation. Also, individual Fourth World nations like Chechnya must be granted a political place at the table rather than being the object of a genocidal war.

If the Russian Federation does fully re-collapse there is no doubt that Fourth World peoples will suffer. They suffer even now in relation to Moscow. What is needed in the Eurasian body of the continent is a greater openness to accepting the cultural differences and constructing new instruments of inter-national relations instead of the constant use of violence. The Russians dominate the region, but their own corruption and distortions of Russian life have resulted in a serious trauma to all concerned.

I enjoyed your remarks. Thank you.

Rudolph C. Ryser, PhD

January 26, 2001

Dear Dr. Ryser,

Are you aware of the extent to which the "broken" condition of the Russian state (corruption, economic failure) is primarily a post-Soviet phenomenon created by the blundering approach of western political and economic consultants who swooped in to supposedly facilitate the "transition"? (I recommend Janine Wedel's book Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Wstern Aid to Eastern Europe 1989-1998.) These "advisors" were the among the same people who were

utterly surprised by the collapse of the Soviet Union (anyone who was paying attention to nationality issues in the late 1980s found it quite easy to predict).

I am a very vocal critic of the modern state, so no need to convince me on that point. As for Chechnya -- I am not sure why you imply the war was started by Putin, since it has been going on much longer, and if anyone unleashed a "frustrated, unpaid and often demoralized military" on it, that was Yeltsin.

And Russia had already been mistreating the nations of the Caucasus (not "Caucuses") for over a century. In all the conversations I have had with Russians about Chechnya, I never found anyone who did NOT think Russia's current war there was a mistake. It is not just for the oil, they say, but also for the

drug smuggling routes.

The whole situation is undeniably a mess, pretty much like the U.S. involvement in Vietnam was (and I have heard many Russians say "this is our Vietnam").

But I think it is a bit chauvinistic and arrogant to proclaim that Russia "should be declared bankrupt and placed in international receivership." Who or what would have the power to do that except another state, indeed, the whole world state system? It sounded to me like the worst kind of arrogant remark ever

made by a bully-state. Do you really believe such a jack-booted approach is the answer? There are in fact no simple answers, but Russia's multi-ethnic citizenry should be the first to have the right to decide how Russia's problems should be handled--not meddling outsiders.

Circumstances in Russia are not nearly as simple and black-and-white as you paint them with your stark juxtaposition of "Russians" and "Fourth World peoples." I have met many chauvinistic and oppressive Russians in my travels. I have also met many chauvinistic and oppressive Ukrainians, Tatars, Yakuts,

Armenians and others. And I have met many progressive and activist Russians working on behalf of Fourth World peoples. Sometimes Moscow is the oppressor.

But just as often, I have found Moscow to be the defender against the oppression of a region trying to break away from Moscow's control, and in the process abusing its local residents. Russia is too big and complex to condemn in one fell swoop. You might try reworking your article to punch accurate holes in Russia's justification of its war in Chechnya, rather than coming with a bulldozer to blindly knock down the whole structure.

I wish you all the best,

Patty Gray

January 26, 2001

Dear Dr. Gray,

You and I are in essential agreement about how the collapsed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, transformed into the Russian Federation got broken. I would remind you, however, that while the policies of especially the United States of America contributed enormously to the present situation the presence of a entrenched bureaucracy, official and unofficial corruption and the intense competition for spoils among Russian leaders as well as individuals from non-Russian nations inside the Federation have compounded an already messy situation that started well before the collapse in 1991.

As for the Chechnya conflict, there is no question that Putin started the second post USSR war with the Chechens. While he was not in Yeltsin's seat when the first war started, Putin was there and directed the second.

As for my comments about the bankruptcy of the Russian Federation I strongly suggest that it takes no special arrogance to observe an essential fact. Russia failed to make its payments on its international debt, it is unable to ensure payments to military, miners and others dependent on the government. It has seen a drop in the ruble from parity with the US dollar in 1992 to a virtually worthless currency complicated by government ruble printing. I would further suggest that my observations are not those of a "bully-state." Indeed, since the US played a dominant role in creating the post 1991 mess in Russia it has been generally unwilling to criticize even those aspects of the mess wholly created by Russians themselves.

Furthermore, I would suggest your comments about "Russia's multi-ethnic citizenry" taking the lead in addressing Russia's problems are not inconsistent with mine. Indeed, the non-Russian peoples in Russia have generally taken a strong and healthy interest in building a truly balanced federal system where powers of government are distributed to the center as well as to the republics. I would remind you that ever since the Spring of 1992 the Tartars, Komi, Even, Chukchee and Sakah among many other peoples have worked diligently to bring balance to the power relationships between themselves and the Russians who dominate the central government. It has been the center that has resisted such balance in federation all the way. As Mr. Putin has already demonstrated in the last several months he is prepared to continue resisting a balanced distribution of power by his move to reorganize parts of the Duma and shifting of power from regional governors to his own office. I agree, let me restate, that the non-Russian peoples in Russia should play a balanced role in determining the future of the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, Mr. Putin and the forces of the center resist.

You are quite correct to point out that the history, structure and makeup of the Russian Federation is much to complex to simply dismiss the Russian state cavalierly. And I must say I do not dismiss Russian, USSR, Czarist history, structure and makeup loosely. I do simply point out that when a state, any state, fails to perform its most basic functions (the broad outlines of which were first codified in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648)) it cannot be said to qualify any longer as a state. The Russian Federation like numerous other failed states in the world (Burma, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Colombia, and East Germany) just to mention a few must bow to the reality of its own incapacity to function according to accepted standards of a state.

As you know, the United States of America has been one of the staunchest defenders of maintaining broken states around the world especially during the George H.W. Bush's administration and the administration of William J. Clinton. They have used the political power of the US government, its hold on the World Bank and the IMF as well as NATO and its dominant influence in such regional organizations as the Organization of American States to prop up failed states. I simply suggest that there ought to be instituted in the international community an agreed upon process for dealing with failed states. I have suggested that state's parties in collaboration with nongovernmental organizations and international institutions should (in extreme situations of bankruptcy and collapse) institute mechanisms for easing the breakup of states into parts that are more manageable and coherent in terms of geography, populations, histories and defensibility. I have suggested that the international status of state as a recognizable political structure be joined by the international status of nation as a separate structure. Many states have already begun to make some progress dealing with the prospect of disintegration including Spain, Germany (with the absorption however clumsily), the formation of the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia (even though this has meant severe economic problems for Slovakia) and the recent decisions of devolution by the government of England.

Russia has been faced with many Fourth World nations seeking to separate from the body of USSR or the Federation. Chechens are one of those nations and should be allowed to move out on its own. While it is probably true that instability in the Caucuses would result over the short term it is certain that the instability would be nothing compared to what is being experienced in that region as a result of the war. Inguishia is destabilized, Ossettia is destabilized, Georgia can't get a footing and others experience the same from Russia's military adventure into it's "Vietnam." I suggest that a more realistic attention to stabilizing Russia would go far to stabilizing this region. Russia's transformed identity (after those who want out are given the door) could become a constructive force in the region. The Russian Federation is not now a stabilizing force.

Thank you for your additional discussion on this very important subject. I look forward to your comments.