"Solzhenitsyn"

[achebeautiful]

Solzhenitsyn Praises Russian President By HENRY MEYER, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW - Nobel laureate and former Soviet dissident Aleksander Solzhenitsyn accused the United States and NATO of seeking to encircle Russia, and praised President Vladimir Putin for working to restore a strong state.

The reclusive 87-year-old author told the Moscow News that NATO's ultimate aim was deprive Russia of its sovereignty, according to a full text of the interview posted Thursday on the Web site edition of the liberal weekly.

"Though it is clear that present-day Russia poses no threat to it, NATO is methodically and persistently building up its military machine — into the east of Europe and surrounding Russia from the south," Solzhenitsyn said.

"This involves open material and ideological support for 'color revolutions' and the paradoxical forcing of North Atlantic interests on Central Asia," he said, adding there was "little substantial difference" between the actions of the U.S. and NATO.

The "color revolutions" referred to the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and "Rose Revolution" in Georgia and other recent protests that brought opposition leaders to power in former Soviet republics, enraging Russia over what it saw as Western encroachment on its home turf.

By NATO interests in Central Asia, Solzhenitsyn was alluding to the 1,000 mostly U.S. troops stationed at an air base set up in December 2001 at Kyrgyzstan's main civilian airport near the capital, Bishkek. The force also includes small French and Spanish contingents.

The United States lost its other base in former Soviet Central Asia last year when Uzbekistan expelled U.S. troops following Western criticism of a crackdown on demonstrators.

"All this leaves no doubt that they are preparing to completely encircle Russia and deprive it of its sovereignty," Solzhenitsyn said.

Solzhenitsyn, known for his conservative nationalist views, lashed out at the pro-Western government in Ukraine for its drive to obtain NATO membership and said Russia would "never betray in any way the multimillion Russian population in Ukraine and renounce our unity with it."

The author accused former reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev of capitulating to the West, and Russia's first post-Communist president, Boris Yeltsin, of pursuing the same policy as well as presiding over the massive theft of state resources and a descent into chaos.

He said Putin, a former KGB career intelligence officer now in his second presidential term, was making efforts to restore Russia's shattered statehood.

"Foreign policy, considering our current situation and possibilities, is being conducted sensibly and ever more forward-thinking," Solzhenitsyn said.

"But owing to the heavy burden left by his predecessors, an awful, awful lot in Russia has yet to be lifted up from decline. The overall state of people's lives remains hard and chaotic," he said.

Solzhenitsyn spent a decade in a labor camp and documented life in the camps in his best-known works, "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" and the "Gulag Archipelago" trilogy.

He won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1970 and was expelled from the Soviet Union four years later. He lived in the Vermont until his 1994 return to Russia, three years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He has kept a low profile in recent years, giving few interviews and issuing few public statements.

[achebeautiful]

Respectfully, Mr. Solzhenitsyn, this article might help explain some of why these things are as they are:

"Russia in Delicate Balancing Act With Iran"
By STEVE GUTTERMAN,


MOSCOW - How can Russia help ensure Iran doesn't join the club of nuclear-armed nations while maintaining its warm ties with Tehran? It's a delicate balancing act that helps explain Moscow's flurry of diplomacy.

As President Vladimir Putin positions Russia as a global power broker, he must maneuver between the nation's interests in Iran and the need to maintain a measure of cooperation with the West.

Exactly a year ago, Putin strongly urged Iran to abandon the pursuit of uranium enrichment — but Tehran has done the opposite, scrapping a moratorium, stepping up enrichment efforts and playing an on-again-off-again game with a Russian proposal to ease the crisis.

The mounting international pressure on Iran, set to tighten with a crucial U.N. nuclear agency report Friday, also deepens the dilemma faced by Moscow.

Russia has increasingly shared U.S. worries that Iran could produce nuclear weapons and has taken some steps to counter the threat — notably by insisting that spent fuel from the atomic power plant it is building for Iran in the Persian Gulf city of Bushehr be returned to Russia.

But with Iran's rejection of a U.N. Security Council demand that it suspend enrichment by Friday a foregone conclusion, the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency risks setting Russia apart from three other veto-wielding council members — the United States, Britain and France — on the need for sanctions against Tehran.

Moscow's opposition to sanctions stems from several sources rooted in a complex web of business, political and security concerns.

Like China, the other permanent council member that opposes sanctions, Russia is eager to maintain commercial ties with Iran that include arms contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars — another persistent source of friction with the United States and Israel — and the $800 million Bushehr reactor project.

While those deals are important for the industries involved, trade with Iran makes up only a small fraction of Russia's foreign commerce. Still, Moscow's desire to maintain political influence in Tehran — part of Putin's bid to boost Russia's clout — is a key factor in its reluctance to anger Iran.

Falling afoul of Iran could also expose Russia to further trouble in its North Caucasus region, jeopardizing Tehran's position that the Chechnya conflict is an internal matter for Russia and prompting it to support Islamic militant infiltration into the area, said Vladimir Dvorkin, a Russian analyst and arms control expert.

If a sanctions proposal comes to a Security Council vote, Moscow could support it, abstain, or use its veto.

"All three options are bad options for Russia," Vladimir Yevseyev, an analyst with the Center for International Security at Moscow's Institute of World Economy and International Relations.

Support for Iran would anger the United States and European countries in the very year that Russia leads the Group of Eight nations — a prime platform for burnishing its prestige. Moscow has also been using instruments ranging from its natural gas wealth to a meeting with Hamas leaders to flex its muscle on the world stage. That is partly why Russia is so keen to avert a sanctions vote that would complicate its ties with the West.

Putin on Thursday emphasized that the IAEA, not the Security Council, should be the main forum for efforts to resolve the standoff. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the IAEA report must not be seen as an ultimatum — the latest Russian statement aimed to slow Security Council action, cool Iranian ire over its moves and downplay the idea of a deadline.

While the United States and other nations might impose individual, concerted sanctions, analysts said, the most Russia is likely to agree to in the Security Council is a strong statement criticizing Iran and demanding compliance.

After that, said Rose Gottemoeller, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, Russia will press for a diplomatic breakthrough, possibly involving a renewed push to persuade Iran to accept its offer for a joint venture to enrich uranium for Iran on Russian territory.

"Whether the Iranians will step up to that or not is another question," she said.

Tehran's wildly varying responses to the uranium enrichment offer have led to accusations that it is using the proposal to play for time, and do not bode well for a resolution. Russia has been frustrated by the belligerent statements of Iranian leaders.

Despite Russia's levers of influence over Iran — the arms trade and the nuclear power plant project, for which it has yet to deliver fuel — its diplomatic efforts have brought no signs of a concession by Tehran.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the foreign policy magazine Russia in Global Affairs, suggested Moscow is running out of options. If war is out of the question and engagement doesn't work, he said, "there's nothing left."

Russia may hope to get a foot in the door for further negotiations with Iran by opposing the push for sanctions — convincing Iran they are "the good guys," Gottemoeller said.

But Dvorkin said that unless the permanent Security Council members and Germany strike a united stance, "the chance for a diplomatic solution is "minimal."

[achebeautiful]

"Like China, the other permanent council member that opposes sanctions, Russia is eager to maintain commercial ties with Iran that include arms contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars — another persistent source of friction with the United States and Israel — and the $800 million Bushehr reactor project."

What are your thoughts about this, Mr. Solzhenitsyn? Do you think it is a good idea for your country to be making money selling arms to countries like Iran, with all of the rediculous statements (threats) that have come out of the mouth of their leader? And what would you suggest a world around your countries should do in these very volitile times we are living in? The United States wanted no part of getting involved with Hitler, and when we finally did, it was later than it should have been. Think of the lives that could have been saved! Are you suggesting we wait until something happens before we show concern? Hmmm.....

[ocelot]

I need to know more better I form an opinion on this. This is the first I've heard of this issue and I would like to know more before I form an opinion.

[achebeautiful]

Well, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn deserves that much from all of us. He is a very good and wise man, and has written extensively about things that have benefitted all mankind for the better. His opinion is at least worthy of consideration even if in the end I still disagree.