[bit.listserv.politics] USSR,

CARBUCKLE@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (Valentine M. Smith) (02/12/90)

Saw G. Gerasimov on one of the TV news shows this morning(Brinkley?). A slick
character, who speaks very good English and has a sly sense of humor and a good
use of American idioms. Asked about Gorbachev's survival,"He's firmly in the
saddle for some years to come." He adroitly ducked Sam Donaldson's query(must
have been Brinkley)about whether Gorbachev would face the electorate himself as
a Presidential candidate, saying that Gorby had been elected in a semi-free
election and had a "taste" of what it would like to face a direct election,
right down to having an opponent. Gerasimov very slickly avoided the fact that
Gorbachev's "opponent" in that Supreme Soviet election was but a token rival of
no consequence.

When asked about the secessionist law promised some weeks ago to Lithuania,
Gerasimov again ducked a direct response, pointing out instead other places in
the world that such movements existed-the Irish struggle, Kashmir in India, the
Basques in Spain, the French in Canada.

On a united Germany, he said "Germans to decide on whether to reunite." The
Soviets do have "security and psychological concerns about Germany's past."
He seemed to feel that further talks will go on before any reunification
occurs, and on the issues of troop withdrawals from either side. Gerasimov was
evasive on whether Germany united should be neutral or NATO-orientated, but
seemed to indicate the Soviets had an interest in maintaining a military
presence in Europe, as Bush has indicated the US wants to do.

George Will tried to pin Gerasimov down on whether Yeltsin could or would beat
him in a direct Presidential election. Genadi parried with the fact that the
March 4th elections are "local," not Presidential, and that this issue is not
going to be faced for awhile. Though Gorbachev is popular in the Western
capitols, especially London and Washington, he is not so popular with Dame
Ivanova Housewife in the Soviet Union.

David Brinkley pointed out correctly that the Soviets continue to face a
critical food shortage problem. Donaldson pointed out to Will that Yeltsin
might find it very difficult to win an election if there were chaos, Carter
pointed out that if chaos were the order, then the Russian people would look to
the strongest source of order, ie Gorbachev. Will tried to compare Gorbachev to
Louis XVI, and that the conditions in which Louis fell, a Napoleon was born,
implying that Yeltsin could be a modern day example of the Corsican unknown
rising to the throne. I think he's full of crap. Carter seemed the most
sensible. This"revolution" started from the top, and what will have to happen
first is a different allocation of resources so everyone can eat, that the
"Russian housewife" is many different people not necessarily looking to revolt.

Sec. of State Baker in Bulgaria yesterday, the highest US official to ever
visit that country. He hopes, and said in Sofia, that Bulgaria can have free,
multi-party elections "soon." Today, he had bounced to Bucharest, promising $80
million in reconstruction aid, but calling for democracy and cooperaation
within the framework of the system.

Later, I observed Zbigniew Brzezinski interviewed, and praised for being a
"prophet" by I believe Sam Donaldson. I'm inclined to think he's been a wishful
thinker hoping the Russian state would break up, not necessarily an accurate
prognosticator, as Hodding Carter pointed out a little later. Zbig felt,
hedging his bets, that the the changes coming could go either way, peacefully
or violently.

If peacefully, he agrees with my earlier scenario about a Russian
confederation, though thinking that the at the least, perhaps the Balts will
secede from the current "union." If violent change occurs, a period of chaos
would occur. He feels the Great Russians would attempt to hold as much of the
old empire together as possible, resisted by the other areas primarily
dominated by non-Russians.

He felt the reunification of Germany would happen in spite or against us if we
stood in its way. As long as Western troops stay in Europe, so will the
Soviets. I'll buy that, I cannot imagine either side giving an inch they don't
have to at this point. The fears that Poland and France have are
understandable, he felt, though he also stated that the West and former
opponents of Germany should not set up a "self-fulfilling prophecy" and conjure
up Germany as demon. He, and I, believe Kohl equivocated greatly about German
borders as the Wall came tumbling down, but that Kohl has "gotten clearer" and
those "claims" about old borders are being abandoned. What will probably
happen is the German borders that exist de facto for the two Germanies at
present will be the de jure borders of a new Germany, be that whenever. He does
not see Germany rising to make war on Europe again. I think such is unlikely
also, the economic disruption would be too great for a Europe at present just
trying to decide what identity to have now, with the six Comecon countries
loose from their old ties and much up in the air.

I see Germany reuniting, probably quicker than any realize, and with US and
Soviet support. The alliance question will take longer to resolve, both sides
have difficulties with large numbers of troops coming home, and both seem to
feel some segment of Europe will want them to keep troops in. Plus the
Comecon/EEC question complicates the NATO/WArsaw Pact question; in the end,
both may have to be resolved together.

Lastly, I finally have ssen a launch from Baikanour as it was happening, as did
four American astronauts. Some kind of lab, and two astronauts were launched to
Mir, the Russian space station. This mission was actually a commercial venture,
a most interesting direction for the Soviet program to be going in. Now, if
only the US had a heavy launch vehicle...Oh well, all that stuff will come. I
can only hope that the summit in June brings up more than the current projected
agenda.