Amerikan and Russian bourgeoisie agree to differ on Kosovo, 
Chechnya

Just before President Clinton visited Russia in early June, 
Chechen guerrillas ambushed and killed the second-highest ranking 
Russian official in Chechnya. Despite the Russian government's 
claims that the guerrillas are isolated and defeated, the fighting 
in Chechnya is far from over. Even some of the bourgeois media in 
Russia estimates that more than 10% of Chechens actively support 
the guerrillas -- hardly an isolated group.

Although Clinton made some mild objections to alleged Russian 
atrocities in Chechnya, he stressed over and over that Russian 
President Putin "is a man we can do business with." Putin built 
his recent political career on the bloody military adventure in 
Chechnya. Of course, if Clinton had hit the Chechnya issue hard, 
Putin and others could have hit back on a number of issues, 
starting with the Amerikan-led bombing of Kosovo. Last year's 
bombing campaign angered many Russians, who sympathize with the 
Serbs and viewed the enlargement of NATO as a sign of mistrust or 
hostility.(1). Also, Putin claims that the Chechen guerrillas 
receive support from Osama Bin Ladin, alleged mastermind of u.$. 
embassy bombings. This is savvy bourgeois politics, designed to 
expose Amerikan hypocrisy. If Clinton criticizes the war in 
Chechnya, then Putin can say he's simply taking a hard line 
against the "world's number one terrorist," as the State 
Department likes to call Bin Ladin.

Of course, one camp of reactionaries will often correctly expose 
the crimes of another camp in order to further their own agenda. 
During World War II, for example, the Japanese criticized British 
and Amerikan imperialism for oppressing and exploiting the peoples 
of Asia. This did not in any way atone for Japanese militarism's 
terrible sins. Clinton's so-called humanitarian concerns in 
Chechnya and Kosovo do not alter Amerikan imperialism's predatory 
nature.

A new Amerikan policy towards Russia?

Clinton spoke before the Russian parliament and received a less-
than-enthusiastic reception. Representatives of the Russian 
national bourgeoisie basically told Clinton where he could shove 
his Amerikan "aid." "It was a totally false speech," said fake-
Communist Vasily Starodubtev. "The man who took a direct part in 
robbing our country bare is behaving today as if he had nothing to 
do with it at all. What cooperation can he talk about if Russia is 
being used as a second-rate country, whose raw materials are 
siphoned off on a daily basis by the West, America included?"(2)

In fact, Clinton hinted that Amerikan economic "aid" may be 
curtailed in favor of Amerikan investment. "Russia has entered a 
phase when what it needs is investment, not aid," he said in his 
speech before parliament.(2) This will not change the nature of 
the economic relationship between the two countries -- investments 
will still focus on the extraction of resources and not the 
development of the Russian economy. Increased private sector 
investment may accelerate the subjugation of the Russian economy 
to the dictates of foreign capital, sharpening the contradictions 
in Russian society.

President Putin made some concessions Clinton on international 
military matters, generally giving the united $tates more freedom 
to deal with so-called rogue states. At the same time, Putin 
criticized Amerika's planned missile defense system, and 
threatened to develop of his own in conjunction with other 
Europeans. So Putin seems to be walking a tightrope between two 
reactionary groupings: The pro-imperialist or comprador 
bourgeoisie and the bourgeois nationalists.

Notes:

1. MIM Notes 186, 15 May 1999.

2. Los Angeles Times, 7 June 2000.