Us and them

in that
small world

Kondrashov S. N.
К64 Us and them in that small world: The diary is watered,
observer.— M.: Politizdat, 1984.— 352 p., ill.
The new book by the famous international journalist Stanislav Kondrashov is a panorama
of the modern world depicted through documentary journalism with its complexities, contrasts,
contradictions, and acute confrontation between the forces of peace and war. A large place is
occupied by essays revealing the militaristic, aggressive policy of Washington against the
backdrop of fundamental international problems: relations between the USSR and the USA,
American Pershings and Western Europe, the situation in Lebanon, Central America, etc. The
author is hot on the trail of events, his political diary as would introduce the reader to the flow
of international life and help to understand it.
The publication is intended for the general reader.

0804000000—391
КБ—3—1—84 6.4(0)37
079(02)—84
© ПОЛИТИЗДАТ, 1984 г.

1
 IT'S A SMALL WORLD...
One traveler even passed through my office. He was an American
of middle age and height, stocky, with a beard that made his broad face
even rounder, and with blue, clear and attentive eyes. We talked for an
hour and a half and, having said goodbye to him, I finally saw his back
in the long editorial corridor. Conversation is like conversation; As far
as I remember, we were struck by each other with fresh thoughts or
aphoristic phrases, but after this meeting there was some kind of trace
that stirred the soul, something caught our attention and made us think.
I wanted to write about this meeting, how? The most important thing
was the subtext, and this is an elusive matter, try to depict it with a pen
accustomed to the direct and sharp text of political formulations. And
while wondering whether to write or not to write and if to write, then
how, I came across the word traveler, which has never had a place in
my vocabulary.
But why - a traveler? And their own travelers seem to have
disappeared, but foreign ones do not wander across the state border,
and even in Izvestia they cannot escape the duty post below, at the
entrance. In addition, I know that this American is a renowned
journalist, a journalist and a writer, as they say now. Traveler? He was
wearing shabby summer trousers, and over his shoulder, in keeping
with the spirit of the times, was a tattered canvas bag, an unusual item
for my generation, which remains faithful to briefcases. It was she, this

2
canvas bag from a foreign guest, from whom you always expect some
degree of formality, that led me to the Russian word, which suggests
not four walls with a ceiling and a diplomatic conversation, but a free
sky above free spaces, some curly edge of a forest and poems like
Blok’s: “No, I am going on a journey not invited by anyone, and may
the earth be easy for me...”
From the bag, however, the traveler took out not a piece of bread
and a piece of bacon in a rag, but two large yellow envelopes, called
manila in America. From the envelopes he took out sheets of paper
folded in half, and from his jacket pocket - a thick black, desperately
old-fashioned pen. We called such pens eternal until they gave way to
short-lived ballpoint pens...
Now it's time to introduce him. Famous journalist and writer,
winner of the prestigious Pulitzer Prize. Thomas Powers came to
Moscow for the first time. His work on a book about strategic nuclear
weapons—the very ones that are prepared against each other in that
fatal event—brought him to us. He studied the problem as best he
could from his own, American side, but one side, especially in his
chosen subject, as you might guess, is not enough. And now for two
weeks to Moscow - to look at us and talk with us, with those who will
be interlocutors.
We say: strategic weapons. And each of us, depending on what
pictures we saw, imagines intercontinental missiles hidden in
underground mines, giant bombers, whale carcasses of nuclear
submarines. These monsters, this catastrophic destructive force, cannot
be humanized, but in each, in each, behind each there are people. The
people who created them, the people who are on duty with them, the
people who, God forbid, will use them. My God, are they ancient or...
new philosophers foresaw that this chain would form and how
tragically short it would be: weapons systems - politics - the meaning
of existence (the meaning of life for each of us and everyone on planet
Earth). Between these three forged links, only three, it is time to put a
sign of identity. Some kind of super-dense compression of everything
and everyone. Unheard of rocket-philosophical thinking.
This did not happen either in the 40s or in the 60s, although even
then the Bomb was hanging over us. The American bishops did not
rebel against the American president then.
There were no referendums on the nuclear freeze. And the
messenger of these new times brought a blue-eyed, bearded American
with a canvas bag to Moscow. How many people are carried away. He
writes about strategic weapons, but underneath all the questions he
asks us, the subtext is not about the weight being thrown or even about
nuclear strategy, but the most important and painful one: what kind of
people are you? What should I and my loved ones expect from you?
The point is not in the canvas bag, but in the rope that tied us together.
He came to us as a traveler because he sees us as companions, and he
cannot separate his destiny from ours, he cannot, even if he really
wanted to. From our common - and universal - destiny. We are all

3
travelers, but not under free skies among free fields, but in the gloomy
spaces of the nuclear age. We are all travelers - and we are all
companions. This is the conclusion I came to when, under the surface
layer of our conversation, I tried to find the deep psychological layer
and, along with it, the secret of the appearance of another American in
Izvestia.
The world is small... An unknown wise ancestor boldly put these
two words next to each other back when the world he knew was closed
in by the dark thickets of forests on the horizon, and the unfamiliar one
stretched out to God knows where and hid the darkness of wonders.
Bah, it's a small world! - old acquaintances chuckled when they met in
an unexpected place some ten miles from home. Bah, it’s a small
world... Try the same thing, laughing good-naturedly, and say this
about a missile that in just half an hour can transfer its hundreds of
thousands of inevitable deaths from continent to continent, packed in
three or ten nuclear warheads of individual - and precise - targeting ?
It's a small world... When I was allowed from APN and asked to
meet with Thomas Powers, an employee of the American magazine
"Atlantic", the author of a famous book about the CIA and a recently
published collection of essays on US nuclear strategy, I remembered
this name. I met him in absentia, under circumstances that were not
entirely ordinary, at altitudes slightly lower than those pierced by a
rocket. In the fall of 1982, I was in Washington and, although I am not
working on a book on strategic weapons, I had approximately the same
conversations that he has in Moscow, that we all have with each other,
and someone advised me to read an interesting article in the
anniversary (125 years) issue of the monthly "Atlantic". I bought the
magazine, with its blue-and-silver cover, at Washington's Dallas
airport before boarding the widebody DC-10. The plane was heading to
San Francisco. In the cabin, the size and appearance of some kind of
elegant hangar, after dinner the overhead lights were turned off, the
passengers were offered a detective movie, and I could not tear myself
away from the article by Thomas Powers. It turned out to be more
enticing and, with its still inexhaustible plot, more terrifying than any
“horror film.” The lengthy article was entitled “Choosing a Strategy for
World War III.”
A good example of meticulous “research” journalism: first-hand
information, from military and civilian generals, from nuclear planners
and strategists, descriptions of presidential secret memoranda and
directives, a lot of details, and they all worked towards the main idea,
the main impression is the unstoppable inertial progress of the
monstrous military machine. New and new, ever more sophisticated
nuclear weapons systems cannot help but be invented, and more and
more new military doctrines cannot help but be invented for them,
increasingly based on the possibility and admissibility of nuclear war.
And it is impossible to break this wheel, and it rolls towards the
nuclear abyss.
American journalists of this class usually do not press on

4
emotions; the only feeling they allow themselves is unobtrusive humor.
However, there was somehow no place for humor with such a topic,
and the author, it would seem, completely dissolved himself in facts,
figures and quotes, his style was dry and devoid of pathos. But...
Unlike children, adults need to restrain themselves, and only by subtext
do they convey their despair. And the subtext in the article was not
about missiles, but about people, the subtext was a cry from the heart:
“look, each of these Americans is logical and seemingly rational, each
skillful professional is in his place, each is just doing his job, but
together, in the aggregate With their labor, these reasonable people
create madness that the world has never seen.
His examples included former President Jimmy Carter. He came to
the White House with a somewhat naive, but perhaps sincere,
intention: to achieve a reduction in nuclear arsenals. Then, with the
meticulousness of a former submarine engineer, he climbed into the
nuclear missile labyrinths of American strategic doctrines and emerged
from them as a supporter of a “limited” nuclear war, a man
approaching disaster. Well, Reagan came not to reduce, but to increase,
and this Carter legacy came in handy for him.
So, under the roar of engines and the chirping of an action movie,
in their plane, overcoming the dark evening spaces and x of the
continent, I found Thomas Powers this anxiety, which strengthened
mine. He reported that in December 1947, the only atomic target for
the Americans was Moscow, at which eight bombs were aimed. But
after a couple of years, the Dropshot plan provided for the delivery of
300 bombs to 200 targets in 100 industrial-urban areas of the Soviet
Union. A long history, the pale dawn of a new century. In 1974, the
Pentagon identified 25 thousand targets for nuclear strikes on Soviet
territory. By 1980 there were 40 thousand of them! “Everyone is on
this list now,” Powers wrote. And the list is still growing...
Of course, his anxiety was not just the torment of a normal person
who longs for a peaceful life and not bloodshed. The rope connecting
us has two ends, just like the chain that tightly connects types of
rockets with the meaning of existence and the fate of humanity.
According to the law of reciprocity and retribution, taking care of its
safety, the other side closely examines American territory and creates
its own proscription list...
I took the magazine to Moscow. I had the lines of Thomas Powers
lying among other - and also serene - printed lines, and I could not
have imagined that just over six months later I would exclaim to
myself: “Bah, it’s a small world.”, when on the sixth floor of Izvestia
their creator will come as an unusual traveler, continuing to develop an
intercontinental theme poisoned by thermonuclear fusion.
By the way, I asked him about this in the middle of our
conversation, when I was convinced that it was not a dispassionate
analyst sitting in front of me, but a living person with a living
perception of other people and the world. Why did he delve into
thermonuclear fusion when he took up this topic, and did he find it

5
worse, or perhaps easier? In adults, although they are embarrassed by
simple and clear children's words, childhood is hidden.
As soon as he started answering me, I realized that this was the
answer of millions. The bearded man sitting in front of me was five
years old when the war ended; he remembered not Victory Day in
May, but the day of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August. Since
then he has lived with Bomba, just like the rest of us. The difference,
however, is that we seem to push it aside, keep it at a distance as much
as possible, not letting it into our daily lives, but he, having chosen the
Bomb for a long time as the subject of his journalistic and writing
passion, the main creative content of his life, became engaged, as it
were. with her. For what? - I asked sympathetically. And he answered
in the sense that he wanted to see better and more clearly the drink (or
the string?!) on which the Bomb was hanging. Well, having seen it, did
it become easier? And looking with his small, round eyes that never
smile, he does not nod, but shakes his head: “No, it’s not easier...”
When you meet in person a person whom you knew in absentia,
from what he wrote, he looks both simpler and more complex than his
works. When figuring out the main thing, you can’t emphasize it like
the lines in his article. Sitting at a low coffee table and holding a thick
black pen in his hands, Thomas Powers made Moscow preparations on
pieces of paper folded in half. The former eternal pen wrote
surprisingly well. He knew no Russian at all and, like almost all
Americans, relied on his interlocutor’s knowledge of English. He was
delicate and flexible, content with my answers, asking simple
questions, as if random, as if randomly. But this was the scattering of a
geologist or a driller when they are looking for the same thing in
different places. It seemed to me that he asked the same thing: What
kind of people are you? And you, sitting opposite, what kind of
person? Will we be able to jump together between Scylla and
Charybdis of our common nuclear age?
I also talked with the Americans more than once, asked questions,
thought about something to myself, and collected as many pebbles as
possible for the next journalistic mosaic. And I wanted to guess how he
would fit our meeting into a mosaic picture that was not yet entirely
clear to him.
As I finish these notes, I want to repent. In them I fell into that
unpardonable sin of sentimentality for a journalist, which Thomas
Powers successfully avoided in his article. I undertook to unravel a
person from another country with a different worldview, spending only
an hour and a half with him and without eating a gram of salt.
Defenselessness is a punishment for sentimentality, and now,
having opened up, I wonder what he is writing in the report about
Moscow impressions that he is preparing for his magazine. What if he
is not the one I took him for? And in our conversation you saw
something completely different or not quite what I saw? I’m thinking:
shouldn’t I be on the safe side and, just in case, like against the Bomb,
move away from this essentially unfamiliar American? Maybe it's

6
worth it. But I don’t want to go this time. I stand my ground and think
that I am not mistaken: he would like to get through to me, as I do to
him, by the shortest path from heart to heart. He also felt this strong
subtext of our conversation, and I am sure that he will find it if he only
takes the trouble to think about it. In a word, if you knew the Russian
language, he would also repeat: yes, it’s a small world! That world in
which we can satisfy each other if we do not learn to save ourselves
together. In political language this is called equal security - you cannot
strengthen your own by weakening someone else's.
However, he could not resist sentimentality and found his own
way to sum up our conversation in precisely this vein. When his time
was up, and our mood - after the exchange of opinions - had not
improved, he asked:
- Where is the exit? What to do?
Thomas Powers asked it, it seemed to me, with feeling and insight
in his voice, as if there was a degree of trust between us that justified
such a question. And therefore, throwing up my hands - this is not a
question for a journalist - I still answered:
“We probably need to understand each other.”
I immediately added that this is too simple an answer to a complex
question, but perhaps it would not be more correct. And he also made a
reservation that the two of us, he and I can - by human impulse, by a
sudden wave of sympathy - understand each other, and what it is like
for two huge states - with different systems, different histories,
different languages and different places in the world.
He nodded in agreement and, quickly softening the unexpected
solemnity of his words, said that he would do everything he could to
gain understanding and trust. I promised him the same. And when he
left, carrying in a canvas bag several new touches for his book, our
meeting could not leave my mind. And the next day I thought that
there was no need to put off fulfilling my promise, I sat down at my
desk, with these notes of mine.
***
Thinking about Hiroshima... This event took a very special place
in the stories of the living memory of mankind, in the thoughts and
well-being of each and every one of us.
On August 6, 1945, the crew of an American B-29 bomber made a
laconic entry in the logbook: “8.15 am. The atomic bomb has been
dropped. After 43 seconds - a flash, a shock wave, the plane rocked.”
They were in a hurry. They had no time to look at what was
happening on earth. We've been doing this for almost forty years,
looking at Hiroshima. It wasn’t just the plane that dropped the bomb
that the pilots called “Baby” that rocked, it rocked the entire Earth and
has continued to rock since then.
Strange things are happening to Hiroshima. It defies the law of
historical distance. The closer the international climate does not
depend on the number of years that have passed. Hiroshima was

7
further away in the early 70s than it was in the early 80s. Now it is
closer than ever in the entire post-war period, because the threat of
nuclear war has approached and increased.
The more closely we look at the horror of the only Hiroshima that
happened, the more Hiroshimas that have not yet happened, but are
already in store, are ready. It is believed that there are now about one
million of them in nuclear arsenals.
It is believed that every minute the world spends a million dollars
on armies, weapons, and preparations for war. This is a widely known
figure. It surprises no one—the ability to be surprised has greatly
diminished in the years since Hiroshima. If a million dollars a minute
were distributed on some global square, then in a day there would be
almost one and a half thousand new millionaires, and in a year - half a
million millionaires.
But, as you know, it is not ordinary people, not people on the
street, who become millionaires, but arms manufacturers. And people
on the street are dying in Asia, Africa, Latin America from hunger and
from the indifference of other people. 40 thousand children every day
(every day!) die from hunger and disease. We are accustomed to this
figure. Hiroshima and the threat of global whitewash, alas, make it
easier for us to perceive the difficult truths of our time.
It, this time, fatally divided the peoples of the state and at the same
time brought them closer together through a common destiny.
Hiroshima remains on anti-war posters; posters are on the streets along
which anti-missile demonstrations are moving.
These are not the streets where people are dying of hunger. These
are European and American streets that are destined to disappear in the
event of a nuclear disaster.
“No man is an island. Every person is part of the continent,” the
English poet John Donne proclaimed in the 17th century. “And never
ask for whom the bell tolls.” He's calling for you."
Now it’s the 20th century, and the name of this bell is Hiroshima.
The bell rings not only about common danger, but also about
common responsibility. We, the living, are the bridge between the past
and the future. In the living movement of humanity through centuries
and millennia, this task of the bridge was solved by itself by each
generation. The threat of nuclear disaster will not go away on its own.
If we collapse, there will be no bridge to the future, there will be no
future. This is the measure of our common responsibility.
45-year-old Alexander Tvardovsky wrote: “You are a fool, death:
you threaten people with your bottomless emptiness, but we agreed
that we will live beyond your line. And behind your silent darkness, we
are here, together with the living. We are only subject to you separately
—death has no other option.”
And then the poet motivates his bold challenge to the bottomless
emptiness of death: “And, bound by our guarantee, together we know
miracles: we hear each other in eternity and distinguish voices. And no
matter how thin the wire is, the connection between people is alive. Do

8
you hear this, descendant friend? Will you confirm my words?..”
How true and wise this is! We are only subject to you separately,
death, but together we know the wonders of immortality. Pushkin is
alive, Tyutchev is alive, Mayakovsky is alive, Shakespeare and Goya,
Mozart and Saint-Exupery are alive, because we, living now, are an
environment in which their voices are heard and distinguished.
Standing at Tvardovsky’s grave, I can confirm the accuracy of his
prophecy, although I am, however, not his descendant, but only a
younger contemporary. But the ticket to immortality is written not only
to great creators who echo in eternity. Each of us is immortal, because
each of us stands in that row where the connection goes from
grandfathers to fathers and through us, through a thin wire, to children
and grandchildren.
Hiroshima makes an amendment. A nuclear disaster breaks such a
connection, because it threatens the death of the human race, and for
the survivors, the death of culture and spiritual values, making them
meaningless in the light of the wild act of collective suicide of
humanity.
Meanwhile, in the atomic bath of 1945, many things looked
simpler. The godfather of the Hiroshima bomb was President Harry
Truman. In his memoirs, The Year of Decisions, Truman wrote that he
“never doubted that it should be used.”
Even then, the atomic bomb was used primarily against the
Russians, although the Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As
the final preparations for a secret test explosion were being made in
Alamogordo, New Mexico, the American president was leaving for a
post-war meeting of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition in Potsdam.
Close people noted his secret sweet hope. He exulted: “If it blows up
like I hope it does, I’ll have a real hammer on these guys.” That is, in
Russian.
The former unlucky haberdasher from Kansas City was
withdrawing his debit and credit and did not think that the globe would
shake from Hiroshima, that a mushroom cloud in which the
imperishable souls of the Japanese evaporated alive would soar to the
heavens, would hang over humanity the question - to be or not to be?
Truman believed that the bell would not ring for his country.
None of his successors in the White House disowned him. And the
current president echoes him so much that it would be better if there
was no such echo.
Once Ronald Reagan received a group of American schoolchildren
at the White House. Among other things, Hiroshima encroaches on
perhaps the most valuable asset of childhood - the feeling of the
infinity of life. And at a meeting with schoolchildren, the topic of
nuclear weapons came up. And this is what the president said: “We are
the only country that has ever used these weapons. This was during the
Second World War as applied to Japan. But we were the only country
that had such weapons. Now ask this question: would we have dropped
this bomb if we knew that they also had a bomb that they were capable

9
of dropping on us? I think we all know the answer to this question.”
Truman didn’t think twice about whether to throw it or not,
because he knew that “they” didn’t have a bomb. Here you have the
origins of Hiroshima in its simplest explanation. And at the same time
the entire arms race. There, overseas, everyone wants to acquire such a
“bomb” that the other side does not have. Such a “bomb,” according to
the president’s logic, could have been dropped.
But we need to ban nuclear weapons, freeze their stockpiles,
reduce them and destroy them. The closer we are to this goal, the
further the obsession of Hiroshima will recede.

10
On the eve of Ronald Reagan

11
 WITHOUT RUDDER AND WITHOUT SAILS
From the stuffy August New York, what remains in my
memory, among others, is this politically loaded scene. On the fifth
floor of the Statler Hotel, I stand behind a pass to the Democratic
National Convention, which opens across the street at the elegant
Madison Square Garden. There were at least two hundred
correspondents in line, some with duffel bags and typewriters -
straight from the plane. We are languishing in the heat, beyond the
control of even American air conditioners.
And now a man is slowly moving along this line with a stack
of light yellow leaves in his hand. Handing us leaflets, he says that
the system is worthless and that it’s time to seriously think about
saving America. “He must be crazy,” the young American standing
in front of me mutters indignantly, and pointedly turns away from
the man and his leaflets. In fact, maybe another half-crazy
eccentric? How many of them are saving America?! But I don’t
turn away and take the leaflet just in case.
I read and see: no, the man wandering along the line of
journalists who had flown from all over America and the world to
the noisy all-American political show is not crazy, nor is the
unknown author of the leaflet crazy. On the contrary, like a bull by
the horns, he takes one of the most important American problems,
which is literally in the election air of 1980. He writes about a
“political crisis.” He deciphers his thought this way: “This is a
crisis of rapidly deteriorating leadership. In current terms, this
deterioration is evident in our current Democratic president and the
proposed Republican presidential candidate. We are adrift like a
ship in stormy waters without clear navigational charts and with a
blindfolded captain.”
Next, a plan for beneficial changes was outlined, recipes that
were perhaps somewhat naive and straightforward (special courses
for preparing candidates for the presidency, the creation of a
bureau of presidential advisers and a house of elders ready to share
their wisdom with the White House, etc.), but dictated by the non-
random need to protect the American ship of state from captains
who, having found themselves on the bridge after the next election,
are sailing without a rudder and without sails, moreover, with
nuclear buttons at hand.
"In Search of American Statesmanship." I am no longer taking
these words from a leaflet by an unknown author, published, as it
turns out, with funds from a medicinal tea company. This is the
title of an article by the prominent American historian Henry

12
Steele Commager. He undertakes his search because he does not
see reason and statesmanship either in the platforms or in the
candidates of the two leading parties. In his opinion, they refuse to
heed “the realities of today's world situation and the soothsayers of
the future.” The historian is frightened by the newly revived,
unrealizable concepts of “nuclear superiority” over the Soviet
Union and those doctrines that easily declare the death of 100
million Americans “acceptable” in the event of a nuclear conflict.
Commager writes: “We are threatened by paranoia, which sees the
Soviet Union as a mortal enemy whose task is to destroy the
United States, and we are threatened by a military policy that is
dictated by this paranoia.” He also diagnoses the long-standing
political-psychological disease of chauvinistic consciousness,
expressed in the persistent belief of many Americans: “God, nature
and history command that the United States always reign supreme
on the entire globe.”
“What we urgently need,” Henry Steele Commager appeals to
his compatriots, “is a state approach freed from the erroneous
assumptions of the past and orienting us towards a new way of
thinking...”
Having visited America again, I discovered that the majority of
American colleagues in writing are still mindlessly nibbling on the
pasture of daily, instantly forgettable sensations. And, oh,
thousands of people gathered in New York to cover the
Democratic Party Convention... What a record number - and what
a ridiculous and empty activity that gives nothing to either the
mind or the heart. Billions of words were wasted - and, of course,
long forgotten - describing the meaningless nuances of the months-
long election campaign.
But how little has been said about its intermediate result - the
selection as presidential candidates of two people who do not
inspire enthusiasm among the American people. But this result
again and with increasing force captures the political crisis that has
been eroding the largest capitalist country for more than a year or a
decade...
Meanwhile, serious people, concerned about the fate of
America and the world in which it plays a significant role, think
with alarm about this particular part of the picture. I gave two
examples. I'll give you another one. In Washington, this time I had
the opportunity to meet one of those intelligent and experienced
Americans who are so lacking at the helm of power now (my
interlocutor, a former famous senator, had to part with an active

13
political role, since to maintain it he did not have the dexterity of a
cheap politician). We talked about the discrepancy or, if you like,
the contradiction between the operation of the American
mechanism for selecting political leaders and the place that
America, by virtue of its weight, occupies on the international
stage, the responsibility that it cannot but bear in maintaining
international stability and security. Of course, this is a purely
internal American matter, but what to do if, due to the specifics of
the political structure of America, unsuitable people often come to
power, not local, but national. They do not have the proper
knowledge of international life, nor the proper degree of
responsibility; all their thoughts are focused on demagogically
catering to one or another group of the population and getting re-
elected in the election year. What to do when all the White House
employees taken together, who arrived with Jimmy Carter from
provincial Atlanta, have less diplomatic experience than, say, one
of the ambassadors accredited in Washington, which, however,
does not deprive them of an almost missionary zeal to bring
together the diversity of the world to one, American model. What
should I do?
How to deal with a partner if today's administration does not
consider itself bound by yesterday's obligations, and those who
strive to become tomorrow's administration declare that they will
break the agreements signed by today's?
It was felt that my interlocutor, who had experienced the
American version of Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” more than
once pondered with bitterness these destructive paradoxes of his
country’s political system. He said that the United States had
become a global power, but at the same time retained the original
method of nominating its leaders. This method was based on the
conditions of the late 18th century, when the population of the
newly independent United States was only 3 million people and the
country, following the precepts of its first president George
Washington, preferred to stay away from the rest of the world.
“We have a lot of provincialism,” noted the former influential
senator. At first glance, this definition does not fit in with such a
great nation as the American one, and yet it is true - in the sense of
the special American narrowness, limitation and self-absorption,
those blinders that, in particular, a tense, fiercely competitive
environment puts on Americans. their way of life. Americans are
provincial, as they have little interest in the rest of the world,
which, however, does not prevent many of them from considering

14
it only an appendage to America. They are provincial because they
are ignorant, but ignorance creates freedom for demagogues. My
interlocutor unflatteringly contrasted the political structure of his
country with such parliamentary bourgeois democracies as
Germany, Japan, Britain, where it is more difficult for people
without knowledge and experience to get into top government
positions, where ministerial cabinets are controlled by a majority in
parliament and can be replaced by a vote of no confidence.
The crisis of the socio-political system is persistently knocking
on the American gates, taking on different forms. Taking the last
two decades, it is easy to detect, on the one hand, the growth of
presidential power, and on the other, its increasingly
precariousness. John Kennedy was assassinated in November
1963, not having been in the White House for more than three
years. Lyndon Johnson, stuck in the quagmire of the unpopular
Vietnam War, withdrew himself, refusing to run for a second term.
Richard Nixon, after spending four years in the White House, was
triumphantly elected to a second term. But less than two years after
the election, he was forced to leave office in August 1974,
suffering a political collapse due to the scandalous Watergate
revelations. Gerald Ford, co-opted as president after Nixon's
ignominious resignation, was rejected by voters in his attempt to
remain in the White House for his own term. Total - 16 years of
instability. And under Jimmy Carter, who forged his way around
the established establishment as an unsullied outsider who
promised cleansing from the Watergate filth, incompetence
became the problem of the day. Polls convince us that this
reproach or accusation against the president is addressed by the
majority of Americans.
So what is next? Incompetence, many observers say, looms
large for Americans in the form of Ronald Reagan if he wins in
November. Incompetence to say the least. Along with it, instability
will apparently continue, and what does this mean for international
life, which is already feeling the disastrous consequences of
America’s feverish election struggle? (It has long been noted that
the entire year that goes into the US presidential election brings
additional disorientation and destabilization to international
relations, since the person sitting in the White House is pursuing
only one domestic and foreign policy at that time - his own re-
election.)
The current lack of real choice is further evidence of the
failure of the American system to heed the obvious lessons of the

15
past and present. This most important problem is not discussed in
Congress, but the American attitude to the political process leaves
a very noticeable and very characteristic imprint. If you look
closely, listen and believe the American means of mass
communications, all of America these days is shaking from the
election battles that have entered their finale. But let us allow
ourselves to doubt and ask a simple question: which category of
American voters is the most representative in terms of numbers? It
turns out that she doesn’t even bother to register in the voter lists,
although she has the right to vote. The one who does not take part
in elections. One that, as unnecessary, worthless, meaningless,
rejects the first right given to it by American democracy - the right
to vote in determining those in power.
Here is one example. In 1976, about 41 million Americans
voted for Democrat Carter, who ran for president, and 39 million
for Republican Ford. Carter was the winner. And 70 million did
not take part in the elections at all - almost half of the people
eligible to vote. The President of the United States was elected by
the votes of only 27 percent of eligible Americans. He was elected,
pardon the pun, by a truly overwhelming minority.
Figuratively speaking, noisy election events are played out by
actors on stage in front of a half-empty hall, if the hall is
considered the whole country, and the audience is the entire
American people. It would be a simplification and a distortion of
the truth to declare this an active protest against the system. But
passive protest, political indifference, a kind of mass fatalism are
evident. Staying home on Election Day the American seems to be
voting against a political process that gives him nothing.
Taking the statistics of the last two decades, we see that the
relative majority of those who evade participation in elections
threatens to turn into an absolute majority. In fact, in 1960, 63
percent of eligible voters participated in the presidential elections,
in 1964 - 62, in 1968 - 60, in 1972 - 55.4 percent. In 1976, the
voting percentage was 53.3. Even the Watergate storm did not
clear the atmosphere. Distrust in politicians and politics is
spreading.
I touched upon only one of the brightest internal indicators of
the crisis of the American political system. It has, of course,
extensive international consequences. I will note only one of them
- the strained relations between the United States and Western
Europe. Previously, being weaker, the US's Western European
allies suffered much, if not everything. No matter how they

16
assessed the behavior of Uncle Sam, who was not distinguished by
the manners of a gentleman, they had only one way out - to
forgive. They could not resist American power and did not want to
risk contradicting Washington because they were intimidated by
the Cold War atmosphere. Now they have become stronger,
moreover, they have managed to taste the fruits of detente and
appreciate them better than the Americans. The inconsistency,
incompetence, and unpredictability of the Carter administration are
increasingly causing lamentable comments on the European side of
the Atlantic about the quality of American leadership, and
sometimes open criticism at the official level. The London
Observer expresses perhaps the prevailing opinion when it writes:
“At this stage the American system is the worst performer in
international matters.”
Western European criticism of America is so friendly and
strong that some influential US citizens use it for domestic
American use. But what they do not always dare to express on their
own, when in Washington or New York, they speak with reference
to the Europeans. Here is what the former US Deputy Secretary of
State, famous lawyer and public figure George Ball writes: “In
Europe and the Middle East, where I just visited, they view
America as a crazed elephant that has gotten lost and tramples
vegetable gardens.. All this would still be tolerable. , if there was
any hope ahead, but our foreign friends do not expect the
November elections to improve the situation. If the prospect of
seeing Carter as President of the United States depresses
them...then the thought of Reagan becoming President simply
horrifies them. “How can we explain,” my French friend asked me,
“that in a country with 220 million capable, well-educated and
even brilliant citizens, the choice of leader comes down to Carter
and Reagan? You should probably rethink your electoral system!”
I couldn’t answer him, but deep down I knew that my friend had
hit the nail on the head.”
September 1980

17
 RESULTS BEFORE THE RESULTS
The US presidential election campaign is sometimes called a
political attraction that lasts about a year. To understand what it is,
you need to observe and feel it. I had to watch such attractions several
times, in fact, in all leap years, starting from 1964. So: it gets pretty
boring when you know the price of everything, but you can’t tear
yourself away due to your journalistic duty. And because one way or
another the issue of power is being resolved in the largest capitalist
country, which is by no means isolated from the whole world.
There are now less than three weeks left until the next election.
This time I followed the campaign from afar, from Moscow (with the
exception of two August weeks spent in New York and Washington).
The position of a slow observer has its pros and cons. You don’t keep
your hand on the galloping pulse of the pre-election finale, you don’t
get infected by the fever of public opinion polls that put one or
another candidate ahead, but you are free from the hypnosis of the
significance of what is replete with your eyes (and on your TV
screen), and you don’t see the details , often distracting from the
essence, but rather large features of the picture. I'll try to touch on
some of them.
The American is told that there is no one in heaven higher than
God, and on earth, especially in the nuclear age, higher than the
American president. This dogma of Americanism is learned from
infancy, along with milk from a plastic bottle, which replaces
mother's milk overseas. A dogma as artificial as the milk in question,
and as pleasing to the American soul. True, the more they expect
from the president, the more likely they are disappointed in him and
the more often they criticize him. But at the same time, they still do
not forget to put him first on the list of people most adored by
Americans. However, as you know, this does not exhaust the
sympathies and antipathies of the citizens of the overseas power
towards the owner of the White House. About half of them avoid
electing their president, demonstrating an unacceptable disregard for
the earthly god, and the rest vote in the elections not so much for one
of the two proposed candidates (Democrat or Republican), but rather
against the other, on the principle of the lesser evil. Finally, one more
feature: the White House is the object of a devilishly serious, fierce,
open and secret struggle between different factions of ruling America,
and the votes of voters are captured in clearly frivolous and almost
frivolous ways.
And now, both main participants in the election campaign -
Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan - are armed,
of course, with the programs of their parties, approved at their
18
national congresses, and “blanks” of speeches, as well as witticisms
and remarks for all occasions, for all cities and states, are surrounded
by dozens of close advisers and hundreds of people ready to serve
and serve. But the closer November 4, election day, the further
programs and policies recede into the background and the more
everything comes down to the first thing - to the “image”, the image
of the candidate. First of all, the television image. In the hierarchy of
American values, television is even higher than God—the president.
No one in our time gets into the White House without passing the test
of a television screen, without passing the telegenic test. Purely
practical experts of both Carter and Reagan, fully armed with
miraculous computers, solve a problem of a mystical order: how to
succeed in “imageism”, how best to manipulate a candidate’s TV
image, how to attract voters to one’s own, and push voters away from
someone else’s. No money is spared on political advertising on
television in the final stage of the election campaign; they shell out
the most - $15 million from each rival camp. Former film actor and
Hollywood darling Ronald Reagan, as one might expect, behaves
better in front of television cameras. His opponent, who has not gone
through the same school, lags behind.
Where the struggle comes down to personalities, to “images”,
then they become personal. The press is again writing about the
“dirty” campaign. Here is a picturesque verbal picture depicted in a
Washington Post editorial: “The President is calling out insulting
names left and right, brazenly reshaping his own record, and
displaying a frightening lack of generosity, nobility and sense of
proportion. Of course, it does not follow from this that his rivals
demonstrate the height of good manners by exchanging only baskets
of flowers with each other. Of course, their election campaigns are
full of all sorts of lies, attempts to create fog and distort the truth...”
Emphasis on appearance, and after all, appearances are deceptive,
television ones are no less than any other. If we add to this the
traditional American disdain for political platforms, it turns out that
the White House often ends up with a pig in a poke. The political
uncertainty stemming from the world's longest election campaigns
sets the mood for the clarity that Election Day will bring. And there
will be clarity only regarding the name of the president, but not
necessarily his policies. Politics is not all taken out of the bag all at
once.
This forecast can be made without much risk even now, summing
up some preliminary results before the final results.
The tinsel of the electoral struggle continues to surprise the
Americans themselves, although it has long become the norm. But in
the end it's their business. We are interested in internal political
rivalry in an overseas power primarily because of its side, which is
turned to international politics. And here it is worth mentioning again
the same feature, the same result, clear even before election day - the
exorbitant duration of the election campaign. In the imperial mindset
19
of many American politicians, the world can and should wait for
America to choose its president. But from the world's point of view,
the year-long process of determining the supreme power in the United
States looks like a serious anomaly that is upsetting international life.
During this period, both people who want to stay in the White
House, and those who would like to get into their place, view all
international events through the prism of catching voters, election
considerations, often demagogic. This time, examples began in the
fall of 1979, when the White House, having begun to demonstrate
“firmness” and “rigidity,” inflated - to its own embarrassment - the
story of “Soviet troops” allegedly located in Cuba. In addition, in the
early stages of the election campaign, while still within the
Democratic Party, President Carter played against Senator E.
Kennedy the story of the American diplomats captured in Tehran -
after all, tradition requires standing behind the president in days of
acute national upheaval. Each of the rivals further, at subsequent
stages, strove to turn this long story in their favor (one can assume
that the very fate of the hostages would have been easier if, from the
very beginning, calm and caution had prevailed in Washington over
considerations of political football).
And the hysterical reaction to the events in Afghanistan?! And
the ridiculous boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow?! And what
about the economic sanctions against the Soviet Union that affected
farmers in the American Midwest? Over all this and much more lies
the specific thick patina of the American election year, when in the
eyes of a properly trained American, even an adventuristic
demonstration of “hardness” pays off better than a position that the
main opponent, Ronald Reagan, attacking Jimmy Carter from the
right, can pass off as “soft.” " The current coolness in America's
relations with its main allies in Western Europe is explained, in
particular, by the fact that they did not want to succumb to the
American selective psychosis, adjust their policies to it, or sacrifice
European détente for it.
It is quite natural that America lives by its own laws. It is clear
that, from the American point of view, this is where the navel of the
earth is located. But when international life begins to become feverish
due to the long stay inside the American attraction, can this be
considered natural and understandable? The universal claims of
ruling America, which is changing its captain, in this sense look like a
harmful anachronism - and more and more clearly as the elements of
interdependence in international life intensify and the place and role
of America decreases relatively.
And one more outcome can be predicted in advance, without
waiting for election day and without reassuring yourself with
illusions. No matter who wins on November 4, America, under the
new or previous president, will increase military spending, build up
military muscles and, presumably, show them in one or another area
of the world. This prospect is evidenced by the behavior of both
20
leading candidates. Crossing the country with jet speed from end to
end, at all its big and small crossroads, each proves that it was he and
his party who took better care of the buildup of American military
power than his opponent and his party. Each swears that, whether he
remains or turns out to be a god in the White House, he will serve the
main and all-powerful deity of militarism more zealously than the
other.
But it's not just the personality of Carter or Reagan. Perhaps they
would not be such adherents of militarism if they knew that their
seeds would fall on unprepared soil. But the public soil, alas, has
been prepared. For several years in a row, the process of interaction
has been intensively and quite successfully in which it is the
militarists, precisely the masters and servants of the military-
industrial complex, who, citing the “Soviet threat,” shape public
sentiment, and then build on them in their calls for even greater
belligerence .
Carter indulged the shift to the right, retreating step by step under
pressure from the militarists, engaging in that political tailism, which
in America is called pragmatism or simply politicking. The shift to
the right helped the conservative Reagan become the leader of the
Republican Party and its presidential candidate. Realizing how
difficult it would be for him to outdo Reagan in terms of
conservatism, Carter recently tried to attack his opponent as a
dangerous “man of war” and portray the choice between a Republican
and a Democrat as a choice between war and peace. But this tactic
apparently did not bring the expected result. And no wonder. The
voter sees that both are moving along the same road, and if there is a
difference, it is only that one promises greater speed than the other.
Let's take the attitude towards the Soviet-American SALT II Treaty.
Now the US President presents himself as a defender of this treaty,
which is of utmost importance for relations between the two nuclear
missile powers. Now Carter and other members of his administration
are reproaching Reagan, who is threatening, if elected, to
demonstratively abandon the treaty. And the leading bourgeois
newspapers published editorials in which they explained to the
Republican candidate the importance of the treaty and the dangerous
naivety of his plans for the arms race. All this is true. But it is
reasonable to ask where the Democratic candidate was before, when
he unleashed the process of ratifying the treaty in the US Senate, and
then completely froze this process?!
The 1980 election battle confirms that America has built up an
inertia of belligerence that is difficult to reverse. Opa is also making
its presence felt in Congress. “Those who invest their money in the
production of weapons, calculating future profits and losses, are by
no means based on the personality of a possible president,” writes the
Christian Science Monitor newspaper, noting that in its current
quarrelsome mood, Congress will probably not be able to restrain but
to push the White House towards even greater “defense” spending.
21
 How can we explain the powerful wave of militarism that - at the
moment - has covered, buried under itself, and silenced those sober-
minded Americans who understand the dangers it can bring both to
the American people and to the prospects for world peace? There are
many explanations, but the most general and, probably, the most
important thing is the following. Under the pressure of an objective
reality that cannot be undone, America gave up its military
superiority over the Soviet Union. But the new reality does not
automatically cancel the previous consciousness. Consciousness lags
behind reality, and in America many have never given up the memory
of military superiority and the dream of its return. With all their
might they want to bring the new international existence closer to the
lagging chauvinistic consciousness and imperial thinking. The
question now is how long will it take for those overseas to become
convinced that nothing good will come of this attempt.
October 1980

AFTER THE ELECTION

Elections have finally taken place in the United States. And again
we observe a peculiar division of labor. Voters, having taken part in
voting or abstained from it, gave summary figures of the results. And
political observers, peering at these numbers, are trying to unravel
their meaning, the reasons why the Democratic President Jimmy
Carter was rejected, and the mandate that the Americans gave to the
Republican Ronald Reagan, sending him to the White House. It can
be said that the numbers speak louder about the reasons than the
mandate.
Although in the last days before the election, forecasters were
quite unanimous in predicting a Reagan victory, its scale turned out to
be much larger than expected. For comparison, here are two figures.
While Carter defeated Ford in 1976 by about a million and a half
votes, Reagan now has more than eight million more votes than
Carter. (43.1 million versus 34.8 million.) By American standards,
this is an impressive margin, especially since it spread almost
throughout the country (Reagan won more than forty of the fifty
states).
Before the elections, there was a lot of talk about voter apathy,
about his aversion to the political process in the United States. One
predicted that about half of voters would refuse to vote; others went
even further, claiming that more than half would not come to the
polls. The last prediction did not come true, but nevertheless, the
number of abstainers set a record for recent decades. According to
unofficial data, 52.3 percent of all eligible Americans—84 million
people—voted. Approximately 76 million did not want to take part in
the elections, thereby confirming the view of both apathy and the
crisis of the system reflected in it.
Shortly before November 4, Louis Harris, one of the world's
22
leading pollsters who has been in the field for more than three
decades, called the current election "the most negatively oriented
election we've ever faced." Post-election comments do not contradict
this assessment. The voter voted against Carter. It was
disappointment with the current president that helped Reagan achieve
victory. And the impressive nature of this victory is proof that
disappointment, as one television commentator noted, has become
“universal.”
Four years ago, Carter was elected to the White House on a post-
Watergate wave, promising integrity and quality leadership and
cleansing the taint of political scandals. He was generous with his
promises, the most important of which also concerned reducing
unemployment and curbing inflation, which worried the broadest
masses of Americans. He even numbered his promises, which
numbered in the hundreds, and this now allowed his opponent to
concretely calculate what remained unfulfilled.
However, what's the point of making calculations if Americans
feel the results of Carter's rule in their pockets, in stores, and in the
labor market. Let us recall what is widely known: 8 million people
are still unemployed, the inflation rate has risen almost 3 times (from
4.8 percent to 12.7), consumer prices have increased by half.
The dismal results of the Carter administration were at the center
of Reagan's election campaign. Concluding his appeal to voters on his
television dates with Carter, held exactly one week before the
election, the Republican candidate said: “When you make a decision
(about who to vote for - S.K.), it would be nice if you ask yourself: is
your life better now than it was four years ago? Are goods in stores
more accessible to you now than they were four years ago? Has the
unemployment rate in the country increased or decreased now
compared to what it was four years ago? Is America as respected in
the world as before?
When it came to foreign policy, Carter's record was an
indictment in the eyes of many voters. Unpredictability and
incompetence are not the harshest of the accusations that both
American observers and US allies, particularly in Western Europe,
have addressed to the current president. But in the unpredictability,
the element of belligerence increased. The further, the more often
Carter rattled his sabers, even thousands of kilometers from the
United States, in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, sending American
naval armadas there.
He wanted to appease some of his chauvinist-minded compatriots
with this, but, alas, this tactic did not work. In words he advocated for
the limitation of strategic weapons, but in reality he derailed any
agreement reached in this area. And with such a game one cannot
expect anything good either domestically or internationally. Carter's
political lesson is instructive in its own way in this sense.
Now his presidency is coming to an end. On January 20, 1981,
Ronald Reagan took the oath of office. According to the American
23
political tradition, the transition period from one administration to
another lasts two and a half months: consultations between the
outgoing president and his staff and the incoming president and his
staff take place, the composition of the new cabinet is gradually
formed and announced in advance. We can say that this will also be a
transition from pre-election political maneuvering with its specific
atmosphere of extremes and exaggerations to the development of
practical policies for the new president. And this process will also be
closely watched by observers, trying to understand how the new
leader and his assistants interpret the voter's mandate, as well as the
mandate of the influential groups that enjoy the greatest weight in
capitalist America.
During the transition period, many issues arise, including foreign
policy ones, that are of interest to the whole world. Among the most
important, naturally, is the question of Soviet-American relations,
which play such an important role in modern international life; What
can you say about this?
The Soviet Union has always stood for good relations with the
United States based on the principles of peaceful coexistence,
equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and non-damage to each
other's security. He did not seek and is not seeking any unilateral
advantages and does not strive for military superiority. This is our
constant principled position. This was emphasized in the Peace
Program developed by the XXIV - XXV Congresses of the CPSU. It
was repeatedly stated in documents and speeches of Soviet leaders.
Our policy towards normal relations with the United States
remains fully in force today. We, of course, do not forget about the
difference in ideologies, social systems, economic systems and do not
turn a blind eye to the difficulties in our relations. But all this should
in no way interfere with resolving issues in a constructive way.
Negotiation, not confrontation, is the Soviet approach.
The problem of the problems of our time remains the arms race
and the need to curb it. The solution to this issue largely depends on
our two countries. The current and future generations will not forgive
us if we fail to cope with this problem. And it should be considered
primarily in terms of limiting strategic weapons. At one time, the
Soviet Union and the United States jointly developed a number of
agreements limiting the arms race, including nuclear missiles. And if
now our two countries do not do everything possible to set them in
motion, if the issues of arms reduction are pushed aside, this will
cause irreparable damage to the cause of peace.
In days when a new milestone is dawning in American political
life, it is useful to look back at previous stages in the history of
Soviet-American relations and the chain lessons of the past. What
was done well over the years between the Soviet Union and
American administrations, both Republican and Democratic, should
not be rejected. On the contrary, this should be used to find further
correct solutions through negotiations, rather than increasing weapons
24
arsenals. This remains the main challenge.
November 1980

ADVICE FROM A FORMER AMBASSADOR

The American president, who did not achieve re-election and is
called a shot duck, is like the British queen: he reigns, but does not
rule. Jimmy Carter, as we see, is going through this period now.
Counting the days until January 20, he still reigns in the White
House, but no longer rules in the United States. It can be said that his
entire foreign policy now boils down to new attempts to free
American hostages in Iran before he leaves the presidency. But even
here things are not going well yet and therefore take on the character
of yet another symbol of the disastrous outcome of the entire four-
year period of the Carter administration.
In the tumultuous transition period that caps a tumultuous
election year, eyes, of course, turn to the newly elected president. But
he does not yet reign or rule. He is still freeing himself from the husk
of countless campaign statements, preparing to don the robes of a
practical leader of American politics. Ronald Reagan became more
sparing in his words, not preventing his predecessor from finishing
his term in the White House, and also fearing to tie his hands by
prematurely stating his positions. The ministers he elected are not
very talkative now, and only their previous reputation serves as an
indicator, albeit an incomplete one, of how their future activities will
unfold.
In short, there is scope for political fortune tellers from
newspaper editorial offices and television studios. And there is no
shortage of advice for the man who will soon occupy the Oval Office
in the White House.
This is what, for example, the weekly magazine “Yu.” either
advises or competently asserts in its latest issue. S. News and World
Report: “Ronald Reagan and his Secretary of State Alexander Haig
will fundamentally change the nature of American foreign policy next
year. They will place the main emphasis on US military power and
toughness towards Russia.”
It is in this regard that the magazine, and not the only one,
interprets the very fact of the appointment of retired General Haig as
Secretary of State. With this fact, "Reagan underscored the emphasis
placed on military power in foreign policy."
Further more. II, according to the weekly, the new administration
“will not be alarmed by... the impossibility of concluding a treaty on
the limitation of strategic arms.” Or, to put it more simply, the arms
race will become a completely natural matter that will not cause
“worry.” Further more. And now the magazine prophesies that
“linkage will again become fashionable in relations with Russia” and
“Washington’s position, for example, in trade negotiations or arms
negotiations will be influenced by the general Soviet policy in the
25
world.”
We could quote more, but isn’t it time to stop and exclaim: this
predictable future is not at all different from the past, which never
worked out in Washington’s relations with Moscow! Do they really
want to throw the past into the future in the incomprehensible hope
that it will finally work? This is, in essence, a return to the circles of
the Cold War, to deliberate confrontation.
An administration that has not yet begun to act, of course, is not
responsible for the prophecies and recommendations of even an
informed and influential journal. Therefore, we will refrain from
criticizing her for now. But let us allow ourselves one small remark.
During a period of a kind of American interregnum, when one
president is practically no longer in office, and another is not yet in
office, American observers for some reason are inclined to endow the
new president with supernatural properties, although right before
their eyes there is an example of the opposite meaning - the old
president, who proved before everyone's eyes world, how even the
powers of the head of the American state are limited by objective
conditions. If we recall the American expression, the President of the
United States, like any person, is no larger than life. No more so than
the world he enters as one of the world's leaders.
Need I say that, whatever his intentions, he must realistically
assess the existing world situation, as well as the limits of his
capabilities? It is a dangerous, although very typical and enduring
tradition in America, according to which each new president takes up
his duties as a god planning to create the world anew. And everyone,
one way or another, lives out this illusion of omnipotence, without
ever creating the world in their own image and likeness. And there is
nothing more dangerous in this illusion than a naive belief in the
salvific nature of the arms race as a means of asserting American
superiority over the Soviet Union. Years and years passed, entire
post-war decades, until Washington realized that only on the principle
of equal security and strategic parity can relations with Moscow be
built. If this main lesson of the post-war period now wants to be
canceled and forgotten again, then a lost and, moreover, dangerous
time awaits us.
In order not to waste time, it is wiser to listen to the advice of
experienced people who have not forgotten the lessons of the past.
One of them, former US Ambassador to the USSR Malcolm Thune,
considered the moment opportune to recall some basic truths of
Soviet-American relations.
Toon writes in the Christian Science Monitor: "The fundamental
issue is that we cannot achieve military superiority over the Soviet
Union simply because our enemy will not tolerate it."
And further: “We cannot negotiate with the Russians to grant us
superiority, we can only negotiate from a position of equality.”
Thun calls his reminder of the experience of the past and the
reality of the present “unobtrusive advice to Ronald Reagan” from a
26
practicing diplomat. This, I must say, is very timely and practical
advice.
December 1980

HAIG ON CAPITOL HILL

One senator attending Alexander Haig's confirmation hearings as
Secretary of State found that the general answered questions
"accurately and firmly." And one newspaper - I mean the New York
Times - saw his virtue in another: "He is firm and flexible, clear and
unclear, evasive and direct at the same time - a real secretary of
state."
It is too early to judge what kind of Secretary of State Alexander
Haig will become; his first declarations in the Senate reveal a man
who has worn a military uniform for a long time and only recently
took it off. One can agree with Washington Post columnist
Oberdorfer, who found that during the hearings, “the general-turned-
diplomat often operated in terms of military force and felt most
confident in the familiar terrain of conventional and nuclear power.”
It is in military power that Alexander Haig sees a universal recipe
for the success of American diplomacy, the leadership of which he is
now taking into his own hands. The accelerated armament of Japan
and South Korea, the increase in military spending by Western
European states, even greater than in the last year under Carter, the
American military presence in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf
region... This is what the new Secretary of State spoke about more
directly than evasively. And this, apparently, pleased many members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which improved before
the November elections and even more after the FIR.
Quite understandably, the senators were interested in the question
of American-Soviet relations, the state of which worries many people
around the world. And here Haig also emphasized the need to
strengthen American military power before seriously engaging in
arms limitation negotiations. A familiar motive: to arm in order to
better control and limit weapons. It was no stranger to the Carter
administration, but at least it started with a different motive and, after
long, complicating delays, agreed to sign the OGB-2 Treaty.
Although there were no illusions even before Haig appeared on
Capitol Hill, his statements clarified the picture. The SALT II Treaty
does not seem to exist for the Reagan administration, which is just
about to begin its activities. In addition, judging by both Haig and the
new US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Washington is not
going to rush to resume negotiations with the Soviet Union on the
issue of limiting strategic offensive weapons. Weinberger said it
would take "a good six months" just to assess the situation. Haig does
not give a deadline, but says this: “We are not sufficiently prepared to
achieve through negotiations the kind of arms limitation agreement
that I would like to see. I would like to see an improvement in our
27
overall (military) position as an incentive for successful
negotiations... We must change the background against which this
discussion is taking place, and ultimately the negotiations themselves
will be successful."
What does this mean? I would like to refrain from making final
assessments. One way or another, each administration is given some
credit in time so that it moves from declarations to concrete actions -
these will be the test for the declarations. But it should be noted that
the initial words of the new US Secretary of State look, to put it
mildly, unproductive from the point of view of Soviet-American
relations.
No matter how much the current political leaders of America
would like to prove the opposite, the truth remains in force: the SALT
II Treaty was prepared for seven whole years precisely because, in
pursuing its own interests, each side was forced to take into account
the interests of the other side. It follows from Haig’s words that, not
content with this difficult, carefully weighed balance of interests of
the two countries, the Americans would like to secure unilateral
advantages for themselves by first acquiring “positions of strength.”
So, can experience be a teacher? It took three decades of post-
war years to practically bring the United States to the idea of strategic
parity, enshrined in an interstate document. If in Washington they are
again striving for “positions of strength” and this desire is becoming
official policy, then conversations about the dangers awaiting the
world in the 80s, alas, are filled with very specific content. These are
the dangers of an uncontrolled arms race, in which each new round
makes sure that the goal of superiority over the opponent is not
achieved. Why are they convinced? To learn lessons about sobriety?
Or to begin - with the same vain hopes - a new, dangerous and
expensive and equally fruitless round?
January 1981

28
1981 Defiant beginning

29
 INSTEAD OF “PIE IN THE SKY”
In the White House for the fifth day now, there has been a new
owner - Ronald Reagan. We got to know him as a presidential
candidate, then, from the beginning of November 1980, as the elected,
but not yet inaugurated, president. And now he is already the current
president, but, of course, too little time has passed to determine how
his words - and many were said during the year of election struggle -
will turn into deeds.
The main thing that Ronald Reagan has managed to do so far is to
give a speech at the ceremony of taking office, the so-called
inauguration. The overseas republic has a tradition of imitating the
orators of Ancient Rome. The speeches delivered at the Washington
Capitol during the inauguration are in a rhetorical spirit. Reagan did
not break this tradition.
But two points in his speech attract attention. Firstly, there are no
more election promises, no, as the Americans say, “pie in the sky”, or,
in our opinion, milk rivers on the banks of jelly. Secondly, foreign
policy issues are practically omitted, with the exception of two or three
paragraphs. The main emphasis is on internal affairs, primarily on the
economy.
It was the poor state of the economy that doomed Carter to defeat.
And from the American point of view, it is the economy that will be
the testing ground for the new president.
Reagan's speech provided a familiar catalog of American ills. I
quote: “We are suffering from the longest and one of the worst periods
of inflation in our nation’s history.” Rising prices “turns out to be a
crushing blow for young people who have yet to make their way in
life, and for older people who already have a solid income. Inflation
threatens to shake the very foundations of life for millions of our
people.”
He spoke of “industrial downtime” and unemployment associated
with “pure human suffering,” and of state budgets that “have been
piling deficit upon deficit for decades.”
He said that the country was living beyond its means.
“You and I, as individuals, can only live beyond our means for so
long by going into debt,” Reagan said. So why should we collectively,
as a country, think that we are not subject to this restriction?”
The assessment is sober and the question is to the point...
The new president, in the tradition of Ancient Rome, did not
provide figures, but they are well known, the pages of newspapers and
magazines are full of them. In one of the latest issues, the weekly
Newsweek sums up, for example, the results of the past decade. In
1971, unemployment was 5.9 percent of the total working population,
in 1980 it was 7.2 percent and continues to rise. Price growth in 1971
was at the level of 3.4 percent, now it is 13 percent. Ten years ago,
banks issued loans at 6.5 percent, but now they charge a truly
extortionate 21.5 percent. This has a catastrophic effect on investment.
The general indicator is the gross national product. In 1971 it
increased by 1.9 percent - not God knows what figure. But in 1980 it

30
did not increase, but decreased by 1.5 percent.
And finally, the most alarming fact. If earlier real average incomes
did not decrease, because wages kept pace with rising prices, now
prices have surged ahead and the real incomes of Americans and their
standard of living are declining. Let me give you one figure that is, of
course, difficult for the average American to come to terms with.
Based on average per capita income, the United States ranks behind
nine Western European countries—Switzerland, Denmark, West
Germany, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, Iceland, and
France.
This is the backdrop against which Ronald Reagan took office as
president, promising no longer “pie in the sky,” but slow progress,
which, in his words, “will be measured in inches and feet, not miles.”
But even this slow progress, cautiously promised by the new
president, cannot be considered guaranteed. It remains to be seen
whether the prescriptions prescribed by Reagan and his advisers for
treating the American economy will be effective. What is he offering?
Reduce the size and influence of the US federal government, free
business from regulation by the capitalist state and let it, so to speak,
work for the glory of America. But American business works for itself
and its profits, and the so-called conservative approach to the economy
was tried more than once by Reagan’s predecessors in the White
House, and it did not save America from its economic troubles.
As they say, wait and see. For the most part, American observers
are cautiously skeptical about the new administration's economic
program. Here's an example. The proposed budget for fiscal year
1982, which Carter left behind when he left, calls for a deficit of $56
billion. How can Reagan reduce it if he promised to cut income taxes
by 10 percent this year and at the same time increase military spending
- and they are already provided for by Carter at a record level of 196
billion. The New York Times asks: “It is far from clear how tax cuts,
increased output, and greater economic growth can be achieved
simultaneously. How these goals can be reconciled with any
significant increase in military spending remains an even greater
mystery.”
January 1981
.

COLD WINDS FROM WASHINGTON

“Washington is chilling under the winds of the Cold War,” wrote
the London Guardian newspaper, commenting on the first press
conference of President Ronald Reagan, who defiantly harshly
attacked the Soviet Union, its leaders and its policies.
Do Bonn and Paris, London and Rome want the cold weather that
has hit them hard from the other side of the Atlantic? Official
representatives, although they shudder from the chilly Washington
prologue, remain silent, demonstrating diplomatic restraint. You will
have to deal with the new American leadership for four whole years

31
and it is undesirable to spoil relations right away. However, even in
silence there is disapproval, a sign of secret disagreement.
The response from the press can be said to be unambiguous.
Definitely condemning. Journalists recall the 50s and the vicious anti-
Soviet rhetoric of John Foster Dulles, the then American Secretary of
State. “Such language was only used during the Cold War, and if it is
used again, the world will certainly be thrown back to those times.”
This opinion of the West German newspaper Neue Ruhrzeitung is
more or less typical.
They don’t want a return to those years when America teetered on
the brink of war and Western Europe was forced into this dangerous
occupation.
Of course, America retains leadership in IA10, in the Western
community, and bourgeois governments do not challenge the very
principle of this leadership. Moreover, echoing current American
pastroepies, official circles in Western Europe have recently often
spoken out in favor of a “strong America” as the defender of the entire
West. But... As French President Giscard d'Estaing recently explained,
a strong America "does not mean that it should dictate our own
policies to us in an even harsher tone."
Western Europe did not get along very well with the Carter
administration, especially in its last year. Iran, the so-called Camp
David trial, the Moscow Olympics and the entire spectrum of relations
with the Soviet Union were all points of disagreement and tension on
both sides of the Atlantic. In Western European capitals, they parted
ways without regret with the former American president, who played
with the destinies of international detente.
Reagan's arrival was awaited with mixed feelings—concern
inspired by his reputation as a staunch conservative, and hope aroused,
in particular, by Secretary of State Haig's assurances that the new
administration would seriously consult with its allies. And
immediately these hopes were met with an icy large hail of anti-Soviet
rhetoric.
But it's not just about rhetoric. The point is also that Western
Europe differs from the new leaders in Washington in their
assessments on the merits.
Reagan argues that détente is a "one-way street." And Western
Europeans see with their own eyes a wide two-way highway, and on
this highway there is ongoing political dialogue, cultural, scientific
and technical exchanges and increasingly large, multi-billion-dollar
East-West trade. An example of the emerging prospects is the
grandiose project of delivering natural gas to Western Europe from
Siberia.
The American president questions the SALT II Treaty, since it
supposedly brings “unilateral advantages” to the Soviet Union. And
again, the American allies disagree, seeing a common benefit in the
treaty - an important step in limiting strategic arms, which will also
facilitate the resolution of other issues related to the balance of nuclear
missile weapons on the European continent.

32
 It is worth recalling that it was under the SALT II Treaty, under
the promise of its ratification, that the Carter Administration extorted
consent from Western European NATO members to deploy an
additional 600 American medium-range missiles on their territory. In
turn, Boni, London, Rome, persuading their public to agree to
American missiles, promised it that, in parallel with the installation of
missiles, negotiations would be conducted with Moscow on limiting
medium-range nuclear weapons. This was precisely the essence of the
so-called “dual decision” of the NATO Council session in December
1979.
In fact, it turned out to be a double trap. Under Carter, the SALT
II Treaty hung in the air, and under Reagan, the idea of negotiations on
limiting medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe was shrouded in a
dense fog. It is no coincidence that Chancellor Schmidt, reminding the
United States of its obligations, speaks of the “double solution”:
“Whoever questions this decision or one of its parts also questions the
NATO alliance.”
Let's see how things develop further. In the meantime, those
observers who predicted new tensions and crises in NATO under
Reagan look like good prophets.
January 1981

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

Dear sir, quotes from Teddy Roosevelt seem to continue to be
popular in the United States. In your February 4 editorial, you advise
President Reagan to speak softly but carry a big stick. And as a new
resident in the White House admitted to reporters, another saying of
Teddy Roosevelt increasingly comes to mind - that the presidency is
an excellent church pulpit.
From this pulpit he still speaks harshly. And you're probably right
to ask in your editorial whether this tough talk will scare American
allies more than the "hardened Russians." I must, however, tell you
that in Moscow they also asked themselves: what is the meaning of the
incredibly fierce anti-Soviet rhetoric?
American colleagues suggest that President Reagan from his first
days wanted to put an end to the “naive illusions” of detente. But,
firstly, illusions in Soviet-American relations have been eliminated on
both sides, and, in my opinion, Carter has worked a lot in this sense.
And, secondly, attacks against a partner, similar to deliberate insults,
have never made the beginning and progress of a dialogue easier. But
one way or another we remain partners, albeit difficult ones. No
amount of deliberate harshness can cancel the fact that we live on the
same earth in the same dangerous age. Only madness can cancel the
need for continued US-Soviet dialogue.
The view from Moscow reveals more similarities than differences
between the early days of Carter's presidency and the early days of
Reagan. Carter also began with an anti-Soviet “crusade,” although his

33
banner was “human rights” and not the fight against “international
terrorism.”
And if we take the attitude towards the SALT process, then there
is little new in Reagan’s “new beginning”. The new president, like his
predecessor, begins by undoing what has been achieved through very
hard work. Only Carter crossed out the Vladivostok, 1974, Brezhnev-
Ford agreement (so that, having lost another two and a half years after
his arrival in the White House, he could come to the signing of the
SALT-2 Treaty, worked out on the foundation of this agreement), and
Reagan seemed to cross out the agreement itself . At the same time,
like Carter, he claims that he is ready to go beyond the treaty, to a
significant real reduction of strategic arms. Well, the SALT II Treaty
does not solve all problems, but what kind of instinct of destruction is
driving the American President, who wants to overturn the complex
balance built by seven years of joint efforts of the two countries!
Perhaps what our two countries lack most of all is trust in each
other, and it cannot be built on sand and every time anew. It can be
built on continuity, on respect and fulfillment of undertaken
obligations. As a Soviet journalist who has been closely observing the
political life of the United States for 20 years, I am surprised why
every new American president denies the experience of his
predecessors.
I wanted to share these thoughts after reading your editorial. There
is still a big question about the big stick. You cannot answer it in detail
in a short letter. But I think that the current American cudgel is so big
that Teddy Roosevelt, not used to thinking about the unthinkable,
would consider it more than enough.
February 1981.

CHALLENGING BEGINNING
Without being in the United States, it is difficult to imagine the
explosion of emotions - both genuine and skillfully aroused - that
accompanies the successful conclusion of the story of the American
hostages in Iran. It lasted 444 days and ended on the day of January
20, 1981, and almost an hour when the new president, Ronald Reagan,
took over from the old one.
But for those who, being overseas, watched the finale of another,
no less famous story, the task of imagination is greatly facilitated. I am
referring to the return in February 1973 of American military pilots
who bombed North Vietnam, were shot down in its skies, were
captured and spent entire years in captivity. I was working in
Washington at that time and I remember to what heights of sensation
and emotion the problem of prisoners of war was raised then, just as
now the problem of diplomats who found themselves hostages. They
also became the object of sincere sympathy from their compatriots and
a calculated political game. And just like that, the gigantic machine of
information and propaganda fell into a kind of unconsciousness, forgot
for a while about all other news, when the first batch of pilots released
from captivity flew from Hanoi to the American Clark Air Force Base

34
in the Philippines, in order to proceed from there to San - Francisco
and further, to his native places.
But, as we know, there are no absolute comparisons. In one case,
it was about air pirates invading foreign skies in a war that was never
declared, and in the second, about the fate of diplomats arrested and
detained for long periods in violation of international law. However,
this clarification does not cancel the political roll call of two
“homecomings”—returns home to the United States. Having made
your way through the thickness of emotions, I repeat, both genuine
and skillfully aroused, you see two similar endings to Washington’s
two largest foreign policy “undertakings.” One of them is Indo-
Chinese. American imperialism, hiding behind the fig leaf of an
“invitation” from its Saigon puppets, undertook an armed intervention,
over the years increased its expeditionary force in Vietnam to half a
million people, and left 50 thousand of its soldiers and officers on the
battlefield. And the result? I had to go home. As the most precious
booty of the longest American war, they took out - by agreement with
the government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam - their own
pilots who were captured.
The second “beginning” is Iran, American policy in this country.
They relied on the Shah, who was loyal to the Americans and betrayed
his own people, and carried out increased militarization of Iran with
the dual goal of growing a regional gendarme in the strategically
important region of the Persian Gulf, as well as acquiring a bridgehead
on the southern border of the Soviet Union. For the time being, this
policy, carried out under six American presidents, was considered a
great success for Washington. The underside of it was fully revealed
under Jimmy Carter. It was he who was hit by the Iranian revolution at
the beginning of 1979 with a political earthquake, and at the end of
1979 by the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and its staff.
And now, at the end of the many-year stage of American-Iranian
relations, which have always been in Washington’s asset, the same as
in Vietnam, the only prize is the return home of Americans, this time
not prisoners, but hostages of another country, yes, taken hostages in
violation of the norms interstate behavior, due to and because of the
fanatical hatred that Washington’s actions aroused among the
Iranians..
In his last weeks in the White House, Brzezinski liked to talk
about three “central strategic zones” of the current world. The first,
more stable, is in Europe. The second is the Far East and Southeast
Asia. And the third, the most explosive and restless, is the Persian
Gulf region, the Near and Middle East, and South-West Asia. The past
decade has registered two crushing American failures in two “central
strategic zones” - and two finals in the form of two “home-comings”
surrounded by explosions of patriotic passions.
Who is guilty? It is again accepted and even fashionable to blame
all American troubles on the Soviet Union. But even in an atmosphere
of chauvinistic excitement, it is unlikely that anyone will seriously
deny that both mentioned failures were of their own making and were

35
the results of Washington’s disastrous course.
The ever-present question is about learning lessons. They are
different, one might say, opposite. Indochina discouraged Americans
from engaging in overseas armed interventions, sparked lively
discussions in ruling circles about the “limits” of American power and
influence in the world, and for the first time in the post-war period
even gave rise to certain sentiments of “neo-isolationism.” It turned
out to be for a short time. The imperial approach, political philosophy
and practice of interventionism did not remain in the fold for long. In
particular, the Iranian crisis stimulated American “hawks” who were
experiencing bouts of a kind of revanchism (both in relation to
“domestic pigeons” and at the sight of the declining influence of the
United States in the world) and, of course, bringing to the fore the
bogeyman of the “Soviet threat” .
The protracted hostage situation, which also coincided with the
election year, was adapted precisely as a visual aid. It was supposed to
convince the American how America was being “humiliated” because
it had become “weak” and to advocate for the build-up of military
power and its use in situations arising far from American shores. Thus,
in 1979, the “Carter Doctrine” was proclaimed, they began to create
“rapid deployment forces” and feverishly search for bases and allies in
the “third strategic zone”, placing a naval armada in the Persian Gulf
region for a long time. And Reagan, having taken office on the day the
hostages were released, along with his presidential duties received that
extreme atmosphere of militant patriotism and chauvinism, which his
administration immediately used by proclaiming a provocative
campaign against “international terrorism” (although, if you look at it,
its deepest source is history with hostages was the international
terrorism of the CIA, which overthrew the national Iranian
government of Mossadegh in 1953).
The former president, fending off criticism from the right, took
credit for the fact that U.S. military spending began to rise again under
him, ending the post-Vietnam sluggishness, and continued to grow
throughout his four years in office. When leaving, he left for
consideration by his successor a draft military budget for the 1982
fiscal year of almost 200 billion dollars, and with additional
appropriations over 200 billion. But it's not just about the astronomical
billions for the war. The point is the outright militarization of the very
concept of foreign policy. In his last message to Congress, Carter
directly equates foreign policy with military power. He calls the
following priority foreign policy task: “Uts. "rebuild the military
power of America and its allies and friends."

36
 The influential coalition of supporters of reducing military
spending that operated in Congress in the first half of the 70s is now
no longer in sight. But at the sight of the billions piling up, a number
of observers still risk asking: where to next? Not without irony, they
write about the “big mystery”: how Ronald Reagan will be able to cut
taxes by 10 percent this year, fulfilling his campaign promise to reduce
the budget deficit and at the same time additionally benefit the
Pentagon. The new leaders are making it clear to skeptics that all
promises can be sacrificed, except for the main one - to “rebuild a
strong America” by further building up its military muscles.
Before the new president took office, disputes began: who is the
“true” Reagan - a dogmatic conservative, as he showed himself to be
in the election campaign, or a pragmatist who takes into account the
realities of the modern world? Let's not jump to conclusions, but at his
first press conference in late January, he evoked visions of the Cold
War, launching a brutal attack on the Soviet Union, denouncing
détente as a "one-way street" and lambasting the SALT Treaty. 2. In
addition, the so-called fight against “international terrorism” was
chosen as a new direction for active anti-Sovietism in American
foreign policy.
Thus, a “new beginning” (the motto of the Reagan government)
announced itself from the very first days with a demonstrative return
to the old rigidity and a desire for confrontation.
“There are more important things than peace. There are things that
Americans should want to fight for." These words of Secretary of
State Haig attracted everyone's attention. It was no coincidence that
the former general, one might think, highlighted both such an
understanding of patriotic duty (“one must want to fight”) and such an
unusual priority for the head of a diplomatic department (“there are
more important things than peace”). /The toughness that is now a thing
of the past in Washington goes hand in hand with the further
militarization of US foreign policy.
The familiar thesis about the “Soviet threat” appears as
justification. Alexander Haig sees “the main strategic phenomenon of
the post-war era” threatening the positions of America and its allies in
the world in the “transformation of Soviet military power”, in the fact
that “the continental and mainly defensive ground army (USSR)
turned into global offensive armies " Richard Allen, Reagan's
appointee for national security affairs, insists in interviews that the
Soviet military arsenal "far exceeds defense needs." It has been said
more than once that these allegations are groundless. It has been
authoritatively explained more than once by the Soviet side that the
Soviet strategic doctrine is of a purely defensive nature. Those who
ignore these clarifications would do well to point out the logical
distortions they engage in. After all, the Soviet Union is building its
defense and its armed forces taking into account real conditions,
taking into account the global nature and global deployment of the
armed forces of that country, which considers itself the right to

37
“defend itself” at the very Soviet borders, declaring areas of its “vital
interests” everywhere. The name of this country is the United States of
America. And it is not for her, of course, with its hundreds of military
bases and hundreds of thousands of soldiers thousands of miles from
American shores, to reproach the Soviet Union for “globalism.”
Disputes cannot be resolved through an arms race—it is
impossible and dangerous. The only acceptable solution that promises
success remains the same negotiating table. And at the moment of the
“changing of the guard” in Washington, Moscow is showing a high
sense of responsibility, rebuffing the new anti-Soviet campaign and at
the same time calling on the new administration to take up truly
important matters in terms of establishing Soviet-American relations
and normalizing the international situation in general. The Soviet
Union stands for active efforts to positively develop relations between
the two countries, without undoing what has already been achieved at
the diplomatic table, without breaking the fundamental principles on
which, in particular, the SALT II Treaty was concluded.
The two sides, with mutual desire, have room to apply the
principle of constructive interaction in the name of peace.
Haig called the 1980s “a decade of crises.” By all accounts, the
most crisis area today is the Near and Middle East and South-West
Asia. Washington is not planning to weaken, but to strengthen, the
American military presence in the Persian Gulf region, and the same
Haig, the new oracle of American foreign policy, tells senators that the
United States is ready to fight there “alone” if Western European allies
refuse to follow Washington. Again the dramatic emphasis is on the
fact that Americans “must want to fight.”
Meanwhile, on the diplomatic table, addressed to all interested
parties, lie important Soviet proposals for the demilitarization of the
Persian Gulf region. They benefit everyone. For states located in the
area, they provide guarantees of sovereignty, non-interference in
internal affairs and respect for non-alignment status. For states
dependent on oil supplies from this area, Soviet proposals promise the
continuation of normal trade exchanges and the normal functioning of
sea communications. Finally, with the renunciation of the creation of
foreign military bases, the deployment of nuclear and other weapons
of mass destruction, and the use or threat of use of force, the zone of
conflicts and potential global confrontation turns into a zone of
stability and security.
We have before us a serious peace initiative, manifested at the
right moment and affecting the fate of an economically and
strategically vital area. And what? No clear response from the former
American administration. How can one not recall here those observers
who called the “break in dialogue” between the USA and the USSR
the most dangerous feature of the past year. Will the new American
leadership show seriousness in its approach?
In his farewell radio-television address to the nation, Carter called
the growing influence of various “groups” defending their “special
interests” to the detriment of national ones as “an alarming factor in

38
American political life.” As is his custom, the former president did not
list these groups by name or describe their political direction. But 20
years ago, another president, Dwight Eisenhower, in a similar situation
of farewell to the White House, was also worried about the harmful
influence of certain “groups” in national life and did not hesitate to
point his finger at the most dangerous group formation - the “military-
industrial complex.” In fact, in his farewell speech, Eisenhower
introduced this term into the political lexicon. “Disarmament, based on
mutual respect and trust, is the urgent demand of the time,”
Eisenhower said then. “We need to learn to settle differences together,
not by force of arms, but by relying on human reason and setting
ourselves noble goals.”
Recalling these words 20 years later, in America in early 1981,
liberal columnist Anthony Lewis writes: “Anyone who spoke like that
today would be accused of softness and blindness by the increasingly
influential hawks.”
He is not far from the truth. The military-industrial complex now
dominates US public life, having absorbed or used as fellow travelers
numerous neoconservative and other organizations. This so-called
“moral majority,” for all its diversity, is united by demands for a return
not only to traditional “American values,” but also to the “traditional”
role of America - the world gendarme.
And yet, at the beginning of a “new beginning,” it is useful to
recall that there really is no other path (a reasonable path!) than
“disarmament based on mutual respect and trust,” than the awareness
of the need to “learn to resolve differences together.”
February 1981

39
 AT A LITERARY EVENING...
Comrades! On this evening with its extensive menu, I am offered
an appetizer - rather unappetizing. You came for the beautiful poetry,
tuned in to a story about science and humor. And speaking here as an
international official is an unenviable task. International relations...
This matter is rarely fun these days, even when someone's embassy is
seized - for a year and a half - or a plane with passengers is stolen and
driven from country to country. Don't expect aesthetic pleasure from
this material. But, alas, we are connected in this world not only by
television, and the gloomy matter of international relations is vital not
only for those for whom, like for me, it has become a profession.
Whatever the current problems of international life, among them
there will always be a place, and usually first place, for Soviet-
American relations. For me, a conversation on this topic is made easier
by the fact that America is my journalistic specialty; I lived and
worked there for more than ten years as a correspondent for Izvestia.
The question of the difficult state of Soviet-American relations
was raised with all force at the 26th Congress of the CPSU. And not
only about Soviet-American relations. In the end, the cardinal question
is: where are we going - towards war or peace? Our peace plan is well
known. I will not list all the initiatives. In my short speech, I want to
speculate a little about how and why our two countries, and indeed all
of humanity, again found themselves at a crossroads in the early 80s -
where to go?
We are Americans too. We are more inquisitive, they are less. But
we constantly look at each other, because in the world we are the two
most important powers. We are in different hemispheres, the distances
are enormous. Anyone who has experienced them knows. I twice
sailed by boat from New York to Leningrad for almost two weeks, and
on the plane you languish for seven to eight hours just over the
Atlantic. And yet, in one sense we are closer to the distant American
continent than to Western Europe. Indeed, in the most fundamental
sense, in the sense of the choice between life and death, we are
separated only by some half an hour of flight of intercontinental
ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. And it must be said that now
the Americans “for themselves” want to reduce this distance to six to
eight minutes, planning to deploy their Pershings and Tomahawks in
Western Europe.
We look at each other as we move through the most troubling
period in human history. Two moments coincided and were tied in the
tightest knot before our eyes. On the one hand, humanity in its most
technically developed part is split into two very different,
irreconcilable, socio-political systems that do not accept each other -
socialist and capitalist. On the other hand, it was at this moment of
radical split that in the hands of just this part of humanity there was a
weapon that, for the first time in history, gives a person the
opportunity to practically destroy himself as a biological species, and

40
at the same time all life on earth.
In Pushkin, Salieri, who poisoned Mozart, wondered whether
genius and villainy go together? Now he could be tormented. The
genius of science answered: yes, they are, and instead of the pale
horses of the biblical apocalypse, he brought thermonuclear weapons
onto the stage of world history.
In the shadow of a nuclear apocalypse, we have learned to live
almost as if nothing had happened, demonstrating the resilience and
indestructibility of the human spirit, as well as cultivating positive
emotions. On these joyful days of March, I myself don’t want to give
them up, much less infringe on the cheerful mood of others.
But now, as you hear and read every day, the pitch darkness of
nuclear death is increasingly becoming more concrete and, as it were,
illuminated by the light of facts. I also dare to give one small
illustration on the theme of the big Bomb.
Some time ago, the American magazine Progressive imagined in
detail and with the most accessible accuracy, drawn from scientific
sources, what the explosion of a 20-megaton nuclear bomb would look
like in the center of a city with a population of 4-5 million people. 20
megatons is the equivalent of 20 million tons of trinitrotoluene, one
thousand Hiroshima.
So here it is. This bomb explodes, say, a few meters above the
surface. Instantly, in less than one millionth of a second, temperatures
exceeding 80 million degrees Celsius are created. The heat is 4 times
stronger than in the very center of the Sun. The bomb leaves a crater
200 meters deep and 2.5 kilometers in diameter. The embankment
along the edges of the crater rises to a height of approximately 70
meters, that is, a 25-story building and looks like the tallest building in
Chicago, the birthplace of skyscrapers. Because everything else has
disappeared. And it didn’t just disappear - it evaporated! Literally
everything around the epicenter evaporated - skyscrapers made of steel
and concrete, roads and bridges, thousands of tons of earth and, of
course, hundreds of thousands of people, their lives, their destinies,
their everyday life and impulses, present and future, evaporated. The
people who were there, every single one of them, disappeared, leaving
not even a handful of ashes. Without leaving even a shadow, like that
unknown, tragically famous resident of Hiroshima, who in the peace
memorial museum there is shown as an eternal shadow on the
surviving concrete steps of a local bank. There will be no shadow,
because there will be no concrete steps left.
Over the funnel, similar to the crater of a volcano, over the
instantly emerging desert, a fireball with a diameter of 4-5 kilometers
takes off at the same instant, and even for people at a distance of 10
kilometers from the epicenter it is brighter than 5000 suns, but they do
not have time to see it and hear the sound explosion, because they
instantly die from the heat. Glass melts even at a distance of 10
kilometers. Concrete surfaces disintegrate due to extreme
temperatures. All flammable substances explode. The blast wave gives
rise to hurricanes that consume all the oxygen, and those who, for one

41
reason or another, were underground at that moment also die from
suffocation.
15 kilometers from the explosion, all the trees catch fire before
they are uprooted by the blast wave. Railway bridges collapse,
carriages overturn, cars are thrown into the air like children's balls. 25
kilometers from the epicenter, grass flares up on the lawns of country
houses, leaves on trees catch fire, paint on interior walls evaporates,
children riding bicycles go blind...
This is just a dry summary that does not take into account
radiation exposure, genetic consequences for the biosphere, and the
suffering of the survivors who are destined to envy the dead. Synopsis
of the instant death of civilization.
They say that 20-megaton bombs are obsolete, that small
packaging is more effective and preferable. But even one megaton is a
certain 600 thousand human deaths. How many are there, these single
megatons?! The number of nuclear warheads reaches tens of
thousands - this nuclear death is not so concentrated, but even more
comprehensive.
Of course, not a single person in their right mind, even on the
American side, wants a nuclear disaster, because no one wants their
own death. But is it possible to live side by side with these weapons
that keep coming? After all, weapons invented by man against man
always fired.
They talk about the balance of fear as a guarantee against war. The
higher the mountains of weapons, the stronger they are, the more
terrible it is to use them. Both sides know this, and this knowledge
creates a balance of fear. Well, in the end this strange balance born of
our age is somewhat effective. Opo relies on the instinct of self-
preservation - the strongest of instincts. But can it be eternal? The
balance of fear brings to mind the image of a tightrope walker. The
more weapons are accumulated, that is, the higher the rope is
stretched, the more careful and skillful the tightrope walker must be,
because if it falls off, it will break to pieces. But is there a place for us,
on that rope? Still, this is an extremely unnatural guarantee of peace. Is
it possible to balance on this rope from generation to generation in
POColoppa? Isn’t it better to prefer a simpler and more reliable
method - to go down to earth or at least reduce the level of military
confrontation and limit weapons? This is exactly what we tried to do
together with the Americans in the 70s.
The 70s, looking back, were a time of great hope. In 1972, despite
our differences over the Vietnam War, President Nixon came to
Moscow and important agreements were concluded. In 1973, L. I.
Brezhnev paid a visit to the USA. We talked about the need to make
detente irreversible. From competition to cooperation - this was the
principle put forward by Nixon on the other side.
Using the example of the movement of this formula, it is easy to
trace the obstacles that grew along the path of discharge. In the first
half of the 1970s, it seemed that cooperation was pushing aside
rivalry, and in the summer of 1975, the emotional symbol of this, alas,

42
short-lived period was the joint Soyuz-Apollo space flight. Then, both
under Nixon and Ford, the main theorist and practitioner of American
diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, began to increasingly emphasize: not
only cooperation, but also competition. Brzezinski under Carter,
already in the second half of the 70s, increasingly emphasized
competition, almost forgetting about cooperation. And Reagan came
under the slogan of rivalry, belligerence, confrontation - this is how,
judging by his actions, he deciphered the mandate of conservative
Americans who brought him to the White House.
Irreversible detente? Alas, today this is just an unfulfilled dream.
Life turned out to be tougher. In their powerful counteroffensive, the
American opponents of détente were victorious. Let's hope it's
temporary.
Let me remind you that at the first stage of their counteroffensive,
opponents of détente in the United States put forward a demand for
“freedom of emigration” from the Soviet Union for Soviet citizens of
Jewish nationality. This story ended with the fact that in 1974 they
blocked the US-Soviet trade agreement, which had already been
signed.
Since 1975, their main thesis has been the thesis about the “Soviet
military threat.” This is a myth - we never tire of repeating it. Yes, it's
a myth. We are not going to attack America. But when
the myth is believed, and it becomes a very real and very
significant factor in political life. Meanwhile, the Americans were
convinced of the validity and credibility of the myth of the “Soviet
threat.”
Both former President Carter, and his Secretary of Defense
Brown, and NATO Secretary General Luna more than once said that
there was an approximate equality of forces, that there was no Soviet
military superiority over America. And yet the average American
believed that Moscow threatened them, that the Soviet Union had
achieved superiority.
What is the explanation here? The American, as they say, was
brainwashed. But it's not only that. As a person who studied America
and lived there, I see another, psychologically very important
circumstance.

43
 Both the American imperialists and many Americans, infected
with imperial thinking, are accustomed to considering themselves the
first in the world - richer, freer and more powerful militarily. They
cannot tolerate equals. For them, a peer is already a danger. For them,
equality is already a dangerous defeat. The American Navy can
dominate all the oceans - and that's okay. And our strengthened fleet
goes out into the ocean - this is a threat. In October 1962, during the
Cuban Missile Crisis, we agreed to remove our missiles from Cuba.
For the Americans, Soviet missiles in Cuba were a kind of doomsday,
although in those years they kept approximately the same missiles
near our borders, in Turkey. But when in the fall of 1979, Carter,
contrary to the terms of the American-Soviet agreement, wanted us to
remove our military specialists from Cuba and could not achieve this,
he was embarrassed - this is a humiliation for America. The imperial
thinking of the Americans includes a paradoxical and, however,
indisputable principle for them: what is allowed to Jupiter is not
allowed to the bull.
Feeling that their country is economically stronger, in a military
sense they also consider themselves to have the right to be stronger, to
be Jupiter. This background must be kept in mind.
The last time I was in America was in August 1980, and then I
met with a very famous political scientist and futurologist, “strategic
thinker” Herman Kap. An intelligent, frank to the point of cynicism, a
lover of “thinking about the unthinkable,” the author of a book that
describes scenarios for a possible thermonuclear war, more than forty
steps leading into the nuclear abyss.
“Hawk” and conservative Herman Kahn then bet on Reagan.
Under Carter, if elected, Kahn predicted, there would be only a
cosmetic increase in military spending, but under Reagan it would be
a radical one. Under Reagan, he said, we would seek military
superiority over the Soviet Union in order to constantly maintain it,
winning more and more rounds of the arms race. It was in American
military superiority that Cap saw a guarantee of stability in
international life, stability from the point of view of the American
imperialist, who still considers the 20th century the “American
century.”
Now I often remember this conversation. Ronald Reagan and his
Secretary of State, yesterday's four-star General Alexander Haig, set
about making the dream of American die-hards come true.
The military budget grew during all four years under Carter. But
for Reagan, these are nothing more than ground nuts, which Jimmy
Carter, a successful farmer from Georgia, returned to growing.
Toward the end, Carter included record military spending in his draft
budget for the 1982 fiscal year, starting October 1, of more than $190
billion. And Reagan asked for another 32 billion on top of this. Then,
every year, military spending is going to increase by 7 percent (in real
terms, adjusted for inflation), and as a result, over five years it will
amount to $1.3 trillion.

44
 A trillion is a number with 12 zeros. It takes us into the realm of
astronomical abstractions. But Reagan, not lacking in imagination,
once explained to his compatriots what a trillion is, due to the fact that
the US national debt was close to a trillion. He took $1000 bills. It
turned out that a million dollars is a stack of such bills approximately
10 centimeters thick. And a trillion dollars are 1000 dollar bills
stacked in a stack... 107 kilometers high. A trillion dollars is 12
stacked Everests of $1,000 bills.
And the proposed five-year military spending of 1.3 trillion
dollars is 15 such Everests.
The American president helped us visualize what a crazy world
we live in. In America at one time there was a humorous phrase!
"Stop the world, let me get out." But the world, the niche Earth, is not
a bus. There is nowhere to go. We need to live together.
In general, in the 80s they want to erase the achievements of the
70s, achieved with such great difficulty. And this, of course, raises a
fundamental question about the possibility of progress in general in
relations.
And against this background, which I briefly outlined, the 26th
Congress of our Party, filled with a sense of high responsibility for the
fate of humanity, put forward a Peace Program designed for the 80s.
The point: let's sit down at the negotiating table and try to understand
the most important issues in order to find mutually acceptable
solutions. Not trying to break the existing balance, not imposing a
new, even more expensive and dangerous round of the arms race - this
would be a manifestation of true statesmanship.
The new peace initiatives are well known. I would like to
emphasize that they offer ways to solve a number of important
problems both on the geographical “horizontals” of the world
(Europe, the Far East, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf region), and
on the military-strategic “verticals”, relating primarily to the
limitation of strategic arms and nuclear medium range weapons. This
is the first thing. Secondly, the Soviet proposals are constructive,
since the Soviet Union, by inviting its partners to the negotiating
table, meets them halfway, rightfully counting on movement on their
part. Both individually and together, in their entirety, they are aimed
at defusing the stormy international situation.
What is the reaction from the other side? When the path to easing
tensions is so convincingly called for, it is politically risky to openly
defend the course of confrontation and repeat that “there are more
important things than peace.” Neither their people, nor the world
community, nor even their allies, who must be taken into account one
way or another, will understand this. The first official responses from
Washington indicated interest in the Soviet invitation to resume the
Soviet-American dialogue. The political and psychological impact of
the 26th Congress of the CPSU on the international weather made
itself felt; the thunderstorm front, which had been moving since the
end of January from the other side of the Atlantic, seemed to have
stopped.

45
 But there is nothing to delude ourselves with. Washington's
expressions of interest in the Soviet peace plan were cautiously
evasive and accompanied by an indispensable caveat: let's not rush,
give us time to develop our position and our policy.
Well, time is required in two cases. To prepare an answer or to
get away, having received a delay, to evade an answer. In passing, I
would like to note that Washington continues to rush in the
development and proclamation of new military programs—isn’t this
evidenced by the mentioned Everests? And in their statements,
determining the priority of tasks, leading American leaders continue
to prioritize achieving a position of strength, relegating arms control
to the background.
In conclusion, I will return to the image of fiction relevant to
current international affairs. The passionate appeal of Alexander Blok
comes to mind, sounded shortly after the October Revolution and
addressed to the capitalist world: “Before it’s too late, sheathe the old
sword...” Before it’s too late, sheathe this new one, incinerating and
destroying everything, hanging over life and a thermonuclear sword
above the world.

WHO IS WALKING WRONG?

While President Reagan lay in his hospital bed still recovering
from the attack on his life in the heart of America's capital, two
leading members of his cabinet, Haig and Weinberger, traveled
abroad to mentor American allies and friends. For the new
administration, both trips were, in essence, the first reconnaissance
“on the ground,” the first practical testing of a foreign policy course
that, even with its increased self-confidence, Washington cannot carry
out alone, without interaction with partners. Secretary of Defense
Weinberger, as we know, visited Western Europe, Secretary of State
Haig - the Middle East (and also Western Europe, returning to
Washington), but in these two different areas both spoke with the
same militaristic sermon. Arm and re-arm) strengthen, where
quantitatively and where qualitatively, the American military
presence, strengthen the military bloc where it exists - NATO, and try
to create it under American auspices where it does not yet exist - this
is what the civilians instilled in their interlocutors Pentagon chief and
general who became America's top diplomat. In the name of the fight
against the “Soviet threat”, countering the “Soviet expansion”, in the
name of a new “crusade” against Moscow, with which Washington
wants to fill the not yet unrolled scroll of history called the 80s of the
20th century. What came of this persistent invitation to confrontation
with the Soviet Union? On what soil did it fall - fertile or at least
skeptical? Did the two high-ranking emissaries of the new American
president manage to instill in their partners their understanding of
international life and its main problems? They failed to inspire, but by
imposition they achieved some results. In any case, at a session of the
NATO nuclear planning group, Weinberger, despite the murmurs of
Western Europeans, imposed a hard American line. The results of

46
Haig's tour of Middle Eastern capitals were meager. The Americans
remained, as they say, with their own (that is, under Begin and Sadat),
without making new acquisitions in Riyadh and Amman, which they
were counting on.
In these two capitals, the US Secretary of State was reminded that
the main threat in the region comes from Israel, that the main problem
is Palestinian, and that the anti-Soviet military alliance advertised by
Washington is not at all the path to a Middle East settlement. Even
“moderate” and American-friendly Arab governments were not
carried away by Haig’s anti-Soviet rage.
Western Europe found itself, oddly enough, at first glance, in a
more dependent position than Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Weinberger's
crude anti-Soviet rhetoric did not win applause in Bonn, where the
nuclear planning group met. Against his characterization of détente as
a “deception,” Western Europeans, including the British, presented a
“united front,” wrote the French Le Monde. But if the views of the
Pentagon chief were not shared by other NATO members, then, as
before, they submitted to pressure, NATO discipline, and American
leadership. As a result, the communiqué of the Nuclear Planning
Group contains a commitment by NATO members to “adhere to the
schedule for the modernization of intermediate-range theater nuclear
forces,” that is, the schedule for the deployment of American cruise
missiles and Pershing 2s on the territory of Western European states.
As for the second part of the so-called “double decision” of the
NATO Council of December 1979, namely the US-Soviet
negotiations on limiting medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe,
the Bonn communiqué is uncertainty itself. No matter how his
colleagues pressed the American minister, he did not give any clear
answer about the possible date for resuming these negotiations.
In November 1980, the election of Ronald Reagan as president
was influenced by a conservative shift in American sentiment. The
current administration is waving this mandate not only in domestic
but also in foreign policy. It was with this mandate that Haig and
Weinberger set off on their first voyages. They presented it as an
argument in favor of confrontation with the Soviet Union.
Weinberger was more forthcoming. Calling on Western
Europeans for new military efforts and at the same time frightening
them, he said in Bonn: “Our people do not want to walk alone. Unless
everyone who is at risk, everyone who faces the same danger, joins
our efforts, we in the United States could lose the critical public
support that we have worked so long and hard to achieve.”
In other words, either you join our policy of confrontation, or we
Americans will refuse you protection, abandon you to the mercy of
fate... and, of course, “Soviet expansionism.” This worked: in the
presence of two military blocs opposing each other, the governments
of Western Europe cling to their senior partner, one might say, out of
an instinct for self-preservation. This forces American allies to adapt
to any Washington administration, albeit extremely reluctantly,
through force, forcing them to forget about tactical differences for the

47
sake of the strategic goal - the unity of the West. Despite the fact that
their total economic potential is greater than that of the United States,
the United States’ Western European partners are not strong and
independent enough to directly challenge Washington or challenge its
primacy in the “Western Community.” This company is ready to
follow the American lieutenant, even if he is out of step. But,
observing the growing belligerence, observing the ease with which
Washington is ready to throw away the achievements of détente,
Western Europeans cannot help but think about the final result of
freely or unwillingly following in the wake of American risky
policies. What will this result be expressed in - self-preservation or
self-destruction?
The question is cardinal. If in official circles he is being shaded,
the public is making him more and more assertive. It was not entirely
by accident that US Presidential Assistant for National Security
Richard Allen reproached Western Europe for “pacifist sentiments,”
which caused another skirmish on both sides of the ocean. It is also no
coincidence that after Weinberger’s visit, Chancellor Schmidt warned
the Americans that he would face “political difficulties” in relations
with his citizens, the West Germans, if US-Soviet negotiations on
limiting nuclear missile weapons in Europe did not begin this year.
These are not just Helmut Schmidt's difficulties. No matter how
the “hawks” in Washington interpret the mandate received from the
Americans by the Reagan administration, Western Europeans are
giving their leaders a different mandate - against new rounds of the
arms race, for East-West dialogue, and for ongoing efforts to preserve
the achievements of detente.
So, a scythe on a stone? In any case, there is no talk of the
stability in relations with allies that the Reagan administration
promised.
April 1981
AND DECEPTION AND SELF-DECEPTION
In more than a hundred days that the Ronald Reagan
administration has been in power in Washington, America has again
managed to show itself as a country of extremes. Let's take just two of
them. On the one hand, they were unable to ensure the safety of the
American president in the very center of the American capital. On the
other hand, the reusable spacecraft Columbia was launched safely and
safely and returned to Earth. These are the most distant points of the
current, so to speak, American amplitude, which never ceases to
surprise and alarm the whole world.
But in the end, the United States faces the outside world primarily
with its external side, its foreign policy, and here, too, the issue of
danger and security is not off the agenda. Has the world become more
dangerous or safer since new people came to power in the largest
capitalist power?
Secretary of State Haig, even before taking office, repeated many
times that in its foreign policy the new administration would follow
three principles - consistency, reliability, balance. What this means

48
was not specified then. And now the three principles have been
forgotten, and this once again proves how short the life of various
general declarations is. American commentators write less about
principles than about practice—the practice of confusion in American
foreign policy. They write that representatives of the new
administration are emanating a lot of rhetoric, bellicose, tough, but
that there is no established foreign policy as such. The confusion also
affected the question of who exactly creates and implements
American foreign policy. Mindful of the Vance-Brzezinski feud, Haig
initially argued that America would henceforth tell its partners,
friends and adversaries one voice, namely Haig's, speaking on behalf
of President Reagan. But over the past hundred or so days, the
Secretary of State has managed to lose both his political weight and
his former confidence. Among the old closest friends of the new
president, they felt that Haig had gone too far and needed to be pulled
back. As a result, even greater disagreement has arisen in the
presentation of American foreign policy than under Carter, and it is
not known whose word is more authoritative - Haig, or Secretary of
Defense Waveberger, or, say, presidential adviser Edwin Meese, who
enjoys such confidence of the president and such powers that he
nicknamed the Prime Minister.
All this proves an old truth: other loudly proclaimed principles
are subject to rapid devaluation when faced with the complex course
of international life. But confusion is confusion, and the general
direction of the US foreign policy course emerged quite clearly from
the very first days and reveals a certain consistency, alas, of a
negative, destructive order. With all its voices, the current
Washington administration is only performing variations on a theme
that the same Haig, even before January 20, defined in ominous words
that have spread across many countries: “There are more important
things than peace.”
What is meant? On the surface, more important than the state of
the world is the defense of American freedom, which is supposedly
being encroached upon by the Soviet Union. This is what American
super-patriots, aka “superhawks,” said in the 50s and 60s: “It’s better
to be dead than red.” But this is only on the surface. But in essence,
when in today's Washington international peace is relegated to second
(or even further) place, then the first priority is not the defense of
America, which no one threatens, but American primacy, American
and Canadian military superiority over the Soviet Union, American
dominance in world. This is the true foreign policy credo of the
Reagan administration. 11 everything else flows from it, above all the
super-armament of America, for the sake of which in the next fiscal
year its military budget will increase by 16 percent, and in the next
five years it will reach one and a half trillion dollars.
With this acceptance, arms control becomes a task that, in order
to be discovered, must perhaps be examined under a microscope. In
addition, with all its voices, the Reagan administration emphasizes:
negotiations can only be done from a position of strength. Only if

49
there is “good” behavior from the Soviet Union, and Washington, of
course, leaves the definition of the rules of good behavior to itself.
In short, the course is towards confrontation. And this consistency
under Reagan seemed to the US allies, to put it mildly, no better than
the unpredictability that worried and irritated them under Carter. If we
recall the evolution of their attitude (with all its shades depending on
a particular country) to the events on the American political scene in
1980, we can distinguish several stages. In the summer and fall, the
prospect of a Reagan victory frightened the allies more than the
possibility of Carter's re-election. After the November elections, they,
adapting to the inevitable, began to find some advantages in the
stability of US relations with Western Europe, which was promised
by the newly elected president and the secretary of state appointed by
him. After Ronald Reagan took office, there was even a short
honeymoon, when Western European visitors, frequenting
Washington to see the new American leadership, rejoiced at the
“commonality of views” and the promised regular consultations. But
soon after the introductory embrace, concern and outright anxiety set
in, and they grew as Western European capitals realized that détente
had completely jumped out of Washington’s foreign policy concepts
and that, once again carried away by the fanatical and simplistic
approach - “it’s better to be dead than red,” people across the ocean
forget that it is still better to coexist peacefully and look for ways to
peace through negotiations.
The 26th Congress of the CPSU recalled with all force the only
reasonable alternative. Soviet peace initiatives, in stark contrast to the
ostentatiously Childish American policy, stimulated a broad, visible
social movement against the American “rocketization” of Western
Europe. It united people of different political orientations, based on
the belief that peace is better than war and it is better to be alive than
dead. It involved different parties, both opposition (Labour in the UK)
and ruling (Social Democrats in Germany). Public pressure increased
the hesitation that Western European governments already had.
This was the general background before the recent NATO
Council session in Rome, where US Secretary of State Haig appeared
for a rendezvous with his colleagues from Western Europe. The press
on both sides of the Atlantic emphasized the presence of cracks and
even a crisis in NATO. “The refusal of the Americans to return to the
negotiating table with the Soviet Union gave rise to a powerful wave
of protests in Western Europe and strengthened the position of the
pacifist movement on the continent, which does not agree with the
views and assessments of President Reagan regarding the intentions
of the Russians,” a correspondent for the American company NBC
reported from Rome. -si Marvin Kalb. The London Daily Mail
predicted that in Rome the US Secretary of State would face "the
most serious challenge of his 100 days in office." And the Parisian
Eco even found that Haig would be found as an “accused”.
German Foreign Minister Genscher put himself forward for the
role of, if not the judge, then the main plaintiff - and not by chance.

50
Official Bonn found itself in the most delicate position. Firstly, at the
December (1979) session of the NATO Council, Bonn committed to
deploy on its territory the lion's share of 572 American cruise missiles
and Pershings. Secondly, in West Germany there is the most powerful
protest movement against American missiles. Thirdly, the American
pilots are running the Bonn political ship aground, ignoring what
Schmidt and Genscher are defending against their opponents, namely
the “double” nature of the December decision - the promise to
conduct American-Soviet negotiations in parallel with the
implementation of plans to deploy new American medium-range
missiles.
In short, the course is towards confrontation. And this consistency
under Reagan seemed to the US allies, to put it mildly, no better than
the unpredictability that worried and irritated them under Carter. If we
recall the evolution of their attitude (with all its shades depending on
a particular country) to the events on the American political scene in
1980, we can distinguish several stages. In the summer and fall, the
prospect of a Reagan victory frightened the allies more than the
possibility of Carter's re-election. After the November elections, they,
adapting to the inevitable, began to find some advantages in the
stability of US relations with Western Europe, which was promised
by the newly elected president and the secretary of state appointed by
him. After Ronald Reagan took office, there was even a short
honeymoon, when Western European visitors, frequenting
Washington to see the new American leadership, rejoiced at the
“commonality of views” and the promised regular consultations. But
soon after the introductory embrace, concern and outright anxiety set
in, and they grew as Western European capitals realized that détente
had completely jumped out of Washington’s foreign policy concepts
and that, once again carried away by the fanatical and simplistic
approach - “it’s better to be dead than red,” people across the ocean
forget that it is still better to coexist peacefully and look for ways to
peace through negotiations.
The 26th Congress of the CPSU recalled with all force the only
reasonable alternative. Soviet peace initiatives, in stark contrast to the
ostentatiously Childish American policy, stimulated a broad, visible
social movement against the American “rocketization” of Western
Europe. It united people of different political orientations, based on
the belief that peace is better than war and it is better to be alive than
dead. It involved different parties, both opposition (Labour in the UK)
and ruling (Social Democrats in Germany). Public pressure increased
the hesitation that Western European governments already had.
This was the general background before the recent NATO
Council session in Rome, where US Secretary of State Haig appeared
for a rendezvous with his colleagues from Western Europe. The press
on both sides of the Atlantic emphasized the presence of cracks and
even a crisis in NATO. “The refusal of the Americans to return to the
negotiating table with the Soviet Union gave rise to a powerful wave

51
of protests in Western Europe and strengthened the position of the
pacifist movement on the continent, which does not agree with the
views and assessments of President Reagan regarding the intentions
of the Russians,” a correspondent for the American company NBC
reported from Rome. -si Marvin Kalb. The London Daily Mail
predicted that in Rome the US Secretary of State would face "the
most serious challenge of his 100 days in office." And the Parisian
Eco even found that Haig would be found as an “accused”.
German Foreign Minister Genscher put himself forward for the
role of, if not the judge, then the main plaintiff - and not by chance.
Official Bonn found itself in the most delicate position. Firstly, at the
December (1979) session of the NATO Council, Bonn committed to
deploy on its territory the lion's share of 572 American cruise missiles
and Pershings. Secondly, in West Germany there is the most powerful
protest movement against American missiles. Thirdly, the American
pilots are running the Bonn political ship aground, ignoring what
Schmidt and Genscher are defending against their opponents, namely
the “double” nature of the December decision - the promise to
conduct American-Soviet negotiations in parallel with the
implementation of plans to deploy new American medium-range
missiles.
What happened in Rome? Washington considered it politically
inexpedient to engage in an open scandal within the framework of the
ATO. Just before Haig departed for Rome, vague reports appeared in
the American press about a “preliminary decision” to begin
“preliminary contacts” with a view to organizing “preliminary
negotiations” with the Soviet Union on European medium-range
nuclear weapons. In Rome, these nebulae were somewhat concretized
by Haig's assurance that the United States intended to enter into
negotiations with the Soviet Union by the end of the current year. In
the session communiqué, the allies “welcomed” this US intention.
This moment is now highlighted by many as the highlight of the
Roman meeting, its main positive result. The British Foreign
Secretary, Lord Carrington, said that the American formula “entirely
satisfies everyone.” Genscher's praise for playing the plaintiff is more
modest. “A precise commitment, even if it is not soon, is better than a
vague commitment for the near future,” is how the West German
minister put it, somewhat cryptically. Is he confident that Haig's
commitment is accurate? And, by the way, didn’t Genscher himself
say before Rome that he would seek an immediate resumption of
negotiations?
If we call a spade a spade, we are dealing with a typical
combination of tactical ploy, deception and self-deception. The
tactical ploy comes from Washington, which has decided not to
irritate its allies, who are forced to reckon with the social climate of
their countries. The deception is aimed at the protest movement
against American missiles: they want to drown it out with news that
America has heeded the voice of reason and restraint coming from

52
Western Europe. And finally, we have before us the self-deception of
those official Western European circles who refuse to admit that their
senior partner is leading them by the nose and that NATO’s “dual
solution” is just a trap for Europe, as its critics said from the very
beginning, just a convenient loophole for the importation of new
American missiles, aggravating the position of Western Europe as a
hostage to American strategy.
But it’s high time to wake up from this self-deception and
understand what a waste of time, what aggravation of the situation it
led to. Let us recall that in October 1979, the Soviet Union proposed
to reduce the number of medium-range nuclear weapons deployed in
the western regions of the Soviet Union if the other side refused to
station new American missiles in Western Europe. What an
opportunity it was for those who shout so loudly about the growth of
the “Soviet threat”! Moscow met them halfway and, as if heeding
their logic, proposed reducing this “Soviet threat.”
No, they didn't listen. We decided in December 1979 at the
Brussels session of the NATO Council to “rearmament” and at the
same time negotiate on arms control. It was understood that
negotiations should begin immediately. Where is opi? A year and a
half has passed, and things are still there. And he is left in place at
least until the end of the year, having once again rejected the Soviet
proposal to introduce a moratorium on the deployment of medium-
range nuclear weapons.
At least two years have been lost in terms of attempts to reduce
military confrontation in Europe, but not in the sense of increasing
this confrontation, not at all in the sense of complicating the situation.
Is this not what the apologists of the “double solution” from Bonn are
now rejoicing in, who, according to them, are interested in preserving
European detente? Strange joys! But what other joys can those who
have driven themselves into a trap have? They are left to follow the
American logic of increasing military confrontation in Europe inch by
inch and mile by mile. And now the NATO Roman Communiqué
states that “the modernization of theater nuclear forces... represents
the only real basis for taking parallel measures to control theater
nuclear forces.”
Translated into simple language, this means that the only real
prospect for Western Europe offered in the coming years is the
American Tomahawks and Pershings. Those who deceive others have
brought matters to this perspective, and, it seems, are happy to be
deceived themselves.
May 1981

53
 TIME CAN'T WAIT!
It is difficult for a journalist to imagine his reader, viewer,
listener, unfamiliar and invisible. Who is he? Where is he? In what
position, suppose? Reading a newspaper while sitting in your
armchair? Or maybe in bed, before going to bed, listening to voices
on the air? Or during the summer holidays he delves into international
commentary to the measured sound of the sea wave, to the sound of
leaves in the forest?
Meaningless fortune telling... But in one symbolic sense, we are
all, so to speak, in the same position, we are all on the Earth -
wherever we are, whoever we are. Child or old man, man or woman,
rich or poor ultra-right or ultra-left—everyone sits on a symbolic keg
of gunpowder. And everyone has a huge barrel. According to the
calculations of the Italian scientist Aurelio Peccei, President of the
Club of Rome, which analyzes global problems, humanity's atomic
arsenals now contain 15 billion tons of trinitrotoluene. More than
three tons of TNT per inhabitant of the earth.
These tons cannot be used for food. You cannot fertilize the earth
with them in order to grow a crop for those eternally hungry people,
of whom there are hundreds of millions on the planet. This is not
three tons of life, but three tons of death. For everyone. Isn't it
enough? Isn’t it time to stop the madness that, at the end of the 20th
century, at the peak of the achievements of human thought, with a
devilish grimace crosses out the very definition of man as “homo
sapiens” - a reasonable person?
No, it’s not time, they answer in today’s Washington. They are
thinking about new missiles and nuclear warheads, new strategic
bombers and warships - and one and a half trillion dollars in military
spending over the next five years. There they want to give everyone
another ton, two tons of TNT.
But the point is not only that America itself is embarking on a
new round of super-armament. Secretary of State Haig's trip to
Beijing indicates that Washington would like to arm China, of course,
against the USSR. Washington has allocated $3 billion in military aid
to General Zia-ul-Haq, the Pakistani dictator, and this also adds
dynamite near the Soviet borders, not to mention the possible
complications of Indo-Pakistani relations. If we move further into the
region of South-West Asia, we will see growing stockpiles of
American explosives in the Persian Gulf area. There we will see
Israel, the former and current terrorist Begin, who bombs the Iraqi
atomic research center in Tammuz - with American direct or indirect
blessing, while at the same time, reportedly, hoarding his own atomic
bombs. Finally, sites for almost 600 new American missiles are being
prepared in Western Europe.
It is unlikely that you will find many people in America who want
war. But by spinning up the arms flywheel and refusing dialogue with

54
the other side, things are objectively leading to war.
The Soviet Union offers a different path - both with its peace
initiatives outlined at the 26th Congress of the CPSU, and with the
recently adopted Appeal of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR to the
parliaments and peoples of the world. The appeal was adopted
precisely in those days when it was 40 years since the attack of Nazi
Germany on the Soviet Union, from the moment when an
unprecedented count of exploits and sacrifices began in the war,
which claimed 20 million human lives in the Soviet Union. (By the
way, 50 times more than in the USA.)
The memory of the war entered, one might say, into the genes of
the Soviet people. And this genetic code powerfully dictates two
things: firstly, preventing the tragedy of a new war, and secondly,
preventing a situation where the other side would be superior to the
Soviet Union militarily, as happened in June 1941.
The second point precisely determines the Soviet military
doctrine, its defensive nature. This is precisely what we are talking
about, and not about the “Soviet military threat”. And in the Address
of the Supreme Council, the peacefulness of Soviet intentions is
emphasized with all possible certainty and convincingness.
“The Supreme Soviet of the USSR solemnly declares: the Soviet
Union does not threaten anyone, does not seek confrontation with any
state in the West or in the East,” the Address says. “The Soviet Union
has not sought and is not seeking military superiority. He was not and
will not be the initiator of new rounds of the arms race. There is no
type of weapon that he would not agree to limit or ban on a reciprocal
basis, by agreement with other states.”
This is the Soviet position - long-standing, consistent, principled.
Not an increase, but a decrease in the level of military confrontation.
Not confrontation, but negotiation.
“There is now no other reasonable way to resolve controversial
issues, no matter how acute and complex they may be, other than
negotiations. No existing opportunity should be missed. Time waits!”
And further: “With every day lost for negotiations, the risk of a
nuclear conflict increases. The solution to pressing problems facing
every parade and all nations is put aside. Time waits!”
Time doesn't wait! Time lost in searching for peaceful solutions is
only gained for the arms race.
July 1981

ARMS, NOT NEGOTIATIONS

US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger takes credit for how
quickly he was able to “remake” the military budget for fiscal 1982
left over from the Carter administration. The review took just six
weeks and military spending was increased by almost $40 billion.
Coming from Weinberger, speaking to various audiences, this story
sounds as pathetic as the description of any of the twelve labors of
Hercules in ancient Greek mythology.

55
 But let’s remember something else—not six weeks, but six
months, and not about new weapons, but about negotiations to reduce
them. But the same name - Caspar Weinberger - will appear in our
memories. It was he who, it seems, said at the Senate hearings that the
Reagan administration would take at least six months to develop a
new position on the issue of the US-Soviet SALT negotiations. This
“feat” of the Pentagon’s Hercules was given more time. And now six
months are running out, and the positions are still gone.
But from the new head of the American arms control and
disarmament agency, Eugene Rostow, who also spoke in the Senate,
we learned that it will take at least another nine months before the
world knows what the current Washington leaders think about
limiting strategic arms. Secretary of State Haig, in an interview with
CBS television, confirmed that US-Soviet SALT negotiations could
begin only “next year” and that this beginning was not yet “linked to
the establishment of any firm deadlines.”
For the Reagan administration, it is much easier (and, from a
hawkish point of view, more attractive) to decide on new weapons
than to resume negotiations on limiting nuclear weapons. Concerned
US allies in Western Europe are also convinced of this, not knowing
how to now respond to Eugene Rostow’s “surprise”,
The Supreme Soviet of the USSR, addressing the parliaments and
peoples of the world with an appeal to prevent a new round of the
nuclear missile arms race, emphasized with all its might: “Time does
not wait!” The situation in the world is heating up. New, increasingly
sophisticated weapons systems will be more difficult to contain and
control, inevitably adding to the already extremely pernicious
atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust between the two powers. This is
the Soviet assessment.
It cannot be said that President Reagan and his associates looked
at the situation in the current world as an idyll of a kindergarten,
falling asleep in their cribs under the tender gaze of their teachers
after unbridled explosions of childish fun. No, and in Washington the
world situation is recognized as alarming. But, apparently, they
believe that time is waiting, that there is no rush to negotiate arms
control. And in this many American observers see the difference
between the current Washington approach and that practiced under
Nixon, Ford and even Carter. What does Reagan's "yet" mean? Until
America achieves military superiority over the Soviet Union, breaking
both the existing rough balance and all the US-Soviet agreements that
put this balance at the forefront? There is a Russian proverb for this
“for now” - while cancer whistles... Cancer will never whistle, and the
arms race will never bring peace and stability to the world.
Judging by information coming from overseas, President Reagan
is doing a good job of pushing his economic program through
Congress, as well as “selling” it to the American public. As for
foreign policy, there is, to put it mildly, too much carelessness of
children playing with the devilishly dangerous matches of new
weapons. Sometimes you think: is this carelessness due to the fact

56
that the Americans, unlike the Russians, unlike the Europeans,
suffered little, suffered few casualties in two world wars?
American observers saw the deliberate provocation of the course,
which, in the words of Joseph Kraft, was to “tease the Russian bear.”
His colleague James Reston writes that "in Congress and elsewhere,
opposition to Reagan's ill-conceived foreign policy is growing." And
he warns that a thunderstorm will “soon break out” over the Potomac.
I have no intention of interfering in American internal affairs. But
I think that from the point of view of the international situation, a
thunderstorm over the Potomac, after which American leaders could
come to their senses in their foreign policy, is better than a military
nuclear missile threat.
July 1981

CONFRONTATION
Lobby... This word, which came from the English language, has
acquired a clearly negative meaning in Russian. And no wonder. We
took not the literal, innocent meaning of this word (look in the
dictionary - vestibule, reception, hall, corridor), but figurative, in
which the self-interest and evil of those who work behind the scenes,
in the corridors and halls of power.
Lobby - this concept is most closely associated with the American
military-industrial complex. Lobbyists are the pushers of the arms
race on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon, the big press, universities and
research centers and, of course, in those corporations that are
commonly called death factories. The day before yesterday they were
pushing multi-charge nuclear warheads, yesterday they were pushing
cruise missiles (and again successfully!), today they are clucking like
hens over mobile MX intercontinental missiles, the new B-1 strategic
bomber, and the monstrous Ohio submarine. They are succeeding
again, under current leadership in Washington and with $1.5 trillion
earmarked for military preparations over the next five years. Of
course, when dividing this astronomical sum, some of the American
military corporations will find themselves at a loss, the tidbits will be
captured by their rivals, but collectively, the military-industrial
complex lobbyists will again squeeze out a record weight, making the
mountain of weapons even heavier.
If now, according to the calculations of experts, every inhabitant
of planet Earth is, as it were, sitting on a powder keg filled with three
tons of trinitrotoluene, then after a while, you see, everyone will be
“provided” with an average of three and a half or four tons of
explosives, but the pushers of war even then they will not calm down
and will assure that true security and lasting peace will come only
when at least 10 tons of dynamite, this anti-bread of our century, falls
on every brother or sister of our humanity.
This is approximately the political context in which the English
words - lobby, lobbyist - burst into Russian speech, having migrated
from America...

57
 But recently, the American weekly Newsweek, obeying the
stubbornness and impressiveness of the facts, published one review in
which it seems to make an attempt to correct the unpleasant sound of
these words. “The Growing Peace Lobby” is the title of this detailed
review, and it talks about European opponents of the arms race and
the widespread anti-war sentiment in Western Europe. The “peace
lobby” is growing and strengthening, especially in recent months,
marked by the militant start of the Reagan administration, and in
recent weeks, when a new victory for the militarists overseas (the
decision to produce a full-scale neutron bomb) provided a new
powerful impetus to the activity of peace supporters.
Newsweek cannot ignore the facts that prove that the anti-war,
anti-missile movement is increasingly influencing the political climate
in their countries. He paints the following picture: “Underlying the
marches and slogans is a deeper pacifist tendency in Europe -
something approaching a silent majority against the nuclear bomb.
Citadels of neutralism such as Austria, Switzerland and Sweden have
always avoided the nuclear arms race; the leaders of Denmark and
Norway (NATO's northern flank) advocate the creation of a nuclear-
free zone throughout Scandinavia. The coalition that rules Belgium is
plagued by a stubborn anti-nuclear minority, while West Germany
and especially the Netherlands are paralyzed by disputes over whether
to accept new Pershing II missiles and NATO cruise missiles. Even in
England, where Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher remains one of
Reagan's staunchest supporters, the government publicly supports
neutron warheads while secretly hoping that England will not be
asked to stockpile them on its own soil."
In short, from Washington’s point of view, there is no complete
prosperity anywhere and the American schedule for additional
rocketization of Western Europe is in question.
It is well known that NATO's "dual solution" on missiles was met
with widespread public opposition from the very beginning,
encouraged by the Soviet alternative - negotiations to reduce the level
of military confrontation in Europe. Since then, time has not been on
the side of the American missile defense lawyers. And the peculiarity
of the current moment is that Western European governments, and
above all the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, which
is key to the American plans, find themselves between two fires,
under pressure from both sides. On the one hand, the Reagan
administration, especially its representatives such as Secretary of
Defense Weinberger, demands almost soldierly obedience from its
allies. On the other hand, Western European governments found
themselves under increasing pressure from the public, gripped by
anti-militarist (and in this sense, anti-American) sentiments.
What Newsweek called the emerging "silent majority against the
nuclear bomb" has not yet spoken loudly, but the voices of protest are
growing louder. The more visible the militarism of Washington, the
more powerful the explosions of anti-war protests, and the story of the

58
neutron bomb, according to the definition of the Hamburg magazine
Der Spiegel, caused a downright “giant earthquake.” The less
Washington spares the pride of its Western European partners, the
more politically awkward is their position in front of their own
citizens.
Finally, what makes the situation even more pressing is that never
before in the post-war period have Washington strategists played so
actively with the idea of the possibility of a “limited” nuclear war.
According to previous scenarios, a thermonuclear conflict was
most often thought of as an exchange of nuclear missile strikes
between the United States and the Soviet Union and occurred as if
over Europe, as if leaving it above the fight (or literally under the
fight) of the two powers. Now the old continent, which with the bright
torches of its creative geniuses illuminated the path to the heights of
humanistic civilization, increasingly appears... under a pseudonym. It
is no longer Europe, but a certain theater of operations - a theater of
military operations. That is, a territory where, in the event of a
conflict, nuclear weapons are used along with conventional ones. This
is already the site of a thermonuclear clash. It is for Europe that the
American Pershings and Tomahawks are being prepared, threatening
to dangerously raise the level of military confrontation. It is for
Europe (primarily for it) that another American gift is being put on
stream - the neutron bomb, which, without a doubt, works for the idea
of a “limited” nuclear war, lowering the “nuclear threshold” so much
that it is a trifle to step over it, use nuclear weapons are getting
lighter.
The ghosts of nuclear death are haunting Europe, sparking a new
phase of the anti-war movement last summer. Less nuclear weapons!
Away from nuclear death! - this is the program of the “peace lobby”
And therefore it is pushing Scandinavian politicians to seriously
consider the project of creating a nuclear-free zone in Northern
Europe. Therefore, the OPO is “tormenting” the Belgian government,
increasing its hesitation, forcing the Dutch government not to rush
(for almost two years now) in agreeing to the deployment of
American missiles, and is trying to spread this “Dutch disease” to
West Germany.
Without West Germany, American structures collapse. There, as
nowhere else, the confrontation between two trends is evident. The
German government sits between two chairs of NATO’s “dual
solution,” with one chair (NATO’s “rearmament” with American
missiles) being snatched out from under by missile opponents, and the
other chair (promises of negotiations with the Soviet Union on
medium-range nuclear weapons) being snatched by the Americans.
What causes Chancellor Schmidt the most trouble is his own party,
the SPD.
The broad alliance of anti-war forces includes people of different
nations, ages, political views and religious beliefs (they do not want to
agree with the black humor of the father of the neutron bomb,
American Samuel Cohen, who declared it “Christian”). Their political

59
philosophy cannot be reduced to a common denominator, but I would
like to dwell on one aspect of their anti-war convictions.
As if it were a mortal sin, they are accused of pacifism, anti-
Americanism and, of course, “pro-Sovietism.” They are
condescendingly reproached for naivety and ignorance, because,
according to the arrogant supermen of our time, who have chosen
concepts and scenarios of nuclear conflicts as their profession, an
ordinary person on the street cannot understand these complex
matters, and if so, then he does not have the right to a qualified
judgment in a matter of his own life and death. To be or not to be?
This turns out to be too complex a question for the common man. The
technocratic “nuclear elite” believes that only tens or small hundreds
of specialists have the right to answer this question, although the lot -
to be or not to be - falls to hundreds of millions of people.
The “peace lobby” opposes such accusations and reproaches,
such perverted thinking, posing as the latest, first of all, with common
sense, based on the strength of life and the experience of the post-war
decades. The main argument is irrefutable. Doesn't experience show
that all the sophisticated concepts and doctrines that prove the need
for new weapons and “before! weapons" as the only real path to peace
and security, only worked for a vicious circle that rolls from decade to
decade, from one round of the arms race to another? A man on the
street will answer this question better than an armchair strategist
drowned in his paper scripts.
The demand to reduce the level of military confrontation in
Europe is one of the Points that unites the politically diverse “peace
lobby.” The same demand is persistently put forward by the Soviet
Union. The position of the Western European anti-war movement
coincides with the Soviet and American position, and the explanation
for this is not in sympathy or antipathy, but in common sense, based
on the entire post-war experience.
Those politicians who are pestered by the “peace lobby” do not
want (they can, but they do not want) to understand this. The most
convincing example is Chancellor Schmidt. “It shouldn’t get to the
point where one fine day the Italians and the Dutch, the
Scandinavians and the Germans begin to believe that the Soviet
Union has long been ready to negotiate and that it is more ready to
reduce its armaments than our own allies, — the chancellor both
warned and complained recently. “We cannot allow such completely
distorted, incorrect conclusions to be proposed.”
Schmidt is banging on an open door, knowing full well from his
own experience that the aforementioned conclusions are completely
correct and not at all distorted. And the fact that Italians and Dutch,
Scandinavians and Germans “allow” them is not the fault of Soviet
propagandists, but of American politicians.
September 1981

LOCKPICK INSTEAD OF THE KEY TO THE WORLD

60
 It is not easy to count how many visits Israeli Prime Minister
Begin has just made to Washington during his more than four years in
power, but this was his first meeting with President Reagan, and the
Western press was on the eve of it. actually organized an essay
competition on the topic of American-Israeli differences. Of course,
there were and remain reasons for disagreement.
Begin staged violent scenes of jealousy over the pending US sale
of $8.5 billion in arms to Saudi Arabia, including five AWACS
(Advanced Warning and Warning System) aircraft. For their part, the
“fighters against international terrorism” in Washington were
embarrassed when their main friend and ally in the Middle East,
knowing that he could hide from retaliation behind the broad back of
Uncle Sam, launched a robber air raid on the nuclear center near
Baghdad in June, and Beirut was brutally bombed in July. Begin is
unceremonious, confident that in Washington any of his tricks will be
forgiven (the incomparable pro-Israeli lobby will take care of this).
But the interests of American imperialism in the Middle East are
broader than Israeli ones, and it casts its military-political nets there in
hopes of catching a catch in the Arab world, which has oil and
strategically important territories. At this juncture, spats, divergences
and disagreements arise from time to time between Washington and
Tel Aviv, although they do not change the special nature of their
relationship.
President Reagan, of course, greeted Begin warmer and more
cordially than any other foreign leader. It is reported that at their first
meeting, in the presence of his Secretary of State Haig and Secretary
of Defense Weinberger, he ordered the opening of a “new era” in
American-Israeli relations.
I don’t know if new eras are being ushered in by presidential
executive orders, but the writers of essays on disagreement have
changed their tune and are now writing about increased “strategic
cooperation” between the two countries. And following the
negotiators, they declare this to be the main result of the US-Israeli
summit. What does “strategic cooperation” or “strategic alliance”
mean? And the fact that Israel is actually transferring its territory to
the disposal of the American military. Now this territory is a
warehouse for the placement and storage of American weapons,
which in emergency situations will be used by the gendarmerie “rapid
deployment forces.” The place where these forces will “deploy”
before their jump to other countries. The place where joint US-Israeli
military exercises will henceforth take place. With increased
“strategic cooperation,” Israel reportedly intends to receive another $3
billion in military aid from the United States.
It is well known that Israel has long been dependent on the
American taxpayer, and in terms of military assistance (absolute and
especially per capita) it is far ahead of all other US clients. Now we
are talking about an even greater militarization of American-Israeli
relations. And this corresponds not only to their original nature, but
also to the general militaristic policy of the Reagan administration.

61
The extremist Israeli prime minister, putting forward a plan for
“strategic cooperation,” cleverly picked up the keys to the heart of the
belligerent American president.
“You want to sell your AWACS aircraft, strengthening the Saudi
regime and winning its favor. You are ready to take advantage of
Sadat's offer of bases on Egyptian territory. But I can be more useful
than anyone else in this race to militarize the Middle East that you are
carrying out,” Begin apparently reasoned approximately this way,
spreading out the territory of his state before American politicians and
the military. And so, writes the Washington Post, “the two countries
will be engaged in unprecedented new areas of military cooperation,”
representing “a major victory for Begin.” Playing along with
Washington's militarism, Tel Aviv naturally does not forget about its
benefits. And the point is not only that he reserves the position of the
main and most privileged US ally in the region. By tying the United
States even more tightly to themselves, Israeli extremists - a tried and
tested practice - give themselves a free hand for new aggressive
adventures against their Arab neighbors.
Now about Washington's calculations. Under Carter, the
Americans sought dominance in the Middle East, using Sadat's
separatism as a tool to split the Arab world and force it to reconcile
with Israeli expansion. Sadat turned out to be a worthless instrument,
and the current mass repressions in Egypt prove that he is losing
political face even in his own country. Under Reagan, the emphasis
was on anti-Soviet militarism. It is this universal master key that the
Americans use not only in Israel and Egypt, but also in Saudi Arabia
and other Arab countries. It is under the auspices of anti-Soviet
militarism that they want to unite the rival parties in the Middle East,
intimidating them with a common “threat from the North.
But Secretary of State Haig, traveling through Middle Eastern
capitals in the spring of 1980, was unable to sell the idea of “strategic
agreement” on an anti-Soviet basis to moderate Arab regimes. And it
did not become more attractive to the Arabs after the proclamation of
a new “strategic cooperation” between Washington and Tel Aviv.
Neither this cooperation, nor the courtship of Saudi Arabia, also
through military cooperation, provides an answer to the fundamental
questions: when will Israel liberate the occupied Arab territories,
when will the legitimate rights of the Palestinians be satisfied? It
would be foolish to expect answers to these questions from Reagan’s
meeting with Begip. American leaders are talking about reviving the
“Camp David process” and another attempt to “solve” the Palestinian
issue (without Palestinian participation) at the Israeli-Egyptian
negotiations, which resume at the end of September. But who does
not understand that the Camp David “peace process,” freed from
diplomatic disguises, became an open means of militarizing the
Middle East? Isn’t it obvious that this American master key will in no
way replace the key to a genuine settlement?
September 1981

62
 NEW MOUNTAINS OF WEAPONS
President Ronald Reagan announced a “comprehensive plan” for
new military strategic preparations, unfurling it as the banner under
which militaristic America would march through the end of the 20th
century and beyond into the 21st. What exactly is written on this
banner? The President outlined five points to strengthen and
modernize the American “strategic triad.” This is the construction and
deployment in the shortest possible time of approximately one
hundred new strategic bombers B-1 (which his predecessor Carter
abandoned at one time), the deployment of cruise missiles on existing
B-52 bombers, the development of an improved “stealth bomber” for
the 90s, capable of penetrating radar barriers.
These are strengthening and expanding sea-based forces, namely
new Trident submarines and equipping them with a larger, more
accurate ballistic missile, as well as deploying nuclear cruise missiles
on some existing submarines.
This is the completion of the construction of a new and more
powerful MX intercontinental strategic missile, at least a hundred of
them to begin with, the placement of some of them in existing
Minuteman missile silos, and the study of “three promising methods”
for basing them in order to select the most suitable one by 1982 .
These are improvements to the “communication and control
system” in the field of strategic assets, as well as the allocation of
“large resources” for civil defense needs and other measures.
The total (and, of course, preliminary) price is 180 billion dollars.
The Reagan administration revealed its character from its very
first steps. And talk about a new “assortment” in the American
strategic arsenal has not ceased since the White House promised to
give the Pentagon one and a half trillion dollars over the next five
years and to increase military spending every year - in real terms - by
no less than 7 percent. And now, after the presidential announcement,
the ruling elite of the United States and the so-called “big press” are
arguing not about the substance of the matter, but about the details.
Some senators praise Reagan for reviving the monstrous B-1 bomber,
which was buried by Carter (but not by the Pentagon). Others decry
that in terms of intercontinental missiles, the MX on has given up the
slack - only a hundred instead of the two hundred planned by its
predecessor; It is believed that this was influenced by the resistance of
residents of the states of Nevada and Utah, on whose territory they
wanted to place new missiles. They are wondering which parts of the
militaristic program will pass through Congress like clockwork and
which will encounter obstacles.
But all these are details that distract attention from the essence of
the matter. But the point is that Washington is enthusiastically and for
a long time starting new dances of death, building a new program of
preparations for war, which contrasts so strikingly with the Peace
Program for the 80s, defended by Moscow. The American president's
statement mentions the word "recovery" twice. Once they talk about
“improving our strategic forces,” another time about the intention to

63
“improve our bomber aviation.” What dark humor! It does not
promise an improvement in the international situation. Humanity is
unlikely to benefit from the extremely dangerous intensification of the
arms race.
The question of motivation arises. They are the same insolvents
who have long set their teeth on edge. Reagan spoke of a
“weakening” of American security and a “determination to maintain
the strategic balance of power.” Save... So it is not violated if you take
the American president at his word?
At the press conference that followed the president's
announcement, one correspondent drew attention to the contradiction
between the president's assessments and the explanations of the
Pentagon spokesman. The latter said that the notorious “window of
vulnerability,” supposedly opening up opportunities for an attack on
America by the Soviet Union, would appear no earlier than 1984 or
1985, but the president hinted that it already existed, this window.
And, by the way, I’ll add on my own behalf, if the “window of
vulnerability” already exists, then why, Mr. President, did the Soviet
Union not take advantage of it until you closed it? Where is the
“Soviet threat”? The ends clearly don't meet. Even if we look closely
at the official American argument, we will not find any aggressive
intentions on the part of the Soviet Union.
But again, it is not logic that American leaders need, but strength.
The power is superior. The same superiority that Washington would
like to return, but Moscow will not allow.
Even more often than the word “recovery,” another term flashes
in Reagan’s statements: “containment.” He is no less hypocritical.
America has always acted not as a restraining party, but as an initiator
of new and new rounds of the arms race. We will find recognition on
this score, by the way, from the author of the “containment strategy”
himself, a former American diplomat and now a prominent scientist
and public figure, George Kennan, who unsuccessfully calls for
prudence among his compatriots in power,
“Let's not delude ourselves into placing all the blame on the
USSR,” says George Kennan. “It was we, the Americans, who were
the first at every step in the development of atomic weapons, it was
we who were the first to produce and test these weapons, it was we
who first raised their destructive power to a new level by creating the
hydrogen bomb, it was we who rejected any proposal to refuse to be
the first to use nuclear weapons, it was we who finally used these
weapons against tens of thousands of helpless civilians.”
If anyone needs to be restrained, it should be the American
militarists, because I truly can’t restrain them. You think about this
again when you see what program the American government offers
the world until the end of the 20th century - and even beyond.
October 1981

64
 A LESSON IN THE DEATH OF SADAT
Before the shock caused by the murder of Anwar Salat had passed,
speculation and fortune-telling began about how the disappearance of
this political figure would affect the Middle East situation. What emerges
from the comments is a truth that became increasingly obvious in the last
years of the Egyptian president’s life: he was closer and dearer to
Washington politicians than to those whom he himself called his Arab
brothers. The representative of a far from radical Arab state, Jordanian
Information Minister Adnan Abu Oda, said that what happened with
Sadat proves that “any separate solution to the Middle East problem is
doomed to failure.” Lebanese Prime Minister Wazzan said that "this
event represents a historical lesson." And in the eyes of the Palestinians,
Sadat was not just a separatist, but also a traitor.
In Washington, judging by the tone of American comments, they
feel the feeling of a person standing unsteadily on his feet, from under
whom the support has suddenly been knocked out. In order not to fall,
you urgently need to grab onto someone. Hence the gadapia: can the
current vice president and apparent successor to Sadat, Mubarak, play
the role of a pillar of American policy in the Middle East? And the
second question, also not superfluous, is asked by one American
television correspondent: “Will the armed forces and people of Egypt
follow Mubarak?” It is known that Sadat’s last major domestic political
act was a brutal crackdown on the growing opposition. About 2 thousand
people were arrested and thrown into prison, and no sooner had they
appeared in court than action gave rise to opposition - an attempt on the
life of the Egyptian president amid the pomp of a military parade. In a
way, Sadat signed his own death warrant by persisting in a policy that
isolated Egypt in the Arab world and met increasing resistance from
politically conscious Egyptians.
If we again recall the words of the Lebanese prime minister about
the “historical lesson”, then it obviously lies in the fact that one cannot
endlessly and with impunity trample on objective circumstances, national
feelings, and even the laws of justice. The assassinated president was
popular in the West for the same reason he was unpopular with his Arab
neighbors and at home. This reason is a separate deal with Israel under
American auspices. They talked and talk about the “peace process”, but
at what cost was it achieved?
separate self-serving world? Sadat received (although he did not
manage to fully receive) the desert lands captured by Israel in the Sinai,
but Israel continued to hold the occupied West Bank and the Syrian
Golan Heights. Moreover, Tel Aviv increasingly openly used peace with
Cairo as a tool for perpetuating this occupation - and isn’t this evidenced,
in particular, by the latest settlement plan for the West Bank, according
to which the number of Israeli colonists there will increase 6 times in the
coming years, to 120 thousands of people.
Covering his political flanks, Sadat negotiated with Begin about

65
“administrative autonomy” for the Palestinians - without the
participation of their representatives and in spite of them. But this flank
remained uncovered. Moreover, the comedy of negotiations on
“autonomy”, which were resumed and then interrupted again, violating
all the deadlines stipulated by the Egyptian-Israeli agreement, was very
revealing for Sadat. In the eyes of the Palestinians, he became a man who
traded their right to self-determination for their own statehood.
Politically this doomed Sadat. And as what happened proved - not only
politically.
A strange figure... In America he is praised for his wisdom, courage
and political foresight. But what kind of foresight is this - to lose your
natural allies for the sake of a shaky alliance with the enemy and
counting on the favor of the Americans? He, of course, has done a lot for
Washington, which wants to maintain special relations with Israel and
strengthen its position in the Arab world. Much, but not all. He was
never able to win over other Arab states to his—and the American—side,
and it is no coincidence that now, insisting on the sale of AWACS
aircraft, the Reagan administration is looking for the keys to Saudi
Arabia, making up for what Sadat did not give.
Much, but not all. And now that Anwar Sadat has so tragically
disappeared from the political arena, Washington is again, as in the case
of the Shah of Iran, faced with the consequences of its own myopia. The
bet was placed on the individual - and contrary to objective realities. But
personality is a fragile support for ensuring the interests of a great power.
How many times has America had to convince itself of this? And so, as
American columnist James Reston writes, “Sadat’s death serves as a
reminder that relations between states should not depend on relations
between individuals.”
Let us add that relations between states should be based on taking
into account each other’s legitimate interests. And this is what the
Americans wanted to ignore, with the help of Sadat trying to push away
the idea of a general and fair peace settlement in the Middle East. And
that is why the Western press now writes so much about the “fragile
balance”, about Camp David’s “fragile guarantees of peace”, about the
“fragile stability” that Sadat supposedly ensured.
October 1981

LANDING FOR THE FUNERAL

In connection with Sadat's funeral, an entire American force landed
in Cairo - ministers, senators, generals, diplomats and even three former
American presidents. Add to this dozens, if not hundreds, of
representatives of the media, primarily television, which urgently sent its
most famous aces across the ocean.
Why a landing party and not a delegation? Yes, because for
Washington, the funeral that he arranged for his friend looks like a major
military-political operation. At first, at the first news of Sadat's
assassination, the American government was seized by a commotion
close to panic. Immediately followed by saber rattling and military

66
threats addressed both to opponents of Sadagov’s policies within Egypt
and to other Arab states, primarily Libya. Now we are talking about a
systematic military-political onslaught with the aim of strengthening and
expanding American positions in Egypt, as well as, at least, in Sudan.
With this hasty attack, undertaken in an atmosphere of emotional
turmoil, American strategists would like to more than make up for the
loss of Sadat.
The landing of American journalists was supposed to provide a
propaganda smokescreen around this operation, but it did not quite cope
with its task. From Cairo to America they were going to convey pictures
of the grief of the Egyptians. With this they rushed to the streets of
Cairo, but found no grief. They discovered, as a Washington Post
correspondent wrote, a “strange atmosphere” that “is more reminiscent
of celebration than mourning for the assassinated president.” They
discovered that in America more people are killed under Sadat than in
Egypt, and that - once again - the Americans themselves have become
victims of their own exaltation and misinformation.
It would seem that the paratrooper-politicians led by Haig and
Weinberger should have noticed the “strange atmosphere” of Cairo. It
would seem that from the unpopularity of their ally, revealed under such
dramatic circumstances, they should have drawn their sober conclusions.
Did you do it - why? They want to wrap Egypt in even tighter hoops of
cooperation with the United States.
The Americans who flew to Cairo surrounded Hosni Mubarak,
Sadat's successor, in a tight ring. He assured President Reagan's
plenipotentiaries that Cairo's pro-American orientation would be fully
preserved, that all of Sadat's obligations would remain in force, and that,
disregarding the opinion of the Arab peoples, Egypt would continue its
course towards a separate settlement with Israel.
In Washington they both want and are afraid to believe these words.
In Washington they rely on force, on forceful techniques. And so, with
an astonishing lack of tact, they began to bang the gendarme’s fist on the
Middle Eastern table and stage demonstrations of American power,
without waiting for the ashes of the man who had been given a reputation
as a peacemaker overseas to be buried.
Data? They are widely known. Moreover, they are advertised by the
Americans. The first reaction to Sadat’s death was to put the American
6th Fleet in the Mediterranean and the “rapid deployment forces” created
for gendarme punitive operations in the Middle East on high alert. Then
it was announced (from Cairo, but by the same American paratroopers)
that the joint American-Egyptian military exercises “Bright Star” -
“Bright Star” would soon take place. This “star” first appeared about a
year ago; then American soldiers began to be trained in the Egyptian
desert for a possible landing in the Persian Gulf region. Now Egypt is
more closely involved in the orbit of military cooperation with the
United States and, accordingly, the tasks of joint maneuvers have
expanded. B-52 strategic bombers have already been deployed. Taking
off from bases on American territory, they will reach Egypt with a load

67
of conventional bombs and threateningly drop this load in the area of the
Egyptian-Libyan border.
I remember in the early 70s, bombs from B-52s fell on Vietnamese
soil. Now they will fly to Egyptian soil, as a sign of Washington’s
special affection for Cairo.
But this is not all the events held to the sounds of funeral marches. In
memory of the “peacemaker” Sadat, arms supplies to Egypt, as well as to
Sudan, are being accelerated and increased. Military assistance to Sudan
was declared to be the fulfillment of the “last will” of the deceased. An
American assault force was also landed in Khartoum, the Sudanese
capital, by a State Department special group with the participation of the
military. Opa should evaluate the requests of the Sudanese President
Nimeiri, who demands an expansion of military assistance programs.
Libya is being put forward as a bogeyman - and an excuse - as it
allegedly threatens the Nimeiry regime in Khartoum, as well as Egypt
and even Saudi Arabia. But, firstly, even American officials deny the
existence of any evidence of a threat of a Libyan invasion of Sudan,
much less Egypt. And, secondly, it is worth recalling one fact: the
population of Libya is only 3 million people, while Sudan is 19.6
million, Egypt is more than 40 million. Libya can only be a threat to
Sudan and Egypt in the eyes of political dreamers. Or blackmailers.
Indeed, Libya, especially in recent days, has become the target of
American blackmail and ever-increasing, increasingly provocative
military pressure, which is accompanied by threats of direct military
action.
New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, noting the peculiarities of
American mourning for Sadat, emphasizes that “the dominant themes in
American politics now are increasing arms supplies to the Middle East
and increasing the number of Washington’s military commitments in the
region.” He further writes: “The United States acts as if it can only offer
weapons and military force to the Middle East.”
That's right. The course towards further militarization of the
situation in the Middle East could be traced from the very beginning in
the actions of the Reagan administration, which adopted the “Carter
Doctrine” and expanded its scope in every possible way. Carter's other
legacy—the Camp David peace process—remains in its horns and legs.
And instead of hypocritical peacemaking (in fact, myth-making!) the
current US President actually offers “only weapons and military force.”
Take the “strategic alliance” with Israel, involving closer military
cooperation and the use of Israeli territory for the needs of the
Pentagon... Or the plan to sell AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia in order
to tie this important Arab country to the American military chariot...
Increasingly distinct militarization American-Egyptian relations... Now
the American “security umbrella” is spread over Sudan.
And in another important sense, the current American president has
gone further than his predecessor - along the more dangerous road of
naked imperialism. The Carter Doctrine provided that “any attempt by an
outside power to establish control over the Persian Gulf region will be

68
considered an attack on the vital interests of the United States.” Now in
Washington they are proclaiming the principle of armed intervention in
the affairs of the countries of the Middle East, even when internal forces
undesirable to the United States make themselves known there.
And earlier, even before the assassination attempt on Sadat,
President Reagan said at one of his press conferences that he would not
allow Saudi Arabia to become “the new Iran.” This statement caused a
lot of noise, and the American press interpreted it as Washington’s
readiness to carry out armed intervention not only in the event of an
external, but also in the event of an internal threat to the Saudi regime.
Essentially, the American president expressed regret that his country did
not support the Shah of Iran by force of the bayonet, and promised not to
repeat this “mistake.”
They say that God deprives those whom he wants to punish of their
minds. It must also be memory. Otherwise, they would remember and
learn the lessons of the past.
October 1981

RISKY OPTIONS
Among American political elders, Averell Harriman has truly unique
experience - a large capitalist, former governor of New York,
ambassador to Moscow during the war, Roosevelt's ally and adviser to
half a dozen other American presidents, participant in major international
events. To the core, he belongs to the American ruling elite, but he is one
of those exponents who carry the baton of balance, common sense and a
sense of responsibility for the fate of the world, making its way through
the unknown intricacies of the nuclear age.
Harriman is 90 years old. But he lost his sense of responsibility. And
recently in the Washington Post he shared some of his opinions, fears
and anxieties.
“We are in danger of subjecting our destiny to the whims of nuclear
weapons,” he begins with this as the central problem. He is critical of
more and more American doctrines of warfare based on, as he says, “the
myth of using nuclear destruction for some “rational” purposes.”
“These doctrines blur the crucial distinction between nuclear and
non-nuclear weapons,” the veteran warns. “And they encourage the
nuclear option, making all countries believe that nuclear weapons are just
another weapon of military power.” (Let us add in parentheses that he
further develops his thought as follows: “In fact, nuclear weapons exist
for only one single purpose - to deter nuclear war. Once used, they will
become a weapon of mass destruction and will destroy both the attacker
and his victim ".)
Harriman is right—the nuclear option smacks of a nuclear holocaust.
But it’s no secret that “the nuclear option” has recently been a popular
activity in front of the public eye of senior Reagan administration
officials and, from time to time, the president himself.
Before Harriman had time to publish his article, US Secretary of

69
State Alexander Haig came up with another nuclear option. Before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he referred to NATO's secret
contingency plans to "detonate one nuclear weapon for demonstration
purposes" in the event of conventional hostilities in Europe and to prove
America's determination not to hesitate to use nuclear weapons. and
thereby, they say, keep these military actions at the lowest possible level.
This risky logic precisely entrusts fate to the “whims of nuclear
weapons”, based on the fact that after the “demonstration explosion” a
nuclear abyss will not open up.
This frivolity, as if flaunting the readiness to use nuclear weapons,
caused a new commotion in Western Europe.
Still would! After all, Europe was once again chosen as the arena for
Washington’s exercises—so far only verbal—in “choosing the nuclear
option.” Meanwhile, Western Europeans barely had time to recover from
President Reagan’s statement in mid-October, who admitted the
possibility of an exchange of nuclear strikes limited only to European
territory.
In connection with Haig's "demonstration explosion", the White
House had to issue a special statement intended to reassure the public. It
states, in part, that “the possibility of nuclear war is as abhorrent to the
United States as to any other country.”
But the main emphasis is on something completely different, on
intimidating rather than calming. The statement reiterates that “NATO
does not forego any options in advance” and that “NATO strategy is
designed to expose adversaries to a wide variety of responses to
aggression.”
Once again we are faced with a dangerous game of hide and seek,
cat and mouse, or, as Harriman puts it, “choosing the nuclear option.” By
allowing any option, threatening the boundless freedom of “various
reactions,” American strategists are deliberately thickening the fog,
cultivating an international climate in which doubts, mistrust, suspicion,
and fears prevail. All this does not weaken, but, on the contrary,
strengthens the threat of war.
In the same speech before the Senate committee, Haig accused the
Soviet Union of allegedly using Soviet strategic nuclear missile forces
for “intimidation and blackmail.” As usual, the American Secretary of
State did not bother to give examples, relying on the “consciousness” of
senators, intimidated by the “Soviet threat.” Meanwhile, I would like to
ask him when, where and whom Moscow intimidated or blackmailed
with intercontinental missiles. In any case, the world knows something
different. Moscow persistently and honestly negotiated the limitation of
strategic arms, and it is not Moscow that refuses to ratify the final result
of these negotiations - the SALT II Treaty. Moscow is ready to return to
such negotiations, and it is not Moscow, but Washington that is
postponing their resumption until at least spring
1982. For what purpose? But with which one - “conduct somewhat
more realistic negotiations, taking into account what we can threaten
them with.” These are the words of President 1 Sitna. They are going to

70
threaten the Soviet Union. It is known and what they are going to
threaten - a program to strengthen the American “strategic triad”, which
in the next five years alone will take away 180 billion dollars from the
American people, and in conditions when the country is entering a new
period of recession, and the Reagan economic program is bursting at all
the seams.
Before the eyes of the world, two fundamentally different
approaches are becoming more and more clearly visible - American and
Soviet. During the first one, all sorts of options for a dangerous game are
played out, as if inviting a nuclear catastrophe. The second approach
provides only one option, excluding nuclear weapons both as a weapon
of war and as an instrument of politics. In this option, there is no room
for either a “limited” nuclear war, or for a “demonstration” nuclear
explosion, or for any other fun with nuclear death. Reject the very idea of
a nuclear attack as criminal. Refuse the first nuclear strike and thereby
exclude the second, and third, etc. Thus, remove the issue of nuclear war
as such from the agenda.
This approach sounds like a persistent leitmotif in all speeches of the
Soviet leadership, especially recently, marked by the aggravation of the
international situation. The American leadership is asked to clearly and
unequivocally join this clear and unequivocal position. But in
Washington, it is precisely the ambiguity, the uncertainty of nuclear
strategy that has been elevated to a principle. Ambiguity and the dangers
it entails.
November 1981
COUNTING FOR SIMPLES
Americans love stunning news and sensations. And on November
18, President Reagan, as they say, issued one of them.
In his speech, he proposed canceling plans to deploy American
Perception 2s and cruise missiles in Western Europe, provided that the
Soviet Union dismantled all its medium-range missiles.
Sensations are just sensations to stun the gullible. Let's try, however,
to remain calm and look at a few questions.
During its ten months, the Reagan administration became notorious
—and scandalous—for its emphasis on weapons and super-weapons. At
first I didn’t want to hear about negotiations with the Soviet Union. It
was only in May that increased resistance from Western European
governments and the threat of an open split in NATO wrested from
Washington a vague promise to resume dialogue with Moscow. But this
promise was forced. Pershings and Tomahawks remained at the forefront
of US European policy.
Why did people, who so earnestly prayed to the god of war Mars,
suddenly appear in the snow-white robes of peacekeepers? Simply put,
they were fed up with the anti-war, anti-missile movement, which
declared itself so loudly and strongly in Bonn, London, Brussels, Paris,
and The Hague. It got in the way and forced them to maneuver, to
undertake, as one Washington official put it, a “propaganda game.”

71
 They began to understand that talking about the possibility of a
limited nuclear war or “demonstration” nuclear explosions would not
win the hearts and minds of Europeans.
And one more question: what might this promise from the point of
view of the Soviet-American negotiations that are beginning in Geneva?
The Soviet position is known: if NATO's plans for new missile
weapons disappear, we will be ready to reduce the total number of Soviet
missiles, we are ready to agree on very significant reductions on both
sides.
This position opens the way to favorable results. And the world
community has the right to hope that the Geneva negotiations will not
reach a dead end created by Washington’s position.
November 1981

TO THE MEETING IN GENEVA

The past week has brought us back to the most pressing issue in
European and world politics - medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe.
On November 30, Soviet-American negotiations on this topic began in
Geneva. Truly long awaited.
This date - November 30 - was agreed upon during September
meetings in New York between Comrade L. A. Gromyko and US
Secretary of State Haig, but the background to the Geneva negotiations is
much longer. The war has lasted more than two years, since the fall of
1979, when the Soviet Union proposed to reduce part of its medium-
range nuclear missile systems located in the western regions of the USSR
if NATO abandoned plans to deploy new American missiles in Western
Europe. The NATO bloc did not heed this call and in December 1979
adopted the so-called “double decision” - on the deployment of
American missiles and on American-Soviet negotiations on medium-
range nuclear weapons in Europe.
Negotiations did not begin for a long time, in particular due to the
vicissitudes of the American election campaign, and having begun in
October 1980, they were quickly interrupted, as the Carter administration
gave up the fight, and the new administration, Ronald Reagan, began the
whole story anew.
Well, in recent years, we have all witnessed more than once
Washington's political red tape when it comes to relations with the
Soviet Union. But the new administration is a special case. As you know,
the President, the Secretary of State, and the US Secretary of Defense,
upon taking up their duties, took an openly defiant position: no
negotiations until America gains a position of strength! A chill
unprecedented since the late 40s began to blow over the relations
between the two nuclear missile powers, and, one might say, the whole
world began to shiver.
But, as they say, man proposes, but God disposes. God is the
pressure of circumstances.
While seeking a position of strength vis-à-vis the Soviet Union,

72
Washington found itself in a position of weakness vis-à-vis its allies in
Western Europe. Political weakness. Washington's belligerence alarmed
and frightened Western Europeans. The anti-missile movement unfolded
with unprecedented force. Western European governments, most notably
Bonn, began to ask and even demand that the Americans sit down at the
negotiating table with the Russians, arguing that otherwise they would
not be able to defend NATO's "dual solution" to their populations, which
feared the American strategy of turning Europe into a theater of war.
actions.
On this score, the West German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung
writes: “The decision to sit down at the negotiating table with the
Russians was not at all easy for American President Reagan. And yet he
had to make some adjustments to his previous course. It was political
rather than military reasons that brought Reagan to the negotiating table
in the first place: the idea that NATO unity was at stake gradually
became established in Washington.”
This is a typical response. Op correctly explains why the American
representative Nitze, a man with a reputation as a “hawk,” found himself
at the negotiating table with the Soviet representative, Ambassador
Kvitsinsky.
The two delegations went into action by declaring that the
discussions would be confidential, closing the door to the press and
leaving both ordinary people and professional political observers asking
questions: How long will these negotiations last and what will they
culminate?
There is unanimity in two forecasts. First of all, the negotiations will
not be easy. Secondly, and this follows from the first forecast, they are
unlikely to be short. Most likely, we will not be talking about days or
even weeks, but about months, although they cannot be delayed
indefinitely. Otherwise, they will become diplomatic cover for
preparations for the deployment of American Pershing 2s and cruise
missiles. After all, according to the NATO schedule, in the fall of 1983,
missiles should already appear in those countries whose governments
have given consent - in Germany, England, Italy.
There is another point of unanimity in the comments of the world
press at the beginning of the Geneva meetings. They emphasize their
exceptional importance, a word from the Washington Post newspaper:
“To say that the negotiations are devoted to limiting a certain type of
weapons in Europe and preserving
To deny the military and psychological balance there would be to
downplay their importance. The negotiations have a more important
goal: limiting the risk of nuclear war. And they cannot succeed if this
fundamental purpose and responsibility of the two parties is lost sight
of.”
We agree, adding that in the interests of the two countries, Europe
and the whole world, we are talking about returning to the path of
cooperation instead of slipping onto the path of confrontation.

73
 Before the special envoys disappeared behind closed doors, the
leaders of both the Soviet Union and the United States made their
positions public to a global audience. We know that they are different.
The document of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, the
Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Council of
Ministers of the USSR following the visit of L. I. Brezhnev to Germany,
published the day after the start of negotiations, again reveals the essence
of the Soviet proposals.
First, complementing its previous proposal for a moratorium for the
period of negotiations and subject to its acceptance by the other side, the
Soviet Union expressed its readiness to unilaterally reduce some of its
medium-range nuclear weapons.
Secondly, the Soviet Union is ready in Geneva to negotiate radical
reductions by both sides in medium-range nuclear weapons, reductions
by hundreds of units - let us recall that both sides have approximately a
thousand carriers of such weapons. But on condition that the agreement
will take into account both American forward-based assets (more than
700 aircraft carrying nuclear weapons) and nuclear assets - aircraft and
missiles - of England and France.
Thirdly, the USSR also proposes a complete renunciation by both
sides of all types of medium-range weapons aimed at targets in Europe.
And, finally, I am ready to extend such mutual refusal to tactical nuclear
weapons, thereby freeing Europe from any, so to speak, thermonuclear
poison, implementing a truly “zero solution.”
As you can see, in the Soviet position there is both a reasonable
initial minimum - in the form of a moratorium, which would create an
atmosphere of goodwill in the negotiations, and movement towards the
maximum that most Europeans dream of - to transform Europe into a
nuclear-free zone. This position opens up the near and long term
prospects for searching for a mutually acceptable solution.
Now about the American position. From denial, when no one wanted
to hear about negotiations, Washington suddenly moved towards an
outwardly radical initiative. As you know, on November 18, President
Reagan proposed not to deploy new American missiles in Western
Europe if the Soviet Union dismantled all its medium-range missiles in
response. This proposal was supported by the governments of NATO
countries, but was rejected on our part as unacceptable, and was also
described by many impartial people as propaganda. There is an
expression in English: something for nothing - to get something for
nothing, simply put, to trick a partner. This is the essence of the
American proposal.
In relation to the Geneva negotiations, Washington sometimes talks
about the so-called stage-by-stage approach. At the first stage, we will
discuss only Soviet missiles, leaving aside American medium-range
nuclear weapons, as well as French and British aircraft and missiles. And
having agreed on the elimination of Soviet missiles, we will move on to
the rest. That is, at the first stage we are offered to disarm, and the other
side must remain with its entire existing arsenal.

74
 The Soviet Union sees this as a violation of the main principle of its
relations with the United States - the principle of equality and equal
security. And he will not make unilateral concessions.
In short, the initial positions of the parties are far from each other.
The chances of success in negotiations depend on the sincerity and
seriousness of intentions, on the goodwill of the participants and their
willingness to seek a mutually acceptable solution.
Let's take the opinion of one person who is extremely interested in a
favorable outcome of the Geneva meetings - German Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt. He leads a country that is destined for all 108 American
Persian-2s, plus 96 cruise missiles, where more than 7,000 American
nuclear warheads are already deployed and where powerful waves of the
anti-missile movement are raging outside the walls of government
buildings and the Bundestag. Schmidt directly linked his political fate
with success or failure in Geneva. Being a partner and ally of the United
States, he is known to value good relations with the Soviet Union and in
matters of Soviet-American dialogue he calls himself a “translator” who
conscientiously tries to interpret Washington’s intentions to Moscow,
and Moscow’s intentions to Washington.
In recent weeks, “translator” Schmidt has emphasized that both sides
are very serious and sincere in their attitude towards the Geneva
negotiations.
However, Moscow hardly needs such certification, having proven its
desire for constructive dialogue through its policies.
As for Washington, many statements have been made recently about
their intention to negotiate in good faith and seriously, but they also
continue to talk about positions of strength.
Wait and see.
December 1981

LIGHTS ON TREES
When there are less than ten days left until the end of the year, the
topic of results and looking into the future naturally arises.
It is known that the year was not easy and that in international
politics its main battle took place in Europe, around Europe. It will
remain as a keepsake for historians.
And now the main elements of this battle are still fresh in our minds.
Politicians and strategists in America increasingly referred to Europe
as the theater of war, as if they had forgotten the name of the old
continent from which their fathers and grandfathers had come. With
alarming casualness they spoke of the possibility of a nuclear conflict
limited to this “theater.”
The Soviet position was consistent and clear, but Moscow's calls for
early negotiations on medium-range nuclear weapons were initially
ignored by Washington.
Then a third participant appeared in the theater—the political theater,
not the military one. Powerful movement against seam placement;
American missiles shook Western

75
 Europe. By the end of October, it became obvious even to
Washington that the militant Reagan administration was losing the
political battle for Europe. Western European governments put pressure
on her to take a more constructive position.
Europe. By the end of October, it became obvious even to
Washington that the militant Reagan administration was losing the
political battle for Europe. Western European governments put pressure
on her to take a more constructive position.
After the wide resonance caused by L. I. Brezhnev’s interview with
Der Spiegel magazine, and even before the visit of the Soviet leader to
Bonn, where our proposals were outlined in a detailed and very
convincing manner, President Reagan, trying to save the situation, came
up with his first “peace” speech with assurances that he is also ready for
serious negotiations.
Mentions of a “limited nuclear war” were taboo in Washington, and
Europe began to be called Europe, and not a theater of military
operations. As you know, Soviet-American negotiations began in
Geneva, and they will continue after the Christmas and New Year
holidays.
In general, for history the outgoing year leaves a knot as a memory,
and for the coming year it leaves a knot of controversial issues that needs
to be untied. International knots cannot be untied alone, and the success
of the matter depends half on the Americans.
As for our intentions, they remain the same. The Soviet Union is
committed to an agreement on intermediate-range nuclear weapons in
Europe and believes that it is possible to create a basis for its conclusion
in 1982.
The key to success, the constant and reliable key, is the observance
by both parties of the principle of equality and equal security.
We are for an active dialogue with the United States, including at the
highest level. There is no need to delay the most important negotiations
on the limitation and reduction of strategic weapons, the most powerful
and dangerous.
And in bilateral Soviet-American relations, artificial obstacles
should be removed, trust should be restored, and progress should be
made.
Of course, there is no place for cloudless optimism after the difficult
experience gained. But we still have to live together, on the same planet,
and therefore we need to get along with each other. This is the lesson of
another year. In this direction, one might say, those guiding stars that are
now lighting up on New Year and Christmas trees both in the West and
in the East point.
December 1981

VERY BAD YEAR

If, before the end of the year, we sum up the balance of good and
bad news and, according to American tradition, start with the bad, then,

76
perhaps, we will have to say that there has not been a worse year in
Soviet-American relations for a long time. In any case, it’s not easy for
me to remember the same one in 30 years of journalism and 20 years of
fairly close observation of relations between the two countries.
Of course, 1961, for example, with its crisis over the Berlin Wall,
was far from idyllic. It was then that I first came to the United States as a
correspondent for Izvestia, and I remember that in Moscow I was
advised not to take my family with me, and that in the vast American
selection of Christmas gifts, what struck me most were the different
models of portable anti-nuclear shelters. In 1962, the Cuban Missile
Crisis occurred with its thermonuclear staring contest between the two
powers (as President Kennedy put it). Yes, other years were not without
complications, but after the hopes generated by détente in the first half of
the 70s, it is especially sad to see that our relations are seeing more and
more downs and fewer and fewer ups. The final takeoff in the summer of
1979, when the SALT II Treaty was signed in Vienna, ended up no
higher than Capitol Hill, where the treaty stalled in the US Senate even
before events in Afghanistan gave opponents of détente an excuse to
permanently stall progress towards strategic arms limitation.
And then 1981, the first year of the Reagan administration. How is
he seen from Moscow? The dialogue, already suffering from arrhythmia,
was pointedly stopped by Washington. America is again taking the pose
of a “pathetic helpless giant” (whose expression is this - Johnson’s or
Nixon’s?), which needs no less than one and a half trillion dollars in
military spending over five years in order to talk to the Soviet Union
from a position of strength. This is like a new invitation to the dance of
death in that dance hall called planet Earth and where, as experts have
calculated, there are already at least a million Hiroshimas in store for
four and a half billion inhabitants.
Moscow's repeated invitations to the negotiating table, especially
persistently voiced at the end of February from the rostrum of the party
congress, are being ignored. Unconstructive feelings such as suspicion,
mistrust, and outright hostility are rapidly growing on both sides. What's
next? Where to go? Relations between the two countries seem to have hit
rock bottom.
And in this there is a strange consolation, which now, in the festive
New Year season, allows us to talk about a glimmer of hope. Since it
cannot be worse, it must be better. Since no one wants war, it means that
the search for peace cannot be avoided.
January truths do not always survive until the end of the year. In
January, General Haig proclaimed that there were more important things
than peace, but such a foreign policy credo did not strengthen American
prestige, and on November 18, in his famous speech, President Reagan
decided to prove the opposite. A kind of peaceful competition began.
Ronald Reagan proposed abandoning as-yet-unexistent American
missiles in Europe if the Soviet Union dismantled its existing missiles.
Moscow considered this an unacceptable call for unilateral disarmament
of the USSR and, through the mouth of L. I. Brezhnev, proposed a more

77
realistic, multi-stage plan. Its ultimate goal is a Europe free of all nuclear
weapons, both medium-range and tactical. At the end of November, the
Soviet and American ambassadors began the difficult task of
coordinating positions in Geneva. Europe is considered a third, albeit
invisible, participant in the negotiations.
Well, it was the year of Europe. With anti-war marches of the
population and diplomatic demarches of concerned Western European
governments, she brought America to the negotiating table, reminding
that Washington could lose allies if it does not stop talking about a
limited nuclear war and does not stop calling the old continent a theater
of war. Europe has been a theater of war more often than America and
knows better what it is. This difficult knowledge is possessed both in the
East and in the West of Europe. It unites us and helps explain the
political paradox of the year: the more Western Europeans are frightened
by the Soviet threat, the more they are afraid of the Americans, who are
considering options for local nuclear conflicts.
In general, by the end of the year, it seems that the old truth has
become established: that we are unlikely to learn to love each other, but
that we need to get along if we do not want to all die together. It’s just a
pity that another year has been lost for yet another American
administration to assimilate this cardinal axiom.
The renewed dialogue offers hope. But... But no matter how it all
starts from the beginning. How would we begin to link this dialogue,
let’s say, with the development of events in Poland. But, watching
Washington’s reaction from Moscow, you see that they are struggling
with the temptation: whether to inflate internal Polish affairs to the size
of a European and world crisis. It is useful to recall some facts here. 1
Isn’t it a fact that Poland followed the path of economic crisis, financial
bankruptcy and political anarchy? Isn’t it a fact that in the trade union
“Solidarity” irresponsible demagogues and political saboteurs
increasingly spoke on behalf of the workers, who set the task not of
socialist renewal within the framework of national harmony, but of a
direct seizure of power and bloody settling of scores. Poland was sliding
into the abyss, and emergency measures erected a barrier on the path to a
national catastrophe.
Emotions are not always controllable. But, apparently, not only
emotions are present among those Western politicians who are now
protesting against the introduction of martial law in Poland. Did they
really expect that Poland would fall out of the system of socialist states
and become a Trojan horse, in the belly of which the United States and
NATO would move close to the Soviet borders? These are dangerous
calculations; they mean a destabilization of the situation in Europe that
could increase the threat of war.
But our common interests lie in ensuring that the lights of hope that
shone for us at the end of a difficult year do not go out.
December 1981*
BETWEEN ANXIETY AND HOPE

78
 The years fly by quickly, but they are not so short. When more than
three hundred more days line up in the back of your head, blocking each
other, looking back from today, December, you will not immediately see
the first, January ones with their events, characters and arshin headlines.
Every year is a long, motley chronicle. Newspapers are still writing the
end of it, but historians are already crowding around the beginning.
But in one respect, the outgoing year is, perhaps, an exception to the
series of others. He immediately sharply defined his leitmotif and carried
it from January to December persistently and strongly. And no matter
how long and how colorful the chronicle of 1981 is, its main meaning is
obvious to everyone, despite the diversity of opinions characteristic of
the modern world.
It was a year of anxiety—anxiety due to the increased threat of
nuclear war. And it was a year of struggle - the struggle against the
nuclear threat.
On New Year's Day, a person wants to lose himself in festive fun
and leave worries and anxieties at the door. And in the big world of
politics we now feel a breath of hope, the sign of the hellish mushroom
has shrunk and moved away with the start of negotiations in Geneva. No
matter how difficult these negotiations are, Soviet-American contact has
been established on the most pressing and dangerous issue - medium-
range nuclear weapons in Europe. “So the distance is not forever
obscured by clouds?” - we could ask, superimposing the words of the
poet on the political weather. Who knows! However, a breath of hope
allows us to return to the difficult matters and realities of the past year
with a lighter heart.
This was the year when nuclear alarm spilled from the offices of
politicians and specialists into the streets and squares, penetrated the
masses of ordinary people, and took over their conversations in shops
and buses, universities and churches.
The elders recalled the peace movement in the late 40s and early
50s, the collection of signatures for the Stockholm Appeal to ban the
atomic bomb. Since then, the anti-war, anti-nuclear struggle has never
been so massive and widespread, and the streams feeding this river of
life have become even more abundant and numerous, especially in
Western Europe.
Let us return, however, to January 1981, overshadowed by other
months and already half-forgotten. Ronald Reagan's administration was
taking power, and newspapers were reporting that Washington was
freezing under the winds of the Cold War. American scientists, using a
symbolic clock to calculate the approach of the world to catastrophe,
then moved the hand one more minute forward, leaving only 3 minutes
until midnight and the onset of the biblical Judgment Day. The signal of
such danger for them was America's reluctance to ratify the SALT II
Treaty. Secretary of State Haig, who had just been appointed by the new
president, speaking to senators, dropped a gloomy aphorism: “There are
more important things than peace.” (And he would give dearly now to
catch, like a sparrow, these words that have flown around the world.)

79
Secretary of Defense Weinberger explained in another Senate committee
that “a good six months” would pass before negotiations with the Soviet
Union on strategic arms limitation (and the months were unkind, and
there were more than twelve of them). And on the negotiating table,
which had not yet begun, with a bid for American superiority, they
slammed one and a half trillion dollars in military spending with a
fabulous program of military preparations for the next five years.
This was the original disposition. On their part, they assumed a
dueling pose. And they threw down the gauntlet to us, challenging us to
new rounds of the arms race, senseless and terrible. The pugnacious
cockiness demanded to accept this challenge. But the code of duelists has
nothing to do with statesmanship, with responsibility for the fate of
humanity.
There is nothing more important than peace—this was Moscow’s
response at the end of February, the second month of this year of anxiety
and struggle. From the rostrum of the XXVI Congress of the CPSU. Not
a duel, but a dialogue. Do not crush, but respect the agreements and
agreements reached. We are ready for negotiations - both on medium-
range weapons in Europe and on strategic weapons. For a summit
meeting. For expanding confidence-building measures in Europe, for
extending them to the Far East. For the demilitarization of the Persian
Gulf region. For a nuclear-free zone in Northern Europe...
Let's not simplify the picture. There is no room for miracles in the
world we live in. This is not a rope that can be pulled to its side by one or
the other of the two nuclear powers. But the world is still vigilant enough
to distinguish balance from belligerence, an invitation to cooperation
from a challenge to confrontation. The contrast between Soviet and
American positions—and dispositions—played a role as heightened
anxieties enormously expanded and strengthened the antiwar movement.
In the spring and summer there were two important political shifts,
or, if you like, discoveries. A warlike and irreconcilable America
revealed itself to the world, showing, in the words of President Reagan,
that it was “mounting a horse.” America had to open Europe, disagreeing
with its senior partner, worried at the government level, protesting in the
streets and squares. It turned out that Europe was not averse to rushing
America, which had sat on its spears. The second discovery, or shift, in
public consciousness is also connected with the first. Under Reagan, talk
about the “Soviet threat” was even louder than under Carter, but it was
the American threat that began to frighten an increasing number of
Western Europeans.
This shift was quickly detected by German Chancellor Helmut
Schmidt, an experienced recorder of public sentiment. At the end of
August, he advised his American friends to “constantly monitor” the
effect of their warlike rhetoric on the breed of Europe. “It bothers me
that so many people have mutual fears. In Europe, the fear is too great,”
Schmidt said another time. In the third, he called it absurd that “some” of
his compatriots were more afraid of America than of the Soviet Union.
Absurd? The absurdity was reinforced by the entire logic of American

80
behavior.
The year 1981 brought many characters into the arena of current
history, gave its heroes and its buffoons. Among the latter is Samuel
Cohen, the inventor of neutron weapons. The “father” of the American
atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, was ready to renounce his
brainchild, the “father” of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, was and
remains an inveterate “hawk,” and Samuel Cohen is a talkative buffoon.
In a recent interview with the French newspaper Le Cotidienne de
Paris, Cohen predicted that "nuclear conflict will begin before the end of
this century unless Western countries take a more realistic position." The
question followed about what realism should consist of.
And here is the answer: “They must agree to enter the nuclear age.
Western countries behave the way barbarians behaved in their time. They
are superstitious, they have a religious attitude towards the atom, and
they have decided that it is unthinkable for a volcano to erupt because
then everyone will die. And so they act as if the volcano doesn’t exist.”
Cohen goes on to talk about the Soviet Union: “Western countries
need to understand that nuclear weapons are the basis of the military
doctrine of the Soviet Union. If war breaks out, the Russians will have a
fantastic advantage, namely, the advantage that they believe in nuclear
weapons...”
Such are the things. Do you recognize yourself, reader, among those
Russians who “believe in nuclear weapons”? Or do you agree with those
superstitious “barbarians” who have not yet matured to civilization
according to Cohen? But jokes aside.
Humanists call for the unification of all people to prevent nuclear
war. This was the meaning of the call for “new thinking” that Bertrand
Russell and Albert Einstein addressed to world scientists a quarter of a
century ago. And for the Cohens of science and politics, “new thinking”
is precisely the assumption of the use of nuclear weapons.
And here we come to the culmination of this year of anxiety and
hope. It happened in the fall, when participants in anti-missile marches in
Bopp and London, Rome and The Hague stormed the political positions
of the governments that had signed up to the NATO decision to deploy
new American missiles in Europe, and the top leaders of the two nuclear
powers revealed the foundations of their strategy to the whole world.
This political duel began with the American President's assertion, in
Cohen's style, that "the Soviet Union considers nuclear war conceivable
and believes that it can be won." And then, without pausing for breath,
the American president sketched out a picture of the possibility of
exchanging nuclear strikes in Europe “without any of the big powers
pressing the button.” Thus Ronald Reagan confirmed the worst fears of
Western Europeans.
Moscow's response was quick to follow. It contained a categorical
refutation of American fabrications and a clear statement of the true
Soviet position:
“Expecting to win a nuclear war is dangerous madness... Only
someone who has decided to commit suicide can start a nuclear war in

81
the hope of emerging victorious.”
And further: “It would be good if the US President made a clear and
unambiguous statement rejecting the very idea of a nuclear attack as
criminal.”
This was truly the call of the year. A clear and unambiguous
statement was not heard from Washington, leaving political observers
with the impression that Moscow had won another round in the peaceful
competition for hearts and minds. Apparently, this was understood
overseas as well. In any case, this understanding was helped by increased
criticism of thoughtless militarism from the American public and,
increasingly, from among the American political elite. Apparently,
Washington is thinking about it. In mid-November, President Reagan
addressed the topic of peace. One Washington columnist, Hugh Saidi,
wrote: “If we are lucky, the President will get used to the theme of peace.
The world produces box office revenue. The world distracts critics.
Peace is healthy.”
Let's forgive this inappropriate tone for the Washington wit. If only
those whose work he covers as a White House correspondent learn some
lessons - lessons not about slicker propaganda, but about a more serious
approach to solving controversial problems, to the search for a stable,
lasting peace.
On this path they will find a sincere partner in the Soviet Union.
December 1981

82
Two and all 52 weeks of 1982

83
 JANUARY RUNAWAY
The other day there was an event about which we can say that it
was both domestic and international, intercontinental. And at the
same time, family, personal, touching everyone. We were all waiting
for this event. Everyone lived through it, and not everyone has
forgotten it. This is the coming of the New Year.
People have always been fascinated - and cannot help but be
fascinated - by the mystery of time passing without stopping, despite
all the pleas, such as the classical, Faustian one: “Stop, moment!”
No, it’s not worth even that moment when, to the clink of glasses,
one year gives way to another, when behind one, overcome distance
of time, another, still unknown distance opens - the distance of
another year.
There is no indulgence or respite for that ruddy, round-cheeked
toddler, in the form of which artists love to depict the New Year. The
little one is immediately burdened like an adult, and he must carry
the whole load of work, worries, and problems thrown by his
predecessor on the road on New Year's winter night.
And in the new year of 1982, the inexorable march of days and
everyday life immediately began. Including in the international
arena.
And now in the African republic of Ghana (population 10
million), 35-year-old Air Force captain Jerry Rawlings carries out a
coup d'etat and arrests President Limann, whom he himself put in
power in the summer of 1979, and now removed, accusing his
regime of corruption and abuses .
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak appoints a new prime
minister and swears in a new cabinet. They say that foreign policy
will be basically the same, including relations with Israel, but
economic policy promises “Egypt for everyone,” and not just for “fat
cats,” not just for the parasitic layer that grew and became unruly
under Sadat. Let us not guess whether this is a sop to the hungry
masses or a conscious departure from the previous course, but, in any
case, already three months after his violent death, Sadat appears more
and more clearly as what he was during his lifetime - an anti-people
ruler, and not a political one. a seer, as his overseas friends and
patrons portrayed him.
In Washington, National Security Adviser Richard Allen did not
cross the threshold of the New Year. Deputy Secretary of State
William Clark, a former California judge and personal friend of
Reagan, was appointed in his place. Allen was dishonest, and most
importantly, unlike his predecessors such as Kissinger and
Brzezinski, he turned out to be a failure in terms of behind-the-
scenes self-assertion in the White House. But it's not just a matter of
changing faces. By all accounts, the coordination of the foreign
policy steps of the Reagan administration is lame, and this
deficiency, it is believed, should be eliminated by Clark, who is close
to the president and knows how to get along with the secretary of

84
state...
In general, the mosaic of international life is as colorful as
always.
The UN Security Council has returned to the issue of Israel's
annexation of the Golan Heights. The Israelis, who illegally settled
this part of Syrian territory, have already announced a plan to
increase the number of settlers there from seven and a half thousand
to 40 thousand in four years. Syria demands that the Security
Council, not limiting itself to condemning the annexation, adopt
sanctions against Israel, that is, punitive measures. This is a legal
requirement, but the Americans are threatening to block it and veto
it.
Here is another example of Washington's duplicity. In
connection with the introduction of martial law in Poland on
December 13, 1981, he announces so-called sanctions against the
Soviet Union, although there is no Soviet intervention in Polish
events. And he rears up when it comes to sanctions against a state
that, in front of everyone, is openly pocketing someone else’s
territory.
As last year, the main diplomatic battles are being played out in
and around Europe.
Let me remind you that 1981 was marked by the fight against the
nuclear threat, and it was connected primarily with plans to deploy
new American missiles in Western Europe and with American
doctrines allowing for the possibility of a limited nuclear war. It was
this range of issues that primarily determined the temperature in
Soviet-American relations, and in East-West relations in general. It
also caused differences between Washington and Western European
capitals and a powerful increase in anti-war and anti-nuclear
sentiment.
This range of questions is not far-fetched. These are really
questions of peace and war, a quiet life or the threat of nuclear death.
At the end of last year and at the beginning of this year, we are
dealing with a large operation of political distortion and
manipulation. The organizers are carrying out this operation quite
consciously, but many in the West joined it without realizing the
intentions of the organizers.
The essence of the operation is that Washington would like to
protect it from the problem of war and peace and shift the attention
of Western European and world communities to Poland, taking
advantage of the introduction of martial law there. By intrusively
interfering with it, they are trying to inflate the Vputripol case to the
size of a global crisis.
It seems that Washington would like to use this thermometer to
measure the temperature in East-West relations. But what can it
show, this thermometer? Just the freezing point?! And with the
Polish “issue,” Washington would like to solve problems in relations

85
with Western European allies, as they say, by tightening up
discipline in the North Atlantic bloc. And the Americans are not at
all averse to directing the public protest movement in this same
direction, thereby depriving it of its anti-war - and anti-American -
character.
More specifically, Western Europeans are being asked to join
those anti-Polish and anti-Soviet sanctions, mainly of an economic
nature, that President Reagan announced at the end of December.
The foreign ministers of the countries of the European Economic
Community, the so-called “ten,” spoke on this topic. As one French
newspaper described it, it was “Europe's search for an external
accord” with the United States. In their words and formulations, the
ministers, distorting the essence of what was happening in Poland,
giving unsolicited advice and almost instructions to the Polish
leadership, found “external agreement” with Washington. But they
did not join anti-Soviet economic actions.
And Greece refused to maintain even “external consent.”
President Papandreou pointedly fired the deputy foreign minister
who signed the “tens” communiqué.
It is appropriate to recall some facts. Last year, American exports
to the USSR - due to previous sanctions - decreased compared to
1980, while those of the seven main "tens" countries increased - they
were almost 7 times more than the US. These seven countries'
imports from the USSR were 30 times greater than American
imports.
What then will the lieutenant achieve if the company still does
not obey him?
President Reagan met at the White House with German
Chancellor Schmidt. The Chancellor, who had finished a ten-day
vacation on Sanibel Island, off the coast of Florida, was waiting, as
the American press warned, for the toughest and toughest
conversation, almost an ultimatum from the American president. In
Washington, Schmidt is considered the main Western European
disobedient. He not only repeatedly spoke about the uselessness and
even harmfulness of American economic sanctions, but also objected
to the political assessments of Washington, which bitterly blamed the
Soviet Union for introducing martial law in Poland.
What is the result of the Washington meeting? As the London
Times put it, the parties “plastered over” their differences, but by no
means eliminated them. The Bonn leader, obviously maneuvering
under pressure from the US President, accepted the American thesis
about “the responsibility of the Soviet Union for the events in
Poland.” But there was no unanimity of opinion regarding sanctions.
Now, going beyond the events under review, a few words about
the problem as a whole.
As for Poland itself, the essence of the matter was clearly
formulated by the Chairman of the Military Council of National

86
Salvation, General Wojciech Jaruzelski, in his Christmas address to
the Poles. “In the history of Poland,” he said, “there have often been
moments when one had to choose not between good and evil, but
between greater and lesser evil.” “We made this choice,” Jaruzelski
emphasized.
Choosing the lesser evil is the introduction of martial law. And
the great evil, a true catastrophe, would be the anti-socialist choice
that was imposed by extremists, anarchists and direct agents of
foreign intelligence services from the Solidarity trade union. It would
have been the choice of a fratricidal conflict that was already on the
threshold, an attempt to violently seize power and change the system
with all the accompanying settling of scores, with a bloodbath, with
lampposts turned into gallows. And this choice of a greater, worse
evil would fall on the economic chaos that already exists and
painfully disadvantages Poles, in which national income fell by 15
percent in the past year alone.
If you look at things soberly and take all the circumstances into
account, it turns out that those people in the West who are outraged
by the military situation in Poland are in favor of a greater,
catastrophic evil.
But with the option of a greater evil for the Poles, a greater
international evil would also happen. The American and other
inspirers of the Polish counter-revolution would, of course, interfere
even more unceremoniously in Polish affairs, considering the
conditions suitable for tearing Poland out of the system of socialist
states. This is where a genuine international crisis would arise. The
ship of the European world, already not entirely stable, could not
withstand the new heavy load, tilt dangerously and, what good, go to
the bottom.
Would statesmen in the West and simply serious people really
prefer this, fortunately unfulfilled, option? Are they really for the
sense of responsibility to give way to emotions, considerations of
anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, cheap demagoguery and
propaganda?!
And one more New Year’s question - about the fate of the
Soviet-American negotiations on medium-range nuclear weapons in
Europe. The meetings that began on November 30 last year in
Geneva were undoubtedly the most important of the nearly three
hundred meetings that took place last year in the Swiss capital. Do
we need to remind you what hopes Europeans and not only
Europeans pin on these Soviet-American negotiations?
Moscow is in favor of resuming the Geneva meetings,
interrupted for the Christmas and New Year holidays. Meanwhile,
there were hotheads in America who, in connection with the
developments in Poland, demanded that these negotiations, which
had begun so difficult, be abandoned. As if they are only important
for the Soviet Union and not of equal importance for the United

87
States and even more important for their Western European allies?
In Washington, in this case, it was not hot heads, but ordinary
common sense that prevailed. At least for now, reason prevailed. The
Geneva negotiations, as agreed, will resume in a few days.
As one Bonn figure said, criticizing the latest US economic
sanctions against the Soviet Union, trade is not a gate that can be
opened and closed. American farmers learned what closed crops
were when Carter imposed an embargo on the sale of crops to the
Soviet Union. Last summer, Reagan, as is known, lifted this
embargo, and now, having taken new discriminatory measures, he
still refrained from introducing an embargo.
Negotiations on arms control are also not a faucet. Let's hope
Washington has realized this truth. In any case, from various
Washington official offices, from high-ranking officials, we heard
that the “lines of communication” between Washington and Moscow
cannot be interrupted, that the aggravation of the situation makes the
East-West dialogue even more necessary.
January 1982

TRUTH VERSUS MYTH

“There is a balance; it exists not on paper, but in reality. And the
United States does not need to “rearmament”, because it did not lag
behind the USSR. “Rearmament” under the pretext of supposedly
equalizing parity in reality means a desire for military superiority.”
This situation, emphasizing the actual relationship between the
military potentials of the two powers and warning against a further
arms race, is well known. Its truth has been proven more than once.
But rarely has the evidence been as strong and convincing as in the
book “Where the Threat to Peace Comes From,” prepared by the
competent Soviet authorities and published by Voenizdat. Hundreds
of precise figures and other verified information create a solid
foundation on which this truth stands, on which, I would like to add,
it will stand and win the battle with those who, with unseemly goals,
shout about the disturbed balance and, of course, about the growing
“Soviet threat” .
The myth of the “Soviet threat” was born and took root overseas,
for some there it became the core of political philosophy and
practical activity, for others it was the key to extracting multi-billion-
dollar profits. From there, from the United States, it was launched
around the world as one of the main products of American
ideological export. And this product, let us not be mistaken, finds
sales, although, like any product, it is subject to the bizarre laws of
fluctuations in market conditions - the political climate in the world.
The myth is as old as the post-war arms race. However, it does
not cease to serve as its most powerful engine. Does everyone
remember that back in the 50s, under the pretext of “lagging behind
in bombers” (of course, from the Soviet Union), the Pentagon

88
extracted corresponding large appropriations from the American
Congress? When an entire armada of American strategic bombers
was built, the American learned that from the very beginning the
number of Soviet bombers had been inflated by the pushers by 3-4
times. In 1960, the turn of the “lag” in ground-based intercontinental
ballistic missiles began. John Kennedy, who ran for president from
the Democratic Party, put forward the “missile gap” as one of the
main accusations against the Eisenhower administration and his rival,
Republican Richard Nixon. When Kennedy was elected, it turned out
that the Soviet “missile threat” had been exaggerated by 15-20 times.
These are well-known—and startling—facts of the manipulation
of public opinion.
Throughout post-war history, it was not the Soviet Union, but the
United States that initiated the creation of new types of weapons. In
building its armed forces and creating new types of weapons, the
Soviet Union only responded to the threats created by the West. And
the Soviet military doctrine - unlike the American one - has always
been and is based on the principle of retaliatory, that is, defensive
actions.
The book I am reviewing contains a table that shows who owned
and owns the initiative in creating new weapons systems.
Nuclear weapons: created by the USA in the mid-40s, by the
USSR in the late 40s.
Intercontinental strategic bombers: USA - in the mid-50s, USSR
- in the late 50s.
Nuclear submarines: USA - mid-50s, USSR - late 50s.
Individually targeted multiple warheads: USA - late 60s, USSR -
mid 70s.
Now the Americans, also the first, began producing cruise
missiles and neutron ammunition.
And if we take a kind of political weapon system, then overseas
the fiction about the “Soviet threat” is constantly being modernized
and used for one thing or another, always harmful to the world as a
whole. In the mid-70s they were given a decisive role in torpedoing
détente. And in the early 1980s, these same weapons of
disinformation and fear were put to use to achieve new record-
breaking military programs. If you imagine a scale defining the
“Soviet threat,” then no matter how great the indicators were under
Carter, under Reagan they immediately jumped sharply, as did the
military budget. And a particularly important place in the system of
propaganda support for new American military programs was given
to the Pentagon brochure entitled “Soviet Military Power,” released
at the end of September last year. Then they said that the Pentagon
intended to scare the American to death - and not only him (the
brochure was immediately translated into the main European
languages) < They fired from the biggest cannon of the big lie, but...
missed. The widely advertised publication lacked one small detail -

89
information about the American military machine, against which
Soviet military power was being created. They refused to see the log
in their own eye, and what a log!
This gap is filled by the book “Where the Threat to Peace Comes
From,” an authoritative Soviet response to another American
challenge.
Already in the first section, exposing the claims of the
Washington product for objectivity, the book provides a lot of
comparative data on different categories of the military potential of
the two countries, primarily nuclear, the military budget, the military
industry, the presence of bases and troops abroad, the sale of
weapons to other states, etc. America is clearly joining in, trumpeting
its lag. The authors of the Pentagon ordnance, who scrupulously
counted the number of Soviet nuclear weapons carriers, for example,
are further reminded that with one cumulative launch/flight, US
strategic forces can lift into the air 10 thousand nuclear weapons with
a yield of 50 kilotons to 10 megatons, while Soviet - 7 thousand . A
long-established expression of extreme fear appears on the faces of
American “hawks” when they talk about the growth of the Soviet
naval forces, in particular about the appearance of two aircraft-
carrying ships “Minsk” and “Kiev” and the missile cruiser “Kirov”,
but for some reason they forget that the US Navy has 20 aircraft
carriers (three of them nuclear-powered, each carrying 90 aircraft)
and nine nuclear-powered missile cruisers. To listen to the same
“hawks” from Washington, they are extremely concerned about
Soviet arms supplies to developing countries. But they again suffer
from forgetfulness: the United States is the world's largest arms
exporter, accounting for 45 percent of the trade in these goods (and
another 20 percent for other NATO states), and between 1970 and
1980 it sold weapons to $123.5 billion.
Even more detailed information is given in the second section of
the book, “The US War Machine,” in particular in the chapter
“Financing Militarism.”
It is worth taking a closer look at the picture of the growth of
American weapons. Here is an example: in the 70s, without
increasing the number of carriers, the capabilities of US strategic
offensive forces in terms of delivering nuclear weapons doubled -
amid panicky cries about the “Soviet threat.” The Reagan
administration plans to increase spending on strategic forces by
almost one and a half times, and total spending on the National
Defense program in the period 1981-1985 will increase by more than
2.2 times, and the rate of increase will be higher than at the height of
the Vietnam War.
As for conventional armed forces, general-purpose forces, it is
not without reason that their main groups are already deployed and
maintained outside American territory in peacetime - more than half
a million military personnel, one and a half thousand military bases

90
and facilities in 32 states. This reflects the overall aggressive nature
of US military doctrine, and its dangerous edge sticks out most
strongly in the approach to the use of nuclear weapons. In contrast to
the Soviet, purely defensive doctrine, the US military doctrine places
emphasis on the first preemptive strike, on the multivariate use of
nuclear weapons, on the possibility of a “limited” nuclear war
outside American territory. This approach leads to a decrease in the
“nuclear threshold” and to an increase in nuclear danger.
The book “Where the Threat to Peace Comes From” corrects the
malicious distortion that Pentagon propagandists would like to
introduce into the real picture of the relationship between the
potentials of two powers and two military alliances. At the same
time, she calls for the preservation of what exists—the current
approximate balance of power, which makes it possible to avoid new
rounds of endless and meaningless military command of arms.
January 1982
TWO WEEKS OVER THE OCEAN
1
After Ronald Reagan, taking advantage of the introduction of
martial law in Poland, canceled Aeroflot flights to Washington, you
enter the United States through Canada. There is nothing new under
the sun. This was the case a decade and a half ago, when it was from
Canada that Aeroflot began to explore the North American continent,
launching there bulky, noisy Tu-114s, in which the first class, as I
remember, was like a railway compartment - with sofas on the sides
and a table in the middle. Now you are flying on an Il-62, ten hours
in the air - from Moscow to Montreal, there from the new, deserted
Mirabell airport you are traveling among the untouched snow
sparkling in the sun to another airport - Dorval, motionless smoke
from the pipes hangs picturesquely under the blue cold sky,
thousands of cars splashed with icy mud are waiting for workers in
the parking lots of the General Motors plant, and you look around at
all the signs of foreign countries in a lazy half-sleep - after all, it is
already night in Moscow, in an involuntary stupor, from which you
have not yet emerged after an intercontinental, transcendental,
fatalistic journey.
And suddenly switching internal speeds. In Dorval you have to
hurry and fuss, a flight to New York appears three hours earlier than
indicated on your ticket, you learn about this from the employees of
the American airline Isteri, who are ready to take care of you where
Aeroflot routes are blocked. Customs officers are American, albeit
on Canadian territory, far-flung outposts of a powerful nation.
Succumbing to your haste, they stamp it without opening your
suitcase or even your briefcase, but the baggage check-in for your
flight is already covered in smoke. To keep up, you run and roll the
cart along some long roads - there’s no time to look! - along the
corridors, past some stalls full of goods... You roll until you come

91
across a series of narrow passages, each of which is guarded by a
man in a smart uniform, leaning out waist-deep from behind his desk.
You brake the cart, but you don’t have time to brake yourself.
Waving your ticket and passport, you want to infect this man with
your impatience, your fear of being late for the plane - but that was
not the case. The man calmly processes another passenger, and
pushes you aside with a hand gesture, ordering you to wait in line
beyond the “red line.” You don’t immediately cool down, you don’t
immediately understand what the red line is? The repeated gesture is
even more commanding, and you retreat a little yourself, at the same
time pushing your suitcase and briefcase with your foot, but the man
continues to insist: “Wait beyond the red line!” And then, looking
back, you finally see this really red line in nature, drawn on the floor
one and a half meters from the edge of the desk, behind which stands
a strict uniformed man.
And it dawns on you that at the Canadian Dorval airport the
border of the United States of America runs along this line, pushed
back to Montreal for some American-Canadian reasons of mutual
convenience, and that in front of you is a representative of the US
immigration service, fulfilling the role that is assigned at our
international airports border guards. He is not nearly as juicy an
American immigration inspector as our border guard, but he is just as
adamant, and he has no sympathy for a late passenger. Filling out,
under his dictation, the form of a non-immigrant foreigner who was
given a visa to the United States for two weeks, with a short, acute
feeling of hostility - because of him you will be late! — you look at
the metal strip with his name on his chest. And the surname is etched
in the memory. Someone Hayes...
When, already without the cart, which was not allowed past the
red line, dragging a suitcase and briefcase in your hands, you run up
to the desired air gate, the empty one died, the gate closed and behind
the large windows in the lights of the early winter evening a New
York plane rolls off from the pier, on which you were still late
because Inspector Hayes carried out his duty as expected, leisurely
and vigilant.
And the “ride” is indeed smooth, and an hour before landing at
New York’s LaGuardia Airport we sail over Manhattan, and, closing
in on the memory, in reality the two 110-story towers of the World
Trade Center shine with matte lights, the top of the head sparkles
brightly “ Empire State Building,” and everything else is still there—
the dark abyss of the Hudson. The East River and bays, the precious
necklaces of famous bridges, the trembling, sparkling, bee-like
movement of the lights of a huge night city...

92
 On earth, fantasy disappears. The biting wind of what they say is
the coldest winter in a century, the chaos of people and cars, the oval
of the airport terminal in the evening lights. And an anchor, a refuge
and a refuge on a familiar and yet foreign land - Viktor Soldatov, New
York correspondent for Izvestia. The rest of the journey has to be
postponed until the morning - the last plane to Washington has already
left. A tired, sleepy mind from a sleepless day languidly chews on the
sight of skyscrapers from the Triborough Bridge, empty frost-bitten
streets and avenues, cars numb in the snowdrifts by the roadside, and
this lethargy does not go away even in the apartment on Riverside
Drive, in which he once lived for six years old, even when looking at
the Hudson, freezing outside her windows.
And in the morning again LaGuardia airport and from the plane
again a look at the first collection of houses and houses on all earth,
but there is no longer the night, witchcraft flickering of lights, ash-gray
tones are everywhere, plates of ice are dimming on the Hudson, and
winter New York, like a lonely stroke in the picture of a cold world
dominated by the Atlantic Ocean. Over the ocean, through the frosty
haze, the red-yellow flame of a reluctant January dawn spreads,
blindingly painful for the eyes. An uncomfortable, unkind winter tale.
Less than an hour's flight from Washington, the industrial Northeast,
one of the most populated areas of the United States, floats under its
wing, but in the cold that has descended on spoiled Americans, even
successive human settlements look abandoned, lifeless, the same ash-
gray colors among large spaces snow.
The plane passed low over the Potomac, and again the friendly
hands of the guardians, the Washington correspondents of Izvestia.
National Airport is located in Virginia, and from there you get to
Washington proper via a bridge over the Potomac. From the foggy
drizzle, a reminder of the recent, internationally televised plane crash,
crane arms protrude as they fish out the remains of a Boeing 737,
immediately after takeoff, crashing into the river as a coffin for 78
people.
Connecticut Avenue. Small motel. The clerk on duty warns about
a problem with hot water, which will certainly be fixed by evening.
— Why not start a report? - suggests a colleague. - Washington -
and without hot water... - And it’s true, not a far-fetched topic, right
off the bat about the decline of American service, but I already started
from the stove, from the airport, and the hot water started running in
the evening. And what, after all, is the demand for a hotel that is cheap
in today’s times—and with current inflation—where a room costs
“only” $43 a night? What is the demand if, moreover, the color TV
works uninterruptedly?!
One nation under God - and in front of the television screen. This
amendment to the American Oath of Allegiance is long overdue.

93
Television cannot be avoided in any, especially journalistic,
introduction to America. Among the shortcomings and omissions of
this short trip to New York, Washington and San Francisco, I count -
and quite seriously - the fact that I was not able to sufficiently soak in
television images of current American life: this sharpens hearing and
vision, although it does not replace one’s own, initial impressions from
meetings with people and cities.
But there were morning minutes when, without having time to
look at the street through an ordinary window, he opened, switching
channels, numerous TV windows and immediately saw, by chance and
for sure, the entire range of America - from saints to criminals.
Invariably, on some channel, from early morning, a young man with a
disheveled look with an elegant pair of steel bracelets on his wrists
was already shown - and this meant that at night life went on, someone
was robbed and killed and someone was caught in order to show the
fresh police catch to those who woke up Americans. And with such an
immutability, the image of a holy man appeared, with a lean face, in a
neat civilian suit, the image of a traveling salesman from the gospel,
humbly proclaiming that he had already given 50 years - 30 of them
television years - to the spread of the word of God and, on the
occasion of the anniversary, slowly framed in thick crystal a
commemorative medal rotated on the screen, emitting pure, clear
reflections - for only 50 dollars, just a dollar for every year of well-fed
and carefree, judging by the appearance of the hero of the day,
asceticism...
Twice in two weeks, TV images of American heroes from 1982
appeared. One was first shown in a still photograph - long unshaven,
with disheveled hair and in a wrinkled tracksuit, and then he spoke and
moved around in a new, ironed uniform, next to his wife, who was
tenderly clinging to him. It was Brigadier General James Doser, the
second-highest ranking American officer in NATO forces in southern
Europe, kidnapped by Red Brigade terrorists in Italy, in Verona, and
miraculously released in Padua six weeks later by special commandos
from the Italian police. The second hero was introduced by President
Reagan himself, in the most solemn atmosphere - delivering the
traditional State of the Union address to both houses of Congress and
to television viewers. Senators and congressmen, ministers and
members of the Supreme Court rose to greet the hero with an ovation.
And he stood frozen with embarrassment in the guest gallery, and to
his right was his own wife, and to his left was Nancy Reagan, the
president’s wife.

94
 One nation under God - and in front of television cameras.
When the aforementioned Boeing crashed into the Potomac, the
television crews were on the scene before the police and rescue
helicopters. And everyone was busy with their work - the helicopter
hovered over the steaming water with icy steam, television crews were
filming both those being rescued and those being rescued, onlookers,
crowded on the bridge, watched as a young woman froze in the water -
she could no longer scream and only opened her mouth in a silent plea
for help, and she no longer had the strength to hold on to the rope
ladder offered by the helicopter. Everyone was busy with their own
business, and the young woman was drowning in front of everyone, in
front of the television cameras. And then Lenny Skutnik, a 28-year-old
Washington clerk, also standing among the onlookers on the bridge,
could not stand it. He threw himself into the icy water. Saved a
drowning woman. And, the only one, he filled the vacant place of the
hero, which was open at that moment. anyone who wants it. He was
bombarded with thousands of congratulations. Then the White House
called and invited him to the President’s speech in Congress and sat
him down next to the President’s wife. And the president told
everyone that there are no shortage of heroes in America, that there are
heroes in America - people like Lenny Skatnik.
But the president’s wife, having painted herself in the television
rays, immediately disappeared surrounded by Secret Service agents,
and the president did not even find a moment for Lenny Skutnik, and
doubt crept into the hero, like other Americans: is this not another
outwardly cordial , but essentially a cynical political gesture?
The current president loves a heroic theme. It was he who, taking
office on January 20, 1981, said: “Those who say that we live in a time
when there are no heroes simply do not know where to look for them.
You can see heroes every day when they enter or exit the factory
gates.”
Great words. But a year later, many of the heroes, leaving the
factory gates, can no longer enter them. They found themselves out of
work thanks to (what an inappropriate word!) the economic policies of
Ronald Reagan.
2
One fact from modern history. Exactly one week before the 1980
presidential election, a televised debate took place between rivals
Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They were broadcast throughout
America. Addressing voters watching their televisions, Reagan said,
“When you make your decision, it would be a good idea to ask
yourself: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Are
goods in stores more accessible to you now than they were four years
ago? Has the unemployment rate in the country increased or decreased
now compared to what it was four years ago?”
It was a good, winning move. Carter had nothing to hide - under

95
 -С—

him, Americans began to live worse. And he, paying the price, lost the
election, and Reagan became president, promising a “new beginning,”
an “era of national renewal,” and, of course, a better life.
After the first year of the new presidency, the time has come to
take stock of the first results. Politicians often have a girlish memory.
But they do not whisper their promises in private; they make promises
to everyone and publicly. And the authoritative polling organization
Gallup did not fail to ask Americans: are you better off or worse off
than you were a year ago? Worse - answered 41 percent. Better - said
28 percent. About the same was the opinion of the others.
Yankelovich’s company asked the same question, leaving only
“better” or “worse” and omitting “about the same.” 59 percent
answered worse. 36 percent is better.
In the first place in the everyday life of Americans, like other
people, is, of course, not foreign policy, but the daily home economy,
personal and family well-being or ill-being. Americans as a nation feel
that they are sliding down the mountain of the world's highest standard
of living and are lagging behind in the growth rate of industrial
production. They lost the lead to the Japanese in labor productivity.
Real incomes are falling, and other nations, primarily Western
European ones, are crowding them out on Olympus.
Is life better or worse? I also asked this question. Sobriety
prevailed in the assessments of my interlocutors, and there was a lack
of optimism in their forecasts.
...Georgetown, an old respectable district of Washington. Modest
on the outside and cozy on the inside. In the small living room there is
a calm asymmetry of old-fashioned things. The owner is a well-known
columnist, knowledgeable, highly experienced, thoughtful, and
frequented in many places. When asked about the mood of Americans,
he answers: unimportant, low, disgusting. People are becoming bitter -
economic recession, high unemployment.
... Designed for more than three hundred passengers, the wide-
body DC-10 routinely crosses the continent from east to west in the
evening sky - from Washington to San Francisco. The neighbor on the
left has an intelligent look and the courageous profile of film actor
Gregory Peck. Who is he? No, he is not an actor and not an
intellectual. Just a farmer. Family farm - 40 acres of land and also
works part-time for a larger farmer. Name is Albert Petersen. The
peach on the business card is turning yellow. Fresh and fresh-frozen
vegetables are the business of my travel companion, and he will return
to him by flying to San Francisco, taking a car left in a paid parking lot
at the airport, and immediately going at night to his home near Fresno,
where I also once visited - we even find mutual friends. How is the
farmer doing? He complains about low purchasing prices (and the
buyer complains about high prices, and, apparently, only the
intermediaries are quite happy with the profits). And behind his
complaints we have an incomprehensible, but very depressing problem

96
for American farmers - record harvests, overproduction. He should go
to Japan: food is expensive there, the Japanese, as he read, spend three
times as much as Americans on food.
In general, the Japanese are often remembered, and not just
remembered - they are visible everywhere. The Japanese are an object
of envy, and sometimes even anger, especially in the automotive
industry. In 1981, the Japanese produced more than 1 million cars, and
the Americans, the absolute champions of the automobile of the 20th
century, produced just over 6 million. And every fourth car sold in the
United States is Japanese.
...In New York, a professional politician (a Democrat who left
Washington after the Republicans came to power and found refuge in
a large corporation) foresees at least “two turbulent years.” He is
worried about the crisis of the cities, they have less and less money,
although the urban economy - from roads to bridges - is completely
neglected. Crime, he believes, will jump; for desperate unemployed
people this is the “last resort” to get by and survive difficult times.
Ronald Reagan promised “national renewal” by returning to the
old “virtues” of capitalism, to pre-Roosevelt times. He promised to
“shine the government from the people’s hump,” that is, to reduce
Washington’s interference in economic and social life. Having broken
the shackles of state regulation, he promised to untie the hands of
business and set it free so that in the wilds and jungles of capitalism
natural selection would be strengthened, in which the strong triumph
over the weak, and the weak are guilty simply because they are weak;
“let the loser cry”, not counting on help and compassion in the face of
a harsh fate. This was the philosophy of the “conservative revolution”
that would return America to its athletic form.
The main attraction not only for big business, but also for the
average American was the plan to sharply cut taxes - income and
corporations. Thus, it was supposed to give the consumer additional
money, which he would take to the market, and business - new
opportunities for investment, which would ultimately lead to an
increase in business activity and replenish the state treasury a
hundredfold. The problem is the government itself, Reagan
emphasized. And therefore - to reduce the exorbitant management
apparatus. Reduce various types of benefits and assistance to those in
need. Reducing federal government spending, stopping the growth of
the national debt, and eliminating the budget deficit that feeds inflation
within three years is evil number one. There was something about this
set that appealed to the American “middle class,” which dislikes the
Washington bureaucracy and is willing to see the source of its
misfortune in the backwaters who live off its tax dollars.
In one area, however, it was proposed not less, but more of the
same thing - much more military spending in order to win America a
position of strength in relations with the whole world, especially with
the Soviet Union. But even here Ronald Reagan is true to himself.

97
 -С—

Because it is the same logic, the same preaching and practice - the
strong win in American life, freed from the shackles of social
compassion, and the strong have the right to dominate the whole
world.
This was the application. A year later, the old, old truth triumphs:
it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines...
Unemployment and economic recession are rampant in the country.
American observers, using unfamiliar terminology, say that the
administration's policies are polarizing society along "class lines" -
into rich and poor. Who's life became better under Reagan? 81 percent
felt that people with high incomes and large corporations were better
off.
...Lafayette Square is buried in white, thick snow. The snow
glistens cheerfully and painfully in the sun and crunches like a Russian
underfoot. Across Pennsylvania Avenue, a smart car
The White House looks TINY. And closer to 16th Street, just like
the pictures - three green tents on white snow. In front of the tents are
two guys and a girl, and some photographer is putting this whole
bunch, along with the White House in the background, into the frame.
Everything is so elegant on the sparkling snow that at first you don’t
take seriously the distress signal sent by three tents, two guys and a
girl. You are just a passerby, getting out of a warm car and going to
another warm place to have lunch. But the frost is bitter, and the wind
is angry, and one of the three has a red nose and a cold voice, and all
three, together with their comrades, have been spending the night in
these tents in the snow - since the end of November. Another form of
protest. In this brutal winter, people here in Washington are freezing
and even dying without shelter or warmth.
Ronald Reagan reproaches those who do not know where in
America to look for heroes who live by the laws of human
compassion. But he himself does not want to find these poor fellows in
front of the tents, although they are visible from his windows and live
in the snow for the sake of solidarity with the unfortunate. He does not
know and does not recognize them, because - even if they are filmed
for newspapers and television - they are few in number, in the grand
national scheme of things they are only apothecary weights on large
political scales. But this also has its own dynamics. Yes, the president
still knows how to please Americans, and many are inclined to give
him another chance. But the more disastrous the results of his first year
in power are, the less credibility he has.

3
He came into view unexpectedly and abruptly. This is how those
whom I often saw only in photographs or in television images appear
in reality. He stood with his back against the bar and, like everyone

98
else, held a tall glass of cocktail in his right hand.1 Pale face, whitish
hair, the kind in which gray hair does not take root and is not noticed,
a clearly defined forehead under a Slavic cowlick. Small wrinkles
scattered across the forehead and face, evoking the image of a broken
mirror. In this Washington company, where almost everyone was
insiders, he was addressed by his friend Zbig, but for us, outsiders, he
remained Mr. Brzezinski.
- Do you want us to come over? - suggested a colleague. - Why? -
Well, why? For a collection.
Brzezinski looked at us with suspicion, as if we were spies, but
immediately used us for his latest, freshest concept; Later, when the
speeches began, he was introduced as such - as a famous conceptualist.
Strong phrases, one after another, flew out of the ironically opening
mouth, revealing the ability to formulate skillfully and dramatically.
American-Soviet relations, he said, undermined by Afghanistan, are
now at a crossroads - because of Poland. Either a sharp and long-term
deterioration, or a turn towards stabilization. He did not talk about how
to turn towards stabilization, but he warned about deterioration that it
could even lead to war. The conceptualist said the last word, albeit
with difficulty, hesitating, and not without hesitation. But he spoke
out. And he explained - to war not because of Poland, but, let’s say,
because of the Middle East. As if this softened the gloom of his
prophecy and made the war more excusable.
In the hall of the Institute of Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins
University in Washington, American ambassadors, State Department
employees, famous journalists, people from well-known corporations
who are not indifferent to international life, professors who only
yesterday were on a kind of “academic leave”, holding certain
positions, were crowding with glasses in their hands. other positions in
one or another proximity to the helm of the ship of state, and
ambitious young graduate students and graduate students dreaming of
getting into the captain's, presidential wheelhouse. A strange and,
however, familiar ritual for Washington, when first there are cocktails
and half-social, half-business chatter, recognizing acquaintances and
sniffing the strangers, and then lunch at large round tables and after
salad and roast beef, with cake, coffee and cognac, contentedly
satiatedly pushing their chairs back, crossing their legs and putting a
napkin to their lips, they listen to two self-confident speakers who do
not look at the papers, who, by some undisputed right in America, are
discussing how to deal with Poland and together with the American
allies (in their relations with Poland) and is it possible to turn things
around so that Poland’s neighbor - the Soviet Union - would sacrifice
its own interests for the sake of American ones...
The symposium was entitled: “The Polish Crisis and US Foreign
Policy.” And the two main speakers, for dessert, were the former Pole
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who returned to the academic groves after
government service under Carter, and George Ball, Deputy Secretary

99
 -С—

of State under Kennedy and Johnson, a prominent lawyer and

representative of the “eastern establishment”, far from young, but
physically a strong, large man with a large, puffy face and a steep
chin. Conceptualist Brzezinski on previous translations. itVTWix has
worked hard to destabilize America. capo-Soviet relations, poisoning
them with suspicion and mistrust. Now, in connection with the martial
law in Poland, he lamented that socialism was closed to “renewal,
renewal and change.” And what do you want to do with him then?
George Ball is one of those sowers who never tire of sowing the seeds
of foreign policy realism into American soil, where, alas, the grains of
aggressive chauvinism grow better on the abundant fertilizers of
politicking and demagoguery. And here he was not talking about what
to do with Poland or the Soviet Union, but about what to do with
American foreign policy, which frightens American allies, which, in
his opinion, is not only at a crossroads, but is going the wrong way. He
warned against attempts to shake, taking advantage of the events in
Poland, the pillars of the post-war European order, because everyone
needs the temple of peace, and if it collapses, it could cover America
too.
In the debate, George Ball seemed to prevail. In any case, at the
end, when the coffee and cognac were drunk, Brzezinski, answering
questions, seemed to move in his direction.
My colleague and I went out onto Massachusetts Avenue. It was
dark, cold and deserted, and only dirty yellow snow, chewed up by car
tires, flew from under the wheels of rare cars. In general, everything is
nearby, everything is on the spot - the White House, Congress,
ministries, embassies, monuments to the great dead and residences of
the living, some of which are clamoring for a warm place in history.
Outside the patch, unknown to its inhabitants, splashed a large,
unsettled sea of Negro Washington with other, everyday concerns. The
houses on the sovereign's patch looked sleepy, but their silence did not
deceive. The hour was not so late, and behind the silent walls, of
course, the brew of politics was boiling and gurgling, and the chefs
without high starched caps, with cooks on hand, were preparing the
next dish, or, let’s say, the dish of the next crisis.
This should be emphasized more strongly: whether in sweltering
August or January, when the snow shines on the hills like a beautiful
glaze, in the American capital you immediately plunge into an
atmosphere of nervous self-excitation, heightened passions, yet
another crisis. And in general, it doesn’t matter what label this crisis is
labeled - El Salvador or Poland, the “gas-pipe” project or the mythical
Libyan terrorists who allegedly infiltrated the States with the task of
destroying the president, vice-president, secretary of state and
everyone else who comes to hand , American leaders. Whatever the
name of the portioned dish of the next crisis, it always contains a
mixture of arrogant imperial manners and intra-American intrigues,
the struggle of different groups and individual ambitions.

100
 Brzezinski and Ball are well-known people, out of work, and they
are also democrats; their voices are not so listened to in the current
republican kitchen. Louder was the voice of another meeting that took
place on the same Washington evening - a meeting of today's insiders.
The press did not even talk about the voice, but about “thunder from
the right.” The so-called neoconservatives, who helped Ronald Reagan
come to power, gathered at the Mayflower Hotel and attacked their
idol from the right, accusing him of “Carterism without Carter,” of
softness towards Moscow, Warsaw, as well as Bonn, Paris, Brussels,
etc. ..., including even Mrs. Thatcher's London. And looming among
them was Henry Kissinger, still dreaming of an important position,
great power and a sweet life, and therefore, before conservatives, new
and old, atoning for the sins of the man involved in the détente of the
first half of the 70s. And they listened to Kissinger, but they saw him
off with poisonous smiles - both on the right and on the left.
The star at the neocon rally was not he, but a certain Norman
Podhoretz, editor of the New York magazine Commentary and
founder of the brand new Committee for the Free World, which
organized the “thunder from the right.” The name of the committee
betrays a lack of modesty, as well as a sense of humor, but it is a good
indication of the degree of frenzy of the American right: the new
committee undertakes to make up for the shortcomings and
shortcomings of all the numerous committees of the previous ones
and, directly, in Dullesian style, undertakes to “liberate” Eastern
Europe, and install the current president on the path of even more
irreconcilable anti-communism.
Commentary magazine, until recently, was just a quiet, inaudible
literary publication for pique vests with a Zionist bent. And now it is
the mouthpiece of influential neoconservatism, a political movement
in which two currents merged - anti-communism and Zionism. Now
New York intellectuals like Porman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol are
laying a theoretical foundation for the visceral anti-communism of
California's nouveau riche millionaires. And from the podium of the
Mayflower Hotel, Podhoretz blasts not only his liberal compatriots,
but also spineless Western Europeans clinging to the remnants of
détente. Western Europe is the favorite political target of the new
American ultras. “Many of us thought that a revival of American
strength and resolve would strengthen the European backbone,”
Podhoretz said. “But now we have lost our faith.”
The new conservatism is frightening the ungrateful with a new
American isolationism, threatening the US allies to fold and remove
the American “nuclear umbrella” if they do not learn obedience and do
not, together with Uncle Sam, begin to shake the edifice of the
European world. Truly it offers tough choices!
Are Americans really that excited about the events in Poland? Do
they really sympathize with the adventurers from Solidarity, who
carried Poland into the abyss of chaos and civil war, incited by

101
 -С—

applause (and not only applause) from the West? No, the average
American is not nearly as excited as those who undertake to speak on
his behalf claim. No matter how politicians talk, he, this practical
American, never ceases to wonder: what is all the fuss about? He is
surprised because he knows that the business of trade unions is wages
and working conditions, and not the seizure of state power. One New
York trade union leader told me about this, but did not forget to warn
that “he is not looking for publicity” and that his name should not be
mentioned in the newspaper. He has not become a victim of
propaganda bombardment, but he fears that he may be defamed and
made a victim of political revenge.
I mentioned earlier about polls that asked Americans whether life
was better or worse for them under Reagan. Now it's time to remember
the old joke about pessimists and optimists. According to the joke, a
pessimist is someone who believes that things cannot get worse. An
optimist finds consolation in the fact that things could be worse. Many
of my interlocutors were this kind of optimist.
Among them was Paul Tsonges, the Democratic senator from
Massachusetts, a youthful man with dark, alert eyes. He said that the
president turned out to be more moderate than expected, and that the
Congress was less conservative, that the economic situation had
worsened - and this was a very important domestic political factor. In
his opinion, the pendulum of American public life has reached the
extreme right and is about to begin moving in the opposite direction,
towards the center, strengthening the position of the liberals, among
whom the senator counts himself.
We spoke in his office on Capitol Hill. In addition to the senator's
two aides, there was also a reporter from Boston, the main city of
Massachusetts. The conversation turned to international affairs. The
senator spoke about the dangers of the arms race and spoke out in
favor of all kinds of American-Soviet negotiations to stop it. Suddenly,
looking at me directly with his attentive eyes, he joked gloomily: “Do
you know that a nuclear bomb is already aimed at you and me?” I
objected: it’s unlikely, personal bombs are not cost-effective, but his
and my cities have one bomb each, and probably more than one. And
without joking, Paul Tsonges said that he has a six-month-old
daughter, that we have already lived a lot, but can we live, can our
children survive in the world that we leave them? And he and I were
suddenly united by this anxious thought.
I remember one of the late poems of Alexander Tvardovsky, sad,
like the sigh of a thoughtful person. The poet writes that in the “case of
the main utopia” (thermonuclear catastrophe)
...It’s not a storm for us:
We lived, drank vodka,
It will be already behind your eyes...
It's a pity, like that song - children,
Our boys and girls,

102
 All the boundless beauty...
Early spring twigs
In the drops of the first dew...
Paul Tsonges, a senator from Massachusetts, expressed his anxiety
and sadness in almost the same words as the great Russian poet who
was born in the Smolensk region. And no wonder. Doesn't this
permeate us all?
4
Cloudy February morning. Along the sidewalks of Lower
Manhattan, at the very beginning of the famous Broadway, a crowd of
bank employees, brokerage firms and various other business offices
are hurrying along with black umbrellas open over their heads, rustling
raincoats and soles. The wet pavement is clogged with cars. The strong
facades of old buildings turned gray from the rain. The new
skyscrapers have dark, shiny glass and sharp metal edges, their tops
seem to float among low clouds. And everywhere there are reputable
signs of reputable establishments. Here, next to the small cramped
street that houses the New York Stock Exchange building, all these
signs together create the concept of Wall Street. Nearby, another New
York relic - Trinity Church - rises smoky black spiers, and it is not
God who looks down on his temple, but bankers and brokers, located
in the heavenly floors. The heavy gates of the church are ajar, and the
rows of wooden benches with high backs are empty. People have no
time.
And only one person is in no hurry. Not far from the black church
walls, without an umbrella or raincoat, he gets wet in the rain,
kneeling, stretched forward, pressing his forehead into the asphalt like
a praying Muslim.
This man of mystery boldly stands out from the crowd, although
most likely he is just a homeless tramp, an unconscious inhabitant of
the bottomless bottom of New York, a familiar detail, like a cast-iron
fire hydrant at the edge of the sidewalk. There is no more mystery in it
than in a hurrying, standard cheerful, deceptively familiar crowd. Next
to the street and the concept of “Wall Street,” I want to mark everyone
in this crowd without looking with one brand - a servant of the golden
calf. But isn’t even a standard-looking crowd made up of individual,
mysterious souls?..
The rain remained on Broadway. A strict and at the same time
cozy office in one of the large banks. The business trinity of his vice
presidents. The eldest - older, taciturn and smoking a lot - gives the
floor to the second. Once again I hear the arguments to which I have
become accustomed after several days of wandering around New York
business establishments, about the urgent need to tidy up and clean the
big house of the American economy, about the fact that recession, and
not inflation, is the lesser of two evils, which in the long term There is
reason for optimism, but in the short term - a painful period of
adaptation to new times, that the automobile is no longer destined to

103
 -С—

play its former role in American life and that forever - perhaps for the
better? — the times have gone when 11-12 million cars were sold a
year, and Americans have become more careful in their spending,
acquisitions and calculations for the future...
A qualified and inanimate conversation of a specialist economist,
in which a living person is crushed by large numbers. But in the terse
words of the senior vice president, it is precisely the person who
shimmers, experienced and wise, a little sad. He is both a banker and a
politician. From those
the inhabitants of Wall Street, who for the development of
American-Soviet economic relations and in this direction would like to
“educate” the Californians commanding in Washington. Needless to
say, things are not important now (and this is the general opinion), but
our interlocutor does not lose hope for the future. A person should
always have hope for the future.
We touch, of course, on the growing danger of war, and the smart
banker-politician highlights the simplest and most fundamental fact
from many others: in their national historical memory, Americans
don’t even remember what it is like to fight on their own territory. And
unlike Europeans - with a European memory - they are careless. The
economist agrees: the danger of radiation from accidents at nuclear
power plants worries Americans more than the danger of nuclear war.
“I have a country house in Vermont,” the elder develops his
thought. “I know my neighbors well.” Can they imagine that some
missiles with nuclear warheads are aimed at them?!
A memorable argument. I had been to Vermont once and retained
a faded image of this small state, located northeast of the giant state of
New York - forested mountains, lakes and fields, so-called farm roads
leading from highways to farms and estates, and tiny , idyllic, calm
towns, living in which, driving through which, it is indeed not easy to
imagine that the earth and sky could be split by a nuclear explosion.
Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsonges joked darkly about personal
nuclear bombs—there are so many of them. And the New York banker
says that his neighbors in the state of Vermont (which, by the way,
borders Massachusetts) are not even listening, deaf to the menacing
roar of the nuclear missile age. Who to believe? Who more accurately
conveys the feelings of their compatriots?
When I returned from my American trip to Moscow and, among
others, was pondering this question, an answer unexpectedly came
from the state of Vermont - in fresh reports from the American press.
There, it turns out, residents organized a referendum: should the two
powers - the USA and the USSR - freeze their nuclear arsenals? In 143
small towns, the majority supported the freeze. At 18 - against. Maybe
our banker got the wrong neighbors. Or is simplicity enough for every
wise man? Or can the ephemeral matter of political sensations be
interpreted this way and that until it is experienced by direct political
action?

104
 It was Californians, not Vermonters, who were the first to translate
antinuclear sentiment into antinuclear action. California is the most
populous of the states, home to many American innovations and
initiatives of various kinds. On the wave of increased conservatism, it
gave America the current US president with his super-armament
programs, and now, frightened by the dangerous policies of Ronald
Reagan, a new form of anti-war movement - the nuclear freeze. They
are collecting signatures for a call for a nuclear freeze. With the light
hand of Californians, anti-nuclear sentiments, smoldering under a
bushel, are breaking out in one state or another, with clergy playing an
active role in rebelling against nuclear encroachments on the sacred
gift of life. Many senators and congressmen joined this movement.
Observers predict that with the onset of warmer weather, anti-nuclear
demonstrations as crowded as in Western Europe will sweep across
America. And now the government is sending special propaganda
teams to the localities to eradicate the seditious idea of a nuclear
freeze, to try to convince the public that this freeze is beneficial only
to the Soviet Union...
However, did I suddenly paint a too rosy picture against a
background that until now had looked so gloomy? I’ll try to approach
the topic of war and peace from one more angle.
In 1973-1974, at a time of hope and change for the better in
Soviet-American relations, when not everyone foresaw the high
barriers to détente, I had the opportunity to meet with George Gallup,
the founder and director of the famous public opinion polling institute.
A simple, democratic and wise man, he dislikes and is wary of
politicians, believes in the common sense of his people and, aware of
the differences between our countries, was still entirely in favor of
normal, good American-Soviet relations.
I wanted to meet him now, when not all the hopes of the last
decade have come true, and we are making our way through the jungle
of a new crisis decade. Gallup Sr., now in his eighties, was vacationing
abroad somewhere, and I arranged a meeting with his son, GEORGE
GALLUP JR. Unfortunately, circumstances unexpectedly prevented
me from coming to the university town of Princeton, where the Gallup
organization is located. After hearing the apology, Gallup Jr. agreed to
do a telephone interview. He was true to himself: no comments, just
numbers extracted from an extensive electronic dossier.
From a political point of view, the numbers can be divided into
positive and negative. I'll start with the positives. 76 percent of
Americans, according to one recent poll, support the proposal to halve
the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union. 72
percent are in favor of not creating new nuclear weapons, that is,
essentially, in favor of the idea of a nuclear freeze. 47 percent go even
further, favoring the destruction of all existing nuclear weapons (with
44 percent opposed and 9 abstaining). Only 5 percent believe their
chances of survival would be “good” in the event of a nuclear conflict,

105
 -С—

which is a case where such a healthy lack of optimists is to be

welcomed. A growing number of Americans (five to one) rule out war
as a means of solving international problems. After Vietnam, the cat
began to cry for those who were looking for new armed interventions
abroad.
With such sentiments, which, by the way, are fully consistent with
the repeated proposals of the Soviet Union, tomorrow, it seems, the
golden age of disarmament and peaceful coexistence could begin,
provided that there is no distance or difference between the impulses
of the people and the policies of the government. But the golden age,
alas, is not waiting for us around the nearest corner. And there is
another set of figures and facts that explain why the Reagan
administration still holds Americans with all their anti-nuclear
sentiments in ideological and political captivity.
Here is something from another, negative series, also recorded by
Gallup polls. Most believe that America must “be strong to be safe,”
which is a mandate to increase military programs. 54 percent of
Americans believe that their country and their government are doing
everything to maintain peace, and only 7 percent hold the same
opinion about the Soviet Union.
And one more indicator that explains a lot. For a long time, Gallup
has been using a special scale to measure the attitude of Americans
towards other countries, using a ten-point system - from zero to
positive five and from zero to negative five. From the figures that
Gallup Jr. dictated to me, it is clear that in the minds of Americans the
Soviet Union has long been firmly assigned a place not only as a
culprit, but also as an extraordinary monster. A kind of record was
registered in 1953, at the height of the Cold War: according to the
mentioned ten-point system, only one percent of Americans surveyed
had a positive attitude towards us. The curve shows ups and downs.
The greatest rise occurred in July 1973, the peak of détente. Then
again a decline and rise, to 34 percent in 1979, when the Soviet-
American SALT II Treaty was signed in Vienna. According to a 1981
survey, the positive percentage was 20, negative - 77.
Monographs are needed, and more than one has already been
written, to politically decipher these and other figures, to explain how
and by whom mass consciousness is formed, how and who
manipulates it, what comes from ignorance, from deliberate deception,
from conscientious errors, from sincere rejection of another system
etc., etc. Now I highlight only the result of this many years of massive
processing of minds.
Historian and former diplomat George Kennan, who once served
as the American ambassador to Moscow, defines it as dehumanization,
the dehumanization of the enemy that the other side sees in the Soviet
Union. Kenpan writes that dehumanization includes "an endless series
of distortions and simplifications, a systematic effort to dehumanize
the leadership of another great country, a habitual exaggeration of

106
Moscow's military capabilities and the supposed malignity of Soviet
intentions, a constant distortion of the character and views of another
great people."
At the beginning of the notes from my new American notebook, I
mentioned the latest heroes placed on a pedestal by the American
president - a general kidnapped by Italian terrorists and miraculously
freed, a young clerk who threw himself into the icy waters of the
Potomac to save a drowning woman. Every hero is good and it is not
right to exalt one at the expense of another. But the courage of a
citizen is even more precious than the courage of a warrior. In the
current circumstances of international life, this courage is expressed in
a sense of high responsibility, in the primacy of reason over hostility
and hysteria. There are Americans with such qualities, and I would
like to name the same George Kennan. He does not sympathize with
our system at all, but in his old age he chose for himself the difficult
role of interpreter, translator, interpreter. He strives for Americans to
objectively represent another power with which they are linked by the
same fate in our nuclear missile age. He achieves understanding and
mutual understanding, which is tantamount to solving the problem of
self-preservation of humanity...
Before concluding with the impressions of two overseas weeks, I
will return to the Pacific coast, to San Francisco. Across the bay lies
Berkeley with the famous campus of the University of California,
where in the 60s the stormy and fleeting “youth revolution” began and
protests against the dirty Vietnam War raged.
Time has washed away the traces of the turbulent years, calming
down and improving the bourgeoisie of the central Telegraph Avenue.
And the student went the wrong way, and it’s empty in front of Sproll
Hall, on the university’s ceremonial square, and there, on a large
notice board among the paper ripples of sticky notes, you’ll more often
see offers for massage lessons than announcements about rallies of
solidarity with the patriots of El Salvador or protests against the
university’s connection with the nearby Livermore Laboratory busy
inventing more and more types of nuclear weapons.
On one of the streets of Berkeley we found ourselves in a small
apartment of what in America is usually called a studio. It had just
been rented as an office and was not yet equipped: a few chairs,
unassembled cardboard boxes and in the kitchenette various sized
mugs for tea. And in the midst of this chaos we were received by a
handsome man, beginning to turn gray, with a high forehead and
graceful gestures - Daniel Ellsberg. This name thundered in the early
70s. A senior Pentagon employee, he went over to the side of
opponents of the Vietnam War, made public volumes of revealing
secret documents and caused a worldwide scandal. He would have
been tried and convicted if the trial had not been buried by the
powerful wave of Watergate revelations. In general, the “egg-headed”

107
 -С—

intellectual from the “best and brightest” recruited under John

Kennedy has seen the light and from a technocrat playing out
scenarios of conventional and nuclear wars, has grown into a humanist
trying to pull humanity away from the nuclear abyss. Now Ellsberg is
one of the founders of the anti-nuclear movement in America, actively
strengthening ties with like-minded people in Western Europe.
He treated us to tea and conversations about American nuclear
strategy and how it was being kept from the American people, and he
had the right to these conversations, since it was in the development of
this strategy that he was involved and at the age of thirty, according to
the civil ranking table, he was equivalent to a three-star general. He
said that American strategy has always been based on the
permissibility of a first, pre-emptive nuclear strike, but try asking
Americans in an ordinary audience what the White House’s position is
on this issue, and 100 percent - all 100 percent! — those present will
be told: of course, we are against the first use of nuclear weapons. He
said that the American leadership has always strived for nuclear
superiority over the Soviet Union, and now it is talking about Soviet
superiority because it is afraid of the movement for a nuclear freeze,
which is growing like an avalanche in the mountains. And the
avalanche, in turn, was formed because the leaders of the current
administration, with their frequent, frivolous and even cheeky
statements about the possibility of nuclear war, awakened the anxiety
and fears of the American people.
He spoke for an hour and a half and did not have time to finish
everything, since we were late for another meeting and had to leave,
and he walked us down the second floor corridor to the exit, and we
went into the evening darkness, and he remained in silhouette in the
illuminated doorway of the entrance.
A few days later, before flying to Moscow, I saw Daniel Ellsberg
in a photograph in a New York newspaper: an open black raincoat and
a gray jacket neatly buttoned at the top button, a high forehead and lips
compressed in an ironic smile. He was being dragged by the arm of a
guy with the face of a Neanderthal and a sheriff's star on his jacket.
This was the march that Ellsberg told us about preparing for. 170
people were arrested near the notorious Livermore laboratory, which
develops new and new nuclear weapons systems.
What he did not tell us continued to be proven - and it seems - by
time.
March 1982

UNFUNNY
I want to laugh, but the subject is too bitter and is only suitable for
that very laughter - through tears.
For some time now, it’s as easy for the owner of the White House
to be afraid of the end of the world as it is for us, ordinary mortals, to

108
sneeze or, looking out the window in the morning, to say: “Look, it’s
starting to rain...”
So at his last press conference, the president scared again. Most of
all, in the field of strategic weapons (that is, those that can deliver
nuclear warheads directly to America), the Soviet Union “does have a
certain margin of superiority, and large enough that it creates a
danger.”
Journalists accredited to the White House are no strangers to this
word—“danger.” However, no matter how used to it, they perked up:
they had never frightened us with such danger and in such a decisive
form before. And with their horns of questions pointed forward,
journalists rushed like bulls towards this red rag in the White House,
where red, as everyone knows, is now presented in two mutually
exclusive forms - as the favorite color of the outfits of the presidential
wife Nancy and as the hated “red danger”.
Excerpt from the transcript:
Question. Are you saying that we are now, today, so vulnerable in
the event of a nuclear strike that we would not be able to strike back?
Answer. This would be possible due to the retaliatory ability that
our triad possesses, but the great superiority of the Russians allows
them to withstand our retaliatory strike and strike us again...
No, a hasty comparison with bulls, with bullfighting, probably
won’t do. Nuclear strikes bounced around like gutta-percha ping-pong
balls. A Soviet strike... A retaliatory American strike... And then
suddenly a Soviet strike, fatal and a complete end to the New World
where the United States of America, its people and its president had so
comfortably settled down. So to speak, the death of the New World.
My head is spinning. But the president continued as if nothing had
happened (again an excerpt from the transcript):
“If they are ahead, then we are behind, and if we ask them to make
cuts and join us and go down to a lower level, then they have no
incentive ...
By all accounts, the president is a brilliant joke teller, but press
conferences with their serious and boring questions make him yawn.
True, before the last one, they say he was specially trained. She was
considered more important than others. It was broadcast in the
evening, the best on television. And why?
But because the president and his ministers suddenly began to be
pestered - both by ordinary citizens and by difficult ones, including
from Congress - with the extravagant idea of freezing the nuclear
arsenals of the two powers. They say that's enough. How can! And at
the press conference, the president had to say and, it would be nice,
prove that the freeze does not satisfy him, that he is looking further,
that his administration, soul and body, is for a dramatic (precisely
dramatic!) reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. But... Only after
their increment. After all, only then “they” will have an incentive. It
should not be frozen. You have to go up to go down. Enlarge to make

109
 -С—

it dramatic! - reduce. Because if they are ahead, then we are behind....

Everything seems to be going well. But it presses like a tight shoe,
and the damned word “if” gets in the way. What if they don't believe
it? If not ahead or behind, but on an equal footing? However, why - if?
That's how it is - on an equal basis. And this is a fact of international
life. And the main one. And on this equality of two strategic triads the
shaky, fragile world rests, just as it was once supported, according to
legend, on three pillars. And not believing the president, not
succumbing to fear at all, here is what, for example, the seasoned
military observer Drew Middleton, who stands for the interests of the
Pentagon no worse than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
himself, wrote: “Study of the strategic arsenals of the United States
and the Soviet Union shows the existence of an approximate balance,
although both sides have superiority in certain categories of weapons."
We prepared and prepared, but at this press conference another
embarrassment emerged. Even those who are easier to frighten than to
sneeze, who get scared, so to speak, automatically, when ordered or
just in case, were not frightened. On the contrary, the president's
nuclear ping-pong has sparked talk that one cannot talk about
diabolical weapons and the end of the world in vain. Senator Edward
Kennedy, a pioneer of the nuclear freeze movement on Capitol Hill,
rejected an approach to arms control that "proclaims that we must have
more in order to have less."
But what can we ultimately expect from these “pigeons”? But the
White House did not expect such a trick from the Washington
“hawks”. They attacked the president’s thesis about the Soviet
“reserve of superiority” so much that feathers flew.
What commander in chief has ever told the world that the United
States is weaker than its enemy?
And why is this even talked about when none of this corresponds
to reality?
It was the President who attacked the President, Pat Moynihan, a
senator from New York, who always pleases the Pentagon.
It's awkward to introduce Senator Henry Jackson. The personality
is in some way historical - the founder of anti-détente, the founder of
the Washington “hawks”. Now, just like the liver of Prometheus, the
concept of nuclear freezing is pecked. And so the founder went against
the president.
“The real danger in all of this,” he said, referring to the chatter
about American backwardness, “is that it has created a sense among
our allies that we are in some sense in decline.”
There is no need, they say, to go too far and play up the “Soviet
threat.”
And Zbigniew Brzezinski also urged not to overdo it and not to
become poor:
- I think this is a very harmful statement, because, frankly
speaking, now there is an approximate balance...

110
 “Frankly...” And columnist Joseph Craft put it even more frankly:
“The most important thing is that Ronald Reagan has not yet properly
grasped the essence of the problem.”
So, a nuclear strike... A retaliatory strike... Should there be a third?
This is what people in Washington are narcotically excited about.
Meanwhile, in Moscow they have long been proposing to ban the first
as a grave crime. And without the first there will be no second.
Without the second - third.
Something like a postscript to unfunny laughter through tears.
Secretary of State Haig recently stated that the current administration
would never give up the right to be the first to use nuclear weapons. In
doing so, he reportedly targeted several influential Americans (former
Secretary of Defense McNamara, former National Security Advisor
Bundy, former Ambassador Kennan). He launched a preemptive strike
after learning that in the next issue of Foreign Affairs magazine they
were proposing to change US nuclear strategy and join the no-first-use
pledge, thereby removing an important cause of tension in US-Soviet
relations.
April 1982

ALEXANDER HAIG VS VICTOR HUGO

In recent weeks, anti-war, anti-nuclear sentiment in the United
States has been growing so rapidly that the American weekly Time
considered it appropriate to recall the famous saying of Victor Hugo:
“No army can stop him, whose time has come.”
The movement of the masses is encouraging some at the top of
America, those who understand the danger of the Reagan
administration's policies. Those who disagree are speaking louder.
Now the center of a lively debate in Washington is an article in
Foreign Affairs magazine, written by four well-known and very
knowledgeable figures, including former US Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara.
Their main proposal is that the United States should change its
nuclear strategy in one important point, namely, declare that it is
abandoning the first use of nuclear weapons.
In the fall of 1981, we put forward this idea both at the UN
General Assembly and in a direct appeal to President Reagan - to
declare the first use of nuclear weapons a grave crime. But
Washington did not want to give up such “primacy”. And now the
Soviet idea is being understood in American influential circles. And
the American government is forced to fight off “its own people.” And
this is how Secretary of State Haig does it, responding to four critics:
“NATO consistently rejects such Soviet proposals (not to be the first
to use nuclear weapons - S.K.), to accept which, in essence, would
mean dooming Europe to aggression using conventional armed forces
and weapons."
That is, Haig predicts and frightens at the same time: if we refuse

111
 -С—

to be the first to use nuclear weapons today, there will be nothing to

restrain them, the Russians, and Soviet tanks will be on the Rhine
tomorrow, and a week later, who knows, on the banks of the Seine and
the English Channel.
Rave! Even Haig's opponents from among the American elite are
forced to refute this nonsense. The same McNamara says about us:
Russians are not crazy at all, they know what human losses are. It's not
a big compliment, but it shows what monstrous distortions of the truth
sober-minded Americans have to deal with.
But it's not only that. First, Haig clearly downplays NATO's
conventional military forces in his tales of wolves from Moscow and
lambs from Washington. And as for the certain Soviet superiority in
tanks, NATO, as everyone knows, has a superiority in anti-tank
defense means.
And secondly, Haig pretends to be afraid that if America refuses
to be the first to use nuclear weapons, then the Soviet Union will be
the first to use conventional armed forces. But does the US Secretary
of State know that it’s already been three years—three years! — there
is an official proposal by the Warsaw Pact states to conclude an
agreement on the non-first use of both nuclear and conventional
weapons against each other in Europe.
The conclusion of such a treaty, says the proposal made in May
1979 and repeated more than once since then, will radically strengthen
the political and legal foundation of compliance in Europe with the
principle of non-use of force or threat of force, and will create new
guarantees against the outbreak of military conflicts.
Does Mr. Haig know this? If yes, then why is he silent about it? If
not, is it proper for the head of a diplomatic department not to know
the fundamental element in the other side's position? Or maybe, unlike
Hugo, Haig believes that there is still a force that can resist an idea
born of time itself. And that this power lies in misinformation and
deception. Dangerous misconception.
April 1982

THREE POINTS IN AN ADVERTISING SPEECH

On May 9, US President Ronald Reagan gave a speech to
graduates of the college in Eureka, Illinois, where he once studied. It is
considered almost the most important foreign policy speech of the
American president during his entire tenure in power.
Reagan spoke, as he put it, about “the future fate of the West’s
relations with the Soviet Union.” In early June, he flies to Western
Europe for the first time as president to meet with NATO partners and
announces in advance that it is this “critical issue ... that will lie behind
all my discussions with all European leaders.”
This means that the speech in Eureka is an element of preparation
for the first appearance on the Western European stage of the
American president.

112
 I would highlight three points in the speech. Firstly, discussions
about the “Soviet threat”, which requires “the unity of the West”, or
rather, the agreement of the rest with America. Secondly, a proposal to
begin negotiations with the Soviet Union on the reduction of strategic
nuclear weapons by the end of June. Thirdly, a plan for gradual
reductions outlined in general terms, which, according to the president,
will be proposed by the American delegation at the negotiations. In
terms of anti-Soviet rhetoric, the president did not say anything new.
I will take the second point - the proposal to begin US-Soviet
negotiations on strategic weapons by the end of June. Let's take a
closer look at the essence of the matter: on what grounds - and with
what delay! - this proposal appeared. Ronald Reagan reigned in the
White House at the end of January 1981, and already at the end of
February of the same year, from the rostrum of the XXVI Congress of
the CPSU, a call was made from Moscow for the resumption of
negotiations on strategic weapons. For almost a year and a half, that is,
a third of the four-year presidential term, the Americans avoided
responding to this invitation. Because they gave priority to the
modernization program of their strategic forces - mobile MX
intercontinental missiles, new B-1 supersonic strategic bombers,
Trident-2 missile systems for submarines, and so on.
And if these days in Washington they talk about readiness for
negotiations, then there is only one explanation for this - the anti-war
pressure of public opinion, which can no longer be resisted. The
Americans were frightened by the Soviet threat, and the Americans
began to be afraid of the “scaremongers.”
Journalist Michael Barone of the Washington Post asks, "Why are
so many people expressing concern as if they had just learned about
the existence of nuclear weapons?" And he answers: “Any political
observer will immediately give you the answer: Ronald Reagan is to
blame. According to many Americans and Europeans, under Reagan
the danger that we will be drawn into a nuclear war is much greater
than under any of his predecessors."
What goes around comes around. Washington's current leaders are
reaping a windfall of anxiety and fear. They reaped one harvest of fear
last fall in Western Europe, where a protest movement against
American policies unfolded, and they are now reaping another in
America itself.
The American president, one might say, is defending himself,
disavowing the image that he created for himself by talking about
super-weapons and the possibility of a limited nuclear war.

113
 He defended himself in November 1981, when, under pressure from
Western Europe, he agreed to begin negotiations on medium-range
nuclear weapons in Europe. And speech in Eureka is also a defense.
Here's what New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb wrote about the
speech a week before it was delivered: “What the administration is most
interested in, officials say, is to formally announce some kind of simple,
comprehensive plan to demonstrate that Reagan's "team" votes for peace,
which would derail the campaign for a nuclear weapons freeze in Europe
and the United States. From the perspective of senior administration
officials, these movements undermine support for new American nuclear
weapons...”
Now let's turn to the third point in the American president's speech -
his plan for a phased reduction of strategic weapons.
Under this plan, at the end of the first phase of reduction, the number
of warheads on ballistic missiles will be brought to equal limits and will
be at least a third less than current levels. It is also proposed that no more
than half of these warheads be mounted on ground-launched missiles.
What does this mean? For a person unfamiliar with current nuclear
missile arithmetic, this may seem attractive. And a person who knows it
simply will immediately see that completely uneven cuts are being
proposed. The United States leaves virtually untouched the most powerful
and quantitatively superior components of its strategic triad - strategic
bombers, sea-based nuclear missile forces, and the Soviet Union is
offered to significantly reduce and weaken the most powerful element of
the Soviet triad - ground-based ballistic missiles.
An unscrupulous trick is being carried out under the slogan of
achieving “stability in the balance of nuclear forces,” but in reality it leads
to destabilization and a dangerous bias in the American side. It is not
without reason that in America itself, unbiased observers greeted
Reagan’s plan with outright skepticism.
I will only refer to the opinion of Taim magazine: “Reagan’s
proposed “ceiling” for nuclear weapons would require the United States
to make significantly smaller reductions in strategic systems than the
Soviet Union... This proposal is so clearly beneficial to the United States
that it will most likely raise the question of the realism and even the
sincerity of the administration’s approach to establishing arms control.”
May 1982

114
 IN THE MIRROR OF REALITY
Recently, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, speaking to an
American audience (graduate students at the University of Notre Dame in
Indiana), said the following: “As allies, we have a responsibility not only
to support your leadership, but also to ensure that you take into account in
your actions legitimate goals of other member countries. It is our duty as
friends to hold up a mirror in front of you so that you can see your
reflection.”
Fulfilling his duty as a mirror, Trudeau told Americans that Reagan's
"confrontational mindset" between East and West had "created
unprecedented public concern."
Well, this discovery, as our reader knows very well, is not new. Both
the US allies in NATO and the Americans themselves, including
prominent political figures and authoritative military strategists, hold
before the Washington leadership many mirrors in which they see the
same thing, their own reflection: people who captivate both America and
the whole world. the road to the nuclear abyss.
In a word, these mirrors reflected the biggest moral and political
miscalculation of the current belligerent administration. In Washington
they decided to do something urgently, to somehow improve the image
reflected in the mirrors, because with the frightening face of the herald of
nuclear war it is impossible to count on a political future.
We know what we did in Washington. After months of delays, we sat
down in Geneva at the table of American-Soviet negotiations on the
reduction of medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe. After a 16-month
delay, they announced their readiness to negotiate on strategic weapons.
The tone of Washington's statements has changed and softened.
“There are more important things than the world...” This aphorism has not
been forgotten and, perhaps, will remain in history. But they no longer
risk repeating it. From Moscow you won’t be able to see what kind of hats
Washington ladies showed off at the traditional spring fashion parade, but
it’s noticeable that the fashion for political sayings has changed.
Statements—and assurances—came in from the Washington offices that
there was nothing more terrible than nuclear war.
Among members of the Reagan Cabinet, Defense Secretary Caspar
Weinberger is by all accounts the number one hawk. But he also changed
the record. Listen, for example, to what he said when he spoke a week ago
at the Massachusetts Medical Society: “Today I would like to talk about a
topic that worries us all equally. I mean the threat of nuclear war, which
we, to our horror, have been living under for 34 years. This is a highly
unpleasant and difficult topic, but I take it extremely to heart. Some
Americans have expressed doubts about whether our president and his
government share their aversion to war, especially nuclear war. This is a
terrible misunderstanding...”
The Americans are assured that they misunderstood their president
and his defense minister. They share their aversion to war; they also do
not want war. We admit: after all, only true madmen, pathological non-

115
humans can advocate nuclear war. The whole question, however, is
whether this or that policy works—to bring war closer or to delay it, to
eliminate its threat. Looking at Washington policy from this angle, we
will see that it has changed only externally, only taking into account truly
global criticism, only for camouflage purposes. Because its core remains
the same - an encroachment on the fundamental principle of equal
security, an attempt to break the existing military balance and, by getting
involved in new rounds of the arms race, to achieve an advantage over the
Soviet Union.
In the same talk, Weinberger told his medical audience that peace,
like health, “requires care,” and explained what he meant by that care. “In
the field of arms control,” he said, “we face the unfortunate paradox that
the path to peace is marked by preparation for war. But there is no other
rational solution.”
This means it’s the same: the problem of arms control is in second
place after the problem of “preparing for war.”
Following President Reagan's speech in Eureka, in which he
expressed readiness for US-Soviet strategic arms negotiations, statements
on American strategy were made by many senior Washington figures:
Secretary of State Haig and Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Director Rostow, retired General Rowney, charged with leading strategic
arms negotiations, and Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs Clark. Everyone talked about the horrors of nuclear war, about the
president's peace initiative, and everyone justified the continuation of the
arms race.
While Weinberger resorted to metaphors and paradoxes, Clark, the
president's national security adviser, puts it bluntly: "The decisions on
strategic nuclear forces that the President announced last fall remain the
foundation on which our policy is built."
Pay attention to this word - “foundation”.
And Clarke goes on to detail what the President's decision was: "We
are going to modernize our manned bombers, strengthen the accuracy and
payload of our submarine-launched ballistic missiles, add sea-launched
cruise missiles to our arsenal, strengthen our strategic defenses and deploy
new ones." larger and more accurate land-based ballistic missiles.”
This is the program the country is negotiating with, whose president
at the same time claims that a simple limitation of strategic weapons is not
enough for him, that he resolutely advocates their significant reduction.
In the United States there is an expression that coincides with ours -
on-the-job training. It happens that American presidents are also engaged
in such studies - mastering the realities and already accumulated
experience of international life. It was not yesterday—and long before
Reagan’s appearance in the White House—that the idea of limiting and
reducing strategic arms was born (although the current US president not
yesterday, but already 20 years ago, began to oppose any attempts to
control nuclear weapons).
This is not the first time that the Soviet and American sides are going

116
to sit down at the negotiating table, having it as the subject of their
discussion. It took three years in the late 60s and early 70s to develop the
Interim Agreement on the Limitation of Strategic Arms. The story of the
SALT II Treaty, which, having been signed, remained stuck in
Washington on Capitol Hill (and is already dead, according to the
American government, although many prominent American figures are
demanding its resurrection) lasted for seven years—and not through
Moscow’s fault. With all the swings in American-Soviet relations, with
all the changes in the political weather overseas, no one has succeeded
and is unlikely to be able to freeze the very idea of American-Soviet
dialogue. And if now even representatives of the administration, in which
he was clearly not in honor, are advocating for him, then they should,
apparently, keep in mind the passed, learned, useful lessons.
The Soviet Union again reminds us of them, considering the other
side’s readiness to resume negotiations on strategic weapons as a step in
the right direction and setting out an approach that can ensure the success
of negotiations and the achievement of an agreement.
Firstly, it is required that the negotiations truly pursue the goal of
limiting and reducing strategic arms, and not serve as a cover for
continuing the arms race and breaking the existing parity.
Secondly, it is necessary that both sides conduct them taking into
account the legitimate security interests of each other and in strict
accordance with the principle of equality and equal security.
Thirdly, it is necessary to preserve all the positive things that have
been achieved before.
In contrast to the two discordant motives now heard in Washington,
in Moscow there is one motive, one leitmotif: to block all channels of the
arms race, to agree to reduce the level of military confrontation.
This leitmotif is emphasized by the Soviet proposal that strategic
weapons of the USSR and the USA be frozen now, as soon as
negotiations begin. Do not negotiate in parallel with the arms race, but
freeze it. This is another fundamental difference between the Soviet
position and the American one. However, it is necessary to clarify the
official American position. As public opinion polls persistently show,
Americans support the idea of freezing nuclear arsenals by a three-to-one
majority. The Soviet proposal for a freeze is a response to deeply rooted
sentiments everywhere, including in the United States. The response is
not speculative, not demagogic, but dictated by the same concern for
stopping the buildup of nuclear weapons
American representatives, justifying themselves to their own people,
claim that the freeze will only benefit the Soviet Union and will deprive it
of the incentive for serious negotiations. This is logic turned inside out. It
is much more logical to assume that the freeze will help create a climate
of at least minimal trust, which is so necessary in the negotiations. On the
contrary, the continuation of the arms race in parallel with the
negotiations will contribute to a climate of suspicion and hostility.
Of course, even very reasonable ideas can scare away many
Americans by hinting that these ideas “play into the hands of Moscow.”

117
And yet, having made this reservation, perhaps today we can talk about a
paradox more encouraging than the one that Weinberger trumped. It
seems that in their attitude to the idea of a nuclear freeze, more Americans
agree with Moscow's position than with the position of official
Washington.
May 1982

BLOOD AND CALCULATIONS

One Charles Wilson, a member of the US House of Representatives
from Texas, recently visited southern Lebanon and, upon returning to
Washington, reported to reporters that the destruction as a result of Israeli
bombing was “absolutely terrible.” But that was not the highlight of his
press statement. “Despite the great material and human losses, Lebanese
citizens are glad that Israel invaded their country, knocking out the PLO”
(Palestine Liberation Organization) - this was the main discovery of the
congressman. He referred in particular to a conversation with “a young
woman whose home was destroyed and whose nephew was killed in
Israeli shelling.” Where did the conversation take place: near the ruins of
the house? Over the body of a murdered nephew? Details not specified.
The main thing is that the woman, as the congressman put it, “was glad.”
Happy about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Well, anything can happen - both unnatural joys and collaborators.
Let us assume that Charles Wilson of Texas did not invent the woman
from South Lebanon. Let us not forget that there is a bloody civil strife
there and that the Lebanese right-wing Christians are ready to block with
the Israelis in the expulsion and even extermination of the Palestinians.
And the question still arises: would this insensitive aunt be happy if she
had to find herself in the place of her nephew and tens of thousands of
killed and wounded Lebanese and Palestinians? And another question is
that many in America, turning a blind eye to blood and death, to
international law torn to shreds, blasphemously and impudently seek
justification for criminal aggression.
By the way, how did the American congressman end up on Lebanese
soil? Without a visa from the Lebanese authorities. Just as illegal as
Israeli soldiers. In their train. His trip was paid for by the Israeli Institute
for Strategic Studies. He traveled through occupied Lebanon with “Israeli
officials.” Why was he invited to take a ride through war-torn and
scorched South Lebanon? It is clear that this is a reliable frame, brought
to perfection by the American Zionist organizations and the Israeli
embassy in Washington.

118
 And this is not a special case at all. From him, without difficulty or
any violence against logic, a bridge is thrown to the general thing - to the
propaganda support in America for Israeli aggression. Wilson is a
Democrat, but there is more bipartisanship and less opposition to the
Republican Reagan administration on this issue than on any other. At its
national conference at the end of June, the Democratic Party endorsed a
statement that saw the Israeli invasion as “an opportunity to bring lasting
peace to the people of Lebanon and greater security for Israel.” As you
can see, dark humor: cluster and phosphorus bombs are yet again once the
gates to peace and security are opened. Meanwhile, this formulation
passed through the conference with unusual ease. Friction arose when
someone, feeling ashamed, proposed to include in the same document - in
the most toothless form - "regret for the deaths of thousands of Lebanese
civilians."
The American media pays a lot of attention to the tragic events in
Lebanon. Let's not paint all correspondents, columnists and publishers
with the same brush. Sometimes the cruel face of war, the slow, painful
quartering of West Beirut, appears in its true light. And, however, one
cannot deny the observation of James Abourezk, who writes in the
Chicago Tribune about the following pattern: “The higher the number of
killed and wounded became, the less importance the American press
attached to this, which is clear evidence of their latent anti-Arab racism."
James Abourezk is a former senator from South Dakota. He was the
only Arab American in the Senate. Was - and ceased to be. One must
think, not without the help of the pro-Israeli lobby, so powerful that any
person in the United States who dreams of a successful and long-term
political career should stock up on its support. Knowledgeable observers
in America and outside it will agree with the ex-separatist’s thought as
simple and clear as day: “Since Israel is almost completely dependent on
American funds, American weapons and US political support, it
simultaneously invades Lebanon has opened a second, superbly
coordinated front in the United States to manipulate public opinion.”
With all the variety of shades, including critical ones - in relation to
Begin and his Minister of Defense Sharon, the feathers and voices of the
“second front” mainly serve Israel, portraying not the aggressor, but a
kind of original educator, a stern but fair executor who is forced
physically punishing your neighbors is in their own interests. The
“second” propaganda front won victory on Capitol Hill. As correctly
noted, the unprecedented invasion of Lebanon caused fewer critical
voices there than the Israeli bombing of a nuclear research center near
Baghdad last summer. It would seem what a wide field of activity has
opened up for senators and congressmen, these champions of the fight for
“human rights” and against “international terrorism.” But they are
completely silent. And the rag is a gag with which the same pro-Israeli
lobby silences all critics.
And here is the overall result of activity on the “second front”,
reflected in a recent survey conducted by the famous Louis Harris
Institute. As Harris writes: "A majority of Americans (76 to 14 percent)

119
support the goals of Israel's invasion of Lebanon: to get Israel, Syria and
the PLO out of the country and let the Lebanese manage their own
affairs."
Nowadays a person cannot be surprised by any falsifications. But
think about this quote, these numbers. This turns out to be the “goals” of
the Israeli invasion! And this is how cleverly the Americans are
brainwashed!
By the way, these figures help to understand one of the most
remarkable paradoxes of international life in recent years, demonstrated
again in recent weeks. On the Security Council, the United States stands
alone (even its closest NATO allies do not vote with them), vetoing
condemnation of Israel. At the UN General Assembly, in an embrace with
Israel - and not a soul nearby - they challenge the entire unanimous world
community. It is a rare sight to see a great power voluntarily subjecting
itself to such ostracism so as not to betray a partner who has committed
open aggression. Alas, the king does not look naked at home. The Harris
poll is evidence of this.

***
Washington gave the green light to Israeli aggression in Lebanon.
Washington - at all its levels of government - did not utter a word of
condemnation towards the aggressor. Washington provided him with
diplomatic cover at the UN. And now, having brought the landing ships of
the 6th Fleet to the Lebanese coast and planning to land its marines for the
“orderly separation” of the PLO detachments and Israeli troops
surrounding West Beirut, Washington dreams of the political fruits of
aggression to strengthen its positions in the Middle East, its influence in
the Arab world. Figuratively speaking, without Washington's connivance,
the aggressor would not have broken free. But now, when Southern
Lebanon is captured and devastated, when West Beirut is under fire and
the threat of a merciless assault, the Reagan administration seems to be
posing in front of the Arabs with the leash and muzzle of its Marines. This
pose is again hypocritical and not at all selfless. Begin is not prevented
from doing his job, but at the same time in Washington they do not forget
about their benefits.
Current circumstances once again bring us to the question of the goals
of Israel and the United States, which coincide when it comes to Israeli
interests, but diverge somewhat when it comes to Washington's
diplomatic maneuvering regarding the Arab states and the Palestinian
issue.
If we take the goals of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, then, of
course, they do not look as noble and harmless as in the Harris poll or the
observations of Congressman Wilson. Having ousted the PLO and
intending to nullify the Lebanese NPS, Begin and Sharon want, at a
maximum, to transform Lebanon into a vassal state, at a minimum, a
politically weak-willed and spineless Lebanon, excluded from the Arab-
Israeli dispute and not interfering with plans to create a “greater Israel.”
To better understand this goal, it is necessary to place it in the broader

120
context of the designs of Israeli extremism and, in this regard, to
emphasize the internal connection that exists between the Israeli attack on
Arab countries in June 1967 and its current aggression in Lebanon, which
began - a symbolic detail - exactly 15 years after that “six-day war”.
Then Israel captured Sinai, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the
Syrian Golan Heights. At the end of April this year, he completed the
return of Sinai to Egypt - under the separate Camp David agreement,
which became the main instrument of Israeli and American policy in the
Middle East. Sinai Begin paid off by paralyzing the main Arab country -
Egypt (this, by the way, is now being proven by the behavior of Cairo)
and weakening the already fragmented Arab front. Having bought off
Egypt, Begin - without any diplomacy - said that everything else captured
from the Arabs would never be returned. The Golan Heights have been
annexed by the Knesset, and now it is the turn of the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, where 1.3 million Palestinians live.
“We need our neighbors to know that, regardless of whether peace
treaties are concluded or not, there will never again be a question of
evacuating Jewish settlements anywhere on this earth.”
These words of Begin, spoken in the Knesset immediately after the
evacuation of Sinai, revealed the hidden meaning of Camp David and, as
is now obvious, were a prelude to the invasion of Lebanon. They meant
that Palestinian land would go to the Israelis, that Israel would never give
up territory on which the Palestinians could create their own state. Begin
vowed to deprive the Palestinians of their land, but it was also necessary
to deprive them of the will to resist and physically eradicate the most
active fighters for the rights of the Palestinian people. This is exactly what
Israeli soldiers have been doing in Lebanon for more than a month.
A few words about the moral, or historical-moral, ■ side of the Israeli
adventure and Israeli politics in general. As you know, the state of Israel
was created shortly after the Second World War and the most powerful
impetus for its creation was the tragic fate of the Jews in Europe, captured
by Hitler. The Nazis killed about 6 million Jews, two-thirds of them living
in Europe. Israel's leaders present this monstrous genocide as the main
historical mandate justifying the protection of Israel's security. This must
not happen again! And who wouldn't agree with this? Yes, it shouldn't.
But is it possible for today's executioner to speak on behalf of yesterday's
victims and justify his atrocities by their fate? Meanwhile, Begin
arrogates to himself this right, transferring to the Arabs the methods that
Hitler used against the Jews. And just like Hitler, he demands “living
space” - at the expense of the territory of other peoples. It is not surprising
that President Mitterrand, when he was talking about the Israeli bombing
and shelling of West Beirut, came to mind the fate of the French village of
Oradour, where the inhabitants were completely exterminated by the
Nazis. Zionism is indeed a form of racism.

***
Now again about American Middle East policy. With all the
abundance of components that it consists of, two appear as key: the

121
imperial, imperialist interests of the United States, acting under the
pseudonym of national ones, and the influence of Zionist and semi-Zionist
organizations and groups that form the so-called Israeli lobby. When there
are discrepancies, the second factor usually turns out to be predominant,
although more and more Americans are expressing dissatisfaction with
this circumstance and among American Jews there are growing protests
against Begin’s expansionist policy and louder warnings about the
dangers of following in its wake. George Ball, a very experienced
observer of American political life, recently noted that “the last time
America opposed Israel” ... was in 1956, under Eisenhower, who did not
approve of the Anglo-French-Israeli trifecta of aggression in the Suez
Canal zone. "We allowed the Begin government to direct American
foreign policy," he said, referring to Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
Absolutely right. But didn’t Begin and Sharon work for America?
The weakening of the PLO and Lebanon, “responsive” to the demands of
Tel Aviv and freed from inter-Arab, primarily Syrian, forces maintaining
order, suit Washington quite well. In blockaded Beirut, amid the roar of
Israeli shells, Reagan's emissary Philip Habib is in a hurry to reap the
political harvest, pleasing Israel, various Lebanese factions, and almost
even Palestinian troops, as he negotiates their “safe evacuation” from the
ring of the Israeli blockade. In the first act, Washington silently observed
the Israeli robbery, and in the second he appeared in the role of a
mediator, concerned about preventing new bloodshed. And the marines
loom at the ready off the Lebanese coast.
“It’s so important for us to have not just one, but several friends
there,” Defense Secretary Weinberger recently explained to American
journalists. This means that the Americans, portraying themselves as
opponents of Israel's bloody excesses, want to prove their usefulness to
the Arabs. This means that Camp David, which was buried, is being
revived anew - in the hope that Jordan’s resistance to American-Israeli
pressure will weaken under new circumstances. What about the
Palestinian problem? There is a lot of talk in Washington now that it is
not off the agenda, that it must definitely be addressed. But how? They
hope that now the Palestinians will be more receptive to the idea of scant
autonomy, which, in fact, Israel sought - in the spirit of Camp David.
President Reagan declared that “new Egypts must be created,”
meaning, of course, Sadat’s, capitulatory Egypts. Washington and Tel
Aviv are now working in this direction, having distributed their roles.
July 1982

HYPOCRISY
The general truth about Washington's connivance and direct
complicity with Israeli aggression in Lebanon is so obvious that it seems
to make “details” unnecessary. However, it is precisely through the details
that the full extent of complicity in this international crime and, at the
same time, all the pathetic double-dealing of the Reagan administration
are revealed. The details, as they say, shoot. The details kill you on the

122
spot - and not just in a figurative sense. And not only Palestinian
resistance fighters fighting with weapons in their hands, but also civilians.
And this especially applies to such “parts” as American ball shells and
bombs supplied to Israel and used by it in Southern Lebanon.
What is this thing? A relatively new fruit of the evil genius of the
Pentagon specialists, who are tirelessly improving the science of
exterminating the human race and at the same time moving in two
directions: on the one hand, they are packaging nuclear death (let’s say,
into neutron charges), and on the other hand, they are bringing
conventional weapons closer to weapons in terms of destructive power
mass destruction. Ball shells and bombs, opening above the ground as if
from a cloud, sprinkle it with a hail of metal balls. Every hailstone
contains death!
The Americans first tried this hail on the Vietnamese. According to
the description two years ago, the ball bomb is a 35-centimeter cylinder
with a diameter of 7.5 centimeters, with 250 steel balls embedded in the
wall. Up to a thousand of these cylinders, packed in cassettes, could be
carried on board fighter-bombers. American experts have calculated that
the destructive effect of such a bomb load is equal to the firepower of
13,160 rifles, each firing a magazine of cartridges. And a very recent
description, current days, speaks of ball shells or bombs that open up and
disperse 650 mini-bombs that explode on contact with the ground.
“Progress” does not sleep, and Israel gets the newest products from
the American death conveyor. By its nature, it is a weapon against large
concentrations of troops. There are none of those in Lebanon, and in cities
there, including Beirut, military formations are located side by side with
the civilian population, like islands in the sea. It was this peaceful sea of
people that Israeli generals began to rain down with American hail from
ball shells and bombs.
Weapons of terror? Yes. And the weapon of Zionist racism, ruthlessly
used against the Arabs. Here you can immediately see the handwriting of
two terrorists in government positions - Begin and his Minister of Defense
Sharop. If quite a lot has been written about the first, then the second
deserves at least a brief description, especially since some are already
raising him to the pedestal of triumph and promising him the post of
prime minister in the near future.
The American weekly Newsweek, having published the biography of
Ariel Sharon, highlights two features of the man nicknamed the Bulldozer
for a reason: unscrupulousness in the Israeli internal political game (since
he changed parties and allies more than once) and “principled” cruelty, a
reputation as an “arch hawk” in regard to attitudes towards Palestinians
and Arabs in general. The magazine cites one typical episode. In 1953,
Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, ordered 25-year-old Sharon and
his subordinates to kill "ten to twelve" Arabs in the West Bank village of
Qibiya in retaliation for the killing of three Israelis. Sharon went beyond
his plan without flinching, blowing up 46 Arab houses and killing 69
civilians, including many women and children hiding in cellars. Then the
UN Security Council for the first time condemned Israel for its act of

123
merciless extermination of Arabs.
How many times has Israel been condemned like this since then? And
young Sharon grew into an overweight Minister of Defense nicknamed
Bulldozer and remained true to himself. Same handwriting. Same tactics.
Only the number of victims is different - many thousands. And other
instruments of extermination - including ball bombs.
Israeli bombing and shelling of Lebanese cities represent a gross
violation of a number of international conventions and UN resolutions
prohibiting military operations against civilians (among these documents
is the Charter of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, one of
the articles of which equates the senseless destruction of cities and
villages to a war crime) . This was highlighted in the recently published
communiqué of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. But
this is not just a slap in the face to international law. Israel also challenged
the domestic laws of its main ally and patron. This refers to those laws of
the United States that allow the use of American weapons supplied to
foreign countries only for the purpose of self-defense, and also establish
special restrictions on the use of weapons such as ball bombs and
projectiles.
Begin and Sharon issued a challenge, but the American president and
the American Congress evaded it and for a long time pretended that there
was, in fact, no challenge to American laws. And here we move on to the
Washington comedy around the Lebanese tragedy. The comedy, like the
tragedy, lasts from the beginning of June.
From the first days of the Israeli invasion, there were reports that
Lebanese and Palestinian civilians, young and old, were dying from
barbaric American “balloons” dropped by the Israelis from American-
made aircraft. Journalists and other observers, including American ones,
even singled out this “detail” from the general horror that befell Southern
Lebanon. Facts: The corpses of the dead lay on Lebanese streets and
roads. Correspondents of official representatives in Washington were
pestered by these facts: why is the American government silently
swallowing this violation of American laws? And the further, the more
the abyss of Washington's hypocrisy opened up. Only about half a month
after the invasion of Lebanon, the State Department sent a corresponding
request to the Israeli government. As if a crime committed in front of
everyone can be recognized as such only when the criminal himself
repents and confesses? But the criminal was in no hurry to answer, he had
no time, he continued to commit the crime.
On July 11, an NBC television program featured the following
dialogue between correspondents and Secretary of Defense Weinberger:
Question. But three weeks ago you asked to answer the question
whether cluster bombs were used. What answer did you receive?
Answer. We are still conducting an investigation and have not yet
completed it...
Question. Isn't it surprising that the Israeli military cannot tell the
United States whether they used prohibited weapons or not? Doesn't this
seem strange to you?

124
 Answer. This is simply an example of how we have no control over
this country or its military...
Question. Will it be necessary to change laws in the future in order to
prevent this kind of use of American weapons and bring greater clarity to
the issue of American responsibility for this...
Answer. The law is still completely clear. This weapon can only be
used for defensive purposes. But the question arises about what self-
defense is...
Caspar Weinberger in Washington is considered one of those who
would like to be tougher with Israeli leaders, bearing in mind that it is
politically unprofitable to alienate such “moderate” Arab countries as
Saudi Arabia and Jordan from the United States, or to put Egypt in an
“uncomfortable position.” PI, after all, this patented “hawk” is cooing
“dove” here. There are no “hawks” against Begin and Sharon in official
Washington. Meanwhile, “control of this country or its armed forces”
(Weinberger’s words) would be easy for America. For this, only one thing
is required: that, observing their own legislation, the President and
Congress of the United States point their fingers at the aggressor and stop
supplying him with weapons and other American assistance. “The law...
is absolutely clear,” we repeat Weinberger’s words. But neither legislators
nor the executive branch want to comply with it in relation to Israel.
Finally, on July 16, 40 days after the invasion of Lebanon, apparently
delivered on a turtle (since all supersonic planes are occupied by other
things), the Israeli response regarding ball bombs and shells arrived in
Washington. Its contents are kept secret. And just as secretly there are
contacts between the White House and Capitol Hill: what to do next? A
"study" of Begin's response is reportedly underway. Judging by the fact
that “there is no deadline for completing the study” (the words of Deputy
White House Press Secretary Speaks), it too may move at a snail's pace.
At the same time, on July 19, it was announced that President Reagan
had ordered a “suspend” on the supply of ballistic missiles and bombs to
Israel. What does this gesture mean? That Israel has already done
everything it wanted with the help of the American savage hail? That
Sharon has enough “balls” in reserve to survive the American
“suspension”? Or is this a pathetic bone that the American president has
thrown to the outraged American and world public? It is difficult to test
the first and second assumptions, but the third seems correct. Yes, bone.
Yes, pathetic. And, besides, a screen. After all, the White House has not
said a word about suspending or terminating other military supplies to
Israel. American military assistance continues as if nothing had happened.
There are opinions that it can be increased in order to compensate Israel
for the “damage” it has suffered.
The tragedy in Lebanon continues. The comedy continues in
Washington. Would you believe it, they still haven’t come to an official
conclusion: did Israel undertake a criminal aggression or just an action of
legitimate “self-defense”?
July 1982

125
 SEASON OF THE DEAD
August has begun and the holiday season is in full swing. Journalists,
unless, of course, they themselves are on vacation, write and talk in their
reports about the low season, about capitals that are abandoned by
residents and stormed by tourists.
Dead season... How does this sound in relation to Lebanon, where
they do not have time to bury the dead. And it’s not tourists who are
besieging Beirut.
Lebanon remains in the spotlight. For eight weeks now, on the
ancient land, which nature has so endowed with a gentle sea, beautiful
mountains and paradise, a long hot - damned - summer has been dragging
on.
Just three or four days after their invasion of Lebanon, which began
on June 6, the Israelis broke through to the outskirts of Beirut, and since
then, the siege has lasted for more than a month and a half.
Not an execution, but a slow, painful torture. A ceasefire was
established and violated 7 times.
In the following days, Israeli air raids and artillery shelling of
tormented West Beirut were the most brutal. The Israelis deliberately
targeted areas where only civilians lived—more than 600 people were
killed and wounded.
On Thursday, the Security Council, having urgently met,
unanimously adopted a resolution demanding an end to the blockade of
Beirut and not impede the supply of food and basic necessities to the
population. Only the US representative did not join this demand, although
in it, if you like, the voice of the conscience of all mankind is heard. A
person cannot and should not put up with it when an innocent person is
tormented and killed before his eyes. All of humanity cannot come to
terms with this.
What is the political meaning of the torture to which the half-million
population of West Beirut is being subjected? Why do the invaders,
constantly threatening execution, that is, storming, still not go ahead with
the assault?
They are afraid of losses in their army, which is accustomed to
fighting with little blood in its lightning attacks on its Arab neighbors.
And one more consideration. Israeli extremists have demonstrated many
times their disregard for the opinion of the world community, but the
execution of a city of half a million is fraught with such moral and
political damage for them, including in the United States, that they cannot
ignore it.
For Begin and Sharon, torture by siege is an attempt to achieve the
same goal at a lower cost. And the goal is known - by bleeding the
Palestine Liberation Organization as much as possible, by destroying it
physically as much as possible, to achieve the political capitulation of the
PLO, to bring it publicly to its knees. The Israeli, Zionist leaders want the
PLO with its military units not only to leave Beirut, from Lebanon, but
also to sink into political oblivion, without receiving any promises to

126
resolve the Palestinian issue on the basis of self-determination and the
creation of a Palestinian state.
What about the Palestinians? As one of the leaders of the PLO, Abu
Ayyad, told the Italian agency ANSA: “In order to save Beirut and our
Lebanese brothers, who resisted the enemy with us, we are ready to agree
to anything. But there is, however, a line that we cannot cross. We cannot
give up and betray our cause. We are ready for anything except
capitulation.”
They are ready to fight. And if you leave Beirut, then with your head
raised, subject to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon and the
preservation of the PLO as the legal representative of the Palestinian
people.
So, along with the armed struggle there is a political struggle.
Speaking to each other in the language of weapons, opponents naturally
do not sit down at the negotiating table. There is no table as such at all,
but there are intermediaries, and the emissary of the US President Philip
Habib, an American diplomat of Lebanese origin, imposes himself as the
main mediator. Habib speaks directly to Israel, and to the Palestinians
through the Lebanese, Syrians, Saudis, Jordanians, since Washington, in
solidarity with Tel Aviv, does not recognize the PLO as a representative
of the Palestinian people. In Washington they say that they will be ready
for direct contact with the PLO if it recognizes the right of the State of
Israel to exist. At the same time, Washington is hinting that in this case
the American government will be able to put pressure on Begin to take a
more reasonable position on the Palestinian issue.
Intricate tactics. Moreover, she is hypocritical and deceitful. Habib
poses as an impartial mediator, but, in fact, he is an emissary not only of
Reagan, but also of Begin.
Let me illustrate this with a fresh example. On July 25, PLO
Executive Committee Chairman Yasser Arafat was visited in West Beirut
by a delegation of five American congressmen touring the Middle East.
After the meeting, Congressman Paul McCloskey told reporters that in the
presence of the Americans, Arafat signed a document recognizing all UN
resolutions on the Middle East, and therefore Israel’s right to exist.
This message caused an extraordinary uproar in the Western press.
But Israel's reaction was completely negative, and in Washington officials
first called for "extreme caution" and then - following Tel Aviv - declared
the whole thing a "propaganda stunt."
This is not about a trick, but about a willingness to make a reasonable
compromise. Representatives of the PLO clarified and explained the
contents of the document signed by Arafat in the presence of American
congressmen. The PLO accepts all UN resolutions “relating to the
Palestinian question.” That is, we are talking about recognizing the right
to exist of both Israel and the Palestinian state. We are talking about
mutual, not unilateral recognition. Reasonable and fair. But it is against
this - against the Palestinian state - that Begin, Sharon and company rear
up.
Israel speaks in the language of ultimatums. The Israeli government

127
said in a statement that the PLO must "disappear" from the Middle East
scene, both militarily and politically. This line is essentially being
followed by Washington.
August 1982

BEGIN AND HITLER

These days, Beirut has become our common bleeding wound, the
wound of all humanity.
Even those people, especially in the United States, who justified
Israeli aggression in Lebanon are now uneasy. Their composure betrays
them when they see the cruelty of the conquerors and the suffering of the
innocent in West Beirut.
Here is one example of this kind - the Washington Post newspaper.
Recently, in an editorial, she indicted President Reagan personally. She
wrote: “Yesterday a photograph was sent from Lebanon in which the
results he (Reagan) achieved were reflected like a drop of water:
"Photo shows a seven-month-old baby who lost both arms and
suffered severe burns when an Israeli fighter jet mistakenly struck
Christian residential areas in East Beirut."
So, it was a “mistake”—it was not a Muslim, but a Christian seven-
month-old boy who lost both arms and received severe burns, and not in
West Beirut, but in East Beirut. But this time, the Washington Post does
not excuse either the Israelis or the American president, suggesting that he
either really seek a ceasefire, or “drop the mask and openly accept a share
of responsibility.”
And on the same day, the Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post published
the text of Begin's message to Reagan. Thanking “dear Ron” for the
birthday greetings, Begin writes: “I feel like a prime minister entrusted
with the task of commanding a valiant army outside the walls of “Berlin”,
where among civilians he hides in a bunker hidden deep underground,
Hitler and his henchmen."
Think about these words. Begin lives in some kind of upside-down
world and is looking for like-minded people there. He, Begin, is confident
that the US President will accept the blasphemous comparison of Beirut,
being destroyed by the Israelis, with Nazi Berlin, and at the same time
agree with Begin’s right to exterminate innocent residents in order to get
to the armed Palestinians, and not just anywhere, but on the soil of a
foreign state, where the Israelis entered by force.
The hated word - Hitler - now appears frequently in international
news. But not in the connection in which Begin attracted him. It is he
himself, it is Begin, who is compared to Hitler - both in the East, in
socialist countries, and increasingly in the West. He shows himself to be a
maniac and fanatic, like Hitler. And a racist, perhaps, no less than the
Fuhrer. Yes, a racist, although his racism, consciousness of racial
exclusivity, sense of permissiveness are directed not against Jews or
Slavs, like Hitler, but against Arabs, against Palestinians.
A seven-month-old child with his arms torn off... How many times
our hearts sank these days! But Begin, Sharoya and the like go ahead,

128
exterminating innocent people. And not just people. An entire people
“guilty” only of the fact that the state of Israel decided to settle on those
lands where Palestinians lived from century to century.
There is a cruel immoral rule - the end justifies the means. The goal
even coincides, merges with the means, if the goal is genocide, the
destruction of an entire people.
History, of course, will have its say. But even now, despite all their
propaganda covers, the Zionists stand close to the Nazis in our minds,
shocked by the pictures of barbaric destruction and massacres in Beirut.
August 1982

HOPES FOR SCHULTZ

Time flies so quickly, today's events so confidently displace
yesterday's events from our consciousness, that one name has already
been forgotten - due to uselessness - which only a month ago was familiar
to us, like slippers, although far from being so comfortable and cozy. I
mean Alexander Haig, the former US Secretary of State.
Let's remember him for a moment to move on to his successor and
some thoughts on US policy. Haig managed to utter many words with an
eye to eternity. Which of them will become his political epitaph? Maybe
these: “There are more important things than peace.” Or this exclamation:
“I’m taking command here.” It burst out from Haig on March 30, 1980,
immediately after the assassination attempt on President Reagan, when
the Secretary of State appeared before reporters at the White House in
complete panic - with shaking hands.
The ambitious general, who had made a dizzying career in just ten
years, could not even take command of American foreign policy. As the
ancient Romans said: Sic transit gloria mundi! This is how worldly glory
passes!
However, some suggest that the glory has not faded, that Haig is
aiming for the presidency - in 1984. If this is so, then his chances are
approximately zero - the same as in the unsuccessful attempt in 1980.
Haig does not have any broad political base in the Republican Party, to
which he counts himself, there is no real support “on the ground.” And
without this, a successful start in the election campaign is impossible.
Secondly, the post of Secretary of State did not add to his attractiveness,
even in the eyes of his possible supporters, showing inconsistency, an
ability to divide rather than unite, and for an American politician who
relies on different factions of the ruling elite and seeks the support of
different groups of the population, it is important if not maybe, then at
least look like a “unifier”. In short, the “eastern establishment,” that is, the
political and economic elite of the Northeast of the United States,
dissatisfied with the dominance of Californian newly minted and
inexperienced millionaires in Washington, will, it seems, find another
candidate in 1984, not Alexander Haig, to try to seize power.
In political parlance, the name Alexander Haig has already been
replaced by another name - George Shultz, the new Secretary of State.
True, he has not yet had time to gift the world with his aphorisms and at

129
first, unlike his predecessor, he prefers to listen - and remain silent.
Shultz, 61, an economist by training, held three ministerial posts
under Nixon and in recent years was president of Bechtel, a major
construction corporation headquartered in San Francisco with operations
in dozens of countries around the world. Unanimously approved by the
Senate. And he was showered with praise from bourgeois observers and
politicians - honest and decent, unambitious and, however, not allowing
himself to be pushed around, calm and - unlike Haig - able to “play in a
team”, not throwing tantrums and noisy scenes at any occasion. In
addition, he is a Californian - at least at his place of last residence, who
personally and well knows the president himself, his closest aides,
commanders in the White House, and such a competitor of the Secretary
of State as Secretary of Defense Weinberger, with whom, by the way, he
worked at the Bechtel corporation "
We must see, firstly, how all these characteristics are verified in
practice. After all, with a passion that does not fit with their usual
practicality and even skepticism, American observers at first attribute to
many statesmen the qualities of a superman, or, let's say in Russian, a
miracle worker. And secondly, and this is the main thing, what all these
qualities will be applied to, what kind of policy.
Shultz is, without a doubt, a conservative. Otherwise he would not
have gotten into Reagan's cabinet. But he is considered a sober-minded
conservative who understands the world in which America exists and the
limits of its capabilities. Can such a person pursue the short-sighted and
dangerous policies that President Reagan calls a “crusade for freedom”?
Let's listen to the opinion of American observers.
Here, for example, is what the New York Times hopes for Shultz:
“Although in his public appearances George Shultz, as befits him, fully
supports Reagan’s policies, the new Secretary of State knows well what a
terrible mess the President has turned politics into United States in
relation to the Soviet Union. Unofficially, his sober vision will
undoubtedly advise the President something like the following: the task of
the United States in Poland and the Soviet Union cannot be to overthrow
the power of the Communists. American policy must be one of
coexistence—and a norm of behavior that can be determined by
agreements and reinforced by economic incentives. In this spirit, the arms
race can be curbed...Only on such a platform can the allies be persuaded
to remain faithful to their alliance.”
Such hope for Shultz's "sober view" exists among despairing
American observers. Here are the words of one of them, Leslie Gelb:
"Only two things can force the administration to change its course to the
right - failure or Shultz." Another well-known observer, Joseph Kraft,
calls Shultz “the country’s last hope for avoiding the collapse of another
president.”
Listen to what they say: collapse... failure of the president...
Powerful words.
And not random.

130
 Over the past ten years, America - constitutionally - could have easily
gotten by with two presidents, given that a president can be elected twice
and spend a total of eight years in the White House. Instead, we are faced
with the fourth president in ten years. Over the same ten years, the United
States now has its sixth Secretary of State. There were Rogers and
Kissinger under Nixon and Ford, Vance and Muskie under Carter. The
pace is accelerating - and now Reagan has a second secretary of state,
although only a year and a half of his presidency have passed.
But I digress. With all the hopes for Schultz’s “sober view,” a more
plausible, although less comforting, forecast is expressed, in my opinion,
by the weekly Business Week. He writes: "Shultz's main task will not be
to change Reagan's policies, but to make them more effective."
But how can unrealistic policies be made effective? You can’t tell the
whole world: “I’m taking command here.” But even if you say it, the
world won’t listen.
I will conclude my commentary with the rather pessimistic words of
the Baltimore Sun: “It seems that Reagan’s America is quite ready to
declare that it intends to listen only to its own drummer, telling the rest of
the world to go to hell... Unfortunately, the president is narrowing rather
than expanding your view of the world."
August 1982

UNDER COVER OF THE AMERICAN VETO

The concept of catharsis comes from the ancient Greeks - the
purification of souls through tragedy. Translating the high style into the
language of the Russian proverb, we get: every cloud has a silver lining.
Trouble reveals the characters of people, and international crises reveal
the policies of states. What is hidden and feigned appears in its true form,
in the light of day. Now, watching with shudder and pain the tragedy of
West Beirut, we can, however, talk about a kind of catharsis - about
clarifying the truth, about becoming familiar with the truth. We can and
should talk about political lessons. They are complex and multi-layered.
Without pretending to be complete or even new, I will try to present a few
considerations.
The first layer of accusations brought by the Beirut tribunal against
the killed and wounded people and the destroyed streets is of a moral,
moral order. Behind the brutal shelling and merciless (and unpunished) air
raids, Begin and Sharon's tactics are visible to reduce the number of
Israeli casualties at the cost of tenfold, hundredfold increase in casualties
among the innocent civilian population of West Beirut. They pay at
someone else's expense. They neglect the anger of the whole world in
order to reduce criticism of their adventure in Israel itself.
However, the cruelty (on a racist basis) of these leaders of Zionism
does not need proof. And it’s worth talking about the hard-heartedness of
the American president. In America, they often talk and write about
Ronald Reagan's indifference and insensitivity towards the fate of the
American poor. He was nicknamed "Robin Hood in reverse" - robbing the
poor to further enrich the rich. Now the cruelty towards the unfortunate,

131
towards those in trouble, has been demonstrated using an “international”
example - the plight of the civilian population of West Beirut. It is within
the power of the American president to stop the bloodbath, the destruction
of a big city, the murder and torture of its inhabitants. He has a kind of
veto power over the extremist practices of Israeli leaders, because they
rely only on American comprehensive assistance. But Reagan does not
want to use this veto, due to the nature of the US-Israeli relationship, and
therefore takes a large share of responsibility for what is happening. For
him, on the scale of human values, humanity is clearly lower than
political calculations and the desire to please American Zionism. In
addition, humanity in the minds of the American president apparently has
nothing to do with personal freedom - this is the leitmotif of his sermons
on moral and ethical topics. Apparently, the personality for which he
stands is free from the feeling of compassion, the strongest of the ties that
bind people.
The parallels with the past are relative, but the permissibility of mass
casualties among the civilian population of another country (for the sake
of preserving the lives of its soldiers) is in the tradition of warfare by the
United States. Let us remember Truman with his atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or the bombing of Dresden during the Second
World War, a “regular” bombing that killed many tens of thousands of
people. Or the “Christmas” 1972 raids of American strategic B-52s on
Hanoi and Haiphong with their “carpet” bombings, when bombs laid out
paths of death among residential areas. Let us remember all this to say
that Begin and Sharon had teachers, and Reagan had predecessors.
Since we are talking about the moral lessons of the Lebanese tragedy,
it is necessary to fill in some omissions that are now characteristic of
American politicians, as well as the press. Where has the problem of
“international terrorism” that the Reagan administration debuted in
January 1981 gone? And why has she disappeared these days? Of course,
not only because Alexander Haig, the number one fighter against
“international terrorism,” disappeared from the scene. No, she
disappeared, because the figures of true, without quotes, international
terrorists stood out very prominently on the stage. They capture not just
any planes, but a third of the territory of another country. They turn into
hostages not a few dozen passengers, but half a million residents of the
capital of another country. International terrorists don't just keep the
world on edge by threatening to kill hostages if their demands aren't met.
No, they kill their hostages day after day, week after week. They do not
seize foreign embassies. No, they are raining artillery shells on their
territory. And as soon as, let’s say, the French government takes a
political position that does not suit these terrorists, targeted artillery fire
opens on the French embassy and the ambassador’s residence. These are
all the bloody everyday life of Beirut, which has now completely closed
the topic of international terrorism in the mouths of Ame
For some reason, another crowning theme - “human rights” - is not
mentioned in the meager descriptions of the concentration camps created

132
by the Israeli occupiers for Palestinians in southern Lebanon. Such
forgetfulness reeks of hypocrisy thousands of miles away. But it's not all
about hypocrisy. Another explanation, of course, is that the ally of Zionist
racism is the racism of the American ruling elite, wittingly or unwittingly
(which is no better) dividing people into first-class, second-class, third-
class, etc.
One more thing. In the set of maxims that the American president,
taking the pose of a defender of morality and law, addresses primarily to
the Soviet Union, there is invariably a call for “restraint” in international
behavior. It's time to remember restraint now by calling the Israelis back.
But no, and it is forgotten. And this is nothing more than empty
hypocrisy. Washington remembered and unleashed Israeli extremists, but
extremism is the opposite of restraint.
Taking primarily the moral side of the Lebanese events, one cannot
ignore the international legal one. Israel committed an act of aggression
by armed entry into Lebanese territory and seizing part of it. Challenging
the international community, Israel violated the ceasefire agreements in
Beirut a dozen times and approximately the same number of Security
Council resolutions. And if for Begin and Sharon the Council resolutions
Security is nothing more than scraps of paper, then the explanation for
this, again, is in the position of Uncle Sam, who extends his patronizing
hand over the heads of international criminals. In Tel Aviv they know that
- with the tacit or secret blessing of Washington - they can violate even
those resolutions for which they voted American representative, and that
this representative will certainly impose a veto when sanctions are
envisaged against the aggressor.
And here, on the issue of sanctions, we also come across the famous
American “double standard”, or simply duplicity. Who doesn’t know
about the notorious “sanctions” of the Reagan administration against the
gas-pipe project and in connection with the situation in Poland. The last
time, at the end of June, they were even directed against Western
European corporations participating in the implementation of the
mentioned project, contrary to international law, international trade laws
and the sovereignty of countries allied with the United States. It is known
that this caused something like a bitter trade war with strong political
overtones between the United States and Western Europe. But when the
question is about applying legal sanctions against the aggressor (they are
only minimal in nature: stopping the supply of weapons to the aggressor),
the Americans impose a veto.
What is common between Washington’s unauthorized imposition of
illegal sanctions and its rejection of legal sanctions provided for by the
UN Charter? The common thing is that in both the first and second cases,
the United States is going against the will of the world community,
finding itself in complete isolation, abandoned even by its closest friends.
In both cases, the overseas power also proceeds from the fact that the law
is not written to it, and selfishly tears away the material without which
normal international cooperation and maintenance of peace are
impossible...

133
 Last week, President Reagan hosted Israeli Foreign Minister Shamir
at the White House. About the beginning of their meeting, the New York
Times wrote the following: “Although the president likes to joke during
such a procedure, which is usually attended by reporters, this time he sat
silently, trying not to look at Shamir.”
This, if you like, was the entire American “sanction” against Israel.
For photojournalists - and the public. Caused by unprecedented Israeli
raids on West Beirut, which resulted in unprecedented casualties. Since
then, the Israelis have set new records of brutality. And the Americans
imposed a new veto on the resolution calling for sanctions against the
aggressor.
August 1982

POLITICS AND COMPRESSORS

In the port of Le Havre on August 26, the French company Dresser,
France loaded three compressors on board the Borodin vessel intended for
the construction of the Siberia - Western Europe gas pipeline.
In normal international life and trade, this would be a minor fact for a
collection of short reports hidden in the bowels of large newspapers. But
the word “normal” is somehow not entirely suitable to describe current
international life and trade. A minor fact was reported in headlines. It
became the culmination of a still unfinished, developing bitter political
dispute between the United States and its Western European partners and
allies.
In fact, the background to the shipment of the three compressors has
been widely publicized and is therefore well known. The Reagan
government and the American president himself personally do not want a
gas pipeline to Western Europe from the Soviet Union, nor the
participation of Western European firms and governments in this project,
called “gas-pipe”. They don’t want to - that’s all. Although, it would
seem, what do they care? The Western Europeans both hinted and directly
told the Americans that they themselves would somehow figure out
whether Soviet gas threatened their economic independence or, on the
contrary, would help normalize the temperature in East-West relations.
Although the backstory lasted a long time, the American president
and some of his closest advisers did not heed either the hints or, as they
say, the direct text. On June 18, Reagan went all-in by prohibiting
branches of American firms located in Western Europe from fulfilling
already concluded contracts for the supply of equipment for the gas-pipe
project. For all its diplomatic flourishes, this decision was an outright
insult to American allies. It raised at least two questions. Will they follow
American cavalier attitude towards international agreements and abandon
contracts already concluded with the Soviet Union? And the second
question, even more significant: are they masters in their own house OR
will they tolerate a kind of extraterritoriality of American firms operating
on their territory and recognize them as a kind of legal economic “fifth
column” of the US government? The second question is no more and no

134
less a question of national sovereignty, which, and in front of everyone’s
eyes, is being crushed under a cowboy boot.
And here is a specific example - the case of three compressors.
American authorities prohibited the American multinational company
Dresser Industries (headquartered in Dallas, Texas) and its French
subsidiary Dresser France from shipping three already manufactured
compressors to the Soviet Union. The French authorities ordered Dresser-
France to ship the compressors. This is what was done on August 26 in Le
Havre. Not shying away from such a head-on collision with Washington,
Paris set an example for Bonn, London and Rome, and, judging by
official statements from these capitals, they will follow this example,
defending both their sovereignty and the European concept of respect for
trade and economic obligations, without which it is impossible present the
maintenance and development of interstate relations.
Here, for example, is how the West German newspaper Westdeutsche
Allgemeine describes the essence of what happened: “Of course, concern
about gas supplies is also not removed from the table, but at present we
are talking primarily about protecting national sovereignty. Mitterrand
reacted to American attacks and the US desire for dominance no less
painfully than de Gaulle did in his time. However, unlike at that time, the
French now feel... representatives of the entire European community.
France stands as a united front with England, Germany and Italy against
the American embargo and its extension to European companies.”
The same thoughts, also bluntly, are expressed by the American
newspaper The Washington Post, declaring in an editorial about the
“failure of the embargo.” Here are her words: “President Reagan’s
crusade against the Soviet gas pipeline... was supposed to be a test for
East and West. Instead, it turned out to be a test for the United States and
its European allies. In Europe, this problem is no longer considered in
terms of relations with the Soviet Union. It became a problem of
European national sovereignty. The more Reagan puts pressure on France,
the more the governments of these countries will resist.”
The next step in the long-overdue and yet unexpectedly dramatic
confrontation across the Atlantic Ocean lies with the United States. In
economic terms, it has already been done. The US Department of
Commerce has reportedly ordered a ban on Dresser-France from
operating in the US and from receiving US equipment and technology.
The ban also applies to the French company Creusot-Loire. This is a
direct warning to other Western European companies participating in the
gas-pipe project - they too may end up on the American “black list”.
As for the political plan, having received a well-deserved punch on
the nose, the White House seems to have given it some thought - in
hindsight. Of course, they did not think so much that they would abandon
their impudent policies; no, President Reagan, as they report, is still in
favor of a “tough” approach and for a “crusade.” However, they became
thoughtful, suddenly realizing that in this case the hands are short, you
can’t stamp your foot on the French president, you can’t return the
compressors, and stirring up a loud scandal in the “Atlantic family” will

135
not add political capital to the West.
The old Russian word “tyranny” is quite applicable, it turns out, not
only to the merchants of Ostrovsky’s era, but also to modern Californian
nouveau riche millionaires who combine external polish with very deep
ideas about the world around them. They also show their “temper” - and
what a character! Might, not right. Strength, not truth. These are the
features of the current Washington tyranny. America, of course, is above
all and, according to the tyrants, not only looks after its own interests, but
also understands the interests of its allies better than them, especially
when it comes to the “insidious Russians” who, having put the Western
Europeans in their energy balance through an insidious gas pipeline, will
take them with their bare hands, without even bothering to move their
tank armies across the Rhine. Here is the concept of the Californians from
the White House, stated briefly and in simple words.
It is difficult for a strong person to object. Western Europeans know
this from the experience of their relations with America. Moreover, they
cling to its nuclear missile wing and have by no means gotten rid of their
fears “regarding the Russians.” With all the disputes across the Atlantic,
which have already become permanent, one cannot underestimate the
moment of ideological kinship and a sense of common destiny in the
bourgeois West. But the differences in approach and in politics are
increasing, because in the Atlantic family the “children” have matured
economically and cease to believe in the political wisdom of their
overseas guardian, realizing despite him that the path to peace on the
European continent does not go through a severance of East-West ties, but
through their development, not through saying goodbye to détente, but
through preserving it.
Politics intervening in the compressor story and pushing it to the
forefront of international news indicates an intensification of Atlantic
divisions and outright contradictions. Of course, there are enough Western
propagandists who draw only one conclusion from what happened - that
this is “to the advantage” of Moscow. How to respond to these attempts to
divert attention from the essence of the matter? Probably something that
even the most inveterate anti-Sovietists cannot doubt: after all, the Elysee
Palace did not act at the prompting of the Kremlin. And one more thing:
not only Moscow, but, obviously, the overwhelming majority of people
benefit from everything that asserts the predominance of common sense
over adventurism and political irresponsibility.
August 1982

THEY DON'T THINK ABOUT LEAVING...

The withdrawal of Palestinian units from West Beirut has been
completed. You have seen these scenes on your television screens: trucks
filled with fighters, raised machine guns and fingers spread in the form of
the Latin letter V - victory, victory.
They won not in a physical sense, but in a moral sense. They didn’t
give up, they left with weapons in their hands and their heads raised.

136
Morally, Israel and Zionism, of course, lost. But this is little consolation if
the moral and political isolation of Israel in the international arena does
not turn into the force that will push the aggressor out of Lebanon. For
now, Begin and Sharon are not thinking about leaving. Quite the
opposite...
As they say, shame does not eat away at the eyes, but appetite comes
with eating. It is worth recalling some steps. Israeli leaders explained their
invasion of Lebanon by the need to create a so-called “security zone” in
the very south of Lebanon. But it immediately became clear that their
plans were broader. They occupied the entire southern half of Lebanon,
entered East Beirut, besieged and destroyed Western Beirut. Now, after
the departure of Palestinian fighters from the Lebanese capital, the Israelis
are setting their sights on the northern half of Lebanon - under the pretext
that some Palestinian troops remain there.
The invaders are also strengthening their positions in eastern
Lebanon, in the Bekaa Valley region - on the border with Syria and
against the Syrian troops stationed there. Having acquired new “positions
of power,” Israel is talking about accelerating the construction of new
Jewish settlements in the Arab lands of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This is what is really happening, which requires resistance to new and
new claims of the aggressor. Meanwhile, they want to gloss over these
alarming real processes, now inflating some imaginary disagreements
between Tel Aviv and its patrons in Washington.
There is a lot of fuss about President Reagan's televised speech on
September 1st. He, in particular, proposed that the Israeli government
freeze the creation of new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
which is presented as a “toughening” of the American position towards
the unruly “strategic ally.”
But this is just a deceptive American balm for Arab wounds. The text
of the presidential speech takes up 15 pages, but there is not a word in it
about the most pressing issue - the withdrawal of the Israelis from
Lebanon. Many words have been said about the Palestinian problem, but
very vague ones - in any case, there is no talk of a Palestinian state. A
clear hint is the idea of putting pressure on Jordan to join the Camp David
process.
In general, Washington gave the green light to Israel's attack on
Lebanon, and now, as in previous Arab-Israeli wars, it is helping it digest
the fruits of aggression.
September 1982

BOMBS AND DIPLOMACY

The guns have not yet fallen silent in Lebanon: even after the
departure of the Palestinian troops, the Israelis continue to tighten their
military grip around West Beirut and threaten the Syrians in the Bekaa
Valley. The guns had not yet fallen silent when diplomacy began to
speak. The same American diplomacy that, since the beginning of June,
has supported (contrary to world public opinion and all other members of

137
the Security Council) Israeli bombs, Israeli guns and the slow, painful
execution of West Beirut by Begin and Sharon.
Washington has given Tel Aviv everything from cluster bombs to
Ambassador Philip Habib to achieve its goals in Lebanon. And now that
Palestinian fighters have left West Beirut, President Reagan, immediately
and suddenly? proclaims a “new American policy” and sees among the
ruins of southern Lebanon “a new opportunity for peace in the Middle
East.” Yes, he still stands strongly for the “security” of Israel, but he
seems to be concerned about the fate of the Palestinian people, upset by
their “homelessness.” And the new Washington plan is praised to the
skies even by that part of the American bourgeois press that critically
assessed Reagan’s position of full support for Israeli expansionism. And
this same plan is resolutely, although from opposite points of view,
rejected by two political antagonists - Israel and Syria. But, judging by
press reports, some moderate and pro-Western Arab regimes find certain
“positive elements” in the “new initiative,” although they do not dare to
define them in any clear words.
In general, a large trial balloon has been launched from Washington,
and, pointing a finger at it, many Western politicians and journalists say
that the Americans, taking into account the lessons of the latest Middle
Eastern tragedy, are making a political regrouping, that considerations of
a “balanced policy” still prevail over the blind following Begin and
Sharon, and that even Reagan, the most pro-Israeli of American
presidents (although it is very difficult to establish primacy here),
understood the simplest and most essential of the Middle Eastern truths -
there can be no peace among the sands and orange groves there until it is
resolved Palestinian problem. What is the point of Washington's new
noisy political propaganda operation? The Americans want to strike while
the iron is hot, taking advantage of what Israeli bombs and shells (mostly
American-made) have done. They think about their oil interests, about
strengthening their influence, but at the same time, without any twinge of
conscience, the US President declares the primary problem in the Middle
East is “the strategic threat posed by the Soviet Union and its vassals.”
What is it like to be frightened by the “Soviet threat” in those days when
Israeli units were captured with the full blessings of America.
South of Lebanon and are in positions around West Beirut, which
they destroyed?! However, trying to reassure Washington politicians is a
futile effort.
It’s better to try to understand the essence of the American plan and
the reasons that gave rise to it right now. Here's what American balance
looks like, literally translated from English into Russian of three key
paragraphs from Reagan's speech:
“...If we talk about the future fate of the West Bank (Jordan River)
and Gaza, peace cannot be achieved on the basis of the creation of an
independent Palestinian state in these territories. Nor can peace be
achieved on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control over the
West Bank and Gaza.
Therefore, the United States will not support the creation of an

138
independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza any more than
we will support annexation and permanent Israeli control of that territory.
However, there is another way to peace. The final status of these
lands must, of course, be determined on the basis of compromise solutions
reached during negotiations. But the United States firmly believes that
self-government for Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, in
association with Jordan, offers the best hope for achieving a lasting, just
and sustainable peace.”
The West Bank and Gaza Strip are Arab lands captured by Israel in
1967. Home to 1.3 million Palestinians, they are considered, traditionally
part of Palestine, to be the most natural place for the formation of an
independent Palestinian state. But, as we see, the US President rejects the
creation of this state on these lands. A direct blow to the Palestinians, a
direct challenge to their aspirations.
How is the American plan “balanced”? And as we see, Washington
opposes Israel’s annexation of these Arab lands. So, the Palestinians are
paying by abandoning their most cherished, historical dream. And Israel
receives this payment for its refusal of what does not belong to it. The loot
must be returned to the rightful owner without any compensation to the
robber. This is an indisputable norm of criminal law. Need I say that no
norms of international law provide for encouragement and reward for the
aggressor?
Aggression is a type of international crime, and the return of foreign
lands seized by the aggressor is not an act of generosity, but a rule without
which normal international life is unthinkable. Meanwhile, according to
the “Reagan plan”, Israel should receive a very large political prize for its
seizures - in the form of the Palestinians abandoning the idea of creating
an independent state. According to current Washington terminology, this
is called “new realism.”
However, Begin and other Israeli leaders do not want even such
“realism” and even such a jackpot is rejected as insufficient. Intoxicated
by their takeovers in Lebanon, they are more militant than ever. They
openly seek annexation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and therefore
rejected Reagan’s call to “freeze” the construction of new Israeli
settlements in these territories—the long-tested method of creeping
annexation that precedes official annexation. In response to Reagan's
peacemaking appeal, the Israeli cabinet ordered the immediate
construction of three new settlements in the West Bank. This challenge to
the American patron testifies to the determination of Israeli leaders to go
ahead, hoping that their intra-American connections and the influence of
the Zionist lobby will help “manage” not only the Capitol (Begin openly
boasted of such an ability), but also the American president himself - with
the help of the same Capitol .
In a certain sense, one can understand the indignation of the Tel Aviv
terrorists at the inconsistency of their senior partner. In fact, the
Americans fed and fed Zionist expansionism, patronizing it or, at least,
turning a blind eye to acts of creeping annexation in the West Bank of
Jordan or to blatant robbery in Lebanon. The Americans taught Israel to

139
act not in accordance with international law, but according to the law of
the fist, the law of force. And now these same Americans are speaking out
against the annexation of the West Bank. There is something to get
hysterical about! Moreover, and this is worth emphasizing, it is the Israeli
fist and strength demonstrated in Lebanon that now allows Reagan to
claim the role of a peacemaker and almost an arbitrator in the Arab-Israeli
dispute (and, by the way, we add, they make this role false).
This is the logic of Tel Aviv's indignation. But Washington
remembered its interests in the Middle East, which were broader than
Israeli ones. And here it is appropriate to say a few more words about the
reasons that forced President Reagan to take his initiative at this very
moment.
On the one hand, aiding the aggressor resulted in significant moral
and political damage for the overseas power in the Arab world. A friend
in need is a true friend, but an enemy in need is a true enemy. The Arabs
saw America as such an enemy, and therefore it was urgently necessary to
repair its political reputation both in the Arab East and among non-aligned
countries in general.
On the other hand, perhaps never before have Arab fragmentation and
Arab helplessness been as visible as during the days and weeks of the
siege of West Beirut, when the Palestinians waited and did not receive
real help from other Arab countries. In these conditions, American
hypocritical groans about the need to solve the problem of “Palestinian
homelessness” and the proposed compromise regarding the fate of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip seem to some Arab regimes, mainly pro-
Western, as a way out of the political embarrassment they have
experienced. Since - after what happened in Lebanon - there is no pie in
the sky, at least give a bird in your hands. Apparently, Washington was
also counting on such a psychological bait, and some people fell for it,
judging by the “positive elements” that some Arab capitals suddenly
discovered in the “Reagan plan.” One must think that American
diplomacy is now working in this direction, even behind the scenes of the
Arab summit meeting taking place in the Moroccan city of Fez.
And finally, about omissions. The American initiative is also very
characteristic of them. She passes over in silence the role of the PLO,
which is recognized by more than a hundred states of the world as the sole
legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. And the topic of
Lebanon is present only as a topic of the already mentioned “favorable
opportunities” created by Israeli aggression for Washington’s diplomatic
efforts, but not at all as a topic, not as a problem of the speedy departure
of the aggressor’s troops. Not a word about leaving. Lebanon is being left
to the mercy of the Israelis.
The reference to a “strong and revived Lebanon” is a mockery as long
as the invading forces remain in that country as the defining military
force. Now Begin, Sharon and others are insisting that they will leave
Lebanon only after the evacuation of the Syrian units, which, as is known,
are there under the mandate of the Arab League.

140
 From a military point of view, the departure of the Syrians would
mean that Israel would become complete master of the situation. And
from a political point of view, the new Lebanese President Bashir
Gemayel completely suits the Zionists. As a result, they provide the so-
called “security zone” - a pretext for invading Lebanon - not only in the
Lebanese south. This entire country would become a “security zone”, or
simply a satellite of Israel, bound hand and foot by a “peace treaty”
similar to Camp David. Further more. Having pocketed Lebanon, Israel
would hang on the Syrian borders, greatly increasing political and military
pressure on the most intractable of its Arab neighbors. The position of
Jordan, which has long been subjected to treatment in the spirit of Camp
David and which, as we have seen, is given a special place in
Washington’s new Middle East plan, would also be weakened.
This is what follows from the mere silence in this regard—the silence
about the need for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from
Lebanon. It turns out that here too the aggressor will be rewarded - and
very generously. The Lebanese crane is left in his hands, and the Arabs
are lured by the already mentioned tit of the vague “self-government of
the Palestinians” in the vague “framework of association with Jordan.”
But Begin, who continues the Israeli colonization of the West Bank,
intends to take away this miserable tit. So much for the “new realism” of
American diplomacy, which is trying to selfishly crown the bloody affair
of shells and bombs.
September 1982

THE BACK SIDE OF KHABIB'S MEDALS

Philip Habib is a Lebanese-American diplomat and special envoy to
President Reagan. This is not the first year that he has acted as a mediator
between the Arabs and Israel. In the past three months, as the Israelis
invaded Lebanon, Philip Habib has flown countless times to Beirut,
Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, Cairo and other Arab capitals, negotiating
terms for the disengagement of the warring parties in West Beirut.
Terms were finally worked out, an international disengagement force,
including 800 US Marines, was brought into Beirut, and Palestinian
fighters withdrew under their supervision. For Khabib, an elderly and sick
man who carried a suitcase with medicines, the time had come for rest
and rewards.
Last week, outgoing Lebanese President Sarkis presented him with
the large ribbon of the Order of the Cedar of Lebanon. This week,
President Reagan awarded him America's highest honor, the Medal of
Freedom, at a special ceremony at the White House.
It seems like: finished the job - go for a walk safely. But, if I may
make a pun, these Habib medals are just the front side of the medal called
the situation in Lebanon. The matter is far from over.
The Palestinians left, last Friday the American Marines began
evacuating, Habib left, but Sharon and his troops are not going to leave
Lebanon. The agenda of Israeli aggression is far from exhausted, and
here, looking back, we see either short-sightedness or malicious intent on

141
the part of those who believed that the whole Lebanese problem, in fact,
consisted of the withdrawal of the PLO and its armed formations from
Lebanon.
No, Begin and Sharon looked further from the very beginning, but for
the time being they disguised their plans. And so the Palestinians left, but
the Israelis left West Beirut alone. Now they are crowding out the
Lebanese there national-patriotic forces, continuing to change the balance
of political forces in Lebanon to their advantage, strengthening the
Christian right and weakening the Muslim factions of Lebanese society.
Another - and very significant - issue on the unexhausted agenda of
the aggressors. They want Syrian units from the inter-Arab law
enforcement forces, mandated by the Arab League back in 1976, to leave
Lebanon after the Palestinians.
“We will not leave until the Syrians leave.” This is how the Israelis
pose the question, pulling up their tanks to the Bekaa Valley, where
armed clashes have occurred more than once these days.
Habib received his medals supposedly for achieving peace, and
Lebanon is actually facing the threat of two conflicts: the resumption of
an internecine civil war between Christians and Muslims and the outbreak
of a large-scale battle between Israelis and Syrians.
Having troops on Lebanese territory, Israel wants to make the most of
this fact. And the maximum includes a persistent, almost ultimatum
demand for Lebanon to conclude a separate peace treaty with Israel on the
Camp David model. Even the Lebanese well-wishers of Tel Aviv, like the
recently elected President Bashir Gemayel, who has not yet taken up his
duties, are taken aback. What is it like to sign a treaty with a neighbor
whose troops command on your territory?
But Sharon insists: we won’t leave until you sign. And thus he proves
even to Lebanese collaborators that Israel is not to be trifled with, that if
you extend a finger to it, your whole hand can be snatched away.
On September 6, an Arab summit meeting began in the Moroccan city
of Fez. It was called Fez-2 because the first phase took place back in
November 1981 and was interrupted due to disagreements among the
participants. The Moroccan, Saudi, Jordanian kings, Syrian, Iraqi and
other presidents, as well as other leaders, gathered. There was no Egypt
expelled from the Arab League after a separate deal with Israel. Libyan
leader Gaddafi was not there either.
Never before has the fragmentation of the Arab world been as evident
as in recent months. But at the meeting in Fez, despite the different
political orientations of the participants, they still came to a common
opinion on the Palestinian issue. It, contrary to Washington's expectations,
does not coincide with the noisily advertised “Reagan plan.” The
American plan, as we know, excludes the idea of creating an independent
Arab Palestinian state and ignores the PLO as the legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people.
The final declaration of the Fez meeting included the following
points: the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied

142
in 1967, including the Arab part of Jerusalem; the elimination of Israeli
settlements on these lands; reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination and the exercise of their inalienable national rights
under the leadership of the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the
Palestinians; transfer of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to UN control for a
transition period not exceeding a few months; the creation of an
independent Palestinian state with its capital in the Arab part of
Jerusalem; provision by the Security Council of guarantees of peace for
all countries in the region, including an independent Palestinian state;
providing Security Council guarantees for the implementation of these
principles.
The Fez proposals have been widely commented on. In Washington,
Secretary of State Shultz said that the Arab plan contradicted the “Reagan
plan.” The Israeli Foreign Ministry categorically rejected the Arab
proposals out of the gate, although, as many observers note, this is the
first time the Arab world has recognized Israel’s right to exist in this
form.
In the Fez principles, among others, I would highlight the following
point: emphasis on UN control and Security Council guarantees. The
Arabs rightly fear the kind of peace that America is imposing under its
auspices. From both Egyptian and Lebanese experience, they know what
this leads to. They do not want to be at the mercy—and arbitrariness—of
Washington and Tel Aviv.
September 1982

LESSONS OF SABRA AND SHATILA

Surely books will be written about the new drama of people and ideas
that is unfolding on an ancient land baked by the sun and history and
called Israeli aggression in Lebanon. But even now, when the action is far
from over and promises new moves and turns, it is clear that this drama
has already had its climaxes - planned and unexpected.
Those planned, at least by American diplomacy, include the
withdrawal of Palestinian fighters from West Beirut. With the help of
Israeli shells and bombs, the plenipotentiary worked tirelessly for this
climax. American President Philip Habib. Before the Palestinian troops
had time to leave the Lebanese capital, victorious fanfares were heard
across the ocean, and in their sounds one could discern the usual mixture
of piety and hypocrisy, as well as typical American efficiency, a
passionate desire not to miss the moment. Undeterred by the fact that the
blood was still wet and the ruins were smoking, President Reagan
announced in a televised address to Americans on September 1: “Today is
a day of which we should all be proud.” The same speech identified a
“new opportunity” for peace in the Middle East and outlined yet another
American plan for resolving the Palestinian problem. In it, as is known,
Washington moved even further away from recognizing the Palestinians’
right to self-determination, decisively excluding the idea of an
independent Palestinian state, but did not come close enough to the

143
position of Begin, who, having ironized Lebanon, considers his “right” to
annex the West Bank confirmed. and the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, this
was an American-style climax, prepared in advance - the Americans,
taking advantage of Israeli aggression, wanted to re-establish themselves
as the arbiter of Middle Eastern peace and order.
However, being in blessed California in those days, the American
president and his advisers apparently did not sense the internal, secret
course of Lebanese events. The bloody drama required a different, bloody
climax. It came not when armed Palestinians left West Beirut, but two
weeks later, when in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila they
began to kill unarmed people in the hundreds and thousands - women,
children, old people. The armed Palestinians left, having received
guarantees from Philip Habib (and therefore Ronald Reagan) that those
who remained, unarmed and peaceful, would not be touched. We know
what the American guarantees have become from the terrible photographs
showing piles of dead bodies. The American guarantees give off a
cadaverous smell. Under the agreement worked out by Habib, Begin
promised Reagan not to enter West Beirut—and broke his promise.
Who flooded Sabra and Shatila with streams of blood? Who killed
indiscriminately, shooting infants in the back of the head, not sparing the
very old and pregnant women? The Israelis claim that they did not do this,
and by way of clarification they most often mention the right-wing
Christian Phalangists, and sometimes the thugs of the South Lebanese
Major Haddad. Futile attempts to evade responsibility. "The killers!" -
this accusation thrown in the face of Begin and Sharon by one of the
Knesset members is irrefutable. The whole world is presenting it. Begin
and Sharon had military control over West Beirut and at the same time the
right to issue or not issue a “pass” to the killers.
After the climax in Sabra and Shatila, the American president again
appeared in front of television cameras. But it was no longer “a day we
should all be proud of.” He had to talk about the “heartbreaking scenes”
and how to “put an end to this horror.” He recalled something he had
forgotten in his previous speech—the Israeli occupation of Lebanon—and
even said that “it is imperative that the Israelis leave Beirut.” But he
remained silent about the fact that it was the Americans who gave security
guarantees to the unarmed and defenseless Palestinians. He didn't have
the courage to admit his guilt.
Well, there are times when even the most cold-blooded politicians
can hear the sobs of the living over the corpses of the innocent dead. They
can't help but hear. They are heard, if only because deafness and
dumbness are a political miscalculation at those moments when a spasm
of pain distorts the face of humanity. Nowadays, the word “investigation”
is often heard in the American Congress and in the Israeli Knesset. Who
are the perpetrators? Who allowed the terrible massacre? It seems Begin
has put the finishing touches on his long-painted self-portrait as an
international terrorist. Although he managed to win a vote of confidence
in the Knesset, never before has domestic opposition to the presumptuous
prime minister been so broad and assertive. Many assume that his

144
cabinet's chances are numbered and that this time he will not be able to
get away with it, even by sacrificing Sharod, whose resignation is being
demanded by indignant critics. Wait and see. In any case, Begin was
forced to retreat from his previous arrogant position, which excluded any
kind of investigation into what happened in Sabra and Shatila.
In Washington, there are different feelings and considerations behind
the demands for an investigation. Tel Aviv is providing Washington with
invaluable services, trying to tame another Arab country - Lebanon and
giving the Americans the opportunity to once again pose as curators of
peace in the Middle East. At the same time, Begin is confusing the
American game: his aggressive strategy, to put it mildly, is not to the
liking of the Arabs, and they, alas, are sure that it is the connivance and
patronage of the overseas “strategic ally” that is letting Israeli extremists
off the chain. In America, they would like to acquire both capital
(dominant positions in the Middle East) and maintain innocence (keeping
a distance from their overzealous junior partner). Difficult task. And
Begin and Sharon do not want to “put themselves in the position” of their
American guardians. Even in appearance, they now increasingly do not
take them into account, they go ahead, being confident that with the
intercession of the most powerful Zionist lobby they will get away with
everything. This sense of impunity - and given the extraordinary
circumstances of the global shock over what happened in Sabra and
Shatila - is causing irritation in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
There is a lot of talk now about American-Israeli disagreements, and a lot
of thunder and lightning is falling from Washington to Tel Aviv.
What is their, so to speak, destructive ability? To tell the truth, it is
very small. The sanctions are purely verbal, and even then with constant
reservations on the topic that the “security” of Israel is the primary
American concern in the Middle East (as if any of the neighbors are able
to threaten this heavily armed state). Are the sanctions practical? This
would be a reduction in American aid, the foundation of Israeli
expansionism. But no, the maximum “punishment” that the American
Congress is now capable of is a denial to Israel of... an increase in aid,
which Tel Aviv insists on when seeking reimbursement for the costs of
aggression in Lebanon. It appears that assistance for the next financial
year will be left as it was intended. And this is more than 2 billion dollars,
two thirds of which are for military needs. Wanting to make visible the
enormous amount of American aid to Israel, columnist James Reston
notes that it amounts to “three and a half to four and a half thousand
dollars per year for each Israeli family of five...”.
In general, without downplaying the current tactical disagreements
between Washington and Tel Aviv, we can say that they are like the dust
raised by the bulldozers of murderers raking up dead bodies in Palestinian
refugee camps. When the dust settles, we will see that the edifice of US-
Israeli relations remains essentially intact.
Yes, an investigation is necessary. We must tell the truth about the
monstrous crime, which became the culmination (is it the last?) of the
Lebanese drama that is far from over. But at the same time, it is important

145
to find out not only who the killers were and who let them into two
Palestinian camps in the southern outskirts of West Beirut, who set them
on the unarmed and defenseless. It is important to explore and recognize
where the road to the massacre historically led, which, of course, will
remain another grim sign in history. Having engaged in such an
investigation, we come across one picturesque mountainous corner in the
American state of Maryland called Camp David. It was there four years
ago, also in September, that the so-called framework for a Middle East
settlement was developed by ex-President Carter, the late Sadat and
Begin, who had not yet left the political scene.
Under Carter, and now under Reagan, they tried and are trying to
introduce Camp David into the consciousness of the Arab and
international public as a password word on the path to peace in the Middle
East. Meanwhile, Camp David has the same relation to the world as the
terrorist Begin has to the Nobel Peace Prize, although, let me remind you
not for gloating, but for the sake of truth, he shared it with Sadat in 1978 -
to the shame and disgrace of the Nobel Committee.
The Camp David “peace process” turned out to be a trap for the
Arabs, and for Israel a road to unpunished aggression and reprisals against
Palestinians, Lebanese and who else is next?! Egypt, having returned the
Sinai Peninsula through Camp David, actually deserted the Arab ranks,
weakening and further fragmenting them. Israel, having secured itself in
the south, is increasingly eager to fight in the north. The American-Israeli
strategic alliance has strengthened and, as was repeatedly emphasized, has
received much more opportunities to “work” the Arab countries one by
one, forcing them to separate deals along the lines of Camp David. Now
the record of Camp David can safely include the act of genocide in Sabra
and Shatila.
What's next? In light of the new bitter experience, the Arab states and
their leaders must turn away from the Washington sirens who once again
sing about the delights of Camp David. A trap remains a trap, and only a
Middle East settlement that is not separate, but comprehensive, can be
fair. Israel is now in complete moral and political isolation, but in any
separate tripartite negotiations, it, together with America, will always
form a “majority” against another Arab state to be processed. The only
true path to a fair settlement is not another behind-the-scenes Camp
David, but an international conference with the participation of all
interested parties, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, and
certainly with the participation of the Soviet Union. Not American
guarantees of peace and security, about which the victims of Sabra and
the Shuttle could say a lot, but international guarantees, guarantees of the
Security Council or its permanent members.
This is a common sense approach that opens up a true perspective of
peace. He is being pushed out. Soviet Union. The leaders of Arab states
also spoke in favor of this approach at their meeting in Fez. This
closeness of positions illuminates the cloudy, gloomy sky of the Middle
East with a glimmer of hope.

146
 September 1982

SEVENTEENTH WEEK OF AGGRESSION

Last week was the seventeenth week of Israeli aggression in Lebanon.
Over the seventeenth week echoed the echo of the fifteenth week, that
terrible act of genocide when, on September 16, 17 and 18, thousands of
civilians were brutally shot, stabbed, exterminated in the Palestinian
camps of Sabra and Shatila, located on the southern outskirts of West
Beirut.
What was this echo? First, last week Begin was forced to agree to a
legal investigation into the massacres in Sabra and Shatila. At first he and
Sharon were adamantly opposed to the investigation. With an arrogance
that reeks of racism, brushing aside the indignation of the whole world,
the Israeli cabinet in its first statement about the incident said: “No one
dares to teach us morality and respect for human life, qualities on which
generations of Israeli fighters were brought up and will be brought up.”
No one dares to teach... World public opinion doesn’t care about
Begin. But when a protest demonstration of almost 400,000 people took
place in Israel itself, when several ministers threatened to resign and
collapse the government coalition if the prime minister did not order an
investigation, Begin had to maneuver and ultimately concede. The
members of the special commission will be appointed by the President of
the Supreme Court of Israel. The commission will reportedly examine the
government's political and military decisions that led to the massacre, as
well as those that followed.
Let's see how objective this commission turns out to be. Begin's
motives are clear - by giving in, he wants to at least gain time, avoid a
government crisis, and at most, push the truth under the carpet of red tape
and chicanery.
What happened in Sabra and Shatila caused very widespread outrage
in Israel. But - it also doesn’t hurt to say this - Begin and Sharon, as
leaders, continue to enjoy the support of many Israelis. Recent polls
indicate that if general elections were held now, Begin's bloc of right-
wing Likud parties would win. Chauvinism and militancy still prevail in
pastroepia.
Now about another echo of the massacre in Sabra and Shatila. At the
request of the Lebanese government and to ensure the safety of the
civilian population, the so-called multinational force was reintroduced
into Beirut: 1,140 French and the same number of Italians. The last to
land, on Wednesday September 29, were the American Marines. They
were delayed, waiting for Israeli units to leave West Beirut, in particular
the area of Beirut International Airport. There are now 1,200 Americans,
not 800 as during their first landing in August. They will be concentrated
in the area of the airport, where the movement of civil aircraft began on
September 30. The Italians and French take over the security of
Palestinian camps to prevent a repeat of civilian deaths. Life in Beirut is
returning to normal.
It is appropriate to recall some recent facts, pushed aside by terrible

147
sensational events. Armed Palestinians completed their withdrawal from
West Beirut in early September, after a nearly three-month Israeli siege.
They left because they did not want further deaths of civilians under
Israeli shells and bombs and also because they received American
guarantees - written guarantees from Reagan's representative,
Ambassador Philip Habib - that the remaining defenseless, unarmed,
Palestinian civilians would not be touched. And they were touched, shot
and slaughtered in the thousands. And Begin and Sharon also, of course,
bear full responsibility for the monstrous massacre.
The Palestinians left in early September. And the American Marines
seemed to hasten to leave ahead of schedule, finally hanging a dashing
banner over the ramp of the landing craft: “Mission accomplished.
Farewell!" We saw this scene on our television screens.
The task may have been completed. And the residents of Sabra and
Shatila found themselves defenseless sheep in front of the bloodthirsty
wolves.
And now - not goodbye, but hello.
How long will American soldiers stay in Beirut? As President Reagan
made clear at a press conference on September 28, they will leave only
when both the Israelis and Syrians withdraw their troops from Lebanon.
This could be a long time coming. Israel is in no hurry, nodding to the
presence of Syrian units in the Bekaa Valley. And in the current
conditions, when Israeli artillery is holding Damascus at gunpoint, the
Syrians say that they will leave only at the same time as the Israelis.
Apparently we are talking not about weeks, but about months...
In addition to the Americans, the multinational forces include the
French and Italians. Let us not be mistaken, however: the main game is
played by the Yankees. 1,200 soldiers is not that much, but their presence
gives Washington a very strong, more political than military, leverage
over the Lebanese government.
Not only Ambassador Habib, but also American soldiers are now
becoming mediators in the difficult “relations” of the Lebanese
government with the Israeli occupiers. Without American services, the
Lebanese cannot clear out the intruders. And they pay for services.
What do they pay? Increased American influence in Lebanon. Of
course, maneuvers will continue to involve Lebanon in the Camp David
process, in the implementation of the “Reagan Plan,” which, as we know,
excludes the creation of an Arab Palestinian state. Israel acts and demands
a vassal “peace treaty” from the Lebanese. Washington will, as it were,
keep its ally on a leash, without forgetting, however, either its own or
Israeli interests.
October 1982

TWO LETTERS FROM WASHINGTON

1. At the end of the first act
Washington greets the newly arrived person with still warm autumn
and, as always, a bustle of news.

148
 Everything mixed up. Causing waves of panic and horror, throughout
the country, FBI agents are catching and cannot catch maniacs of a new,
even here still unknown variety - they are adding deadly poisons to
medicines and products sold in stores. Looming on the television screen
in a prison uniform is automobile tycoon John de Laurin, who yesterday
was the embodiment of American entrepreneurship and luck, and today he
was caught selling a record batch of drugs...
Like autumn leaves blown by the wind along the sidewalks,
sensations fly across the pages of American newspapers and on television
news. Everything is mixed up and everything is skipping, at the frantic
pace here. But in this kaleidoscope, where the private and the general,
everyday life and politics are intricately mixed, one event attracts the first
attention. On Tuesday, November 2, the so-called midterm elections will
take place. They are intermediate because, according to the US
Constitution, NTOs take place between presidential elections. Two years
have passed since conservative Republican Ronald Reagan was elected
president in November 1980. And exactly two years remain until the next
presidential election. And now all 435 members of the US House of
Representatives, 33 of 100 senators and 36 of 50 state governors are being
elected.
Thus, no one has yet encroached on the White House. But it is the
occupant and politics of the White House that is once again drawing the
most attention. The midterm elections are like the final act of the first act
in Ronald Reagan's four-year term. Midterm elections are the intermediate
results of the next presidency. The development of the action in the
second act, over the next two years, will largely depend on how the voter
fails them. The interim results of the midterm elections will to some
extent determine whether the current president will run for a second term
in 1984. In short, according to local observers, on November 2, when
local voters vote for Republican or Democratic candidates for Congress,
there will be a kind of referendum on Reagan, or more precisely, on
Reaganism as a trend in American political life. And since the work of the
pocket and stomach is the most important for the typical average
American, first of all it will be a referendum on “Reaganomics,” that is,
on the president’s economic program.
In that alternation of hopes and disappointments that is called
“American democracy in action,” now is the time to account for promises.
And here's what's remarkable. Republican candidates in many places are
choosing to stay away from Reagan, even if they swept into Congress two
years ago on the wave of his victory over Carter and the Democrats. This
is, of course, no coincidence. The President with his “Reaganomics”
stands before the people empty-handed.
In declaring his “conservative revolution” and taking the ax to social
assistance programs, Reagan promised that Americans would live better
lives, forgetting the worries of the past decade, that inflation would fall
sharply and unemployment would end, that taxes would be cut and a
strong economic recovery would come. As the New Republic magazine
now quips, in 1980, “the public couldn’t resist the lure of a free four-

149
course meal.” The magazine adds mockingly: “Now America has tasted
this Reagan food and found it inedible.”
Inflation has indeed fallen, and this is the only thing that Reagan
never tires of taking credit for, although the explanation does not lie at all
in the recipes of “Reaganomics”. But then begins that familiar and
impressive list of failures with which Republican candidates now so do
not want to associate themselves. Unemployment rose to 10.1 percent,
reaching a record high of the last forty years. The deep economic
downturn continues despite a winter promise to end it in the spring and a
summer promise to end it in the fall. Americans' real incomes and living
standards continue to decline—a very worrying development for a nation
accustomed to feeling like the darling of fortune. The ax of Reaganomics
has been falling on America's poor over the past two years, with social
programs being sacrificed to two gods—the god of skyrocketing military
spending and the god of deficit reduction. But these two different gods
cannot be fed at the same time. The first god feeds his fill, but what about
the second? The budget deficit topped $100 billion last fiscal year, and
that all-American record is expected to be double that in the current fiscal
year.
Overall, by the end of the first half of his term—and the midterm
elections—Ronald Reagan had achieved disastrous results. Many
Americans still like his posture as a strong and confident leader, but when
they find themselves not in front of a television screen but in front of a
questionnaire sent out by a polling firm, they are becoming increasingly
thoughtful. Recent polls show that more than half of Americans
disapprove of Reagan's presidency. More than half believe that life has
become worse under him. One more thing. More than half prefer
Democrats, and not because the Democrats have overcome the crisis in
their party caused by the defeat of 1980. And not because they have some
kind of constructive platform - there is neither a platform nor a generally
recognized leader. They are turning away from the Republican president
because, as is becoming clear to more and more Americans, he is leading
the country in the wrong direction.
It has long been known that the average American has two
approaches to elections. First, based on the principle of “a plague on both
your houses,” he abstains from voting. It is assumed that this is the path
that the majority of citizens with the right to vote will take on November
2. The second approach is the so-called negative voice. This means that
the voter votes against someone, against a representative of one of the two
parties, and only because of this opposition for a representative of the
other party.
Republicans running for Congress are most afraid of a negative vote
in the House of Representatives. Here their failure is considered a
foregone conclusion. The only doubts are about the size of the upcoming
republican losses. Let us recall that in the House of Representatives the
formal majority already belongs to the Democrats, but the Republicans in
a coalition with conservative Democrats over the past two years managed

150
to achieve an actual “working majority” and with its help push the
administration’s economic program through Congress. Now the “working
majority” is under threat. It will disappear if the Republicans lose 20-30
seats in the lower house. As you know, there are more Republicans than
Democrats in the Senate. This ratio is expected to remain the same,
although some seasoned observers are not ruling out surprises in the
Senate.
Pre-election bitterness is growing. President Reagan has launched a
propaganda blitz in recent days across a number of Western states, trying
to rescue both his policies and his party's candidates from impending
disaster. Frankly admitting failure would be disastrous. Therefore, the
president brings to the fore his determination to continue the same course,
demanding new loans over time and repeating everywhere the call: “Keep
it up!” He accuses Democrats of sowing unfounded fears and tries to
counter them with a “strategy of hope” that smells of outright
demagoguery a mile away. The whole question is, is it possible to fool the
public endlessly with the same tricks?
In addition to attitudes toward Reaganomics, another important test of
public sentiment will be taken in the November 2 elections. In nine states,
as well as in 30 individual counties and cities, activists to freeze the
nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union achieved the
inclusion of this issue in local referendums. It is known that this form of
anti-war movement has become widespread in recent months. The White
House, the State Department, and the Pentagon, having sent out agitators
in all corners, did everything possible to discredit and kill the idea of a
nuclear freeze before it captured the majority of Americans.
October 30, 1982

2. The Reagans are stalling

Last Tuesday, Americans experienced another Election Day and
another evening and night in front of television screens, in which the
teams of the three major television corporations competed for the
attention of viewers no less zealously than the candidates of the two
parties for the votes of voters. Moreover, this was another battle of
computers, played out according to the laws of the American political
circus with its inherent breakneck speed. Television computers outpaced
those connected to polling stations, trying to predict the results of the vote
when even a tenth of voters had not fulfilled their civic duty. By the way,
two out of every three Americans chose to avoid it altogether. Obviously
not finding any meaning in it. Only 39 percent of eligible voters
reportedly took part in the elections. Amazing? No, this is such a common
and familiar fact that it is only mentioned in passing by local observers.
Now they are busy with something else - turning simple arithmetic of
results into a more complex algebra of estimates and forecasts. First about
arithmetic. The Republicans, that is, President Reagan's party, lost 26
seats in the House of Representatives. In the new Congress they will have
166 seats (instead of the current 192). Democrats strengthened their
position as the majority party, passing 269 people. If the entire House of

151
Representatives was elected, the fate of 33 out of 100 seats was decided in
the Senate. Here the numerical breakdown remained unchanged: 54
Republicans versus 46 Democrats. Governors were also elected in 36 of
the 50 states. Democrats won 7 more posts in addition to the existing
ones. Opi now govern in 36 states, and Republicans in 14.
This is “arithmetic”. Moving on to estimates and forecasts, they
primarily talk about the losses of Republicans in the House of
Representatives. President Reagan, putting a good face on a bad
performance, said yesterday that he was "very pleased with the results"
and that this was exactly what he had foreseen, considering a loss of 17 to
27 seats quite acceptable. House Speaker Democrat Thomas O'Neill
thought differently. "This is a crushing defeat for the president," he said.
Most observers also talk about the defeat of the Republicans, and Reagan
personally. But they don’t consider it crushing. In their view, it is more
realistic to say that the voter sent the president a “warning signal”: he, the
voter, is alarmed by the consequences of “Reaganomics,” especially such
as unprecedentedly high unemployment, the ongoing economic downturn,
and the attack on social programs.
"Keep it up!" - Ronald Reagan outlined his position with this slogan,
campaigning for his economic program and for candidates loyal to him.
The voter did not succumb to his call and gave a ride to many “Reagan
robots” (this is the nickname of the ultra-conservatives who entered
Congress in 1980 on the victorious wave of Reagan and Reaganism).
Two years ago, having won a majority in the Senate, the Republicans
dreamed of achieving a majority in the House of Representatives -
becoming the undisputed majority party, that is, changing places with the
Democrats on Capitol Hill. The dream was associated with the era of
conservatism, which Reagan personified. But it happened differently. This
means, perhaps, that the offensive of Reagan-type conservatism on the
American political scene is running out, that, moreover, the American
voter is turning it back. This conclusion, however, should be drawn
cautiously and with reservations. The popular voter seems more willing to
push back against conservative Republicans than their Democratic
opponents. The latter are disorganized, otherwise the size of the
Republican defeat would have been greater. The fact that Republicans
spent 5-6 times more money on voter processing than Democrats also
played a role. In general, the election campaign set two records: a record
for the amount of dirt that opponents poured on each other, and a record
of expenses, totaling more than $300 million.
Elected office, to put it mildly, has never been the right or privilege of
the poor in America. But no election has ever turned into such an open
competition of millionaires. Time is money, especially time bought for
television political advertising. Where can I get them? This is not a
question for a millionaire. One of the candidates, a certain Lewis Lerman,
an extravagant gentleman who appeared before voters in nothing less than
wide red suspenders, without a jacket, shelled out $8 million from his
own pocket to run as a Republican for governor of New York. True, even
for this amount Lerman failed to “sell” his conservative views to the

152
voter.
Keep it up? This number didn't work. The Americans are demanding
a course correction. This is precisely the main result of the elections.
Democratic leaders such as Edward Kennedy, who was re-elected to the
Senate, as well as Senator John Glenp and former Vice President Walter
Mondale are now talking about the need for "changes in economic
policy."
The Reagan administration, of course, prefers to accept the absence of
losses in the Senate. But she can no longer count on another easy victory
for her “conservative revolution” on Capitol Hill. Firstly, the former
“working majority” at its disposal, consisting of Republicans and right-
wing Democrats, has now disappeared in the House of Representatives.
Secondly, the Senate, despite the Republican majority, is now believed to
be more independent in relations with the president. Time will tell
whether these predictions will come true in practice. However, there is
already talk of possible clashes on two issues - social security and military
spending. The new Congress will be less accommodating, insisting on
preserving relief programs and reducing the enormous Pentagon tribute.
This is emphasized by the first comments. In response, administration
officials are already launching a counterattack, arguing that in inflating
military spending, the administration will remain faithful to the old
slogan: “Keep it up!”
Foreign policy issues have barely been addressed in the current
midterm elections. This is one of the paradoxes of American political life,
which is too busy with purely “domestic” affairs even at a time when the
US government is so aggressively pursuing an increasing threat of nuclear
war. But what the candidates for political office “overlooked” was
remembered by ordinary people. I mean the results of the vote on the
issue of freezing the nuclear arsenals of the USA and the USSR. As is
known, this form of anti-nuclear struggle was born spontaneously and has
spread widely since last spring. They tried to nail down, extinguish,
trample and uproot this idea. Nowhere have official representatives been
so zealous, from the president to dozens of experts from the Pentagon and
the State Department, as in California, the “home state” of the current
occupant of the White House. And what? Nuclear freeze referendums
took place in nine states, from Rhode Island in the east to Oregon in the
far west. Eight states (except Arizona) had a majority of voters in favor of
the freeze, including California, the largest state in the United States. He
spoke out contrary to the position of his government, which fools the
Americans with claims that the freeze is beneficial only to the Soviet
Union.
This is truly a victory of common sense over the belligerence of
official Washington, over its rabid anti-Sovietism. It is no coincidence
that I write “official Washington.” In unofficial Washington, with its
unofficial houses, streets and residents, in its polling stations, outside its
offices, a referendum on the nuclear freeze was also held on November 2.
Roughly two-thirds of voters approved of the idea. So, both his state,

153
California, and the capital, Washington, where he lives and works,
rebelled against President Reagan’s views on this essential issue. And
seven more states, a number of counties and cities, including Philadelphia,
the fifth largest in the United States.
Of course, it would be premature to assume that the latter won in the
confrontation between official and unofficial Washington. But, on the
other hand, it is impossible not to emphasize the following: when in the
current elections an American had the opportunity to speak out for peace,
against the threat of nuclear war, he did not miss this opportunity.
November 4, 1982

REPORTING FROM SAN FRANCISCO

William Brockett is a 41-year-old lawyer from San Francisco, co-
owner of the law firm Kecker & Brockett. What business could a Soviet
journalist who came to the United States for several weeks have with an
American lawyer? I knew which one when I walked up the slope of one
of the famous San Francisco hills along Montgomery Street to a two-story
red brick building, still strong, but much aged from the proximity of new
skyscrapers on financial and banking California Street. I knew, and I think
the reader will guess if he remembers,
what common cause we now find with American lawyers, American
doctors, American nuclear physicists. One of those who in recent years
has added the word “concerned” to the name of their profession.
Concerned about the increased threat of nuclear war.
And before we get to W. Brockett on the second floor of the red brick
mansion, here's just one example of why they're so concerned. The New
York publishing house "Random House" has just published a book with a
catchy, somewhat mysterious title - "If only there were enough shovels."
Its author Robert Scheer, heading the Washington bureau of the Los
Angeles Times newspaper, had many heart-to-heart conversations with
high-ranking representatives Reagan administration. They were frank.
And Scheer saw that the current administration was playing more
dangerously than any previous one with the idea of the possibility and, so
to speak, “survivability” of nuclear war. Sometimes with appalling
frivolity. One of the government officials, namely T. K. Jones, Assistant
Under Secretary of Defense for Strategic Nuclear Forces, in a
conversation with Scheer, told the Americans what to do in the event of a
nuclear conflict. “Dig a hole, cover it with a couple of doors and then
throw a meter thick earth on top... The earth will save you... If there are
enough shovels, anyone can handle it.”
It sounds like a bad joke, but these are the true words of Mr. Jones.
And his, one must think, is an authentic philosophy. If surviving a nuclear
war is easier than a steamed turnip, then isn’t it easy to start one?
That's why San Francisco lawyer William Brockett is among so many
concerned. Lanky, with a high forehead and a boyish, pure smile, he
jokes: “Lawyers are known to be eloquent. We cannot allow our gift to go
to waste.” Two years ago, in Boston, Massachusetts, on the other Atlantic
coast of the United States, an organization of lawyers opposing the threat

154
of nuclear war was created. It became national. Brockett runs its San
Francisco office, which employs about 400 people. He sees his task as
educating the public about the realities of the nuclear age. Meetings,
meetings, symposiums... They convince Americans that they are unlikely
to be saved from nuclear warheads, even if there are plenty of shovels.
In recent months, public debate in the state of California has revolved
around a proposal to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the United States and
the Soviet Union. Signatures were collected to submit this proposal to a
referendum, a general vote of state residents. Collected. The matter, as we
know, was not limited to California. Nine states and 30 counties and cities
put the nuclear freeze proposal on the ballot in the November 2 elections.
Let me remind you that a majority of voters in eight states and almost all
of these counties and cities were in favor.
According to press estimates, of the 18 million voters in the states and
cities and counties mentioned, 10.8 million were in favor of a nuclear
freeze. This is an impressive majority, especially considering that the
American was going against the policies of his government. This is, as
they point out, the largest referendum ever held in America on any issue.
But being the largest, this is still not a national referendum; it has no
binding force for those in power. According to the conditions, for
example, of the California vote, the state governor will bring to the
attention of the US President that the majority of Californians would like
to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the two powers. But the White House, of
course, already knows about this. And judging by the official reaction, the
results of the vote on the nuclear freeze have not yet made the slightest
impression on the government. More broadly, even after suffering
political damage in the last election, the White House has no intention of
cutting “one iota” of its $1.6 trillion five-year military spending budget,
people familiar with the matter said.
Let us return, however, to the supporters of the nuclear freeze. What's
next? I remember that in August, a resolution to freeze the nuclear
arsenals of the United States and the USSR, drafted by Senators Edward
Kennedy and Mark Hatfield, was rejected in the House of Representatives
by a vote of 204 to 202. In the new Congress, the lower house looks more
liberal. Voters voted out a number of Reaganite conservatives. So, with
one more vote, the previous freeze resolution could pass. This would be a
major blow to the administration. But so far this option is not beyond the
realm of speculation.
The struggle over the nuclear freeze acquired symbolic significance,
becoming an indicator of the balance of social forces on the issue of US
nuclear strategy and a barometer of the political climate. But the
American cannot be content with symbols for long if they do not result in
practical political changes. What's next? Having won a significant victory
in the elections on November 2, the anti-nuclear movement in America is
looking for new issues, new areas of application and unification of forces,
fearing that otherwise its scope will be reduced and its progress will slow
down. In particular, if we take Bill Brockett, he believes that worried San
Francisco lawyers will soon split into two groups. One will continue to

155
engage in anti-nuclear educational campaigning, the other will move on to
“political action.” In his view, the challenge today is to turn the success of
the nuclear freeze vote into political action. What is meant? The political
struggle against the creation of new weapons systems, primarily MX
intercontinental missiles, for changing the government’s position on
fundamental issues of nuclear strategy, primarily for the United States to
join the Soviet call to renounce the first use of nuclear weapons.
It is not always appropriate to type a living specific person. This is
not a literary hero. It is dominated by the individual. But looking from the
outside, which makes things easier and excuses some simplification, I see
something typical in the San Francisco lawyer from Montgomery Street.
Bill Brockett graduated from the Naval Academy, fought in Vietnam, and
his father is a retired admiral. Bill's anti-nuclear organization has five
former Marines on its advisory board. These details show that
Washington's risky course aroused protest among those who had
previously not been in the habit of participating in protest movements,
who were more likely to see in anti-war protest some kind of anti-
American activity. Such people are accustomed to trusting the American
government. And now a lawyer who came from the admiral’s family,
answering a question from a Soviet correspondent, admits that on the
most important issues (nuclear freeze, ratification of the SALT-2 Treaty, a
complete ban on nuclear tests) his views are closer to the official positions
of Moscow than to the official positions of Washington.
What made this ordinary American lawyer become an advocate for
peace and understanding? He replies that he loves life and people, snow
and sun, travel and meetings. Are these words too general? Do they just
smack of sentimental romance? Yes pet. This is probably a business
answer. A business-like answer to Mr. G. K. Jones, a constructive
alternative to his advice to dig a gap, cover it with a couple of doors,
cover it with earth and nothing else to worry about.
But here’s another detail that I don’t want to mention. When we
spoke with Brockett, there was a tape recorder on the lawyer's table. Not
mine, but my interlocutor's. Brockett recorded our conversation. He
explained why: “If tomorrow an FBI agent comes to me and asks what I
was talking about with the Soviet visitor, I will let him listen - that’s
what.”
This is not just lawyerly forethought. This is new. I have never seen
anything like this in 20 years of journalism in America. A person who
speaks loftily about the love of life is not in the heavens; he knows what
the frenzy of anti-Soviet psychosis and the new McCarthyism that came
to his country are. They are again looking for the “Reds” under tables and
beds. Washington does not want to listen to the voice of 10 million
Americans who two weeks ago spoke in favor of a nuclear freeze. But he
does everything to drown out this voice. The president himself does not
shun methods of direct intimidation. He again resorted to it at his press
conference on November 12, claiming that “foreign agents” are stirring up
anti-nuclear protests in the United States, without bothering himself with
any evidence due to the lack of it.

156
 Here in San Francisco, in the Church of St. Mary, built in a modernist
style, a kind of seminar of activists from various groups and organizations
was held the other day, showing what a wide range of people and social
movements were created by one idea - the idea of vigilance in the face of
the increased threat of nuclear war . Among the speakers was Harold
Willens, a millionaire Los Angeles businessman who was the most
famous organizer of the California nuclear freeze campaign. He called the
president's new accusations and hints unworthy and called for continuing
the fight against two current Washington diseases - Russophobia (i.e.,
blind hatred of the Soviet Union) and militarism.
The anti-nuclear struggle has many supporters and well-wishers,
sometimes unexpected. Eugene Newport, mayor of Berkeley, across the
San Francisco Bay, told us that six out of every seven voters in his city
approved a nuclear freeze. But Berkeley is not indicative - a liberal
student fool. It is significant, however, that the largest California
newspapers took the same position. And if you take the whole country,
you find that a large number of very well-known figures who held major
government positions are in favor of the nuclear freeze. A few days before
the election, in a group letter to the New York Times, the idea was
endorsed by Averell Harriman, former Secretary of Defense Clark
Clifford, former Secretary of Defense William Colby, and former US
SALT II negotiator Paul Warnke. On the other hand, one cannot help but
see the dangerous stubbornness of people in power, not former ones.
Columnist Anthony Lewis writes: "The public advocating an end to the
nuclear arms race should not lose sight of this central political fact: Many
of Reagan's key advisers want an arms race."
Right. They want to. And this is the danger. This is the origin of the
current unprecedented concern of Americans and the tension of the
confrontation unfolding on the local political scene.
November 1982

ANOTHER LETTER FROM WASHINGTON

Can American Catholic bishops, of whom there are about 300, fall
into heresy, and not just individually, but, as they say, in their
overwhelming majority? They can. In the eyes of the White House. They
can, and have already, challenged Washington's gospel of the Big Bomb,
according to which the path to peace lies through mountain ranges of new
weapons, primarily nuclear weapons. The spiritual shepherds of 50
million American Catholics have fallen into the “nuclear heresy.”
What exactly does it consist of? American military strategy, almost
since the day of Hiroshima, has justified nuclear weapons as a “means of
deterrence,” and this deterrence, especially according to current ideas, is
the more effective the more weapons the United States has. It is under this
article of faith that new nuclear weapons systems, such as, for example,
MX intercontinental ballistic missiles, are based. Catholic bishops,
contrary to the American government, are ready to recognize the concept

157
of “nuclear deterrence” only if Washington advocates not for building up,
but for reducing nuclear arsenals and abandons the “search for
superiority” over the Soviet Union. The “heretics” also disagree with
another Washington dogma, which proclaims readiness to be the first to
use nuclear weapons. Under no circumstances can the use of nuclear
weapons be “morally justified”—that is the position of the Catholic
hierarchy in the United States.
These are the two points of this far from theological dispute, but the
disagreements do not end there.
The “nuclear heresy” took its toll when a special group of bishops
began work on the so-called pastoral letter on issues of war and peace,
which is supposed to be read from church pulpits and made, as it were, a
religious and moral guide for American Catholics. The first draft of the
message appeared in June and, of course, caused a wide response from
different quarters. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, among others,
responded. To God - God's, to Caesar - Caesar's, and give the Pentagon
what is Pentagon's. Weinberger did not approve of the bishops' incursion
into the diocese that he considered his own, and only his. On the other
hand, he insisted that there was nothing more godly than an arms race. He
was joined around the office. As columnist Mary McGrory quipped,
"Various members of the government began telling the clergy that the
future of humanity was not their concern." But they failed to convince.
The bishops persisted in their errors. In October, a second draft of the
pastoral letter was published, and in it the immorality of preparations for
nuclear war was condemned even more forcefully.
And in mid-November, the author of these lines personally had the
opportunity to observe in the Washington Capital Hilton Hotel, from
which it is a stone's throw from the White House, many handsome men,
identically dressed in black formal suits with black stand-up shirt collars.
About 300 Catholic bishops gathered for their national conference. It
would hardly have come into the spotlight if not for the same project of a
pastoral letter on issues of war and peace. Again public discussions, and
even more heated. Again approval from below and censure from above.
On the official side, the most active participant in the dispute this time
turned out to be the President's National Security Adviser, William Clark.
It was he who addressed the bishops with a letter, which for some
reason the newspapers received first. Appealing to patriotic sentiments,
the presidential aide urged the conference to spare the “doctrine of
deterrence” and be generous in its praise of the White House's nonexistent
arms control efforts. The short meaning of the long letter was understood
correctly. “We will not be intimidated,” Archbishop Bernardin of
Chicago, who is leading the drafting of the pastoral letter, responded to
Clark. Conference participants intensified, rather than weakened, their
criticism of official policies. They will meet again in May 1983 to
approve the final text.
Why is Washington so excited about the “nuclear heresy”? The
reasons are no mystery. And one of them is that on a number of key
issues, the American bishops are closer to the position of atheistic

158
Moscow than the American government with its new “crusade” against
communism. Thus, they are quite clearly in favor of a nuclear freeze, in
support of “agreements to end the testing, production and deployment of
new strategic systems.” They are against the first use of nuclear weapons.
They are for a complete and general ban on nuclear weapons testing,
which Washington actually opposes.
Another reason for the government's concern is that these heretical
critics cannot be anathematized as "foreign agents." Who will believe? At
the same time, by disagreeing with the government, they undermine trust
in it and encourage dissent among other Americans. For faithful
Catholics, including military personnel, the bishops essentially pose
thorny questions of conscience and the propriety of participating in
activities that contribute to the growing threat of nuclear war.
So, another - and unusual - manifestation of growing anti-nuclear
sentiment. There are concerned doctors, concerned scientists, concerned
women and lawyers. There are also concerned clergy - Catholics,
Protestants and others. Washington's dangerous policies have brought a
variety of professions and groups into protest. The policy is not only
foreign, but also internal, internal economic. It is no coincidence that
participants in the same Catholic conference called on American leaders
to “reject current policies that attempt to free themselves from the burden
of economic ills at the expense of the poor and unemployed.”
Two years ago, when he became president, Reagan believed that
voters had given him two mandates - for a gigantic build-up of the
military and for an economic “conservative revolution” that sharply cut
social assistance programs for various categories of needy people. The
main attraction for the average American was the reduction in income
taxes.
The American President to this day proceeds in his actions from the
fact that both mandates remain fully in force. Op is wrong. The most
characteristic, although not yet fully revealed, feature of the current
moment is that the American is gradually but persistently taking away the
aforementioned mandates from the president, receiving, instead of the
promised economic miracle, unemployment at pre-war levels and a
hopelessly long recession.
“In the fall of 1980, a triumphant Ronald Reagan captured
Washington and reaffirmed his campaign vow to balance the federal
budget, cut taxes, and boost military spending more than at any time in
decades,” Peter Stone recalls the president’s original goals. in the New
York Times. What happened? “The first thing that was thrown away was
the goal of a balanced budget,” explains Stone. “The second was the goal
of cutting taxes. And now, when the old Congress, which is in its final
weeks, returns to Washington, the president may also be forced to
abandon his third goal.”
Refuse? Isn't that too sweeping and optimistic? Stone clarifies his
forecast: “Of course, military spending will grow faster in the near future
than in the recent past. But President Reagan's ambitious plan to increase
Pentagon spending by more than 8 percent in real terms each year faces

159
formidable opposition both inside and outside the government."
Here is a significant fact that illustrates this idea. Commissioned by
Business Week magazine, the well-known service of Louis Harris
conducted a public opinion poll. It found that only 17 percent of
Americans support increased military spending. And two years ago, when
Reagan came to power, 71 percent of those surveyed were in favor of
satisfying the Pentagon's appetites, no matter how insatiable they may be.
The changing political climate, as already written, is evidenced by the
results of the midterm elections held in early November. Let us recall that
the Republican Party was short of 26 seats in the House of
Representatives, and at the expense of those who came to Capitol Hill in
1980 in the wake of Reagan’s victory. On the other hand, three-quarters
of the Democrats elected to the House during the election campaign
advocated slowing down the growth rate of the military budget.
Activism has intensified due to the increased threat of nuclear war.
Economic necessity became their influential ally. You can't jump higher
than yourself. To be convinced of this, you just need to try it. They tried it
in Washington. And it turned out that Reaganism did not work in the field
of economics and that America could hardly afford Reaganism in the field
of military spending.
The officially projected state budget deficit for the next fiscal year is
about $185-195 billion, which reminds us of the economic necessity. The
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Republican Peter Domenici,
refers to economic necessity, saying that the unemployment rate is
“politically unacceptable to the American people.” Having lost seven
colleagues after the election, the Republican governors, meeting in
Kansas City, said that they could not do without cutting military spending
and that unemployment and the general policies of the administration
were “scaring the people to death.”
How does the Reagan administration respond to all these voices?
Mainly by a stubborn reluctance to take into account new sentiments. By
announcing on November 22 the decision to station 100 new MX
intercontinental missiles in Wyoming in a "compact basing" manner,
President Reagan again tried to convince Americans that there was no
other path to peace except preparing for war.
And what? Half a month after the President's MX speech and just a
week after the 97th Congress resumed its session, the White House
suffered a major defeat on Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives, by
a vote of 245 to 176, removed $988 million from the Pentagon budget
intended for the production of the first five MX missiles.
True, the Pentagon has $1.7 billion left for the further development of
this type of intercontinental ballistic missile and another $715 million for
developing a method for basing it. The truth is that there are different
motives for voting. Some congressmen, in principle, oppose the new
nuclear weapons system, which violates the SALT I and SALT II
agreements and destabilizes the strategic situation in the world. Others,
having no objection in principle to the MX, rejected the administration's
proposed method of basing it. Still others, placing purely economic

160
considerations above all else, considered that this was not the time to
waste and it was time to reduce the Pentagon’s exorbitant piece of the
national pie (both the first and second fall into this third category to one
degree or another).
One way or another, on Capitol Hill, Reagan suffered the most
serious defeat of his two presidential years on the issue of military
appropriations. A number of observers, delving into history, believe that
this is generally an unprecedented case. Congress, they point out, has
never turned so against a president to block such a large military program.
The battle over MX between the Belsh House and Congress is far
from over. Predicting the complete victory of common sense is premature
and risky. Having learned some lessons from the overconfidence that
turned into political humiliation, the administration is now intensifying its
handling of the Senate, where, unlike the House of Representatives, the
Republicans have a majority. To save the MX missile itself, President
Reagan appears willing to compromise on how it will be deployed.
But one conclusion can be drawn now. Critical public sentiment will
increasingly manifest itself in critical actions of Congress, especially the
new Congress, which begins work in January next year.
December 1982

A LITTLE MORE ABOUT AMERICAN IMPRESSIONS

I just had the opportunity to spend several weeks in the United States
as a special correspondent for Izvestia. I returned home and from my
friends I again heard a familiar question that I had to answer so many
times. They ask: how is it there in America?
To answer with a joke, Americans, firstly, live in an American way,
and secondly, in different ways. But you can’t seriously answer in a few
words.
However, I will try to share some impressions.
I was, for example, in San Francisco, and there was a noticeable
increase in skyscrapers of banks and corporations in the so-called
financial district. I visited the headquarters of the giant construction
corporation Bechtel, which has recently become famous for the fact that
Secretary of State Shultz and Secretary of Defense Wineborger emerged
from its depths. Bechtel is doing well—billion-dollar turnover, orders in
dozens of countries, multimillion-dollar profits.
But in the state of California, where President Reagan and many of
his closest collaborators came from, unemployment is now above the
national average. And when I was there in January of this year, it was
below average. Nearby San Francisco is the famous Silicon Valley, an
area with a large concentration of advanced electronics industry. The
science editor of the San Francisco Chronicle told me that Silicon Valley
was increasingly feeling the pressure of Japanese competition. The
Japanese, he said, are developing fifth-generation computers; the speed of
operations will increase a thousand times. The Americans are lagging
behind. More Japanese color televisions are sold in the United States than
American ones.

161
 Charleston is the capital of the small state of West Virginia. It's an
hour's flight from Washington over the Appalachian Mountains. The town
is small, 64 thousand inhabitants, but it is an American town. A tiny local
university with 2.5 thousand students, imagine, has three branches abroad
- in Rome, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo. Its president, a youthful, ironic
man, reports this in passing, but not without pleasure. Also in passing -
that tuition costs students 5 thousand dollars a year, although the
university is an obscure, quiet one.
Charleston, as a city, is economically quite prosperous due to the
surrounding chemical industry. The mayor in his office brings me to a
diagram - a lot of development, private business is investing tens of
millions of dollars in construction. The hotel, just built by Marriott, meets
capital standards. Insurance companies, bank branches, many stores, so-
called "fast food" cafeterias, streets filled with cars - all these are features
of America.
But here is a conversation with four leaders of the local branch of the
AFL-CIO trade union association. Their words breathe deep pessimism.
Beyond the prosperous city of Charleston lies the distressed state of West
Virginia. In the construction industry, unemployment is __ 60 percent.
And in the coal regions in the south of the state - would you believe it? -
unemployment up to 80 percent. What's the matter? The crisis in the
automobile industry leads to a crisis in the steel industry, and then, like a
falling domino, a crisis in the coal mines. They also say that West
Virginia coal is now poorly exported to Europe. And also, as one of the
trade unionists suggests, it is a matter of self-interest of American oil
corporations. After all, they bought up almost all the coal deposits in
advance and now, as he put it, “sit on coal” like a dog in a manger - until
they squeeze the last dollar out of oil.
Trade unionists complain: the suicide rate has increased, families are
breaking up, people are turning to the bottle more often. Unemployment
benefits are issued for 29 weeks, then through other channels you can
scrape together another 20 weeks. And then? They're surprised it hasn't
exploded yet.
We heard about expectations of social explosions caused by record
unemployment and fears of such explosions more than once in
Washington and New York. And, of course, it wasn’t just about miners.
The panorama of American life is extremely varied and contains a lot.
Sometimes, in the same episode, seemingly impossibly distant poles come
together. Here's an example. In November, a South Korean boxer was
brutally beaten—and essentially killed—during a match in the ring in Las
Vegas. Wildness! And - sensation! Journalists, not for the first time,
compared the cruelty of professional boxing to the battles of ancient
Roman gladiators. But what happens next? With the mother's permission,
kidneys are taken from the dead man and, appropriately preserved, they
are taken by plane to San Francisco to be transplanted into a sick person
who has long been on the waiting list for kidneys. Yes, there is such a
queue: “numbers” are not written on pieces of paper or on palms, they are
stored in a special computer.

162
 This is an interweaving of unimaginable savagery and the latest
achievements, and this is very characteristic of America.
When you follow the United States from afar, you mainly see its
foreign policy, that is, the side that faces the rest of the world. When you
arrive and the broad stream of life of this large country flows into your
consciousness, you immediately realize anew, so to speak, the primacy of
everyday life over politics, the predominance of internal affairs over
external ones. The main, overwhelming concerns of the American are
economic. Especially now, when the economic recession is not ending
and unemployment is still rising.
Through this prism of the economy and their well-being or ill-being,
people look at President Reagan and his administration, and from
communicating with them you discover that there are almost no happy
people, and a lot of worried ones. Reagan's gigantic military programs are
viewed through the same lens—and increasingly critically. Hence the
obstacles that the MX missile program proposed by the White House
encountered in Congress.
I won't repeat myself. I’ll just say that one of the main arguments of
opponents of MX is very simple - it’s not affordable.
In general, from conversations with American journalists, politicians,
businessmen, and from direct observation, a certain dual picture is now
emerging: on the one hand, there is widespread dissatisfaction with
Reagan’s domestic economic and foreign policies. On the other hand, the
president persists in this policy and even seems to flaunt his purely
conservative principles, regardless of the facts of the growth of the
opposition.
Recently, Time magazine dedicated its profile to President Reagan,
his characterization, and manner of making decisions. With all its desire
to sweeten the pill, Time was forced to warn the owner of the White
House: “The deepest concern of the American public is that the Reagan
administration is losing touch with reality.”
This conclusion also relates to the question: how is it there in
America?
December 1982

THE FORGOTTEN DISCOVERY OF AMERICA

Every profession has its guilty pleasures. For some time now I have
liked to lure an Americanist colleague into my office, seat him in a swivel
Finnish chair, with which, in the absence of suitable domestic ones, the
new Izvestia building is equipped, and sit opposite him with a small
brochure, bending it so as not to see there was the author's name on the
yellow cover.
- Try, brother, to guess whose it is?
Bowing his head, turning gray in ideological battles, the brother tunes
in to guessing. Reading:
“...The Yankees have two permanent occupations. Doesn't make
money and boom. He makes money and makes noise. He cannot live

163
without both.
When in America they want to ask what kind of person this is, they
ask: “How much is he worth?” And, looking at the numbers, they
determine that he is a “big” or not a “big” person.
Ordinary signs and posters would be lost among the 22-story
buildings. We need some grandiose, flashy signs, posters... All this
screams from the walls, screams with its bright colors, its monstrous
letters... This is the “boom” that trade and industry make. You have to
shout on the street, among this hustle, bustle, running, shouting, noise, din
- you have to shout to be heard...
There is no more noisy people than the Yankees."
Taking my eyes off the brochure, I look questioningly at my
colleague. He has long since passed the age of the participants in the
television quiz “What? Where? When?". But the Yankees are his
specialty. Here he is in a club of experts, and his pride is clearly hurt. And
the text is familiar, like the alphabet. There is no people more noisy than
the Yankees. Business - advertising - skyscrapers... But where? When?
And why are the buildings only 22 stories high? A colleague lived in New
York when two houses were built there, exactly 5 times higher. He
wrinkles his forehead and fidgets in his Finnish chair.
- Mayakovsky?
This is the first thing that comes to his mind.
— Ilf and Petrov? - another cartridge from a familiar clip.
- No, brother, I’m passing by again.
- Kataev? Yesenin?
- Finger to the sky. Better listen again.
After flipping through a few pages, I read again:
“Who would have thought that this Yankee, who measures everything
in dollars, is as superstitious as an old woman?! This car called the
Yankee has soul. A completely unnecessary thing for a “businessman”.
But since it exists, it makes its demands. No one is so keen on everything
metaphysical, everything supernatural, supersensible, mysterious,
incomprehensible, as the “positive” Americans. This is a protest of the
spirit against the materialism that has eaten up the poor Yankee. Nowhere
is there such a mass of sects, and moreover, the most incredible, the most
absurd, the most senseless, as in the United States... The birthplace of the
phonograph, the telephone, is at the same time the country of spiritualism,
monotheism, occultism, worldview and thousands of other all kinds of
nonsense. Yankee believes in the existence of some mysterious “other
world.” But man is a machine, he demands that “that world” not sit idly
by. “That world” must constantly work, show signs of its existence, show
miraculous phenomena... discover the future, help the Yankees in
business.”
How captured! The soul of a man-machine. Practicality next to
superstition - and about the “other world”, which should also work for a
practical Yankee. The proud colleague is tormented again. Damn it, he
not only read about all this, but he himself described it a thousand times,
only angrier and more irritated! And now the green newsstands of

164
America and special sections of wealthy bookstores in New York or
Washington with various “nonsense” in eye-catching bindings emerge in
his memory. There are especially many of them before the next New
Year, when the demand for divination increases and fresh products from
astrologers, clairvoyants and fortune-tellers enter the market. But who
saw all this in ancient years, when skyscrapers did not rise above the
twenty-second floor?
The colleague feels like he has lost. But before raising his hands up,
he shoots back with the last bullet.
- Bitter?
No, and not Gorky...
Frankly, I am not flattered by my victory. If he had a yellow
brochure, I would have had to raise my hands. The newspaper lives for
one day. Newsboy - one day, in her rhythm. When you don’t remember
yesterday, the world is full of discoveries - just like in childhood. They
say that the new is the well-forgotten old. But even more often, the new is
the old that you simply did not know.
But it’s not useful to at least look through the yellowed files of old
newspapers and magazines from time to time. What did you do once at
the Crocodile? And so, having looked through, we found notes about the
travel to the United States of America of the pre-revolutionary Russian
newspaperman Vlas Mikhailovich Doroshevich.
The name of Doroshevich thundered during his lifetime, but after his
death it gave birth to an echo of legends and stories that did not
immediately fall silent. I remember myself: from the old editor of
Izvestia, Vasily Ivanovich Gridip, when we were still newspaper
newcomers, we heard stories about how Vlas Doroshevich, straight from
a theater premiere, without taking off his tailcoat, came to the printing
house at night and, perched at the steel layout tables, among the oily
typesetters , wrote a review for the issue. Incomprehensible efficiency! It
turns out that it existed at a time when, one must think, the word itself did
not yet exist - “operator.”
But let's not get distracted. So, Vlas Doroshevich, even before his
high-profile St. Petersburg and Moscow years, while still an employee of
the Odessa List, went to America in 1897. And, like everyone else, he
opened it. Eighty-five years ago. This contribution to Russian American
studies, like many others, would have sunk into oblivion if not for the
memorable “Crocodile”. It was he who celebrated the anniversary by
releasing a collection of Doroshevich’s essays called “Gold Rush.”
Why, by the way, “Gold Rush”? Arriving on June 12, 1897 in the
then main Californian city of San Francisco, Vlas Doroshevich discovered
that California did not exist. California in those days moved to Alaska, to
the Klondike, to the shores of Ukoia. America was experiencing another
gold rush. This is what Vlas Doroshevich called one of his wittiest essays,
anticipating the grotesque and humor of Charlie Chaplin in the film
comedy of the same name.
“With these stories about jam jars full of gold that happy “miners”
brought from the Klondike, the blood of brave adventurers, the blood of

165
pioneers, awoke in the Yankees. And they rushed to this polar region, the
land of eternal cold, where nature, like a miser, hid its riches under the icy
crust,” wrote a Russian newspaperman.
He made an accurate diagnosis of this disease - crowd madness.
Crowd craze? Isn’t this the disease we now call mass psychosis? Two
words with foreign roots instead of two Russian words. The meaning is
blurred by apostasy from the native language. Mass psychosis? No, it is
the madness of the crowd, and it directly arises from the two activities of
the Yankees - making money and making noise...
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge of the cold Yukon River
since the energetic Americans, grabbing the miserly nature by the collar,
robbed it clean. California returned to itself a long time ago, forgot the
Klondike “miners”, managed to become the first in population of the fifty
United States and gave a lot of all kinds of good and bad, including
Ronald Reagan and members of both his cabinets - the shadow one, from
Californian millionaires, and the official one, too. not from the poor.
There is more of everything in America: money, noise, crowd
madness, floors in skyscrapers. More disdain for Europe - Doroshevich
also wrote about the contempt for Europe of the smug Yankee. “Big” is
America’s favorite word, he wrote. But I didn’t know in those years that
the world’s largest car would appear overseas and rush along the biggest
road, leaving the largest and most toxic clouds of smog over American
cities.
He did not consider himself a “prophet,” of which he found more in
America than anywhere else, but he inadvertently predicted American
television. How else can we understand his words: “The ideal of a
newspaper is a newspaper of only drawings, where all the events are, as it
were, drawn”?
“Everything is here,” Doroshevich wrote. “...And if you start reading
an American newspaper in a row, you will get the impression of feverish
delirium.” This is exactly the impression we get from American
newspapers and even more so from American 24-hour and multi-channel
television.
Everything passes and everything remains... You think about this old
wise formula as you read the pages where the forgotten discovery of
America is captured. The Anglo-Saxon Yankees, this native of the New
England states, now stand up to their necks in a sea of diverse, motley
people that has flooded America, and the genetic code of the strange
nation of immigrants is still the same as in the essays of Vlas
Doroshevich.
With one big difference. Vlas Doroshevich chuckled benevolently - a
wonderful country, wonderful people. It was an incredibly distant
country. And it didn't concern us. Now there is no time for complacency.
America has become even further - and dangerously closer.
We were separated by an abyss called the difference between two
systems. And nuclear missile weapons brought us closer, discouraging
complacency and humor. America has ceased to be an outsider - no, both
our peoples are concerned with issues of war and peace and the very

166
survival of mankind.
Everything passes and everything remains... Alas, it does not pass,
but the entrepreneurial spirit of the Yap, mixed with adventurism,
remains.
“Yankee is a player. His fathers, his grandfathers came here, leaving
everything: their homeland, relatives, friends. Having liquidated
everything, put everything! on the card: it's either hit or miss. And they
passed on the temperament and instincts of a gambler by heredity. The
Yankees are always a gambler, in everything: in business and pleasure...
This nervously tense people must play, must play constantly,
continuously, in order to maintain their tense, God knows how high,
nerves.”
Were nerves really tense at the end of the last century?
But the problem is not with them, not with their nerves, but with the
fact that the Yankees have more toys. They play variants of nuclear wars,
limited and protracted. The man-machine is superstitious, like an old
woman, and at the same time practical - to the point of madness. He
thinks that nuclear warheads will not get out of his control even if they
start to explode. After all, he hasn’t smelled gunpowder on his land for
120 years, this incorrigible player is a Yankee.
How can we prevent him from playing until the end of the world?
Which may not be followed by new discoveries of America.
December 1982

167
The most pressing question of 1983

168
 THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION
Of the problems that the past year left to its heir, the most acute is the
problem of nuclear weapons in Europe. In our age, diplomacy, alas, is
directly linked to nuclear weapons. It is weapons that are increasingly on
the agenda of diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy, one might say, is
competing with missiles and nuclear warheads: who will get ahead of
whom?
This is the case with the Geneva negotiations on limiting nuclear
weapons in Europe. If a mutually acceptable agreement is not reached,
then, according to the NATO schedule, the deployment of new American
missiles should begin in Western Europe by the end of 1983. As medium-
range missiles, the Pershing 2s looked to the Soviet Union like strategic
first-strike missiles, reaching vital targets on Soviet territory in just 8-10
minutes. It’s not hard to guess that with such “gifts” under the New Year’s
tree next December, peace in Europe will become even more fragile.
So, who will emerge victorious: diplomacy resuming Soviet-
American talks in Geneva at the end of January, or a new round of the
arms race?
Time is running out. That is why, at the end of two years, there was,
perhaps, no international issue that would have been discussed more
intensively than the new Soviet proposals for medium-range nuclear
weapons, introduced by Yu. V. Andropov on December 21, 1982 in a
report on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the formation of the
USSR.
The Soviet Union took a major step towards its American partners in
the Geneva negotiations and, of course, Western European governments,
which, according to NATO’s “dual decision,” are ready to accept
American missiles on their territory if the negotiations fail. What is this
step? Previously, when making calculations on the Soviet side, we were
talking about the total, cumulative quantities of different medium-range
nuclear weapons carriers, be they missiles or aircraft. The Soviet Union
said, and this corresponds to the true state of affairs, that there is a balance
in the field of medium-range nuclear weapons, since both sides, that is,
the Soviet Union and NATO countries, have approximately a thousand
such carriers.
So, the new Soviet proposals put forward the principle of separately
counting missiles and aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.
Moscow seems to be saying to its opponents in Washington, as well
as in Bonn, London, Paris and other Western capitals: “Listen, you are
emphasizing Soviet superiority in missiles, insisting that it worries you
most and that is why you are going to deploy in Western Europe has about

169
600 American Pershings and cruise missiles. Fine. We are ready to give
up this superiority and keep in Europe exactly as many missiles as
England and France have - and not a single missile more. Now you see
that we really want an agreement, that we are meeting you halfway.”
And Moscow is really meeting halfway, and far too far. After all, if
we translate the Soviet proposal into numbers, it means that the Soviet
Union would reduce hundreds of its missiles, including more than a dozen
of the most modern missiles - the SS-20.
Along with this, it is proposed to reduce to equal levels the number of
aircraft carrying nuclear weapons intended for operations in Europe.
So, not one more missile, not one more plane. The Soviet leader
confirmed this principle in his answers to J. Kingsbury-Smith, conveying
his New Year's greetings to the American people and emphasizing that the
Soviet people and the Americans now have one common enemy - the
threat of war and everything that strengthens it.
The principle of strict equality has now been brought to arithmetic
clarity. And there is much more logic in it - and justice! - than in the so-
called “bullet version” of President Reagan. This option provides for the
elimination of all Soviet medium-range missiles in exchange for
Washington's refusal to station American missiles in Western Europe. All
Soviet missiles are eliminated, but British and French missiles - 162 in
number - remain untouched. What kind of zero is this? When there are
162 missiles on the NATO side against the Soviet zero, this is called an
invitation to the Soviet Union for unilateral disarmament.
The Soviet plan, to use American terminology, has more to do with
the “zero option” than the American plan, which has kept the Geneva
negotiations at idle for more than a year. The Soviet Union leaves exactly
as many medium-range missiles as its American NATO allies - England
and France - have. As for the missile confrontation in Europe between the
USSR and the USA, it really comes down to zero. The Soviet plan looks
true, and not a deceptive “zero option,” if we remember what maximum
program it puts forward for Europe - a continent free of all nuclear
weapons - both medium-range and tactical.
Washington rushed to reject the Soviet initiative with a haste that
betrays not state prudence, but automatic militant anti-Sovietism. But I
think the story will not end there. Judging by the reaction of the Western
European public, and even political circles, judging by the responses of
many thinking Americans, this time automatic anti-Sovietism does not

170
 . It seems that Washington will have to return to these large, serious
proposals. Or - otherwise - admit in front of the world community that in
the competition between diplomacy and missiles, under the sign of which
the new year has begun, the Reagan administration is relying too defiantly
on missiles.
As the New York Times wrote in one of its editorials, “in all
conscience, the Western allies are obliged to consider the Soviet proposal
as suitable for negotiations.” Obliged - this word is not accidental and is
well chosen. “Whether it will now be possible to limit the number of
Euromissiles by agreement depends more on psychology than on
arithmetic,” the New York Times opines.
Indeed, questions of rocket arithmetic cannot now be put forward as a
fundamental obstacle. The ops have been eliminated. The matter now
comes down to psychology, in other words, to political will. In good will
for agreement - in the name of strengthening European - and not only
European - peace. People have the right to expect such good will, such
political will, from the West, especially from Washington.
January 1983

PEACEFUL OFFENSIVE JANUARY

At the end of 1982, notes by the famous Italian writer Alberto
Moravia were published in the Italian magazine Espresso. Op talked about
visiting Hiroshima. The notes were called: “The atomic bomb and us.
Letter from Hiroshima." There are a lot of interesting and rather sad
thoughts there, sometimes unexpected. Moravia, for example, writes that
in relation to the atomic bomb, even wisdom, which is the highest of
human qualities, “does not make sense.” After all, wisdom, he says, “is
the final result of all human experience,” but what is this experience worth
if nuclear weapons are intended to destroy man in general, as a biological
species.
I would like to bring up another idea from Moravia, which in my
opinion is very important. He writes: “The most terrible aspect of the
atomic bomb is probably the impossibility of the world continuing to
exist, develop and progress under the threat of nuclear destruction.”
In fact, the prospect of nuclear death not only obscured, clouded
tomorrow for us. It poisons our present day, puts pressure on the psyche,
and affects the economic health of peoples. An individual cannot live
normally with his head in a noose or on the chopping block, at gunpoint.
All of humanity cannot live normally under the threat of destruction. We

171
need to pull off this veil, throw off this burden, get rid of this obsession.
And this is the main task of diplomacy, of all international politics.
The New Year is aging before our eyes, it has already counted down
two weeks. And for almost four weeks now, the main thing in
international life has been the “peaceful offensive” of the Soviet Union
and other socialist countries. If we highlight the stages of this “peace
offensive,” the first began on December 21, when new Soviet proposals
were put forward to reduce medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe and
strategic nuclear weapons. The second stage is the meeting of the Political
Consultative Committee in Prague, its results, the Political Declaration of
the states parties to the Warsaw Pact, and, first of all, the proposal put
forward in it to conclude an Agreement on the mutual non-use of military
force and maintaining peace relations between two military-political
alliances opposing each other. friend in Europe.
The writer Alberto Moravia - and not the only one - is sad and
fatalistic. But fatalism is unacceptable in politics. On the assistant on the
way to war. The situation in international defense in general, in Europe in
particular, is alarming, but there is a real alternative to nuclear war and the
nuclear threat - dialogue and fair agreements, a radical reduction of
nuclear arsenals, strengthening mutual trust and general security. This is
the general meaning of the New Year's prologue, the New Year's message
from the leaders of socialist states to the governments of the West and the
whole world, to all peoples. This general meaning is powerfully
reinforced by specific sentences.
In the current battles for and against détente, the Federal Republic of
Germany has played a special role. There, more acutely than anywhere
else in Western Europe, the anti-nuclear, anti-missile drama is unfolding,
and in it, one might say, the old principle of dramaturgy is observed - the
unity of place, time and action. Place? After all, more than one third of all
American medium-range missiles should be deployed in West Germany,
including all 108 Pershing-2s, the most dangerous for peace in Europe.
Time? The year has begun. By the end of the year, the first missiles
should be deployed in Germany. This is provided for by the NATO
schedule. Action? This is the anti-nuclear movement in Germany, wider
and more active than ever. The plots of the West German political drama
are also getting twisted because elections to the Bundestag are coming up
on March 6 and politicians have to answer to the voter. One confidential
survey commissioned by Helmut Kohl's government showed that 61
percent of German residents believe that the deployment of new missiles
should be delayed, even if Soviet-American talks in Geneva fail to reach
an agreement by the fall.

172
 The Soviet Union opened the way to a realistic agreement by putting
forward the principle of an equal number of missiles and an equal number
of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons on the Soviet side and on the NATO
side. The Americans are still stuck with their deceptive “zero option.”
The Kohl government, even in the light of the new Soviet initiative,
continues to cling to the unpromising American option. In the opposition
Social Democratic Party, anti-missile sentiment is very strong. SPD
candidate for chancellor Hans-Jochen Vogel wants to prove to his party
colleagues and his fellow citizens in general that his approach is more
flexible.
At the end of last week, Vogel visited Washington, this week - in
Moscow. The West German politician was explained the meaning of the
new proposals of the Soviet Union and drew his attention to the fact that
the implementation of US and NATO missile plans in Western Europe,
and especially in Germany, would have extremely dangerous
consequences.
At a press conference in Moscow, Vogel said that the Soviet leader's
statements were constructive and expressed hope that at the Geneva
negotiations, which resume at the end of January, the American side will
not insist on its original position.
We are not spoiled by Western praise. But these days, both the
Western press and even officials, in general, do not skimp on words about
the initiative and constructiveness of Soviet foreign policy. They also talk
about clever propaganda designed to win public opinion in the West. This
is a compliment with a catch. Propaganda is an important thing, but the
Soviet Union is not interested in propaganda victories, but in a real
movement towards peace, in real ways out of military-political deadlocks
in Europe, in relations between the USSR and the USA, in agreements
that take into account the interests of everyone.
Unlike a military one, a “peaceful offensive” does not need to be
repelled. You need to join him. And to join means to take steps towards.
How do things stand in this sense? There are many positive responses in
the West, even official ones, but no practical steps towards it have been
noticed yet. To use the same military terminology, NATO is now on the
defensive. On defense, the main Western capital is Washington.
Moreover, we have to defend ourselves from “our own people.” “Our
people” attack, “our friends” criticize.
We read, for example, on the pages of the London Times newspaper:
“The time has come for those who have long considered themselves
to be proven supporters of both NATO and multilateral disarmament to

173
openly question the rights of President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher to act as
the sole and true representatives of NATO... PJU must put forward
positive counterproposals, rather than simply rejecting all Soviet
initiatives.”
How does the Reagan administration view this?
The American president announced that on January 30 he was
sending Vice President Bush on a 12-day trip to Western Europe, to
NATO capitals and to Geneva, the site of Soviet-American negotiations.
The declared purpose of the trip was consultations with allies,
coordination in the face of Moscow’s “peaceful offensive.”
What is this - a useful business action or another gesture to the
public?
Let's give the floor to the Washington Post, which knows well the ins
and outs of the events held by the White House. She considers Bush's
mission "impossible." And here’s why: “No one knows how the president
really feels about the prospect of negotiations with the Soviet Union to
conclude an agreement. The president has seven Fridays a week on this
issue.”
And further the Washington Post writes: “Proposals to reduce
armaments, invitations to a summit meeting, proposals to conclude an
agreement on the non-use of military force between NATO and the
Warsaw Pact countries are pouring in from Moscow. The President hides
his head in his shoulders and dodges in every possible way, sometimes
displeased, sometimes good-naturedly brushing it off. The question that
will be asked behind the scenes of Bush during his trip to Europe is: Does
the president truly want to see an end to the arms race? This question can
be answered: “Yes and no!”

174
 Yes and no. This is not just humor. Reagan is feeling the pressure,
including from Congress and the American public. But he cannot
suppress his anti-Soviet instincts. Add to this the infighting within his
administration. As a result of the infighting, Eugene Rostow, the
agency's director of arms control and disarmament, resigned. This is a
patented “hawk,” but in the current hierarchy of those close to power,
Rostow, it turns out, looked almost like a “dove.” After all, Reagan—
and this should not be forgotten—is also under pressure from the
extreme right.
January 1983

BEGIN'S WORDS AND DEEDS

Here is one interesting piece of verbal evidence: “Israel does not
want to keep its troops in Lebanon even a minute longer than necessary.
Lebanon is not Israeli land. It is a sovereign foreign country. We want
an independent Lebanon whose borders we will respect... We are ready
to leave Lebanon today, tomorrow, at any time in the near future. We
want our soldiers to return home..."
Whose words are these? Menachem Begin, Israeli Prime Minister.
And they were said where he visits quite often - in Washington. Said in
early July 1982, about a month after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon
began. Six and a half months have passed since then. Almost five
months have passed since Palestinian fighters fled West Beirut to save
civilians from Israeli shells and bombs.
Begin, Sharon and the campaign said that they were not fighting
against Lebanon, that their goal was only to create a “security zone” in
the south of Lebanon and oust the Palestinian troops. They managed to
achieve this goal. And what? Israeli troops are not leaving Lebanon, the
sovereignty and independence of which Israeli leaders hypocritically
talked about last summer.
The tragedy that was the merciless siege of West Beirut was
replaced by the comedy of the Israeli-Lebanese negotiations. They
began three weeks ago and continue either in the Lebanese town of
Khalda or in the Israeli town of Kiryat Shemona. Or rather, they do not
continue, but continue to mark time. For three weeks the parties could
not agree on what to talk about or on the agenda. The Lebanese say:
withdraw your troops immediately and completely. What could be
simpler and fairer! Lebanon is truly a sovereign state that has the right
not to tolerate foreign soldiers on its soil. But the Israelis reject such an
agenda and demand to discuss the so-called “normalization” of
relations.
The innocent formula is normalization. But only outwardly
innocent. In fact, they want to forcefully include Lebanon in the Camp
David process, split it off from other Arab countries, and force it to sign
a “peace treaty” with Israel. “Peace” with Israel is unceremoniously

175
imposed on Lebanon at the cost of quarrels, strife, and a break with the
Arab states. Lebanon is being pushed into the path of Egypt, although in
Egypt - already at the official level - there are more and more doubts
about Camp David.
And the occupation forces, their presence, and the refusal to
withdraw them are used as an instrument of pressure.
The negotiators sit at the table in a triangle. The third side is
occupied by the Americans. False friends of Lebanon, they actually help
Tel Aviv sabotage the withdrawal of Israeli troops and at the same time
prolong the stay of their own marines on Lebanese soil.
January 1983

TWO YEARS OF “EXPERIMENTS” IN WASHINGTON

One American political scientist has suggested that Ronald Reagan's
presidency will go down in history as "experimental." This guess comes
to mind now that exactly half of the presidential term has expired. Of
course, two years is not an anniversary date. On the other hand, the
activities of the White House are always in the field of view of political
observers, and in this sense, results are summed up almost every day.
And yet... And yet, there is a reason to look back halfway and share
some thoughts about Reagan’s “experiments” and what comes out of
them.
In a narrow sense, from the point of view of his political views and
psychology, the current president is the flesh and blood of Californian
nouveau riche millionaires who successfully amassed their fortunes and
therefore defend the “right” to impose themselves and the country where
they succeeded as an example for the whole world to follow. . In a
broader sense, Ronald Reagan is a spokesman for the interests of the
conservative right wing of the Republican Party, for which the leaders
are usually supplied by the poor American province, and ideological
equipment - in recent years - by New York neoconservative
intellectuals. Let us remember that, moreover, he came on a wave of
conservative and militant-chauvinistic sentiments, which also caught the
attention of the mass voter. This voter, in particular, succumbed to talk
about the “Soviet threat” and in the fall of 1980 also believed that it was
necessary to ultimately stand up for America, which had been insulted
by Islamic extremists in Tehran, who had taken American embassy
personnel hostage and held them captive for exactly 444 day.
The aforementioned political pedigree and political base
predetermined the nature of the Reagan “experiments.” How far to the
right can the American political pendulum be moved, and how long can
it be kept at that far-right point? Is it possible, economically and
socially, to act as if the self-interested views of California millionaires
were shared by the majority of Americans? Is it possible, by
accelerating the arms race in new orbits, to achieve military superiority
over the Soviet Union and trample upon the principles of peaceful

176
coexistence, despite the fact that in our nuclear missile age they operate,
among other things, with the strength and immutability of the instinct of
self-preservation of mankind?
In general, it seems that the essence of Reagan’s “experiment”, or,
in other words, “conservative revolution”, was to fight the clock, using
power and, therefore, access to considerable American power.
It was called, naturally, in different words. It is useful to return to
them. Here, for example, from Reagan’s inauguration speech on January
20, 1981: “To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I will say: “I have just
taken the oath of office not to watch, as president, how the most
powerful economy in the world collapses before my eyes.” world."
The past two years have been years of economic decline, which has
no parallel in the post-war history of the United States. Unemployment,
which rose from 7.4 to 10.8 percent over the same two years, finds only
parallels to the pre-war period 40 years ago. 12 million unemployed
(and with those partially employed and desperate to find work - all 20
million) became the guinea pigs of “Reaganomics”. They are panicking
about the well-being of others, and the fear of losing their jobs cannot be
quelled by boasting about the fact that price growth has actually
decreased. Homeless people sleeping in cardboard boxes is a new twist
in the changing landscape of American streets. A sign of the most recent
times.
Let's be honest: many Americans believe that social assistance
programs for various categories of needy people only breed parasites
and parasites. Reagan exploited these sentiments, but even here his
“experiments” went too far in the direction of callousness and cruelty
towards the poor and disadvantaged. For his war against the poor, he
earned the nickname reverse Robin Hood. Without wanting it, he
became a fairly effective healer, able to save many of his compatriots
from conservative fever. How far to the right is the American political
pendulum moving? A partial answer was given in the midterm elections
last November, when Reagan's conservatives were ousted in the US
House of Representatives. Now even Congress is preventing the
pendulum from being pushed “even further to the right.”
Even Jimmy Carter, thoroughly forgotten, in his last message to
Congress declared the primary foreign policy task to “strengthen
America’s military power
and her allies and friends." All post-war US presidents were guilty
of militarizing foreign policy. But, perhaps, such an acceptance has
never been made on this as under Reagan. Especially in contrast to the
70s, when his predecessors recognized the existence of military-
strategic parity between the USA and the USSR and, one way or
another, considered the principle of equality and equal security. And,
perhaps, never before has there been such a great need for those in
power to quench a special thirst - hostility and outright hatred for the
Soviet Union, for socialist countries, for communism.

177
 These Californian emotions, as well as calculations for achieving
military superiority over the Soviet Union, when translated into the
language of military programs, gave everyone a well-known figure -
$1.6 trillion in appropriations for the Pentagon over five years. Can the
American economy withstand this “experiment”? Doubts are
multiplying. Opposition to crazy military spending is growing as budget
deficits grow. The deficit could reach about $200 billion in the current
fiscal year and grow even further next year, that is, when, according to
the president's initial promises, it should have been reduced to nothing.
It is reported that there are currently approximately 250 books on
the American book market about nuclear weapons, nuclear war and its
consequences, and nuclear disaster. 10 times more than ten years ago.
Why did Americans suddenly take up this sad reading? Fear and
anxiety, unprecedented fears and anxieties are also intermediate
consequences of the “experimental” presidency. Of course, anti-
Sovietism is being intensified more and more, but the line between
fables and absurdities, absurdity is relative and often elusive. This
happened with the fables about the “Soviet threat.” They were brought
to the point of absurdity and absurdity. They are believed less and less,
and fears and anxieties increasingly stem from the words and actions of
Americans in power. The thirst for hatred is quenched only by a
minority. Most people just want to live - simply and in peace.
It is always difficult to dissect time, which flows in a continuous
stream in which you yourself swim. But if we still try to divide the
period we are observing, we will see that in 1981 the dangerous policies
of the Reagan administration awakened a massive anti-nuclear
movement in Western Europe. Since the spring of 1982, America woke
up and declared its new sentiments with referendums for freezing the
nuclear arsenals of the USA and the USSR, and then with the June
million-strong demonstration in New York, timed
to the beginning of the second UN special session on disarmament.
In the November election, millions of Americans in various states, cities
and counties voted in favor of the freeze, expressing opposition to
government policies.
American observers are still debating whether President Reagan is
more of an “ideologist” or a “pragmatist,” a man of rigid views, captive
of his conservative worldview, or a man willing to be flexible and take
into account circumstances when circumstances is called above us. We
will not get involved in this dispute, but note, however, that on the most
important issue of arms control, the current administration has been
forced to take into account such a powerful circumstance as the pressure
of public opinion. For ten whole months in 1981, the White House did
not want to resume US-Soviet negotiations on medium-range nuclear
weapons in Europe and was forced to send its ambassador to Geneva
when anti-nuclear and anti-missile demonstrations swept through
Western European capitals. For almost a year and a half, Washington

178
delayed the resumption of negotiations on the limitation and reduction
of strategic nuclear weapons, citing the unhurried process of
“developing” a new position. In the spring of 1982, he had to rush to
bring down the powerfully rising wave of the anti-nuclear movement in
America.
But... In both cases, these were handouts to worried peoples on both
sides of the Atlantic, and at the same time to Western European allies.
What is needed is not negotiations to cover up the arms race, but
negotiations to conclude a mutually beneficial agreement. At both
negotiating tables in Geneva, the Americans, as is known, come up with
obviously unacceptable proposals. The irreconcilable ideology of
conservatives takes precedence over considerations of political realism
and concern for the future of the world and humanity.
How to overcome this intractability? And can it be overcome, given
the visceral anti-Sovietism of the current Washington leaders? There is
no clear answer to this question. I had the opportunity to visit the United
States twice in 1982, at the beginning and at the end of the year. The
growing isolation of the government in society and the growing
opposition to it are noticeable. The attempt to defy time and swim
against the tide is becoming increasingly difficult, but the president
continues to stick to his line. Despite the discord within his
administration,
as evidenced by a series of resignations. Despite the chaos, which a
number of observers prefer to call complete collapse. Despite
differences with NATO allies and the continuing decline of American
authority.
What is needed is political will for dialogue, cooperation and
agreement. This idea runs like a red thread through the Political
Declaration signed by the leaders of the socialist countries in Prague on
January 5, 1983. How to achieve this will from Washington? Obviously,
a determination to prove to the Americans that their attempts to achieve
superiority are doomed to failure. And also through the will of the
public, the peoples, which governments cannot but take into account.
The peace initiatives of the Soviet Union and other socialist states work
on such a political climate, on such a will of the people, which should
influence the actions of governments. They work more efficiently and
stronger than before. Here, it seems, a new quality arises.
Soviet positions (on the non-first use of nuclear weapons, on
freezing nuclear arsenals) have always enjoyed the support of the world
community. And now new proposals - on strategic nuclear weapons and
nuclear weapons in Europe, the idea of a Treaty on the mutual non-use
of military force between the member states of the Warsaw Pact and
NATO - act as an effective factor in the struggle for peace and
disarmament. The nature of the responses from the Western press and
political figures illustrates this point. Do not brush aside Soviet
initiatives, but consider them in a positive spirit and take reciprocal

179
steps towards them. And again public pressure forces Washington to
maneuver...
These notes offer just a few thoughts on the second anniversary of
Reagan's presidency. The author started from the term “experimental”. I
don’t know if this definition is suitable for a historian, but for a
journalist it is filled with irony and bitterness. Short reflections cannot
capture the whole dialectic, the whole play of time and circumstances.
“Experiments,” and even risky ones, with such big concepts as world
politics and the fate of nations, imply an exorbitant dose of egocentrism
and arrogance, an exaggerated opinion of the possibilities of American
capitalism. “Experiments” are fraught with loss of time, and, as we
know, these losses occurred not only under the current president. Opies
represent missed opportunities to promote peace. They lead to
dangerous instability in US-Soviet relations.
January 1983
GALLOP THROUGH EUROPE
Vice President of the United States of America George W. Bush is
moving around Western Europe, planning to visit seven capitals in 12
days and on February 10 head back to Washington with a report to the
one who sent him on this tour - President Ronald Reagan. Let's first try
to apply a simple arithmetic approach to this trip. Dividing 12 days into
seven capitals, we get approximately 40 hours for each. Let’s also
subtract the trip to West Berlin and an audience with the Pope, time for
flights, the inevitable ceremonies of meetings, breakfasts and lunches,
time for sleep and physical exercise, which the vice president indulges
in every day so as not to lose shape.
What remains? It remains - galloping across Europe. Let us add that
only last week Reagan, as well as Bush, received German Foreign
Minister Genscher in Washington, which seems to make Bush’s
meeting with German Chancellor Kohl in Bonn impractical. Let us add
that in Geneva Bush is meeting with the US delegation at the
negotiations on intermediate-range nuclear weapons, although President
Reagan just recently addressed the head of this delegation, Ambassador
Nitze. Let us finally add some of Bush's own statements, for example
from his press conference before the trip. He said that his mission “does
not involve negotiations” and - more importantly! — that he “is not
bringing any new proposals with him to Europe.” Why, then, is the
gallop being organized, which was announced with such noise three
weeks before the start? Bush talks about consultations with allies. But
consultations, if they are serious consultations, also require time, which,
as we estimate, Bush does not have.
There is only one explanation left - advertising, political
advertising. Another performance staged by those who just these days in
Washington proposed a budget increasing by 35 billion dollars and
without top) gigantic military spending, and during the European tour
wants to assure everyone of their desire for arms control and their
limitation. In the play, those Western European leaders who are visited

180
by the American vice president are invited to play their roles.
Meanwhile, the matter is extremely serious. 1983 promises to be a
turning point - either towards an improvement in the political situation
in Europe, or towards its further aggravation. By the end of the year, if
the Soviet-American negotiations in Geneva do not end with an
agreement, the Americans will begin to introduce their Pershing-2 and
cruise missiles into Western Europe.
On the table at the just resumed Geneva talks are new Soviet
proposals for medium-range nuclear weapons. As is known, they
proceed from the principle of approximate equality between the Soviet
Union and NATO countries - both in missiles and in aircraft carrying
nuclear weapons. Moreover, equality is proposed at an incomparably
lower level than now.
We need reciprocal steps from the other side, from the United
States. The need for these steps is being discussed not only in Moscow.
The broadest Western European circles, not only public but also official,
are looking towards Washington, expecting a concrete and constructive
response to Soviet initiatives. This is the most characteristic feature of
the current moment, and it is enough to look through almost any major
Western European newspaper to discover this persistent motive: it’s up
to Washington, it’s Washington’s turn. And one more motive that
echoes the first: Reagan’s “zero option,” which in fact provides for the
unilateral disarmament of the USSR, and the stubborn defense of this
option do not open the way to an agreement in Geneva, but, on the
contrary, keep Soviet-American negotiations at a dead end.
The need for flexibility, including abandoning the rigid structure of
the “zero option” and new constructive proposals from Washington, is
being discussed in one way or another in Paris and London, Rome and
Bonn. And most of all - in Bopp, where passions are running high due
to the political struggle before the elections to the Bundestag on March
6. In Bonn, the Social Democratic opposition calls for a compromise in
Geneva, taking into account the new Soviet proposals, and the ruling
coalition led by Chancellor Kohl, although it demonstrates solidarity
with the American position more than others, does not look without fear
at the mass voter, who clearly prefers to do without American missiles
on West German territory.
The current American administration, during its two years in power,
has proven its fidelity to the principle: if the facts are against us, so
much the worse for the facts. But even she cannot ignore the facts of the
Soviet “peaceful offensive” and its impact on the Western European
public, fearing political isolation and an even greater aggravation of
relations with the allied governments, which are experiencing increasing
pressure from their peoples.
Recently, overseas there has been a lot of talk about the battle for
the minds and hearts of Western Europeans, about “public diplomacy.”
As you can understand, “public diplomacy” is an attempt to sell a slow-
moving product, an unpopular policy, in a new, more attractive

181
propaganda package. George Bush is now traveling around Western
Europe not for negotiations or even for the sake of consultations with
Western European leaders. His suitcases are empty (“he doesn’t carry
any new proposals with him”), but they are covered with colorful labels
of the newly-minted “public diplomacy.”
Examples? President Reagan's address to the peoples of Europe,
which Bush announced in West Berlin. The appeal advocates the same
“zero option,” although the term itself is omitted—isn’t this the only
“concession” to public opinion?
The response of the Western European and American press to this
appeal was strikingly unanimous - nothing new, a purely propaganda
gesture. There was a quick official response from the Soviet side. 10. V.
Andropov’s answers to questions from a Pravda correspondent say that
the American president’s adherence to his previous position “shows one
thing: the United States does not want to look for mutually acceptable
agreements with the Soviet Union and thereby deliberately dooms the
Geneva negotiations to failure.”
The West German General Apzeiger writes that American policy
“is increasingly encountering skepticism even among friends.” The trip
of the US Vice President also met with skepticism even among the
bourgeois, “Atlantic” press. Many observers considered her goal
obviously unattainable.
Meanwhile, there is one sure way to achieve success in “public
diplomacy”. Not from the arsenal of Hollywood and advertising
agencies. And this method does not consist in sending the American
vice president at a gallop across Europe. The point is to put constructive,
realistic proposals on the negotiating table in Geneva that would
contribute to reaching an agreement. This is exactly what the people
expect from the American leadership. It is precisely these expectations
that Western European figures and Bush's interlocutors cannot fail to
take into account these days.
February 1983
HOW THE GENERAL GOT IN TROUBLE
According to a widely held opinion, the “bullet version” of
President Reagan died politically, unable to withstand the test of logic
and criticism from the public, as well as many politicians and experts.
But it’s too early to talk about his official funeral. Instead of consigning
the “bullet option” to the ground or oblivion, the Americans still
stubbornly keep it in the halls of the Geneva negotiations on medium-
range nuclear weapons in Europe. Vice President George Bush takes the
deceased around Western European capitals. Moreover, having pressed
the American allies to the wall, during his trip he got them to declare
that the “zero option” was unhealthy and nothing better had yet been
invented.
American General Bernard Rogers, the commander-in-chief of
NATO troops in Europe, must defend - and defends - the “bullet
option”, as they say, out of duty. But last Sunday he had a chance to

182
appear before the ABC television cameras. Part II was given to him as a
questioner by ABC correspondent Sam Dopaldsop, known for his
ability to pose questions head-on and for his persistence. And this is
what came out of the confrontation between the general and the
correspondent. We present their dialogue verbatim.
Donaldson. Mr. General, the “bullet option” seems like a very fair
solution, but there is one troubling aspect to it, which the Russians have
successfully exploited in their propaganda campaign. The French and
British have their own missiles aimed at the Soviet Union. Under the
“zero option” they will not be taken into account. If we reduce our
weapons to zero on each side, the Russians will have to dismantle their
SS-20 missiles, we will abandon the deployment of their Pershing
missiles and cruise missiles, but the French and British missiles will
remain. Please clarify this question. Why is it fair to let the British and
French keep these missiles?
Rogers. Honestly, it’s not for me to judge what is fair and what is
not. The British and French very decisively declared that they...
Rogers. I would say that I am very alarmed that I not only have to
take into account the weapons systems that the United States could
deploy, but that I also have to take into account the systems of other two
countries. Personally, this helps me a lot in my post as Supreme Allied
Commander of NATO in Europe, since the Russians have to take into
account these weapons systems, in addition to the American ones.
Donaldson. Well, you see, but that's the problem, Mr. General. How
to solve it? If we really seriously insist on the “zero option”, what are
we talking about French and British missiles?
Rogers. All that needs to be said must be said by the British and
French, and they have stated that their missile systems will not be
discussed in the current bilateral negotiations between the United States
and the Soviet Union. And, as I already said, I cannot blame them for
taking this position, since they always say that they will have their own
independent nuclear forces, and, as I already indicated, this helps me a
lot .
Donaldson. But if you lived in Kyiv and were blown up by a French
rocket, would it really matter to you that it was French and not
American?
Rogers. I do not live in Kyiv, and therefore I cannot take a position
that is obviously desirable for the Russians, although I understand their
problem...
This turned out to be a frank and instructive dialogue. The reader is
able to draw his own conclusions from it. For my part, I will only say
one thing: what “greatly helps” General Rogers and his bosses in the
Pentagon and the White House is very harmful to the cause of peace.
The general says: “It’s not for me to judge what is fair and what is
not.” Tell me, what modesty! But the point, of course, is due to modesty
or the lack of defense, but the fact that it is impossible (even out of duty!
Even the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of NATO!) to defend that very

183
“zero option”, which does not seem to notice the presence of more than
one and a half hundred British and French missiles. And General
Rogers, as you can see, is losing ground, retreating under the attack of
the correspondent, who has only one weapon, and not the nuclear bog,
but the usual one - logic.
Logic and justice require that British and French missiles be
counted in the overall balance of nuclear forces. It is from this that the
Soviet proposals come from, affirming the principle: not a single
missile, not a single plane from one side or the other.
February 1983
PRETENDING AND PINDING
Among observers of the foreign - and military - policy of the State
of Israel, the Jordanian King Hussein does not occupy the last place.
Living with a neighbor for many years, who cannot be called kind, gives
his observations poignancy and weight. And here is one of them,
expressed to Western journalists in the summer of 1982, when the
troops of Begin and Sharon were besieging West Beirut:
“Israel is constantly trying to expand at the expense of others, to
secure acquisitions for itself at the expense of the Arab nation,” said the
Jordanian king. “Israel is trying, as in the past—successfully, I must say
—to unexpectedly confront the world with a new status quo. In such
situations, the world’s attention is diverted to resolving issues related to
resolving the existing, that is, new, situation, while the main problem
requiring resolution is forgotten or pretended to be forgotten...”
In other words, they need each new act of expansionism and
aggression undertaken by Israeli leaders today not only “in itself,” but
also in order to pile up what was done yesterday, make it habitual, or, as
Hussein says, put the world before a new status -quo.
This is a true thought that has occurred to many. Current events
convincingly confirm this. In fact, what do we have today on the front
line, so to speak? The Israelis seemed to be hanging over Syria,
concentrating troops in the Bekaa Valley and threatening strikes on
Syrian air defense positions and even on the Syrian capital Damascus.
This is a new threatening situation. And it is also a barrier with which
Israel would like to divert attention from how it is “digesting” the spoils
of its aggression in Lebanon.
Last July, Begin insisted that he “does not want to keep his troops in
Lebanon even a minute longer than necessary.” But what is
“necessary”? Israeli troops are not leaving, Israeli-Lebanese
negotiations are marking time, since, as it turns out, Israel “needs” to
maintain military control of at least the south of Lebanon, depriving this
Arab state of sovereignty (although, if we recall Begin’s recent
statements, it is precisely to restore this sovereignty from the
encroachments of Palestinian troops, Israeli troops invaded Lebanon).
Begin now counts more than just minutes. He calls for patience and says
that negotiations to resolve the Lebanese crisis cannot be completed “in
a day or a week.” It smells like it lasts for months and years. It smells

184
like a new status quo, violating all norms of international law.
So, in the foreground is the crisis situation on the borders of Syria.
In the background is the endless prospect of Israeli-Lebanese
negotiations, and in this perspective the rushing figures of Washington
mediators Habib and Draper, persuading Begin to hurry up.
And in the third place in this Israeli tactic, when they want to push
aside yesterday’s crises with today’s crises and solve them in their own
way, the most important thing is the Palestinian issue. Israel forced
Palestinian troops to leave South Lebanon and West Beirut and forced
the Palestinian leadership to move to other countries. But the most
dramatic and ominous things do not necessarily happen amid the roar of
shells and bombs. The most dramatic thing is happening now precisely
on the third plane - and without military action. Israel is swallowing and
“digesting” the Palestinian land it has seized in the West Bank. And for
the Palestinians this is the worst thing. A state cannot exist without
territory. The Begin government wants to kill the idea of an Arab
Palestinian state in the most radical way possible - by depriving the
Palestinians of their land.
What are we talking about practically? About the program of
unprecedented active resettlement of Israelis to the Arab Palestinian
lands of the West Bank. Judge for yourself: from 1967, when these
lands were captured by Israel, until now, about 130 Jewish settlements
have been created there with a total population of almost 30 thousand.
By the middle of this year, 6,000 housing units should be built there for
35,000 people, so that the Jewish population of the West Bank exceeds
60,000. According to official forecasts, by 1987 or even earlier, the
number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank should reach 100 thousand.
This means that they will have five representatives in the Knesset and
such political power that even the Israeli government, with views not as
aggressive as Begin’s, is unlikely to undertake to resettle them back.
And the current Israeli leaders, according to the American weekly
Time, dream that by 2010, 1.4 million Jews will live in the West Bank
of Jordan along with 1.6 million Arabs, reduced to the status of “second-
class citizens” and economically, and politically.
Intensified colonization and the creeping annexation of the West
Bank are no secret to those in the West who (remember the words of
King Hussein) would like to forget the “core problem.” Former US
Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford write in Reader's Digest: "The
facts clearly show the Arab world, and other countries too, that Israeli
leaders.
“Fantasy” once occurred to US President Ronald Reagan. In his
plan for a Middle East settlement, announced on September 1, 1982,
after the withdrawal of Palestinian fighters from West Beirut, he called
on Israel to “freeze” the creation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank
and Gaza Strip, viewing this as a step towards returning the occupied
territories to the Palestinian Arabs, who , according to Washington
strategists, must decide their future within the framework of an

185
“association” with Jordan. The American plan, let me remind you,
denies the PLO recognition and the Palestinians the creation of their
own independent state. But this is not enough for Begin and his
supporters. They will never agree to freeze Israeli colonization of the
West Bank.
And to this day Begin stands his ground. Recently, he again stated
bluntly: “If someone ordered us to freeze the process of creating
settlements, we would respond that it is as impossible as it is impossible
to stop life itself. This is absolutely impossible."
The response to the American call for a “freeze” was, as we see, a
program for the accelerated settlement of occupied lands. Washington's
exhortations did not help. And they couldn't help. When last fall the
conversation turned to who would overpower whom in the American
Congress - Reagan or Begin, Reagan was the one who came out on top.
Congress, contrary to the administration's recommendations, gave Israel
about half a billion dollars on top of the proposed two. American aid
does not “freeze”, but rather unfreezes the construction of new
settlements.
Now, once again, the American press is full of reports about another
(and again unprecedented) aggravation of relations between Washington
and Tel Aviv: because of Lebanon and Israeli reluctance to withdraw
troops from there, as well as because of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
There really are disagreements, because Washington, striving for
hegemony in the Middle East and having an alliance with Israel as the
initial springboard for achieving this goal, would like to get along with
the Arabs, with Lebanon, with Jordan, and even with Palestinians if they
abandon theirs and accept American conditions. But if we take not the
surface, but the guts, the core of American-Israeli relations, then all
these disagreements are a sham. It's a sham as long as America's
indulgence in Israel lasts.
The pretense is also because it gives the United States the
opportunity to act as the guardians of the Arabs. For some Arabs, this
American pose is seductive today, encouraging them to play the
American game. But should we forget about the bitter experience, that
tomorrow and the day after tomorrow such a game is fraught with
enormous political damage to the Arab cause? By enticing the Arabs
with the specter of a settlement that is obviously unrealistic, the
Americans are giving Israel time to gain, giving them time to digest the
spoils and prepare for new conquests.
February 1983

CAPITOL HILL INCIDENT

President Reagan, as they say, was asking for trouble by proposing
that the US Senate approve the candidacy of Kenneth Edelman for the
post of director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. And he
got it. As already reported, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

186
postponed the vote on this candidacy “indefinitely” and suggested that
the president find another, more suitable one. Reagan stands his ground,
and the outcome of the new clash in the corridors of Washington power
is not yet clear, which, however, does not prevent us from taking a
closer look at it.
Such clashes between Capitol Hill and the White House occur
infrequently: consider that the majority in the Senate as a whole and in
each of its committees belongs to the Republicans, that is, the party of
Reagan. Therefore, two questions acquire additional urgency. Why was
no confidence expressed in Edelman? And why did Reagan choose him
to head the government department that has an important role in
developing and implementing American arms control and limitation
policies?
The Senate commission “gored” Edelman’s candidacy because in
two hearings this young, 36-year-old presidential nominee showed,
firstly, deep ignorance in the most important matter that they were going
to entrust to him. Secondly, he saw his task not as achieving arms
control, but as preventing this control in the name of the so-called
“rearmament” of America. Edelman called the efforts to limit weapons,
which the White House is now talking about at all crossroads, just “a
sham.”
Why did Reagan propose such a controversial candidate, to put it
mildly? His incompetence apparently does not bother him. She is the
trademark of the current administration. It is no joke that during the
1980 election campaign the president confused Indochina with
Indonesia, and his national security aide later amazed members of the
same Senate Foreign Relations Committee with his vast ignorance of
the names of international figures and the substance of world problems.
Further. The case with Eidelman once again demonstrates that in
choosing both politics and people, the American president is a voluntary
captive of his very conservative views, emotions, and instincts.
The slap in the face received from the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, where, I repeat, the majority belongs to his party, is
indicative. Since we are talking about sentiment, it would be useful to
cite the data of one of the latest surveys by the famous specialist Louis
Harris. By a ratio of 66 to 31 percent, Americans considered the
president's performance in arms control negotiations "unsatisfactory."
By a ratio of 57 to 39 percent, respondents registered their alarm that he
"could drag the country into a major nuclear war."
The generous credit of confidence given by Congress to the new
president when he took office in early 1981 waned primarily as
Reaganomics failed. The results of the midterm elections in November
1982 were a major blow to Reaganism in general and signaled the
emergence of a more critical Congress. Giant military programs are no
longer a sacred cow on Capitol Hill, although for now they are merely
being pinched, not slashed. In December, a story happened with the MX
missiles, when, in defiance of the administration and the president

187
personally, Congress postponed until March the decision on the issue of
appropriations for the creation of the first five missiles. Many observers
saw the White House defeat as a sign of changing times. The
Washington Post wrote at the time: “Congress is finally drawing the
line, showing the limits of its willingness to allow itself to be pushed
towards administration plans it considers dubious at best.” Now another
dubious idea is being disputed - with Eidelman.
When Edelman appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee for the first time in early February, he was reminded of his
comments that arms control talks were a stunt to placate Western
European allies, that the talks had no meaning until Americans will not
finish “rearmament”. In those days it was well known - 240
longtime NBC columnist Joey Chancellor spoke. “All this is
happening while Vice President Louis is running around Western
Europe, grabbing allies by the buttons and telling them that the Reagan
administration is really sincere about disarmament. What to believe?
Bush has already returned home, having unscrewed many buttons in
a propaganda frenzy. Together with Reagan, he continues to talk about a
sincere desire to limit arms. But, apparently, it’s not him or the president
who needs to be trusted. You need to believe Edelman - “rearmament”
and “rearmament” are above all and above all. It is a frank and accurate
statement of the current administration's direction, although it has so far
failed the young hawk before seasoned senators on Capitol Hill.
February 1983

HOW SHARON GET AWAY

The commission worked for four months, promising that there
would be complete order with truth and justice. Regardless of faces.
How did the faces look at this? They trampled the truth, mocked justice.
And they remained in power.
We are talking about a “special commission” in Tel Aviv to
investigate the circumstances of the massacres in the Palestinian camps
of Sabra and Shatila. They occurred on September 16-18, 1982. Who
doesn’t remember the terrible photographs and film footage - piles of
dead bodies of women, old people, children, babies, lying side by side
under the hot southern sun, in the dust of poor streets, near the walls of
adobe houses?! Who was not horrified by this bloody apotheosis of
Israeli aggression in Lebanon? How did the killers end up in camps
surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers and, moreover, “protected” by
American guarantees of the safety of peaceful settlements?
Let me remind you that Begin and his cabinet initially wanted to
avoid both answers and responsibility. The first government statement,
made when the blood was still wet and the sand covering the mass
graves had not yet dried, breathed with incomprehensible arrogance.
“No one dares teach us morality and respect for the human person,” it
said. Begin rejected the outrage and protests of the whole world with
contempt. But when an unprecedented 400,000 (10 percent of the entire

188
Israeli population!) demonstration took place in Tel Aviv, he had to
change tactics. A three-person “ad hoc commission” was created,
chaired by Judge Kagan.
And now, after four months of investigation, after interviewing 65
witnesses, the commission published its report on February 8. The direct
participants in the massacre are the Lebanese phalangists-right-wing
Christians, the intelligence unit of their militia led by a certain Eli
Hubeiza. The commission reported that the killers entered Sabra and
Shatila with the permission of Israeli Defense Minister Sharon. They
kept in touch with the head of Israeli military intelligence, Sagi, and
before entering the camps, they conferred with the commander of the
Israeli troops in Beirut, Brigadier General Yaron.
“The Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility for what
happened,” was one of the conclusions. The commission recommended
the resignation of Sharop and Saga and the deprivation of General
Yarov for three years of the right to hold leadership positions.
Resignation, just resignation for complicity in a heinous crime...
The commission was more merciful than harsh towards Sharon and his
subordinates. The truth was softened and obscured. They tried to shield
Begin and dismiss the accusations of direct assistance to the murderers,
which looks illogical even in light of the facts presented by the
commission itself. But the facts, judging by many signs, were not all
made public. The interaction between the Phalangists and the Israelis
was in fact even closer. American intelligence agencies are well aware
of this. CBS special correspondent McGlockmap reports: “According to
American sources, Hubeiza and his men were equipped, armed and paid
by Israeli intelligence and acted on its orders. Intelligence ordered
Khubaze to enter the camps, knowing that he was bent on revenge."
Sharon and his assistants cynically did the dirty work with someone
else's hands. In particular, because they did not want to put their soldiers
at risk. The official representative of the Israeli Prime Minister, Uri
Porat, pointed this out in connection with the commission’s report. The
Phalangists were allowed to enter Sabra and Shatila in order, as he put
it, "to avoid heavy losses in the Israeli army." Large casualties among
innocent civilians were not a concern. Remember: “No one dares teach
you morality and respect for the human person.”
What happened to the commission's recommendations? They, of
course, were proclaimed as a triumph of Israeli democracy and were
rejected.

189
 On Tuesday, February 8, the commission published its report.
On February 10, the Israeli cabinet met and by 16 votes to one
(Sharon) decided to accept the recommendation for the resignation of
the Minister of Defense. The next day, Sharon resigned. But... he was
left in the office. Then, quite in the spirit of the “triumph of
democracy,” they came up with a cynical trick with the Knesset
(Israeli parliament). He was handed Sharon's fate - in anticipation of
the desired result. It turned out as planned. On Monday, by a vote of
61 to 56, with one abstention, the Knesset left Sharon “minister
without portfolio.” After the vote, Begin washed his hands of it,
saying that his government had implemented the commission's
recommendations and would do nothing more.
Begin got off even easier than Sharon: no government crisis, the
possibility of which was loudly shouted after the publication of the
“special commission” report, no responsibility for what happened,
and no changes in policy. Israeli Ambassador to Washington Moshe
Arens, a “hawk” as inveterate as Sharon, has been appointed to the
post of Defense Minister. And Sharon, as they say, is going to be
entrusted with an important and not new area for him - the settlement
of lands conquered from the Arabs by Israeli colonists, the work on
the practical implementation of the idea of a “great Israel”. There he
may well show the same qualities.
Sharon, as is known, was nicknamed the Bulldozer for his tough
temper and cruelty. He bulldozed through Lebanon, just as the killers
used Israeli bulldozers through Sabra and Shatila, raking up the
corpses of their victims. Together with Begin, they bulldozed
through truth and justice, shielding themselves, accomplices in the
crime. They cannot wash their hands, stained with the blood of
innocents. It is easier to hush up a dirty case administratively than to
close it in history, erase it in the hearts and memories of people.
February 1983

BETWEEN A HAMMER AND A HILL

The position between the hammer and the anvil is not one of the
most comfortable and does not promise a quiet life. The governments
of those countries in Western Europe where American nuclear
missiles are planned to be deployed know this from their own
experience. They now find themselves in exactly the same situation.
Hammer is the anti-missile movement of the general public. It
acquired such a magnitude that, from the point of view of domestic
political consequences for the countries concerned, NATO’s decision
on “rearmament” became, according to the definition of the London
Sunday Times, like a “catastrophe.” What about the anvil? This is
the position of official Washington at the Soviet-American
negotiations in Geneva, the “bullet option” that President Reagan
does not want to say goodbye to. The longer the Americans persist in
190
their intransigence, the less chance there is for an agreement and the
more chance there is for the Pershings and cruise missiles that will
begin to be delivered to Western Europe by the end of the year. And
the stronger the hammer blows, the pressure of the Western
European public on governments. This is best seen in the example of
Germany, which is in tense circumstances during the last week of the
election campaign.
However, our comparison needs clarification. A red-hot piece of
metal is malleable under a hammer in the hands of a blacksmith. This
cannot be said about the line of governments in those countries to
which American missiles are intended - in the Federal Republic of
Germany, as well as in England and Italy, and even in Holland and
Belgium. Yes, to some, mainly tactical, extent, their policy line
succumbs to the hammer of anti-missile sentiment. But if the
medicinal words about “concern” are compared with deeds, with
foreign policy actions, it turns out that it is not the hammer that plays
the decisive role, but the anvil - the American position accepted by
other NATO members for reasons of solidarity and habitual
subordination to the senior partner.
Let us recall the lessons of US Vice President George W. Bush's
recent trip to Western Europe. Bush toured all NATO countries
intended for American missiles, everywhere waving his boss’s “zero
option” and at the same time declaring his readiness to listen to the
advice of his allies. The advice, according to press reports, took into
account the mood of the public and was clear: more flexibility, more
constructiveness at the Geneva negotiations. The public was widely
notified of the advice. So what is next? Bush came with what he left,
and achieved official approval of the American position by Western
European leaders. True, then it was rumored that he, taking into
account the wishes for flexibility, would recommend an
“intermediate option” to Reagan. The rumor turned out to be perhaps
the most fleeting of those that are born every day in the Washington
kitchen.
The American allies were listened to, but not listened to. They
could not and did not want to convince Washington and did not show
sufficient independence in relations with their senior partner,
although the fate of their countries is at stake. This is not a
comforting fact, but it should not be forgotten, even while noting the
growing pressure of anti-missile sentiment in Western Europe.
Comrade A. A. Gromyko drew attention to the regrettable
duality and inconsistency in the behavior of official representatives
of a number of NATO countries in his answers to questions from a
Pravda correspondent. On the one hand, they declare their
commitment to resolving the issue at the negotiating table, focusing
on that part of the 1979 NATO decision that speaks of a possible
agreement as an alternative to the deployment of American missiles
in Western Europe. On the other hand, they express support for the
American “zero” intended for the Soviet Union, with the help of
191
which Washington is moving away from the agreement. The actual
position of official circles contradicts statements in favor of the
agreement.
What are they trying to justify it with?
After the Soviet Union proposed leaving in Europe only as many
medium-range missiles as France and England have, and put forward
the principle of an equal number of missiles and aircraft carrying
nuclear weapons on both sides, the United States and the West as a
whole are experiencing an acute lack of logical arguments. In
Washington, as well as in Paris and London, they simply don’t want
(they don’t want to - that’s all!) to take French and British missiles
into account, declaring them “independent” or “national”, as if this
makes them less lethal and no longer belongs to the overall nuclear
potential of the West. In Bopp, official representatives from the
ruling coalition also do not see French and British missiles at all;
they continue to talk about the Soviet “monopoly” on nuclear
weapons in this category and that this non-existent “monopoly” can
only be balanced by American missiles.
It turns out that logic is on the side. Now they insist on a kind of
“principle”, without bothering themselves with evidence. In
principle, the West does not want to tolerate Soviet medium-range
missiles in Europe. In principle, the West needs American missiles
on European territory. For what? And here we are faced with the
central argument of the supporters of nuclear “rearmament,” which,
due to the lack of logical support, hangs in the air. In order, it turns
out, to prevent the “breakaway” of Western Europe from America, or
- if at the other end - to ensure a strategic “joining” of the defense of
Western Europe with the United States.
Most of all, the threat of a “breakaway” is being talked about
again in Bonn, again in the ranks of the ruling coalition of the
CDU/CSU and the FDP, again justifying automatic following in the
wake of Reagan’s policies. Here, for example, are the words of
Chancellor Kohl: “The double solution was and remains the response
of the Western Union to the USSR’s attempt to open the way for
Europe to break away from the United States... The consequence of
this would be Europe’s vulnerability to political blackmail, and at the
same time it would also be under threat our freedom." Here are the
words of Foreign Minister Genscher: “The Soviet Union's medium-
range nuclear potential... raises the possibility of Western Europe
breaking away from the United States. And this would entail the
separation of our country from its neighbors - France, Great Britain
and other allies. This is where the path to the abyss begins."
As you can see, Genscher has developed a whole new “domino
theory” - in relation to “breakaways” leading into the abyss. And
American missiles appear everywhere in such statements as
connecting nodes, as clamps, without which the poor and unfortunate
“Western Union” would instantly fall apart at the seams under the
192
onslaught of the Soviet Union.
When taking the matter “in principle”, the American Pershing-2
and cruise missiles are not just weapons systems, but, first of all, a
vital military-strategic guarantee to Western Europe that America
will not abandon it in trouble and to the mercy of fate, or, more
precisely, Moscow. Reagan and Bush call the presence of 300
thousand American soldiers on the European continent a “living
guarantee” of the strategic relationship between the United States and
Western Europe and American determination to defend its NATO
partners. But now a “living guarantee” is not enough. How
insufficient are the approximately thousand units of medium-range
nuclear weapons that NATO countries as a whole have in the
European region. How colossal American power in strategic nuclear
weapons is not enough. All this, it turns out, is no longer able to
prevent a “breakaway” if about 600 more American missiles are not
deployed on Western European territory.
The concept of a “breakaway” for bad luck was first put forward
by Western European politicians. On the other side of the Atlantic
Ocean, in a militaristic frenzy, they are eagerly developing it further.
And they turn... the other end. “Don’t you want our new missiles?
Then we will completely and forever “break away” from you!
Western Europe is threatened with the complete collapse of the
“Western Union”. And not without success...
How can one argue with an imagination that is wild and yet
purposeful, feeding from an inexhaustible source under the familiar
name “Soviet threat”? How to stop flights of fancy in which Soviet
tanks, with the help of Soviet missiles, instantly move to the banks of
the Rhine, or even the Seine and even the Tiber? After all, no matter
how you slice it, this is perhaps the main argument of the American
missile defense lawyers. It is widely circulated in the most serious
institutions of the West.
Of course, there is experience, there is history, there is the same
logic. Opies are opposed to fiction and fantasy. Logic, for example,
is called to witness by prominent SPD figure Egop Bar. “If the
presence of American missiles is a condition for engagement with
the United States,” he says, “then today we are separated from the
United States, because there are no such missiles. And this is obvious
nonsense.”
And in fact - not Lepitsa: Germany is not cut off from the USA.
American columnist Tom Wicker refutes the concept of
“breakaway” with the historical experience of the last twenty years.
Recalling that in 1963 the United States withdrew its Thor and
Jupiter medium-range missiles from Western Europe, he writes:
“However, this did not lead to any ‘break in the relationship’.” And
he explains why: “...for most of this period, American land- and sea-
based intercontinental missiles, combined with British and French
nuclear weapons and NATO nuclear-armed aircraft on board, were
considered a sufficient deterrent potential...”
193
 In other words, parity in medium-range nuclear weapons was
maintained—and continues to be—in Europe.
If the new Soviet proposals were implemented (not one missile,
not one more aircraft from the USSR and NATO), a total of more
than 1,300 medium-range nuclear weapons would be reduced in
Europe.
Moreover, both the number of launchers of Soviet medium-range
missiles in the European part of the USSR and the total number of
warheads on them would be less than in 1976, that is, before the
Soviet Union began modernizing medium-range missiles.
Let me explain that it was this modernization that gave rise to
talk in the West about the danger of a “breakaway.”
These are the facts. But from the point of view of current
American leaders, they still have the same significant and
inexcusable flaw - they do not support the fantasies born of inflamed
anti-Sovietism.
The Reagan administration is frightening Western Europe with
an American “breakaway” and, as a consequence, “Soviet
blackmail.” But in reality we are talking not about Soviet, but about
American blackmail, and the blackmailers have two addresses at
once - the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Washington's
innermost plans are no secret. It is enough to look at a map of Europe
and estimate that from the territory of the Federal Republic of
Germany, the Pership-2 missile reaches the vital centers of the Soviet
Union in 8-10 minutes. The Americans do not need an additional
“coupling” in the defense of Western Europe, but a first-strike
weapon, very close to the borders of the USSR. This is where the real
threat of extreme aggravation of the military-political situation in
Europe lies.
Much has been turned upside down. In the test of loyalty, the
fidelity that Washington inflicts on its allies, their obedience, their
readiness to deploy American missiles, is highlighted, rather than
their consideration of their own interests, their duty and right to seek
a fair agreement in Geneva.
“It seems that Western European states do not have the right to
play the role of outside observers, much less popularizers of the
current American position,” said A. A. Gromyko in answers to a
Pravda correspondent.
This role did not belong to Western Europeans. Besides, she is
dangerous.
March 1983

LIES TO HELP THE GUNS

In the post-war history of the United States there is recorded as a
classic case of speculation on the fiction of the “Soviet threat.”
During the 1960 election campaign, John Kennedy, competing with
Richard Nixon for the White House, was buzzing into the ears of
194
Americans, scaring them with Soviet missiles and the American lag
in this area. His data, as it turned out later, were exaggerated by 15-
20 times.
Both before and after, almost every US president contributed to
the merciless exploitation of the myth of the “Soviet threat.” But no
one was - and is not trying - as hard as Ronald Reagan and his team.
And the explanation for this is extremely simple: no one has ever
proposed such gigantic military budgets or made such efforts to
break the strategic parity between the USA and the USSR that
developed in the 70s.
The current conveyor belt of falsifications, launched during the
1980 election campaign, can be said to have never stopped since
then. Old lies come out in new editions. Sometimes - literally. We
are referring to the second edition of the Pentagon brochure “Soviet
Military Power”. It was first published in September 1981. Now
updated and provided with a new foreword by US Secretary of
Defense Weinberger. Printed in a circulation of 320 thousand in
English - with the promise of translations into five more languages.
At a press conference held on March 9 and broadcast not only to the
United States but also to Western Europe, Weinberger solemnly
released this duck. She flapped her wings heavily. And it’s
immediately obvious that it won’t fly far.
Why? And here the explanation is simple. They exaggerate
Soviet military power in every possible way, but do not notice their
own. This distorted vision, like a year and a half ago, was noticed.
For example, in the brochure the number of American B-52 strategic
bombers is underestimated by more than half, by 300 units. And the
Soviet strategic aviation includes those bombers (“Backfire”) that,
according to their characteristics, do not belong to it—this fact was
recognized by Washington in the pre-Reagan era. The Soviet Union
reportedly has three Kyiv-class aircraft carriers. And the United
States has 21 aircraft carriers - and much larger ones! They are
scaring the Americans with the Soviet Typhoon class submarine,
neglecting such “small things” as the American Ohio class
submarines. Each of them fires nuclear warheads in one missile
salvo, the destructive power of which is equal to approximately
1,200 bombs of the type dropped on Hiroshima. The new Trident-2
missile system is on the way. With this, each Ohio class boat will
carry more than 8 thousand Hiroshimas.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union proposed that the United States
jointly abandon the development of these new missile systems, as
well as other new types of nuclear missile weapons. There was also
no place to mention this proposal in the Pentagon brochure. As for
many others, testifying that the Soviet Union has long called and is
calling on the United States to stop the arms race.
In their own eyes, the authors of the Pentagon brochure do not
see not only the log of gigantic American weapons, but also the log
of American policy. And it, this log, is the main barrier to
195
agreements on arms limitation and reduction. Who refuses to take the
pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons? Who avoids
invitations to sit down at the negotiating table and sign an agreement
on the mutual non-use of military force between the Warsaw Pact
states and NATO? They say it's not rockets that kill you in the end.
People kill their own kind. This is true in the sense that the threat of
war is posed by a policy that gives the green light to nuclear missile
weapons. Everyone knows which politicians pursue such policies.
President Reagan does not miss a single opportunity to demonstrate
his hostility not only to the Soviet Union, but also to the very idea of
peaceful coexistence. His speech at the convention of American
evangelists in Orlando, Florida, is further evidence of this.
But these performances have become more frequent lately. And
here it’s time to move on to the question: why has a new edition of
the tattered Pentagon lies been published now? The immediate cause
was the passage through Congress of the fiscal year 1984 budget,
with its military appropriations being more than $30 billion higher
than the current fiscal year's expenditures. The Pentagon's salary is at
risk. Not under the Soviet one. Under threat from an American, an
American who, during just over two years of Reagan's rule, became
convinced that his greatest threat lay not overseas, but at home - in
the form of "Reaganomics" with its record unemployment, cut social
programs and economic recession.
“The economic foundation of our national security, which is as
important as the defense component, has been undermined,” former
Secretary of Defense McNamara, former Secretary of State Waps,
former National Security Advisor Bundy and retired Admiral
Zumwalt said recently about Reagan policies. , who served as Chief
of Staff of the Navy FORCE and enjoys the reputation of a “hawk.”
The four sent to the House and Senate budget committees a proposal
to cut President Reagan's military budget by $135.9 billion over the
next five years.
These are critics from among the “well-intentioned” and
“trustworthy”. Their number is growing in Congress itself, as
evidenced by the recent vote in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
House of Representatives, which supported the idea of mutually
freezing the nuclear potentials of the United States and the USSR,
and in the Budget Committee of the same chamber, which spoke in
favor of reducing the growth rate of military spending. The
belligerent administration, experiencing a kind of crisis of confidence
in its country, mobilizes lies to help the guns, but with less and less
success.
March 1983

RANSTORY

196
 I'll start with two lengthy quotes. They will help you get to the
point.
Quote one: “With regard to Lebanon, it is clear that both we and
Israel are equally committed to ending the violence in that country
and to ensuring that Lebanon becomes a sovereign, independent state
under a strong, centralized government.”
Quote two: “Israel does not want to keep its troops in Lebanon
even a minute longer than necessary. Lebanon is not Israeli land. It is
a sovereign foreign country. We want an independent Livap, whose
borders we will respect. We want to conclude a peace treaty with
Lebanon based on its territorial integrity. We are ready to leave
Livap today, tomorrow, at any time in the near future... But, as
President Reagan recently said in the English Parliament, the scourge
of terrorism in the Middle East must be eradicated. We will not leave
Lebanon until the lives of our children are freed from threat."
The first statement is from Reagan, the second from Begin. Both
were taken in June 1982 in Washington, two weeks after the Israeli
invasion of Lebanon.
I! Washington and Tel Aviv then passed off the aggression as a
justified act of Israeli self-defense. In the eyes of many Americans -
and this is the main thing for Israeli leaders - Begin could still justify
the deaths of Palestinian and Lebanese children by the need to
protect Israeli children, although they did not die from shells and
bombs.
Shaming cynics is a pointless exercise. But it is not unnecessary
to remind others about yesterday’s cynicism - for the sake of a sober
assessment of the present and future. So, both agreed about the
“scourge of terrorism,” which “must be eradicated” through actions
of “self-defense,” including the seizure of the capital of another state.
And both tried to whitewash their actions by repeating that Lebanon
is a sovereign and independent state.
It's been nine and a half months since the Israelis invaded
Lebanon. Eight months since Palestinian troops abandoned West
Beirut and American Marines, along with French and Italian soldiers,
landed on the coast. What happened to Begin’s willingness to
withdraw his troops “today, tomorrow, any time soon”? Even in
Washington he acquired a reputation as a liar.
Previously, he delayed the start of Israeli-Lebanese negotiations,
now for two and a half months the negotiations have been delaying,
and at the same time, of course, the solution to the issue of the
withdrawal of the aggressor’s troops. He spoke about the territorial
integrity of Lebanon, but insists on having so-called “tracking
stations” manned by Israeli soldiers on Lebanese territory. Wow,
“territorial integrity”! He spoke about the independence and
sovereignty of Livap, but imposed on the Lebanese government
Sadat’s capitulatory line of separate peace - peace at the cost of
quarrels, strife, a break with the Arab states. This is the
“independence” and “sovereignty” of a satellite, a puppet. Not only a
197
political, but also an economic puppet, because Israel would like to
completely undermine Lebanon’s position as the most trading of the
Arab countries. It is no coincidence that the Lebanese authorities
resolutely reject “peace” in the Israeli way.
The example of Lebanon over the past nine and a half months
once again convincingly proves that Israel and international Zionism
do not let go of any of their victims without subjecting them to some
kind of complex treatment, without squeezing out of them the
maximum of territorial, political, and economic concessions.
The other day, Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, taking place round
by round (about 20 rounds) either in the Israeli town of Kiryat
Shemona or in the Lebanese town of Khalda, moved to a new stage -
in Washington. The guests of the American Secretary of State were
simultaneously two foreign ministers - Israeli Shamir and Lebanese
Salem. They did not meet with each other, perhaps because the
shadow of Sadat and the former “tripartite” meetings at Camp David
hovered warningly over Salem. But they discussed the same issue
with Shultz - the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.
Result? It comes down to a new American “initiative” - to ensure
that the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe... with the help of other
wolves, American ones. The Americans acquiesced to Israeli
demands for “security,” which were based—as in American politics
—on a position of unceremonious force and military superiority.
According to the new proposals, which will apparently be put on the
negotiating table, the Israelis must abandon their direct military
presence in the south of Lebanon, but Major Haddad’s military
formations will become part of the Lebanese army, which means the
legalization of this Israeli puppet and through it Israeli “rights” on
Lebanese territory. In addition, the “multinational disengagement
force” will be increased and the area of their control expanded. First
of all, this means that the number and role of American Marines will
increase, and at the same time, naturally, their stay will lengthen.
The parallel visits of Shamir and Salem to Washington and their
results make us think once again about the distribution of roles in this
strange triangle. The Lebanese president and government, which are
far from fully controlling the situation in their own country, have a
forced role. They seek justice for one robber from another robber.
The Lebanese authorities are resorting to US assistance in the hope
of expelling Israel and thereby unwittingly opening the way to their
country for Uncle Sam. After the lesson of Sadat’s Egypt, this is
another lesson for those who believe that the keys to peace in the
Middle East are in the pocket of the said uncle, and as a result find
themselves one on one, or rather one on two, with the United States
and Israel.
Israel's role is quite obvious. Having clung to Lebanese soil with
his troops, he does not let go of the victim, as already mentioned,
extorting more and more concessions. His tactic is to treat Arab
198
countries one by one. For efficiency - one at a time. Next in line are
Syria and Jordan. And the Israeli method of “solving” the Palestinian
problem is the settlement of Palestinian lands in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip by Israelis, which is now in full swing.
Washington's role is two-faced. In the current conditions, he acts
as a curator of Lebanese-Israeli relations, capable of supposedly
impartially balancing the interests of both sides, without pursuing his
own benefit. To suit the needs of the predominantly Arab public,
scenes of disagreement with Israel are staged, and the highest
presidential “impatience” is played out over Israeli delays in
withdrawing troops. Fake game.
First, Washington made the aggression against Lebanon
possible, and now it wants to prove to the Lebanese and other Arabs
that only it is able to restrain the aggressor. But, firstly, those
overseas will always forgive and protect Israel, equating its
“security” with American security. In the latter case, during Shamir’s
visit, “the positions became closer,” and the Israelis were promised
new compensation—an increase in military assistance. Secondly,
those figures from Tel Aviv who are not in their hearts and will
complain that Israeli soldiers have to pull chestnuts out of the fire for
the Americans are also right. If the Israelis had not invaded Lebanon,
how would the Americans have managed to land there? If the Israelis
had not bargained so much about “security guarantees,” how could
the Americans justify plans to strengthen their marines, expand their
area of operations in Lebanon, and extend their stay there?
The Americans pose as Lebanon's protector, but act as
extortionists.
March 1983

A WORD ABOUT KING

Today is a special anniversary. Exactly 15 years ago, on April 4,
1968, Martin Luther King, the most famous and popular leader of
black Americans, was assassinated. Struck down by a sniper shot
from an assassin, most likely sent and paid for by racists, those to
whom King was an eyesore.
The murder happened in Memphis, Tennessee. Pastor King came
there to support with his authority the strike of city garbage workers.
The armed National Guard was sent against them. Guardsmen stood
with bayonets at the ready, and scavengers walked on pickets with
placards on their chests. The posters said; "I am human!" In the end,
this was what King’s program, his struggle, his life boiled down to.
To establish the proud, worthy “I am a man” in the minds of every
American Negro, in spite of their opponents.
King fought for human rights and for the brotherhood of man.
He liked to say that people learned to swim in the seas like fish and
fly in the sky like birds, but they did not learn to walk on mother
earth like brothers.
199
 When King was assassinated in Memphis, I was in New York,
working as a correspondent for Izvestia. I remember these days
before the grand funeral in Atlanta, King’s homeland. I remember
the shock of the Americans, and my own.
King's method was mass nonviolent action, and he took a lot
from Mahatma Gandhi. And violence removed him from the stage.
And the response to his death was also violence - riots and uprisings
of blacks in dozens of American cities, primarily in Washington.
King called his government for the Vietnam War “the greatest
purveyor of violence” in the modern world. His assessment remains
valid to this day.
King's journey as a man was only 39 years long. King's journey
as a fighter is even shorter, 13 years. Since 1955, when a young 26-
year-old priest led a boycott of city buses in Montgomery, Alabama,
pegrams were given only back seats on buses, and even from these
seats they could be kicked out by any white person.
During these 13 years, King was thrown into jail more than once,
pelted with stones, beaten, and once stabbed. His path was not strewn
with roses, he did not think about laurels. But he became world
famous and received the Nobel Peace Prize. And all the time he was
in the forefront of civil rights marches. In the eyes of his black
compatriots, he grew into the prophet Moses, who led them to the
promised land of equality and a worthy life.
And now 15 years have passed. Martin Luther King is not
forgotten. Schools and libraries, streets and squares are named after
him in the United States. He is recognized as a great American,
above all post-war presidents. The American Congress is discussing
the issue of declaring King's birthday, January 15, a national holiday.
However, the decision has not yet been made by Congress. But such
a question is not worth asking about anyone else. And only two
Americans have been awarded this honor - Presidents Washington
and Lincoln.
King is not forgotten. What happened to the civil rights
movement? Under him and after him, it achieved great success.
Segregation laws between whites and blacks were abolished.
Negroes received equal voting rights with whites and now occupy
quite a few elected positions. But King was right when he said: “The
vast majority of white America is still poisoned by racism, which is
as native to our soil as pines, sage and buffalo grass.”
Racism persists even in the Northern United States. We know
this from anti-Negro attacks in such a “liberal” city as Boston.
The main thing, however, is not this. Having achieved formal
equality under the law, blacks did not become equal in fact, equal
economically. Here we cannot help but recall the current - and not
only the current - most terrible American plague. About the ulcer of
unemployment. The national average is more than 10 percent, but
among adult blacks, not one in ten is unemployed, but one in five or
four. Among black youth - every second. Poverty still locks blacks in
200
ghettos, where there is crime, drug addiction, fatherlessness and
other social ills...
I got to see and hear King, the living King, and then revisit his
life—and death—as I worked on a book about him. He was a fiery,
magnetic speaker. His speeches were captivating and captivating,
just as the words of a great poet are captivating. He dreamed with
such a person, about such people, in whose eyes, as he said, “the
beauty of true brotherhood is more precious than diamonds, or silver,
or gold.” He thought about the fate of the world and warned that
through the spirals of the arms race, humanity could descend into the
hell of a thermonuclear catastrophe. Of course, now he would be in
the ranks of the anti-nuclear, anti-missile movement.
There would be, but, alas...
More than one bullet was cast in America for Martin Luther
King, not just the Memphis one. He foresaw his end and calmly
discussed the possibility of premature death. In these reasonings, a
touch of religious mysticism was mixed with political realism,
because he knew the country in which he lived the dangerous life of
a fighter.
Knowing all this, he did not change his path - like a true ascetic
and hero.
April 1983

LIVE ALIVE IN PEACE

American opposition to Reagan's belligerent policies has moved
beyond mere critical words to political action, primarily on Capitol
Hill. Examples are there for everyone to see. Only after a two-month
effort that included a kind of one-by-one wooing of undecided
senators did the administration push for the post of arms control and
disarmament agency director in Kenneth Edelman, a hawk who had
twice been rejected by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Fearing defeat in the House of Representatives, the White House
with great difficulty achieved a second postponement of the vote on
the resolution to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the United States and
the USSR. The budget commissions of both chambers spoke in favor
of reducing the growth rate of military spending by at least half...
What motivates American lawmakers to engage in these fights
with their government? Of course, the mood of the masses, voters.
They are concerned about Reagan's vast militarism.
But there is another, less encouraging side of the picture. The
militarists have by no means completely lost the ability to play on the
fears of the Americans. Methods of catching intimidated and not very
knowledgeable souls have long been worked out, tested and re-
tested.
Recently in Massachusetts, experts from three respected
universities conducted another public opinion survey. Among the
201
questions asked to residents, one had a truly dramatic twist: “What
would you prefer—a nuclear war or a communist regime?” 49
percent of respondents preferred nuclear war, 40 percent preferred
the “communist regime,” and one percent declined the proposed
choice without giving an answer. Those who preferred nuclear war
were again asked: “If you believed that as a result of an all-out
nuclear war, everyone in our country would die, would you still
prefer war or would you choose the “communist regime”? 33 percent
passed this test. Let everything, they say, burn with a blue atomic
flame, but we will remain faithful to our American way of life,
although there will be nothing left of anyone or us...
However, before it comes to the flames, it is worth speculating
about these, to put it mildly, desperately extreme sentiments. The
next survey did not yield anything fundamentally new. I will refer to
my own experience: I don’t remember when the biting proverb, even
rhymed in English, first entered the consciousness of Americans:
better dead than red - it’s better to be dead than red, but I know for
sure that it never left the mentioned consciousness. No matter what
the weather is like in the international court, the consciousness of the
American man in the street, stuck for decades, stalls on this false
dilemma, like a car stuck on the road under a hopeless autumn sky.
Better to be dead than red. On this touchstone, people who are
famous for their common sense and pragmatism in everyday affairs
hone their blind and dangerous fanaticism. Especially under Reagan.
Over the past 30 years, this gloomy saying, like the entire myth of
the “Soviet threat,” has never been in such vogue as it is now.
Meanwhile, we have before us an example of a monstrous and,
alas, tenacious fraud. Two questions have been distorted. One is
about choice, about preference for one or another socio-political
system. We have no desire or plans to convert Americans to the
communist faith with fire and sword. What “color” it should be is a
purely internal matter, the sovereign right of any people, including,
of course, the American one. And all peoples and governments must
choose between war and peace, between the dead and the living. And
in what this choice will be - not in words, but in deeds - the political
courses of the United States and the Soviet Union play an extremely
important role.
The far-fetched choice between the dead and the red serves only
to international attackers to increase hostility and suspicion, to divide
people and nations. But is this really required by difficult times,
which threaten to lead all the political and national diversity of the
world to one lifeless, ashen denominator of nuclear death?! In
general, there is only one reasonable choice and solution. Without
encroaching on the ways of life that separate us from each other,
unite for the sake of saving Life itself.
It's better to be alive and live in peace with each other. If such a
question were put to the residents of Massachusetts, then, probably,
there would not be even one percent of those who objected. But such
202
a formulation of the question, what good, will neutralize the
inoculations of hatred towards the Soviet Union, with which the
Washington administration would like to cover all Americans,
spreading the epidemic of Sovietophobia. Since the disease of
Sovietophobia is of a pronounced political nature, it is not doctors
who undertake to define it, but politicians and professors of political
science.
A word from Stephen Cohen of Princeton University:
“Sovietophobia is an old American political disease... Among its
symptoms are an approach to Soviet-American relations tinged with
militarism, alarmist statements about the intentions of the Soviet
Union and its capabilities, and baseless claims that strategic “lag” is
creating danger to the United States. In the 60s and early 70s,
Sovietophobia waned for a short time, and then revived in an even
more dangerous form...”
It is better to be dead than red - this cry, of course, comes from
those infected with Sovietophobia. It gives rise to panic and borders
on madness. Professor Cohen writes: “The best cure for
Sovietophobia is to recognize it as a pathological rather than a
normal reaction to the existence of the Soviet Union.”
It would be naive to expect that this medicine will be used by the
current occupants of the White House offices. Their chronic
Sovietophobia, as experience shows, cannot be treated. The entire
post-war past is not very consoling either, proving that almost every
decline in Soviet phobia is followed by its rise. What remains?
Looking to the future in the hope that the common sense of the
majority of Americans will once and for all recognize pathology as
pathology. A lot in the relations between our two countries depends
on this.
April 1983

SPRING AND ROCKETS

In April, when the trees bloom and smiles bloom on people’s
faces, even a journalist dealing with the unsmiling matter of
international life comes to mind Tyutchev’s wonderful lines: “What
can resist the breath and the first meeting of spring!” They contain a
hymn to the glory of a joyfully and serenely reborn life. Although
you understand that no magic of spring and poetry can dispel
persistent problems, nor eradicate thermonuclear poison from the air
of international relations and even from the ordinary, but inseparable
from the politics of human existence these days. These lines come to
mind, although you yourself know very well what will resist and who
will resist “before the breath and the first meeting of spring.”
It just so happened, according to the overseas political calendar,
that the time of spring coincided with the prosaic time of passing -
and pushing through - a budget in Congress, in which real (minus
203
rising prices) military spending jumps by more than 10 percent. And
now, since the end of March, well-known figures have been
celebrating a kind of month of friendship with missiles and an
unspring love for the arms race. They, in fact, have been cultivating
these feelings since that January 1981 day when Ronald Reagan
pronounced the words of the presidential oath with his hand on the
Bible. But, looking back over the past, you think that the mentioned
perverted friendship and love mixed with hatred have never, perhaps,
declared themselves so convincingly. And so varied.
Let's take rockets. A wide selection has been offered in recent
weeks to suit all tastes. With an “interim solution” precluding an
agreement at the Soviet-American negotiations in Geneva,
Washington officials moved even closer to deploying their Pershing
2s and cruise missiles in Western Europe. Then a special presidential
commission led by Brent Scowcroft, dealing with the future of US
strategic weapons, proposed two types of intercontinental missiles.
One, an old friend, MX. A powerful first-strike missile with ten
individually targetable warheads. The Scowcroft Commission
proposed the immediate placement of one hundred MX missiles in
silos for old Minuteman missiles. The second recommended rocket is
new. Small in size, which does not prevent it from being
intercontinental. With one warhead. MX is for the 80s, and the new
Midgetman is for the 90s. It is planned to bake hundreds, if not
thousands of these small-sized weapons and change the strategy with
a new type of strategic weapon. Instead of the previous emphasis on
missiles with multi-charge warheads, which the Americans made in
the 70s, having begun the next round of the nuclear arms race, they
are proclaiming as a new word a return to single-charge warheads on
missiles scattered throughout American territory and therefore, they
say, less vulnerable to Soviet blow. Will this new (also old) concept,
as its authors assure, lead to strengthening strategic stability? There
is no doubt that it foreshadows a new round of the old arms race. By
the way, they would like to entice the Soviet Union with it, kindly
inviting it to write off its current weapons as scrap metal.

204
 President Reagan approved the recommendations of the Scowcroft
Commission and sent his ministers to Capitol Hill to seek agreement
from US legislators. As you might guess, with their consent, the next
Decade will take over the baton of the current one.
The future is being laid today. The American president is looking
not only to the next decade, but also to the next century, ushering in a
new millennium. And this view also manifested itself during
Washington's month to commemorate the arms race. As you know, the
president called on American scientists to look at the third millennium
from the angle of the possibility of “star” and space wars. They are
expected to produce fantastic weapons that could shoot down Soviet
intercontinental missiles and satellites in space. This is being presented
as missile defense, and anyone familiar with the ABCs of the nuclear
age can understand the hidden meaning of the new fantasy:
preparations for the first missile strike on the Soviet Union in the hope
that the American missile defense shield in space will repel a
retaliatory strike and protect the attacker from retaliation. If fantasies
are indulged in seriously, then one real outcome is inevitable - an arms
race in the 21st century. With new costs running into hundreds of
billions of dollars.
These are the pictures with which Washington futurologists
greeted the arrival of another spring, and this is how they painted the
future. What else is on display at the spring opening day in
Washington? On Capitol Hill, the US administration is trying hard to
freeze the movement for a nuclear freeze, achieving another delay in
voting on the relevant resolution in the House of Representatives. In
Geneva, it also froze negotiations with the Soviet Union on both
medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe and strategic weapons.
The American position was and is opposed by the position of the
Soviet Union. This is again clearly expressed in the responses of 10. V.
Andropov to the magazine “Der Spiegel”: “Do not start an arms race
where it did not exist, stop it where* it is now taking place. This is the
essence of our position, this is what guides us in the negotiations.”
And further in his answers, Yu. V. Andropov touches on the entire
post-war history, which explains the present day: “... the situation has
always been that in building up armaments we only followed the
Americans, and not vice versa. Moreover, while catching up with the
United States, we always proposed to stop this race, proposed to freeze
the level of weapons on both sides and move on to reducing them.
Unfortunately, we did not receive the consent of the American side for
this.”
Spring is a time of hope. The battles between the White House and
Capitol Hill show that unbridled militarism breeds anxiety and fear, but
also a desire to look at things rationally and soberly.
“The best way to stop the arms race is to stop it now, rather than
trying to deal with increasing levels of nuclear escalation,” the
sponsors of the nuclear freeze resolution, Senators Edward Kennedy
and Mark Hatfield, and members of the House recently wrote in the

205
New York Times. representatives Edward Markey and Silvio Conte.
Please note: their words are consonant with the words of the Soviet
leader. The explanation for this, of course, is not in ideological
proximity, but in a sober reading of the past, which warns about the
future.
April 1983

TWO DEFEATS
US President Ronald Reagan, no less than any other post-war
American president, claims to be the leader of the entire “Western
world.” Meanwhile, in the United States of America themselves they
openly express dissatisfaction with Reagan's policies. Two events that
occurred in the first week of May confirm this. In Chicago, the
Catholic bishops of the United States spoke out against Reagan’s
policies, and in Washington, members of the House of Representatives
of Congress approved a resolution calling for “an immediate, mutual
and verifiable freeze on the production, testing and deployment of
nuclear weapons of the United States and the USSR.”
Both events will undoubtedly cause a wide public outcry, and
perhaps lead to other events. Both will be subject to detailed scrutiny
by political observers. But even in the first hasty response, several
points can be highlighted. First of all, it is not some “leftists,”
“radicals,” or “extremists” who are easily dismissed by the White
House or the Pentagon who rebelled against the policy of the current
administration, and its approach to nuclear war in general, but
authoritative representatives of the American political middle, the
political center, which, in particular, gives the majority of voters in
presidential elections.
Catholic bishops proclaim immoral the very idea of the possibility
of being the first to use nuclear weapons (and such a possibility is
sanctioned by the US strategic doctrine), the very idea of the
permissibility of a nuclear war, “limited” or “protracted” (and these
ideas have been expressed more than once by the American
leadership). Who will say that the pastors of 50 million American
Catholics are guided by the “hand of Moscow”?! Who's to say? - if we
also consider that their pastoral letter was discussed by them for about
two years, it was adopted by their national conference by a majority of
238 votes with only nine votes against.
Meanwhile, Washington’s hand was there. Presidential Assistant
Clark sent special messages to the bishops, Secretary of Defense
Weinberger had soul-saving conversations with them in the Pentagon
style, and the President himself repeatedly persuaded them to come to
their senses and think about what damage their spiritual position could
cause to his diplomatic position. Washington's hand turned out to be
powerless - after some concessions to the official line, the bishops in
Chicago returned to the previous and even more decisive formulations
of their message to the flock.

206
 What does this mean? On taking into account the sentiments of the
general public. The fact that considerations of moral duty are placed
above official-patriotic ones, above political conjuncture. And first of
all, about how frightened, moreover, how intimidated and extremely
alarmed the Americans were by the policies of their government and
the danger of nuclear war.
The vote in Chicago is a reflection of broad material sentiment. It
is even more appropriate to say this about the vote in Washington, in
the House of Representatives. Since the beginning of 1982, the
movement to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the
Soviet Union has rapidly gained strength in the United States - at the
level of the “grass roots,” that is, the grassroots. Last August, a nuclear
freeze resolution narrowly failed to pass the House of Representatives,
with 202 votes in favor and 204 against. In the November elections,
referendums on the nuclear freeze were held in nine states, with freeze
supporters winning in eight. And here is a new test of strength on
Capitol Hill: the resolution was adopted by 278 votes to 149, not only
the Democratic majority of the House voted for it, but also part of the
Republicans - Reagan's party. The outcome was clear two and a half
months ago, when the nuclear freeze resolution was reintroduced.
Instead of grasping the obvious and incorporating it into policy one
way or another, the administration launched a fierce campaign to
discredit and disgrace proponents of the freeze, who allegedly play “in
Moscow’s hands” (hand again!) and undermine the American position
at the negotiations in Geneva. It did not help - as in the case of bishops.
The vote in the House of Representatives was called a de facto
vote of no confidence in the Reagan government. Constitutionally,
there is no vote of no confidence in the United States; the resignation
of the president and cabinet will not follow. However, it is important to
understand the political implications of this apparent mistrust. What do
congressmen not trust? They do not trust the sincerity of the President
and his staff when they talk about their ardent desire for arms
limitation and for success at the Soviet-American negotiations in
Geneva. Such distrust was recently evidenced by the story of Kenneth
Edelman, whom the president appointed director of the agency for
arms control and disarmament. With great difficulty we managed to get
this appointment through the Senate, although the Republicans have a
majority there. But let's assume that many congressmen are still ready
to believe in the sincerity of the president's desire to limit arms. What
then do they not believe? What could the White House not dissuade
them from? The answer is obvious - they do not believe the correctness
of the path proposed by the administration. They do not believe its
main message, aimed at the public - that arms limitation can and
should only be achieved through “rearmament”, through new rounds of
the arms race. A freeze is an end to the arms race and the first step
towards limiting them, towards the ultimate goal - disarmament.
So, despite the recent known active attempts to establish a kind of
trusting relationship with the Almighty and pose as his political

207
vicegerent of evil, the bishops seem to have discovered this center on
American territory, where dangerous nuclear doctrines are being
developed. And on Capitol Hill these days common sense has come
out against the president, proving
It remains to be seen whether the Senate will follow the House of
Representatives and how the White House will respond to such an
unequivocally expressed opinion of the American people.
May 1983

PROPAGANDA AND POLITICS

American General Bernard Rogers, Supreme Commander of
NATO Allied Forces in Europe, cannot be classified as a classic type
of silent military man. The general speaks willingly. He talks
incessantly, making him remember that his academic background
includes not only the military academy at West Point, but also three
years at Oxford University. He gives out his interviews so often and
generously that in all NATO countries they are covered - and more
than once - by all any noticeable bourgeois publications.
Bernard Rogers, like his predecessor Alexander Haig, appears in
three guises: just a general, albeit with four stars, a general-diplomat in
relations with presidents, prime ministers and ministers, and a general-
propagandist on printed pages and on television screens. In military
terminology, this is a forward-based propaganda tool brought forward
by the Pentagon to European borders. It is put into action to preach the
gospel of Ronald Reagan (that is, the arms race), to silence the voices
of doubters whenever possible, and to keep Western Europeans in daily
and nightly fear of the “Soviet threat.”
To listen to the general, the increase in spending on conventional
weapons he requires for the average European will result in the loss of
only “a couple of good dinners a year.” Conventional weapons in no
way block nuclear weapons for him: “We must retain the possibility of
being the first to use nuclear weapons and never (!) give it up.” He
threatens his wards with the withdrawal of American troops from
Western Europe if they refuse new American missiles. And he
consoles them with the determination of the United States to fulfill its
“defensive functions” to the end, citing as proof of this determination
the fact of the construction of a nuclear bunker for him, Bernard
Rogers, 50 kilometers from Brussels. He, Bernard Rogers, is ready to
share their fate with the Western Europeans, hiding from it in a bunker.
These are some of the revelations and propaganda constructs of the
Supreme Commander of NATO. What he cares most about, along with
his President and Secretary of Defense, is American missiles for
Western Europe. And in this most important matter for him, alas, he
feels the least contact with the audience. Here, according to Rogers, a
fierce battle with the Russians is already underway - a propaganda
battle. And, as he said in a recent interview with the Italian newspaper
Giornale Nuovo, “there is an alarming imbalance in this area”—in

208
favor of the Russians, who are taking Western Europeans captive with
their propaganda. What can you answer to this? The general, skilled in
propaganda, still exaggerates its importance. Is it a matter of
propaganda? Rogers should have known from his Atlantic experience
that propaganda is no substitute for politics. Propaganda may be worse
than politics or better, but not so much better as to repair all the cracks,
much less the abysses, of bad politics. Promoting an undignified,
hypocritical policy is like putting on a good face on a bad game.
Rogers says in the aforementioned interview: “I believe that,
leaving aside pro-Soviet circles and professional demonstrators, it is
necessary to convince the reasonable and sensible part of the public,
quite sincerely concerned about the fate of the world, that the Soviet
Union will not conduct serious negotiations in Geneva until We will
not deploy our missiles (in Western Europe) in order to conduct these
negotiations from a position of strength.”

209
 Here is an example of bad propaganda that accurately reflects bad
policy. From this short argument, as if from a Russian nesting doll, all
the figures of Reagan’s strategy are taken out, right down to the
original “position of strength.” Nothing, it turns out, can happen in
Geneva, where Soviet and American representatives will soon gather
again until the Americans deploy their missiles in Western Europe and
gain a “position of strength.” And nothing could happen because these
positions did not exist. And that means a year and a half of
negotiations to divert attention (remember that almost a whole year, the
first year of the Reagan administration, took the Western European and
American public to extract this consent from the belligerent American
president). And the “zero option” is to divert attention. And the current
one, “intermediate”. Because the main thing is to place the missiles.
And then with the Pershing 2, this first strike weapon, and begin the
fight for peace...
With all this, Rogers claims that the Soviet Union is not
conducting “serious negotiations” in Geneva. These words could be
left on the conscience of the NATO commander. But is it worth it?
You can’t leave untruths on your conscience, to put it mildly. Once
again we have an example of bad propaganda. Bad because it neglects
the truth and suppresses inconvenient and objectionable facts.
We will give just one of them, but what a major one! In
accordance with recent Soviet proposals, the medium-range nuclear
weapons of the USSR and NATO should be precisely equalized in the
number of missiles, aircraft and warheads. As a result, in the European
part of the Soviet Union there would be significantly fewer medium-
range missiles and warheads on them than before 1976, when there
were no SS-20 missiles. Meanwhile, NATO's 1979 decision to deploy
almost 600 American missiles in Western Europe was motivated by an
increase in the number of Soviet missiles. The Soviet proposals clearly
and convincingly deprive the NATO decision on “rearmament” of its
very foundation. But this cardinal fact is hushed up by the general
propagandist, as well as by almost the entire Western press.
They remain silent when there are no arguments and no desire to
change a position that cannot be maintained with the help of logic or
common sense. They prefer to remain silent or brush aside in response
to the Soviet demand that French and British nuclear forces be counted
when determining the overall nuclear balance of NATO and the USSR
in Europe. Meanwhile, these two NATO states hold one quarter of
NATO's nuclear forces in Europe. They are being modernized. It is
planned to equip British submarines with American Trident-2 missiles.
Each such boat will be able to simultaneously hit 100 targets on the
territory of the USSR. The Soviet Union is being asked to close its
eyes even to such a not very distant future.
And again the general propagandist and his like-minded people, in
uniform and without, refuse to see the facts. But such facts explain the

210
alarming “imbalance” in the minds of Western Europeans, who put
peace above missiles and prefer truth to disinformation.
May 1983
ROBBY IN BRIGHT DAYLIGHT
On May 17, after five months of negotiations, an Israeli-Lebanese
agreement was signed on the withdrawal of Israeli troops that invaded
Lebanon almost a year ago. Will the troops be withdrawn - the
grandmother said in two. But the immediate result of this “peace
agreement” is an even greater aggravation of the situation.
Let's look at the Israeli-Lebanese “peace agreement” specifically,
textually, in relation to Lebanon, as well as more broadly – in relation
to Syria, the Palestinians and the entire Middle East problem. As
newspapers reported and as officially recognized (for example, US
Assistant Secretary of State Veliotes), the agreement is accompanied
by secret annexes. But even from the text of the agreement itself it
follows that Lebanon has been assigned the status of a semi-vassal
state in relation to Israel. And this is no secret. The articles of the
agreement contain nods to international law and the UN Charter; they
seem to concern both parties, but in fact they place restrictions only on
Lebanese sovereignty. Only on Lebanese territory is a so-called
security zone being created, where control will be carried out by
Lebanese personnel together with Israeli ones. Only for Lebanon it is
strictly regulated how many and what kind of military and paramilitary
units it can keep in this zone, what composition and what kind of
weapons and military equipment they can have, including the number
of, say, tanks for the Lebanese brigade (40 pieces), infantry fighting
vehicles ( 4 pieces), armored vehicles (10 pieces), armored personnel
carriers, artillery (how many units and what caliber), air defense
systems, communications equipment, etc.
There are no restrictions for Israeli troops on the other side of the
border.
And what is, for example, Article 6. I quote: “The parties do not
allow entry into their territory, deployment or passage through it,
including airspace, etc. territorial waters... of armed forces, military
equipment and equipment belonging to a state hostile to one of the
parties.”
The explanation to this article states that a “hostile” party is
considered “any state that does not have diplomatic relations with
either of the two countries.” This means that all Arab countries, with
the exception of Egypt, are transferred to “hostile” not only to Israel,
but also to Lebanon. Lebanon itself becomes, as it were, a “hostile”
state, since the agreement does not provide for the establishment of
Israeli-Lebanese diplomatic relations.
Further. Lebanon does not have diplomatic relations with Israel,
but from now on it subordinates all its international relations, treaties,
and agreements to the interests of Israel. Isn't that what Article 9 of the
agreement is about? I quote: “Within a period not exceeding one year

211
from the entry into force of this agreement, each of the parties will take
all necessary measures to annul contracts, laws and regulations that
contradict this agreement... The parties undertake not to fulfill existing
obligations that contradict this agreement ..."
Thus, the entire foreign policy of Lebanon is subject to the
provisions of the agreement with Israel.
The Lebanese government signed a “peace agreement”, the
Lebanese parliament approved it, but the impression does not change:
this is robbery in broad daylight, violence against the Lebanese state,
whose leaders apparently considered that in the face of joint pressure
from the United States and Israel there was no other choice .
Now I will take the wider consequences of this vassal agreement.
It is clear as daylight that Syria is now becoming a direct target of
Israel and the United States, that we are talking about further
undermining the Palestinian liberation movement. Take Article 4,
which states: “The territory of each party will not be used as a base for
hostile or terrorist activities against the other party or its people.”
We already know what “hostile” is - everything that interferes with
Israel. This article is directly aimed at Syrian
troops in Lebanon, brought in at the invitation of the Lebanese
government and under the flag of the Arab League. This article
prohibits the presence of Palestinian military units in Lebanon.
As the London-based Financial Market rightly noted, Lebanon
“will turn from an ally of the Arabs into an ally of Israel.”
A very serious danger looms over Syria, especially considering
that Israeli units are located 40 kilometers from Damascus. The sharply
negative reaction of the Syrian authorities to the “peace agreement” is
no coincidence. Israel, while declaring that it will not withdraw troops
unless Syria does the same, is simultaneously concentrating its forces
in the Bekaa Valley and putting political pressure on Syria through
Lebanese representatives.
Threats against Syria are coming from Washington. It is not
without reason that Secretary of State Shultz, and then President
Reagan, repeat this threat in almost the same words. Shultz says: "I am
confident that all countries realize that the risk involved in the failure
of the withdrawal process (from Lebanon) is greater than the risk
involved in carrying out the process to completion." And here are
Reagan’s words: “This opportunity should not be allowed to go
unused. The danger that arises if such care is not carried out is much
greater than the danger of completing this care."
We are talking about the danger of Israeli reprisals against Syria.
But the main victim of the Israeli-Lebanese agreement is the
Palestinians. After all, it proceeds from the assumption that there is no
Palestinian problem, but only a problem of Israeli security. Most
observers saw all this as yet another attempt to push the Palestinians
out of the Middle East scene, and, moreover, to abolish the Palestinian
problem itself - the main one in any genuine Middle East settlement.

212
The Palestinians are also threatened from Washington. State
Department spokesman Romberg says: "There is now a chance for
peace and Arafat must take part in it."
Under existing conditions, this is nothing more than an invitation
to capitulate. Naturally, the Palestinians, the PLO, as well as Syria,
resolutely reject the Israeli-Lebanese “peace agreement.”
May 1983

DANGEROUS CHARACTER
President Reagan is in the midst of another round of pushing the
MX missile through Congress. Missiles are now closely linked to
politics; they become actors in the dramas of international life. MX is
an extremely serious and dangerous character. This is an
intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with ten individually
targetable warheads with a capacity of 600 kilotons of explosives each.
Each warhead is 30 Hiroshimas. Each rocket is 300 Hiroshima. 100
MX missiles are 30 thousand Hiroshimas.
To this we must add that, according to the widespread opinion of
experts, the MX high-precision missile is a first-strike weapon.
By the way, the Washington Post recently published an article by
columnist Jack Anderson, who knows how to reveal the ins and outs of
American politics. Anderson this time wrote that “despite repeated
denials, there is secret evidence that American military strategists have
plans to launch a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union.” “The MX
rocket,” writes Anderson, “is an important element of these plans.”
So this menacing character appeared on the scene ten years ago.
They can’t find a roof over his head, shelter or, to put it in technical
language, a way to base himself. Under Carter, the so-called “shell
game” or the “racing circle” principle was proposed. 200 MX missiles
had to be constantly moved in containers between shelters, of which
4000 were supposed to be created, 20 per missile. The Russians will be
at a loss as to which “shells” are empty and which are filled, and
therefore will not attack America, fearing a retaliatory strike from the
surviving MX.
This was the public version. It must be said that even under Carter
and especially under Reagan, the need for these monsters was derived
from the presence of a certain “window of vulnerability.” A “window
of vulnerability,” in short, is an alleged lag in American strategic
weapons that tempts the Soviet Union with the opportunity to launch a
first strike without fear of a retaliatory strike. This “window” was
required to be closed, primarily with the help of MX.
The “shell game” option did not work. The US Congress
considered it too expensive. Reagan initially wanted to attract
Congress with a cheaper method of basing - only 100 missiles in old,
additionally fortified Minuteman missile silos. This option did not
work either. Then the method of “compact basing”, or “missile
fratricide”, was proposed. 100 MX were located in mines on a

213
relatively small strip of land. The calculation was this: during a nuclear
attack on MX, concentrated in a small area, Soviet missiles should fall
so thickly that the explosions of the first missiles would destroy
subsequent missiles flying behind them. This was called “fratricide”,
“fratricide” of Soviet missiles, which was supposed to protect the
American MX.
All these games of adults and people in power look like some kind
of unbridled science fiction. Especially for us, since we don’t
recognize ourselves in those Russians with whom they scare the
Americans. But the Americans, we must give them their due, did not
miss the “missile fratricide.” In December 1982, the US House of
Representatives blocked dollars intended for the production of the first
five MX missiles.
As you can see, even in a brief retelling, this is a rather long story.
And although, according to the White House, there was a tempting
“window of vulnerability” all along, the Russians somehow never took
advantage of it.
What happened next? After being defeated on Capitol Hill, Reagan
created a special commission chaired by retired General Scowcroft. At
the end of March, the commission submitted its recommendations to
the president. First, it was discovered that there was no “window of
vulnerability.” The commission did not find it and thereby confirmed
that it was an official fabrication to justify the super-armament of
America. Second, after closing the aforementioned non-existent
window, the commission still recommended the deployment of 100
MX missiles in Minuteman 3 missile silos. Opa proceeded from the
fact that the MX missile would be a convincing American “argument”
in negotiations with the Soviet Union on arms limitation. Thirdly, in
the 90s, the commission proposed the creation of small-sized
intercontinental missiles with a single warhead. They should be
dispersed in large numbers over American territory in order to make it
difficult for the Soviet Union to attack the United States.
This is the last of the nuclear scenarios and anot
Recently, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
approved initial spending of $62 million for the creation of MX
missiles. Where have the former critical sentiments gone? The
conclusion is hard to avoid: Reagan managed to win over the
undecided at this stage. He sent them special letters, assuring them that
he was committed to arms control with all his heart, that this was what
the MX was for, and that he was, in principle, ready to support the new
idea of a “guaranteed reduction.” What kind of idea is this? formulate:
For every warhead on a new missile, remove two warheads on old ones
from service.
This is now the “new” American path to arms reduction, or rather,
the latest ploy. Looking back, the new approach is difficult and simply
impossible to take seriously. Watching Reagan break through the most
dangerous MX under the promise of “guaranteed reductions,”

214
journalist Mary McGrory writes that "merchant Reagan is trying to sell
a deliberate marriage to congressional suckers."
She writes: “Our commander-in-chief is fussing around like a
small used car dealer trying to sell a bad brand to a provincial
simpleton. “No doubt, the main product is junk, but look what comes
with it,” he says to a member of Congress. “Yes, we will add a stereo
system, air conditioning and a built-in bar in the rear at no additional
cost.” And the subtext: accept the MX program - and that’s enough for
you. As for achieving arms control, you can’t count on it.”
Seeing how the President now wants to bully Congress, one is
reminded of the words of former Secretary of State Dean Ryask - “One
of the oldest and most fruitless ideas that is periodically thrown at the
gullible American Public is the idea that we need to quickly increase
our nuclear capabilities, in order to be able to negotiate arms
reductions from a position of strength.”
May 1983

VISITING YOUR NEIGHBOR

As an international journalist, I had to fly abroad many times. But I
traveled only twice, and both times to Finland. And I became
convinced: it’s better not to fly to your neighbors, but to drive. Moving
along the rails, without leaving your native land for a foreign land, you
can almost feel with your skin how they adjoin each other in their
masses,
At the end of May at ten o'clock in the evening the day still lasts.
Ready for departure, train N2 32 stands at the platform of the
Leningradsky station, running daily from Moscow to Helsinki via
Leningrad and Vyborg. The name of the train is “Tolstoy”. A surname
without a name must indicate that of all the famous Tolstoys, the
Ministry of Railways recognizes only Lev.
By the signs of clothing and posture you want to distinguish yours
from the Finns. An unfamiliar young man approaches and introduces
himself as the press attache of the Finnish embassy in Moscow. Oi is
tall and handsome, speaks fluent Russian and later, at dinner in the
dining car, between Moscow and Kalivin, he makes us feel Finnish
hospitality - without Caucasian toasts, akin to Russian: “Let's go!” It’s
still a long way to the border, and Hannu (Vanya) Märkälä is already
taking care of you, six Soviet journalists invited by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Finland on the eve of the official visit to Moscow of
President Mauno Koivisto.
Thus begins the journey to visit a neighbor. The May night comes
reluctantly and passes quickly. The wheels have already clocked up
more than 600 domestic kilometers. Beyond Vyborg, the train moves
more slowly and, as it were, more carefully, customs officers, people in
green caps, and among the clean and dense, untouched forest - the
Luzhaika border station, a strip of plowed land• between two rows of
barbed wire. And the same birches, pines and spruces, the same spring

215
with scatterings of yellow buttercups, but on Finnish territory.
At the Vainikala station we move the clock back an hour, have
breakfast in the cafeteria, where the Western standard of service asserts
itself, and for another three-plus hours this neighboring northern
country, Finland, flashes outside the window on the fast, smooth ride
of the train. Yes, spruce, pine and birch trees are like ours, except
perhaps not stronger and thinner. Granites bulge menacingly out of the
ground, advancing on the road. Spring fields. Cities and towns with
difficult names are low-rise, neat, and clean. The cars are small. The
roads are good. More modest is the sun itself and the pale blue sky that
the children of the European North inherited. But it was cloudless for
all five days. We arrived in the best season. And they traveled, one
might say, under the double auspices of the Finnish Foreign Ministry
and the White Nights. From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs there was
business prose of clearly scheduled and organized meetings,
conversations, inspections, lunches, and transfers. And from the white
nights - that charm that is better conveyed in Pushkin’s words:
“Transparent twilight, moonless brilliance...” White nights make the
Finnish capital related to Leningrad.
However, can an international journalist succumb to this charm?
Does even calm Finland have the right to forget from the heavy missile
and nuclear passions of our time? And is she really so calm - even in
the transparent endless twilight of the white nights? In Tampere, by the
way, we were shown a major nuclear bomb shelter at a depth of 27
meters underground - there is now a city swimming pool and a huge
paid parking lot. But an optimistic view of the world still prevails in
this country. There, in the northwest, lies a nearby state where
considerations of good neighborliness have firmly prevailed.
About 5 million people live in Finland, 50 times less than ours. In
terms of area (one third of a million square kilometers), it is 60 times
smaller than our country, although it ranks fifth in Europe, ahead of
England and Italy. But this country and these people evoke genuine
respect. Labor, as they say, created man. Labor creates a reputation for
people and states. Finns have a long reputation for being good workers.
Maxim Gorky wrote about pre-revolutionary Finland: “... every piece
of land is carefully cultivated, fenced, and the slow Finns work
stubbornly everywhere, conquering stone and swamp.”
Currently, only 10 percent of the self-employed population is
employed in Finnish agriculture, and the “slow Finns” conquer not
only stones and swamps. Since 1950, industrial production has grown
by an average of 5-6 percent per year, and half of the production is sold
to other countries...
The wise principle of combining business with pleasure is
implemented by the Finns through the sauna. The top, eighth floor of
the headquarters of the famous concern “Vyartsilya” was given over to
the sauna, not to the management. Through the large, clean windows of
the dressing room, the rooftops of Helsinki are visible in the steady
light of another long evening. And on the slides that the owners show

216
us, there is a white icebreaker in the crisp smoke of 52-degree frost:
testing of the Taimyr on the Yenisei. The owners say that the concern’s
headquarters is “strategically” well located, everything is nearby - the
residence of the prime minister and the leadership of trade unions,
parliament, the port, the train station. “Vyartsilya” is also well
positioned on the world market. Afterwards, its shipyard produced
almost 50 icebreakers, that is, most of the icebreakers in the world. In
the 70s, it built a third of all cruise ships. In addition to ships, does it
produce di? Veli, excellent equipment for the woodworking industry,
agricultural machinery, the world's best (as they say) Abloy door locks,
so-called sanitary porcelain, etc. It has 16 factories in Finland, 8
foreign branches (from Sweden to Singapore and California) and at the
beginning of 1983, the order book was worth about $2 billion. Here's a
company from a small country. 16,900 workers and employees. And
there is no boasting in the explanations, just numbers and facts.
The Finnish way of combining business with pleasure is
deliberately demonstrated to Soviet journalists. The Soviet Union is the
main trading partner of this concern, as well as Finland in general.
Since 1932, the Turku and Helsinki shipyards have delivered
approximately 450 ships of various types to their neighbor. Without the
Soviet market, the old “Vyartsilya” would not have become the
“Vyartsilya” of today. Finland would not have become the “leading
country in Arctic shipbuilding.” We heard this not in the sauna from
the directors of Vyartsil, but in the office of Prime Minister Kalevi
Sorsa.
I'll get back to talking to him. In the meantime, a few words about
the Finns' reputation as good workers. In addition to Helsinki, we
visited Tampere and Lahti, talked more than watched, and I would not
dare to generalize if it were not supported by well-known facts.
Finland is a small country, but it does not give itself any indulgences or
indulgences. It does not recognize and does not think of another level
and standard other than the world, technically advanced one. But at
first glance, this is the task of a giant - to hold the world standard on
his shoulders. In addition, it is constantly increasing, and Finland's
government and business community constantly see Finland's pressing
economic problem as keeping up and remaining competitive in the
global market.
While visiting our neighbor, we were primarily interested in
politics. Trade expands and strengthens the path, and it is politics that
pave it. Paves, and sometimes even cuts through, the rubble of history.
This is what happened to Soviet-Finnish relations at the end of the
Second World War. After the post-war presidents, this route was called
the “Paasikivi-Kekkonen line” on the Finnish side.
Since January 1982, Finland has had a new president - Mauno
Koivisto. On June 6, 1983, his first official visit to the Soviet Union
will begin. Mauno Koivisto received our journalistic group. The
Presidential Palace is small and modest, quite in keeping with the
national spirit, but still it is, perhaps, the only place in Helsinki where

217
two sentries with rifles stand at the entrance. In the halls on the second
floor there are parquet floors, carpets, paintings on the walls and old-
fashioned solid furniture made of birch, which we call Karelian, and
there - Finnish. Mau-po Koivisto is 59 years old. He has a tall stature, a
stern face and large palms of a man who came from the bottom and has
not lost his passion for physical labor and sports.
Already on the platform, just before departure, we were given
written answers from the president to our questions. He attaches
special significance to his official visit to Moscow because the
governments of Finland and the Soviet Union decided to sign during
the visit a protocol on extending the 1948 Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between our countries. The
conclusion of the agreement, the President said, had a decisive impact
on the establishment of relations between our countries based on good
neighborliness, mutual trust and mutual benefit. The results of
friendship and cooperation obtained over these 35 years are
indisputable proof of the correctness of the far-sighted decision taken
then. Mauno Koivisto stated: “The extension of the treaty in its
unchanged form in the current international conditions is convincing
proof that no opportunistic changes in the field of international politics
can shake Finnish-Soviet cooperation.”
The statement, as you can see, is clear. The 35 years that have
passed since the conclusion of the agreement is a considerable period.
Nowadays, a kind of generational change is taking place in the
leadership of Finland. At the last elections in March of this year,
almost a third of the parliament was formed, largely at the expense of
younger people.
When Foreign Minister Paavo Väyrynen received us, I told him
that he was essentially the same age as the 1948 treaty. He replied that
he was only two years old at that time and that he knew about that time
only from books and stories of people of the older generation. Among
Finns, including political and public figures, there were still many
prejudices regarding the intentions of the USSR in the 40s. Many were
afraid and distrustful. And yet, the minister noted, the state authorities
of Finland, showing sobriety and a realistic assessment of the situation,
agreed to conclude an agreement with the Soviet Union that met the
fundamental interests of the Finnish people. It marked the beginning of
a new foreign policy for Finland, and, as subsequent events showed,
support for the treaty grew very quickly among various sections of the
Finnish people.
“We have achieved that there are no longer disagreements in
Finnish society regarding the agreement,” said the minister. “In
practice, the experience of our cooperation has overcome all prejudices
and now we can move forward.”
— Can we say that the new generation has taken up the baton of
the outgoing one? — we asked the minister one more question.
And this is what he replied:
“I belong to those politicians who became involved in public life

218
when good relations had already been established between our
countries. We took up the baton of friendship and cooperation under
favorable conditions... President Koivisto received a valuable
inheritance. Under his leadership, Finland continues the foreign policy
“Paasikivi-Kekkonen line”. And she is unshakable. Speculation that
this term has been eliminated from our political vocabulary is
unfounded. This line is developing in the same way as it developed
before. The essence of the conversation that we had in parliament with
prominent representatives of different parties is clear: relations of good
neighborliness and trust with the Soviet Union have become the blood
and flesh of Finnish politics, the Finnish national consciousness.
The current government is based on a parliamentary majority
provided by deputies from four parties: the leading Social Democratic
Party of Finland, the Center Party (its chairman P. Väyrynen holds the
post of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs), the
Swedish People's Party and the Finnish Country Party, which was
nominated in the last elections. To the left of the government coalition
is the Democratic Union of the People of Finland, which includes
communists along with socialists. The opposition on the right is the
National Coalition Party.
What do conservatives think? After a short trip there is no
guarantee what they think, but in Tampere from the leadership of the
conservative newspaper Lamulehti, in Lahti from the conservative
mayor we heard what they say: disagreements between the government
and the right-wing opposition are only in the internal, but not in foreign
policy. But I know whether all words and assurances can be taken on
faith. At the very least, they speak to the prevailing social and political
climate.
Finally, back to what I mentioned. Relations with the Soviet Union
are beneficial in the truest sense of the word, they pay for themselves
economically. Prime Minister Sorsa elaborated on this.
The economic depression of the 70s did not bypass Finland, and
even now the difficulties are not over: the country has quite strong
inflation, unemployment is also a problem, although it is 5.8 percent,
half as much as in a number of capitalist countries of Western Europe.
But what has helped and is helping Finland in difficult times? The
prime minister emphasized that his country coped with economic
difficulties better than other countries due to the nature of trade
relations with the Soviet Union, their stability and longevity. Five or
more years into the future, Kalevi Sorsa said, we know how these ties
will develop, and this makes it possible to build our economic policy
more systematically. “This is a stabilizer of our foreign trade” - this is
the definition given by the Prime Minister. At the Central Union of
Finnish Industry, an important organization of Finnish entrepreneurs,
Managing Director Stig Häste found equally expressive words:
“Thanks to the Soviet Union, we got out of the hole of depression
faster than others...”
Five days is just five days. But when he tries to put them into

219
words, it turns out that there are more impressions than the allotted
space in the newspaper. And again you have to cut off a lot for the sake
of what you consider to be the main thing. In the presidential palace we
heard a mention of the old days, when the northern Finns, like all
people, very caressed by the sun, loved songs about the south, and in
them, of course, they sang that life was better in the south. Now, the
narrator added, more information is coming in and Finns are aware of
the conflicts occurring in different parts of the world. And it is no
longer songs, but public opinion polls that now say: Finns are happy
that they live in the place of the world that history has assigned them.
...We also returned home by train. In the moonless splendor of a
charming evening we crossed the state border. And early in the
morning I woke up to the brisk sound of wheels. Blue-green jagged
spruces rushed past, birches had not yet ceased to rejoice in their fresh
foliage, the narrow mirror of an unknown river calmly sparkled and
remained lonely behind. And reabsorbing my land, I thought: it’s good
that there, in the northwest, we have good neighbors and that we have
learned to understand each other.
June 1983

ANNIVERSARY OF THE INVASION

In early June 1982, Israeli troops invaded Lebanon. The month of
June has arrived again, and they are still there, occupying about a third
of this Arab country.
Curious to remember where it all started? From the assassination
attempt on the Israeli ambassador in London. The Israelis attributed it
to the Palestine Liberation Organization and used it as a pretext for the
first bombing of Beirut and the invasion in general. Now they don’t
remember this - the pretext turned out to be far-fetched, false. The PLO
had nothing to do with the assassination attempt. In this story, cruelty
is always justified by lies. Later this was proven once again by what
happened in Sabra and Shatila. Begin and Sharon denied their
involvement in the mass extermination of innocents until their
involvement was confirmed - albeit with reservations - even by a
special Israeli commission.
At first, aggression was also called an act of self-defense - “against
the shelling of Israeli territory by PLO detachments.” And this pretext
has long been forgotten. The PLO armed forces left South Lebanon
and left West Beirut back in August last year, preventing further death
of the city and its population under shells and bombs. Israeli troops
remained, although all pretexts had disappeared.
Now the year-long occupation of Lebanon brings to mind the 16-
year-long occupation of Israel in the Syrian Golan Heights, the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip. The West Bank and Gaza are being populated
by Israelis with might and main, and the meaning of this process is
very clear - to pocket these Palestinian lands forever, to deprive the
Palestinians of territory on which they could create their own state.

220
 What is in store for Lebanon? The fate of a captive state. This is
written in black and white in the so-called “peace agreement” between
Israel and Lebanon.
This is what comes out of one “act of self-defense” taken a year
ago. In “self-defense” they seize an entire neighboring state and
threaten two more - Syria and Jordan. This captures the signature of
Israel's strategic ally and patron. The United States also “defends
itself” by declaring any areas of the globe as its security zones.
In general, Israel has no intention of leaving Lebanon. The
Americans, you see, allowed him not to leave until the Syrians left.
That is, until the Syrians agree that neighboring Lebanon will become
a vassal of Israel. Of course, the Syrians do not want to agree with such
an undermining of their independence and security.
The situation in Lebanon remains extremely tense. Even on those
days when the guns are silent there, it is only a deceptive and fragile
calm. The world is even further away than a year ago.
June 1983

ROCKET COURSE
At the beginning of summer, you don’t want to rush time and look
into December with its cold weather and short gloomy days. But what
if frosts hit at the end of May? The political frosts of the winter fortress
are being unleashed by Western leaders as they gather for their summer
meetings.
Supreme meeting of the G7 in Williamsburg. Then in Brussels
there is a session of the NATO Defense Planning Committee with the
participation of defense ministers. Now the NATO Council session in
Paris has just ended, to which the foreign ministers have flocked. The
weather - even in the two mentioned glorious European capitals - is
done by the Americans: Reagan, Weinberger, Shultz. And, judging by
their weather at the beginning of June, at the end of the year - “on
schedule” - we will see the first Pershing-2s on the territory of
Germany, as well as the first clusters of American cruise missiles in
England and Italy. Missiles at the last stage - this is, perhaps, how the
military-political content of the period between June and December is
formulated on their part.
December marks four years since NATO’s so-called “dual
solution” was adopted. It promised a “parallel process” of preparations
for the deployment of almost 600 American nuclear missiles in
Western Europe and negotiations on medium-range nuclear weapons
between the USSR and the USA. Alarmed Europeans were hinted that
if the negotiations were successful, there would be no need for
missiles. In fact, the “double decision” was and remains a race between
two runners with a predetermined result. One runner entered the four-
year course before the starting pistol fired, and coaches from
Washington ensured that he ran on schedule (in preparation for the
placement of rockets). Another runner - negotiations - was almost two

221
years late with the start - only in November 1981 did the Americans
meet in Geneva with Soviet representatives. And how can he keep up
with the first, if he was immediately hobbled by the American “zero
option”, and now by the “intermediate solution”?
By looking through the newspaper files, refresh your memory of
this important and not yet finished story. From the very beginning, the
Soviet Union warned the Western Europeans: the Americans needed
missiles, and negotiations were just a camouflage net under which the
missiles were hidden for the time being. The Soviet Union said that the
Americans were seeking nuclear superiority in Europe, but we would
not allow it, caring for our own and our allies’ security, as well as for
the future of the entire “old continent,” which was threatened by the
adventuristic habits of overseas crusaders. The Soviet Union made a
number of important proposals demonstrating that we will be satisfied
with no more, but also no less! - than strict adherence to the legal
principle of equality and equal security. The latest proposals give this
principle, one might say, mathematical completeness: the same number
of carriers of nuclear weapons and nuclear warheads both on the side
of the USSR and on the side of the North Atlantic Alliance, which
includes such nuclear states as England and France.
Alas, the warnings were not heeded and the proposals are refused
to be taken seriously. And now, when the negotiations are still running
on the spot, and the missiles are reaching the finish line, the Soviet
Union, in the spirit of its consistent policy, is making another attempt
to stop the dangerous development of events. A Soviet government
statement issued on May 28 warned that the installation of American
missiles would lead to a serious change in the situation in Europe,
sharply escalate the nuclear standoff and increase the risk of war.
And again, two emphases in the Soviet position are readiness for a
reasonable compromise and firmness in the face of a threat. On the one
hand, in the opinion of the Soviet Union, it is not too late to stop the
dangerous escalation of the situation if the United States and its allies
carefully weigh the consequences of their course and respond to
constructive Soviet proposals. On the other hand, if the deployment of
American missiles begins, the Soviet Union will take timely and
effective retaliatory measures, bearing in mind both the territories
where the new American missiles will be located and the territory of
the United States itself.
How did the West respond? In Williamsburg, and now in Paris, a
familiar tune was heard. They express their “desire” to reach a
“balanced” agreement in Geneva. Well, if the “desire” is not satisfied -
“the planned deployment of American systems.” What is the value of
“desire” if it is not backed by good will and political position? This is
just an unrealizable desire to achieve the surrender of a partner in
negotiations. In Williamsburg, the Soviet demand to take into account
British and French nuclear forces was called “an attempt to split the
ranks of Western countries.” Meanwhile, the legality of this demand is
confirmed by the behavior of not only London, but also Paris. Both the

222
fact of convening a session of the NATO Council in the French capital
(for the first time since 1966), and the demonstratively declared
similarity of the nuclear strategies of the United States and France
prove that all the nuclear forces of Western states form a single arsenal.
The best way to see the direction towards missiles, however, is in
the speeches of some high-ranking officials. Among them is Caspar
Weinberger, who loves to cut Peptagon's truth. Having recently visited
Western Europe on missile matters, he said two or three times: “If we
don't deploy these missiles, there will be no meaningful negotiations.”
From the American perspective, NATO Secretary General Joseph Lupe
is playing with this idea. “I think an agreement can only be reached
after the first missiles are deployed,” he said. Already one Pership
missile will change the situation.”
So, on the way to December, the hypocritical “dual solution” is
modified. In mid-1983, it was no longer possible to fool the public
with the promises made at the end of 1979. And therefore, instead of a
parallel approach, they propose, so to speak, a sequential one, in which
successful negotiations are possible only after the successful
deployment of missiles. The new propaganda act will now be
performed increasingly in front of Western Europeans. Let's see if it
passes.
But in addition to the new trap for the public, there is another
component to this “one-by-one” approach: a threat to the Soviet Union.
Threat - and blackmail. It is as if they are offering us a settlement on
American terms and at the gunpoint of new American missiles. Once
again, forgetting that such numbers never happened with the Soviet
Union.
June 1983

ABOUT ONE SPEECH BY J. SCHULTZ

Recently, Secretary of State George Shultz spoke at the Foreign
Relations Committee of the US Senate. He spoke for almost an hour,
and the text of his speech, entitled “US-Soviet Relations in the Context
of American Foreign Policy,” took up 35 pages. But the point is not the
volume, but the significance attached to this appearance of the
Secretary of State on Capitol Hill. His speech is called the most
detailed, comprehensive, outlining the “philosophy” of the current
administration’s approach to relations with the Soviet Union. It is also
reported that the text was personally reviewed, corrected, and
seemingly blessed by President Reagan.
What did the head of the US diplomatic department say? What
does the approach he outlines promise for US-Soviet relations, on
which the fate of the world decisively depends and which gives so
much cause for concern under the current US administration?
A few words about the “formatization” of Schultz’s speech before
moving on to his analysis of the substance.
It must be said that Shultz in his speech spoke a lot about the

223
importance of peace and the importance of American-Soviet relations
for the cause of peace.
“It will not be possible to quickly resolve the differences. Any
other assumption would be unrealistic,” said the Secretary of State. “At
the same time, both of our brothers are vitally interested in preventing
war.” This common interest encourages you to strive to establish such
relations between our countries that they can contribute to
strengthening security in the world in the interests of all mankind.”
Well, here, perhaps, you can subscribe to any word.
“We do not want to accept the inevitable prospect of an endless
dangerous confrontation with the Soviet Union, and there is no need
for this.”
Indeed, there is absolutely no need for humanity to swing on the
rope of the “balance of fear” stretched between growing mountains of
nuclear weapons.
“It cannot be considered eternally inevitable that the rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union should necessarily
play a dominant role in international political life and distort its overall
picture.”
And in these words, in the denial of the “eternal inevitability” of
American-Soviet rivalry, some hope is visible.
One could sincerely welcome statements of this kind if they were
supported by a constructive approach and constructive positions in
various areas of our relations. But this doesn't happen. The
programmatic speech of the US Secretary of State, with all the
mentioned curtseys, not only does not change, but, on the contrary,
completely confirms the previous course of the American leadership,
which is generating growing tension in international life, leading to an
escalation of the threat of nuclear war.
Let us not, however, be unfounded. Realism in politics begins with
a sober and timely consideration of existing circumstances.
Meanwhile, even 50 years after the establishment of diplomatic
relations with Moscow, Washington continues to wrestle with the
question: to recognize or not to recognize? And they are inclined to not
recognize Soviet power, the socialist system, the socialist community.
This lack of realism in assessing the modern world, characteristic of
the current Washington administration, is proven by Shultz’s speech.
A year ago, speaking in the British Parliament, President Reagan
called for a “crusade” against the USSR and promised to throw
socialism into the “ashes of history.”
Secretary of State Shultz is more moderate in his expressions, what
does it mean: “in connection with our commitment to peace, we
consider it our duty to promote the gradual evolution of the Soviet
system”? In principle, this is the same unceremoniously proclaimed
policy of interference in the internal affairs of another power.
Moreover, in its most overt manifestation - with the American imperial
claim to domination and dictatorship, to impose its views and orders on
others. This is not a “commitment to peace,” but an undermining of the

224
peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-political systems.
Shultz talks about “involving the Russians in an active and
productive dialogue” - and at first glance this sounds noble, although
one can, of course, note that it is not appropriate for the administration
that broke it off when it came to power to pose as the initiator of the
dialogue and refused to resume it for a long time . But what is the first
item on the agenda proposed for dialogue? And here’s what: “To
achieve improvement in the activities of Russians in the field of human
rights.” Again, without asking or ceremony, they meddle in other
people's affairs and practices, again the claim to measure everything
and everyone by American standards. And under the guise of concern
for “human rights” there are attempts to acquire a kind of “right” for
ideological sabotage, to give free rein to opponents of the socialist
system. Let us not here raise the counter-issue of “human rights”
somewhere in El Salvador, Chile and South Africa or, ultimately, in
the black ghetto splashing around in Washington just a mile from the
White House and a mile and a half from the State Department. But it is
worth emphasizing with all sincerity that tension in our relations with
the United States will remain truly “eternally inevitable” if American
politicians - generation after generation and each time again - ignore
the fundamental fact of the differences between the two systems.
Shultz says that in developing a strategy for US-Soviet relations,
the current administration "has drawn in part on a variety of old
strategies, from containment to détente." Some things were taken and
some things were discarded. They discarded what went along the lines
of cooperation between the two countries. This is what Schultz calls
“the fragile web of interdependence.” And they adopted, from Trump’s
time, a “strategy of containment.” But they considered it
geographically insufficient, too limited. We decided to expand it to the
whole world. This, perhaps, is the grain of the “new philosophy” set
forth by the American Secretary of State: since the USSR has become
a “global power” pursuing a “global foreign and military policy,” the
United States must contain it on a “global scale.”
Essentially, we are talking about a global confrontation, not only
with the Soviet Union. About global and all the changes in the world,
be it (to take names from Schultz's list) in Southeast Asia, southern
Africa or the Caribbean - with all the changes that are displeasing to
American imperialism. A truly global “crusade” is proclaimed by the
Reagan administration in the speech of its Secretary of State, which is
also presented as “conciliatory.”
Three years ago, on his way to the White House, Ronald Reagan
said: “Let's not kid ourselves - the Soviet Union is behind all the unrest
that is happening. If the Russians didn’t play this game of dominoes,
there wouldn’t be a single hot spot in the world.” What has changed
since then in this, to put it mildly, simplified approach? Maybe it’s just
that American leaders are losing their sense of not only reality, but also
humor. They never stop teaching us “restraint” – even, for example, in

225
the Middle East. As if it was with the blessing and with the direct help
not of the United States, but of the Soviet Union, that Israel launched
an aggression against Lebanon a year ago and has been occupying
other Arab lands for 16 years now? As if it was not the American allies
who provoked the massacre of innocents in the Palestinian camps of
Sabra and Shatila, which horrified the whole world? And if we take
other areas in both hemispheres, then it is worth remembering how
“restrained” the Americans behave when carrying out the intervention
of their minions in Nicaragua through Honduras or keeping their
aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region.
When the world is viewed through the prism of global
confrontation, economic ties are seen not as bridges to cooperation, but
as merely “a permanent component of the strategic equation.” True,
Shultz declares himself an opponent of the “economic war” East-West,
but this is rather a matter of terms - he allows economic battles, as well
as credit restrictions and other measures of discrimination.
There is no need to give other examples. Let's better see what
position is taken on the central issue of American-Soviet relations -
arms control, curbing the arms race. Shultz's speech made a conscious
attempt to downplay the significance of negotiations on this issue. It
says that arms limitation “is not, and cannot be, the main topic of our
dialogue with the Russians.” There, the untenable concept of “linking”
negotiations on arms reduction with the international “behavior” of the
Soviet Union is being revived. Io and “linking” is not enough. In
Washington they are demanding a completely special, unheard of right,
which could be called the right to fail negotiations.
Let's listen to Shultz: "There is no certainty that the negotiations
we are now conducting with the Soviet Union will lead to acceptable
agreements ... We are not placing such a large bet on the prospect of a
successful outcome of the negotiations, so as not to insure ourselves in
case of failure."
In a word, like a poet: “I accept you, failure and success, my
greetings to you!” The poet, however, did not negotiate the fate of the
world, standing on a mountain of nuclear weapons capable of
incinerating humanity.
Here's an additional explanation from the Secretary of State to the
clueless senators: "We have to be careful that we don't somehow end
up in a position where we feel like it's very important for us to get an
arms control agreement."
Ponder this valuable self-revelation. Since concluding an
agreement is not so important, then you can put forward conditions that
are unacceptable to your partner, refuse to consider his proposals,
exclude any reasonable compromise and, as a result, keep negotiations
at a dead end for months. Which, in fact, is what is happening in
Geneva. The Americans have not made a single attempt to negotiate
seriously and with all their obstructionist behavior they are dooming
them to obvious failure, because it cannot be assumed that only the

226
other side will move towards an agreement. From the point of view of
strengthening peace and international stability, this is a frivolous,
moreover, irresponsible and dangerous approach. It can only be
defended by those who make their primary goal not the reduction, but
the increase in armaments. However, should we be surprised?
Washington has long argued that the arms race is the shortest path to
disarmament. And the American side is using the Geneva negotiations
as a screen behind which it intends to fully implement the decision to
deploy new American missiles in Western Europe, upsetting the
current balance in favor of the United States and NATO...
A careful examination of Shultz’s speech convinces us of the
hypocrisy of attempts inspired by official circles to pass it off as a
manifestation of “flexibility” and almost ((conciliation) of the US
administration. Those who, having read this speech, discerned the
same rigid course behind the elements of a certain verbal “prettiness”
are right to global confrontation.
Normal and promising relations between the USA and the USSR
can only be built as relations of equal partners, on the basis of mutual
benefit, with fair consideration of mutual interests, which excludes
attempts to break the established strategic parity and achieve
superiority over the other side or advantages to the detriment of it.
Even if overseas they do not want to acknowledge this truth, they
cannot cancel it there. And the sooner it is recognized, the better it is
for the American people, as for all peoples. In the meantime, it remains
to express regret that the creators of American policy persist in their
foreign policy program, in which not a grain of constructiveness can be
found.
June 1983

FAKE COIN J. BUSH

On June 25, US Vice President George W. Bush found himself on
the left bank of the Rhine River, in the city of Krefeld, and for this
reason: together with his official West German hosts, the overseas
guest solemnly celebrated the 300th anniversary of the arrival of the
first German settlers in North America. The date is venerable and
important in many respects, especially since approximately one in four
current US citizens has German roots going back centuries or decades.
But of course, it was not only respect for historical roots that
prompted the American vice president to board a jet plane and fly to
Europe, fortunately this path is now much shorter and more convenient
than 300 years ago. Mr. Bush flew in to advocate for one “settler”
whom America is now sending to West Germany, as if as a return
courtesy. The day before arrival
Bush in Krefeld, this “settler” was just passing the test, the
fourteenth in a row, in the desert expanses of the American state of
New Mexico and, as reported, “hit the target.” It has the name of an

227
American general, and the reader, I think, has already guessed that we
are talking about the Pership G-2 missile.
In his speech about “common roots” and “spiritual values,” the
vice president, so as not to arouse passions, diplomatically did not
mention missiles. But he was nevertheless understood correctly. A
20,000-strong anti-missile demonstration took place in Krefeld. The
guest's bulletproof limousine was pelted with stones and bottles. More
than a hundred demonstrators were arrested. Chancellor Helmut Kohl
apologized to the American and assured him that the German
government “will not bow to street terror.”
The old German city of Krefeld has been widely known to the
world since 1980 as the birthplace of the Krefeld Appeal. It calls on the
German government to abandon the deployment of American missiles
on West German territory. The appeal became an active form of public
mobilization. More than 4 million people signed it. And now Krefeld is
on everyone’s lips again. Bush came to celebrate the past and threaten
the future. That is why his words were answered with stones.
But protests and curses did not interrupt the route of the American
emissary and did not force him to abandon his intentions. His trip will
last until July 7 - England, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, Ireland, Iceland. In England and Germany, Bush checked to
what extent the allied governments were committed to accepting
American missiles, and was convinced: yes, they are true. During visits
to northern European countries, where anti-nuclear sentiment is
widespread, the vice president, depending on the situation, will try to
muffle criticism of US policy, as well as discourage the idea of
creating a nuclear-free zone, which has recently received growing
public and official support.
The ambivalent reception given to Bush in Krefeld is symbolic of
the political situation in Western Europe five months before the start of
the deployment of American missiles. On the one hand, policies that
exacerbate the threat of nuclear war are met with increasingly strong
opposition and condemnation. The most convincing example is the
World Assembly of Peace Forces, held last week in Prague. Anti-war
demonstrations are being organized in many European and American
cities. On the other hand, official circles in the West have never spoken
with such openness about the deployment of American Pershings and
Tomahawks as a done deal, not subject to any further delays.
It should be recalled that George Bush is a frequent visitor to
Western Europe. His last visit took place in January February of this
year. At that time, Washington still clung to the “zero option,” which
kept US-Soviet negotiations in Geneva at an impasse for more than a
year. “Zero” has clearly exhausted its propaganda appeal. Then, after
testing the waters with his allies, Bush returned home with a rough idea
for an “interim solution.” After several weeks of deliberation in
Washington, it was approved and publicly outlined by President
Reagan. The changed American approach pursued the old goal of
blocking negotiations. Well, this goal was not difficult to achieve by

228
refusing to count British and French weapons in the overall balance of
medium-range nuclear forces in Europe.
And here is Bush's new visit. The camouflage robes are now
discarded. After his visit, London reported that both sides agreed on a
“tough approach” to the missile issue. Chancellor Kohl, receiving the
guest, put it this way: “If a miracle does not happen at the negotiations
—and everything suggests that it will not happen—the deployment of
missiles will be carried out.”
Hoping for a miracle is an unusual position for a statesman. Kohl
did not clarify what he meant. By way of guesswork, we offer two
options. The United States, and at the same time its allies, take a
constructive position at the Geneva negotiations, taking into account
the realities of the existing situation, including the far from mythical
British and French missiles actually aimed at the Soviet Union. If we
take the current, frivolous approach of the Americans to negotiations,
then this elementary realism, perhaps, would be a “miracle” on their
part. Or, on the contrary, like a miracle, are the West expecting the
Soviet Union to agree to an agreement that puts it in an unequal
position and its security under direct threat? Most likely, this is the
“miracle” that the German Chancellor had in mind, not without reason
assuming that it “won’t happen.”
I recently wrote that as November-December approaches, when
the first Pershings and cruise missiles will be delivered and installed,
the propaganda cover for this action is changing. In Williamsburg at
the Western summit meeting, and then in Paris at the NATO Council
session, they began to say, both in hints and in plain text: do not expect
results in the negotiations before the missiles are deployed, and with
American missiles deployed in positions, things will go better in
Geneva . This is the latest stage in deceiving the public, begun by
NATO's "dual solution" of December 1979. And now, after the “zero
option”, after the “intermediate solution”, George Bush and his
interlocutors in the NATO countries are even more cynically putting
into circulation a new counterfeit coin, trying to pay for the doubts,
anxieties and fears of Western Europeans.
June 1983

SECRETS IN PLACE FOR EVERYONE

In Washington, many, one might say, do not accept the Nicaraguan
revolution in spirit. Is it any wonder that the events there, which
coincided with the fourth anniversary of her victory, were by no means
congratulatory in nature? On July 19, just on the day of the Nicaraguan
holiday, the House of Representatives of the US Congress met for a
secret (rare) meeting. The agenda included a report from the Special
Intelligence Commission and a discussion of whether to continue
funding efforts to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. Assistance to
counter-revolutionaries through the CIA is also considered secret,

229
although it has long been in the public eye.
How do you like this illustration of American democracy? Elected
representatives of one people ponder what to do with another people.
And on July 18, President Reagan himself spoke in Hollywood.
And although it was Hollywood in Florida, his speech was quite
consistent with the spirit of that famous Hollywood in California. The
American president presented himself as a zealous champion of the
Nicaraguan revolution, but not the one that won four years ago, but the
“genuine” one.
Here it is appropriate to briefly recall what the 20th century meant
for Nicaraguans. For a quarter of a century, Nicaragua was occupied by
North American soldiers, and then for almost half a century the hated
Somoza family sat as occupiers in their own country. And from the
White House, from Reagan's predecessors, no objections were heard
against the tyrannical regime or calls for a “genuine” revolution. And
now the most conservative US president in the last half century has
awarded the title of revolutionaries to the undead followers of the
tyrant attacking Nicaragua from Honduras.
If the success of a policy were determined by demagoguery alone,
the Washington administration would have nothing to worry about. But
the unexpected concentration of events dedicated to Nicaragua and the
entire Central American problem suggests that concern is growing.
Despite the feverish activity that unfolded immediately after Reagan
moved into the White House, the American people do not believe that
their “freedom” is threatened by a small country with a population
almost 100 times smaller and an area more than 60 times smaller than
the United States. Polls, including the most recent ones, show that the
majority opposes US intervention in Nicaragua.
The same sentiment is strong in Congress, especially in the House
of Representatives. In general, there is a clear lack of public support
within the United States for its rabidly militant policies in Central
America.
Of course, Washington's interventionism in Latin America causes
an even greater reaction of rejection. Refusing to repeat North
American prompters, they have a better understanding of the roots and
nature of the Nicaraguan revolution, as well as where the true threat to
the countries south of the Rio Grande comes from. The other day,
members of the “Contadora group”—the presidents of Venezuela,
Colombia, Mexico and Panama—met in the Mexican city of Cancun.
The declaration they adopted outlined a series of measures for a
political solution to the problems of Central America and issued a
strong warning: “The use of force as an alternative to resolving the
conflict will only worsen the situation in the region.”
On behalf of the leadership of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, speaking
at a rally of 200 thousand people in Leon, dismissed the proposals of
the “Contadora group” as positive. For his part, he put forward a
number of initiatives, among them: to put an end to the military
confrontation in Central America, in particular by immediately

230
concluding a non-aggression pact between Honduras and Nicaragua;
completely stop the supply of weapons to the warring parties in El
Salvador; otka? to refuse military support to any anti-government
forces in the region, etc. These are important initiatives that outline
specific and real ways out of the crisis situation.
How did Washington respond? Sending a second aircraft carrier
formation to the shores of Nicaragua. The announcement that major
US-Honduran military maneuvers will take place near the Nicaraguan
border in August. According to Managua, up to 12 thousand counter-
revolutionaries are already operating from the territory of Honduras
against Nicaragua. But the White House and the Pentagon consider the
page to be insufficient.
Recently, a secret report of a special interdepartmental group
prepared for a meeting of the US National Security Council held on
July 8 was published. In his assessments and recommendations, he
reveals, alas, no new secrets. “The situation in Central America is
approaching a critical point” is the report’s conclusion. What about
recommendations? They are aimed not at a political, but at a military
solution. The continuation and intensification of subversive activities
against Nicaragua is recommended. It is recommended to increase
military assistance for the 1984 fiscal year to El Salvador from 86
million dollars to 120-140 million, to Honduras - from 41 million to
55-56 million, to Guatemala - from 10 to 18-20 million, to Costa Rica -
from 2.2 to 7- 9 million.
Against this background, the US President announced the creation
of the so-called “national commission for Central America.” Henry
Kissinger, a former Secretary of State who had long yearned for a
prominent official or semi-official position, was appointed head of the
commission.
The White House has emphasized the bipartisan nature of the
commission, bringing to mind another presidential commission, Brent
Scowcroft's Strategic Weapons Commission, and the approach of 1984
and the election battles. The Scowcroft Commission was created when
the House of Representatives failed the administration's request for
initial appropriations for MX missiles last November. Following the
commission's recommendations, Congress approved these
appropriations in May. Reagan's Central America policy is currently
failing on Capitol Hill, and he would like to pull it out and save it with
a new "bipartisan" commission.
In addition, Reagan would like to turn this commission into a kind
of political lightning rod. She must deflect criticism from him of
Democratic contenders for the White House.
“An already bankrupt policy is now presented in a new package,”
this is how Senator K. Dodd defined the meaning of Reagan’s
maneuver. Columnist T. Wicker called it "laying the groundwork for
unpopular policies."
Well, new packaging will not change the substance, and the

231
foundation cannot be strong under a policy if it is increasingly called
bankrupt or unpopular.
July 1983

TRENCHES OF THE “NEW VIETNAM”

For official representatives speaking to the press, a sense of humor
does not harm, but a sense of proportion is simply necessary, in
particular when, in the course of their duties, they have to gloss over
reality and pass off black as white. On Tuesday, White House deputy
press secretary Speke exposed a gaping lack of both humor and sense
of proportion when he said the Reagan administration's planned major
military maneuvers would "help ease tensions in Central America." It
is worth recalling what the American “tension mitigation” forces look
like and what they consist of.
A naval force has been sent to the Pacific coast of Nicaragua, the
core of which is the helicopter carrier Ranger. The eastern, Caribbean,
coast of the Central American country, disliked by Washington, will be
patrolled alternately and, together with other warships, by the powerful
modernized battleship New Jersey and the aircraft carrier Coral Sea,
which ten years ago stood in the Gulf of Tonkin, raising its planes to
bomb Vietnam. And on land, in the north, it is planned to “soften
tensions” around Nicaragua through unprecedentedly large-scale
American-Honduran maneuvers. They will take place in August, and 5
thousand military personnel will take part in them from the US side.
Nicaragua, with its 2.7 million inhabitants, is almost 100 times
smaller in population than the United States (which does not stop
American leaders from talking 100 times more about the “threat” from
Nicaragua). So, if these two countries, as well as the upcoming
maneuvers, were swapped, then 5 thousand American soldiers in
Honduras on the border with Nicaragua would turn into about half a
million Nicaraguans in Canada on the border with the United States. If
we extend this fantastic analogy to include American naval measures
to “soften tensions,” we would have dozens of hostile aircraft carriers
and hundreds, if not thousands, of warships off the Pacific and Atlantic
coasts of the United States.
What would they say in Washington then? Probably the same thing
they say in Managua now? The pincers of a naval blockade are being
laid over Nicaragua from the west and east. In the north, forces of
cynical political pressure could become forces of direct invasion at any
moment. However, the forces of invasion, sabotage, and provocations,
made up of Somosists thirsty for blood and revenge, are already
operating under the leadership of CIA instructors. And these are
considerable forces. According to Nicaraguan data, there are now
about 12 thousand people in the bandit formations carrying out raids on
Nicaragua from Honduras.
They have been doing their hired counter-revolutionary job for a
year now, but have not succeeded in the main thing - in trying to rock

232
the revolutionary regime and deprive it of popular support. In
Washington, of course, they would prefer to do the job through
someone else's hands. They turned out to be short. And now the hands
of the North Americans themselves are reaching out to the throat of the
young Sandinista republic, reaching both from the sea and from the
land. Recently, President Reagan has made it clear more than once that
his administration is seeking the overthrow of the Nicaraguan
government if it continues to refuse to dance to Washington's tune.
Thus, in the “dead season” of the end of July, when state and
interstate activity traditionally subsides, Washington rumbled with
“gunboat diplomacy”, creating a crisis of unprecedented severity
around a small country to which it has not been able to “pick up the
keys” for two and a half years.
The reliance on brutal military pressure, the threat of a naval
blockade and armed invasion look especially provocative now, when
both the members of the “Contadora group”, who authoritatively
represent the sentiments of Latin America, and the Nicaraguan
leadership speak out for a peaceful resolution of controversial issues.
The Nicaraguans have put forward a number of important practical
initiatives.
These proposals, with goodwill on all sides, open up the possibility
of a political settlement. But, obviously, President Reagan wants
something else in Central America - a surgical operation to eliminate
the source of sedition. Experienced American journalist J. Oaks
reasonably writes in The New York Times: “Escalation of the arms
race is the Reagan administration’s response to any complex political
or diplomatic problem in any part of the world.”
This answer does not suit most Americans. Washington's military
moves in recent days have drawn a storm of criticism. The specter of a
“new Vietnam”, which has always accompanied the Central American
policy of the current administration, has come closer and is
increasingly taking on real memorable features. The opposition in
Congress appears to be on the verge of gaining the upper hand.
But... Under the current president, they are proud that politics can
be done not in agreement with, but contrary to the sentiments of the
general public. Just in case, the administration is looking for ways to
bypass Congress with its “power of the purse,” that is, the manager of
loans and foreign aid. This is how Israel appeared on the scene as a
supplier of weapons to Central American clients of the United States.
As you can see, in both hemispheres there is a system of mutual favors
in the relations between Reagan and Begin. Much has been written
these days about how the “new Vietnam” threatens an acute crisis
within NATO, since Western European allies do not approve of US
militarism in Central America. Well, these assessments are not without
foundation. But, on the other hand, we should not forget that in a
number of large Western European capitals in recent months there has
been a game of giveaway to American militarism - take the same

233
question of the deployment of new American missiles. This game has
its own logic, which can manifest itself in greater connivance than
before by Western European governments even now, when it comes to
saber-rattling in Central America...
Last fall, a monument to the Americans who died in Vietnam was
unveiled in Washington, a kind of giant trench, the wall of which is
made of black marble slabs with the names of the dead. The new black
memorial is located next to the white marble memorial to President
Lincoln. I don’t know whether it was the intention of the creators of
the monument to remind with this proximity that from greatness to
infamy there are only a few steps. In any case, this is what you are
thinking about now, when, neglecting the lessons of the recent past,
official Washington is digging trenches for a “new Vietnam.”
July 1983
THROUGH KNOWLEDGE - TO UNDERSTANDING
Averell Harriman is a rich man, which is widely known in the
United States, and not only there. The ignorant could verify this some
time ago by reading that together with his wife Pamela, he donated $10
million to Columbia University in New York. Harriman was once the
governor of New York, but in this case he acted as a former US
ambassador to Moscow during the war years and military US-Soviet
cooperation. Averell Harriman specially donated his 10 million to the
Russian Institute at Columbia University, which is now called the
Harriman Institute for the Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
The former governor and ambassador, a veteran of American
political life, is concerned about the poor state of relations between our
two countries. He believes, in particular, that the study of the Soviet
Union in his country is extremely poor and that this contributes to the
maintenance of bad relations.
The gesture made in October 1982 attracted widespread attention
not only to Columbia University, but generally to the problem of
studying the Soviet Union, Soviet life and politics in the United States.
The general opinion of American experts: the condition is critical.
Paradoxically, it seems to be a fact that the level of knowledge about
the Soviet Union among Americans is declining rather than increasing.
And this is if we take not the public as a whole, but the number and
quality of specialists. Here are some of the indicators. Since 1968, the
number of students studying Russian in universities has decreased by
40 percent, and in secondary schools by more than 70 percent. Funds
allocated by various private and government organizations for the
study of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe
have decreased by 70 percent.
Rockefeller Foundation Assistant Director John Stremlow recently
wrote in the Washington Post: “In its competition with the Soviet
Union, the United States continues to act like a dinosaur. Although the
nation willingly spends nearly $250 billion on defense, the number of
graduates each year we graduate with the latest techniques to analyze

234
Soviet foreign policy rarely exceeds seven or eight, and the number of
In the Soviet Union, there are less than 30 people writing books
and articles on these topics.”
John Stremlow, in his position, knows the subject matter quite
well. The Rockefeller Foundation is a major charitable organization
with a very clear political bent. Concerned about growing American
ignorance of the Soviet Union, the foundation recently held a
competition among American academic institutions. 2 million dollars
were raffled off to those who could prove that they would use it better
than others for an in-depth study of “Soviet problems.” One million
was won by the Garrimup Institute at Columbia University, the other
was shared by two universities in California - Stanford and Berkeley.
The renowned Harvard University has announced the launch of a
campaign to raise $5 million to improve the activities of its Center for
Russian Studies, created 35 years ago. Other facts can be cited that
indicate the scope of the problem and the current attempts to solve it
through the dollar.
Now I’ll try to talk about this topic, touching not only dollars.
Never in the America of the powerful, in America, which is usually
called the ruling one, have they spoken so much about the “Soviet
threat.” And now, it turns out, it’s been a long time since she had such
gaping gaps in her knowledge of the country from which, as they say,
the threat comes. What are the reasons for this paradox? There are
many of them, ranging from the special American arrogance to
American pragmatism. Arrogance comes from confidence in America's
divine destiny: we are above everyone else, and everyone else only
dreams of becoming like us, and therefore they should study us, not we
them. Ignorance hurts your business, but it turns out that it helps your
well-being. The less knowledge, the easier it is to declare the enemy
the “focus of evil” and oneself the embodiment of divine providence.
And in general, one cannot help but note a certain pattern: the further
you move west across the United States, the more often you meet
people of two categories - politicians ignorant of the rest of the world,
and their friends from the nouveau riche millionaires. In this
movement, you finally come to the “golden state” of California, from
where people of the two categories mentioned sometimes move to
Washington.
From the heavens of arrogance, which, of course, is not
characteristic of all Americans, even those who quickly got rich, let us
now descend to the land of American pragmatism. He does not favor
knowledge that does not bring dividends and does not pay for itself.
In the first half of the 1970s, when détente promised rapid growth
in trade and economic ties with the Soviet Union, the United States
experienced an increase in practical interest in the other great power.
But hopes did not come true, connections were strangled first by Carter
and then by Reagan, and practical interest fell. But the fewer
connections, the more tense the relationship and the stronger the
connection of a special kind of common destiny in the nuclear missile

235
age. The more dangerous is the paradox, which is expressed in two
figures: in the United States there are fewer students (24 thousand)
studying Russian than there are nuclear warheads stockpiled against
the Soviet Union. The question, therefore, is: will the number of the
latter decrease if the number of the former increases?
In fact, what harvest will grow on the beer of “Sovietology”, now
fertilized with Harriman and Rockefeller dollars? It would be the
height of naivety to expect that American scientific centers will
produce people sympathetic to the idea of socialism. We remember, for
example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who lived in the White House under
President Carter, and the rabid expert on the Soviet Union, Richard
Pipes, who served President Reagan.
Averell Harriman and those who practically control his millions
will not grow “reds” or “rosies” in American academic groves. In our
divided world, knowledge does not yet provide magic recipes for
overcoming differences, and sometimes it deepens them. But at least
knowledge of the other side, the structure of her life, the motives of her
behavior, the traditions of her people keeps her from attempts to
remake her in her own image and likeness, dangerous and adventuristic
attempts even when they are declared the will of God. Thus,
knowledge provides a service to the idea and practice of peaceful
coexistence.
Understanding is through knowledge. We desperately need
understanding of each other. And the path to it cannot possibly go
through the cultivation of ignorance and lack of information that the
Americans suddenly discovered among themselves.
August 1983

FATE OF A FRIEND
His life was cut short before his time, but now it looks like a
complete story with a dramatic core. At the age of eighteen, almost a
boy, Boris Strelnikov fought and was seriously wounded, studied at the
Central Komsomol School 303, worked at Komsomolskaya Pravda and
then spent a hundred days in Vietnam in the mid-50s. Then, for 15
years, in two sittings, he was a correspondent for Pravda in New York
and Washington, and upon returning, after several years in Moscow,
from Pravda, he went to London. It was not the young romantic wind
of wanderings that drew him there, on his last business trip abroad, but
not for everyone a retreat and only from the outside an enviable plan
for international affairs.
The London business trip did not last even a year and a half. One
day, after a short trip home to Moscow, he was traveling by train to his
place of work abroad. In Orsha the journey had to be interrupted. Did
his aching heart tell him that Orsha, which had never been included in
the routes of his thirty-year journalistic wanderings, would become
their final destination? There he died in a local hospital...
Born in a Siberian village, became famous for his essays and

236
reports from New York, returned to work in London and died among
his native snows in an unfamiliar Belarusian city. He was 56 years old,
and his life will tell a lot to anyone who could look at it year after year,
and then look at it all at once.
Three and a half years have passed since his death and a year and a
half since the book “With all my heart I believe...” was published by
the Pravda publishing house. Boris stands there on the cover among
some American expanses, either the Dakota prairies or the Arizona
desert, a handsome and thoughtful man on the road. I received one
copy of the book and kept meaning to write about it, and the longer it
lay on the table, the sadder his gaze seemed. But I kept getting ready
and putting it off. The nature of our profession - and our hustle. Either
his own impressions of a new trip to America, then the Falklands
crisis, Weinberger said something, Haig went somewhere (at that time
we were still interested in his movements)... Forward, time! We chase
the current day, achieving synchronicity in its reflection; we illuminate
the freshest, most recent event, forgetting for its sake everything that is
left behind. Even if the whole life of an extraordinary, famous
representative of our hurrying profession is left behind. And Boris
Strelnikov’s book continued to lie to the side, already under other
books, and when I took it out with a feeling of guilt, his look was
farewell.
We met there in New York. He was five years older - in age and
knowledge of America. I comprehended the truths that he had already
comprehended. We have been friends for many years, and I know first-
hand what he writes about in his book, “My mouth, why should I make
excuses now.
In addition to the bustle, another circumstance interfered. The
newspaper does not give more than one and a half to two pages for a
review about the newspaperman, about his own. What can one and a
half or two of them say about a book that seems to sum up the literary
summation of the life of a writer? Meanwhile, on the same newspaper
page, we, internationalists, do not skimp on strangers, we write and
talk about people, distant and sometimes random, about various high-
profile figures - how many of them there were in the memory of each
of us, flashed and disappeared without a trace - but it seemed as if the
light had almost converged on them like a wedge. And here is a great
and close man with all his unexpectedly short life, our correspondent
flagship, our best artisan and his wonderful posthumously published
book. This is not just a tribute to memory. Here, if you want, is an
indicator of the seriousness of your attitude towards your own
profession. And one and a half to two pages? Why? Our life is full of
paradoxes, which have not ceased to be absurd because they have
become familiar.
But recently the same question about a review arose on a
fundamentally different plane: “This is your sacred duty.” And the last
two words struck me with their simple and immutable truth. A sacred
duty is a duty that cannot be ignored and cannot be transferred to

237
others.
II with such persuasion, vanity recedes. I read Boris Strelnikov’s
book, his Favorites, return with him to New York houses and streets,
travel nearby to Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan, see through his
eyes dozens of people and through words and lines I also see him,
alive, as I knew him ,—with my wife and children, with friends.
What does he tell us, remaining to live in books? The first of Boris
Strelnikov's lessons is the most difficult to learn. This is a purely
individual talent lesson. The title of one of the sections of the book -
“Pencil Sketch of New York” - indicates the main property of
Strelnikov’s gift. He is a master of miniatures. The American part of
the book contains about forty excellent verbal depictions of various
human types and aspects of life. In the newspaper, with its needs and
the topic of the day, the newspaperman Strelnikov squeezed the writer,
but in his books the writer gained the upper hand. Before us are small
stories of the artist of the word, which have already stood the test of
time and have the right to a long life. They should be republished along
with other works of original Russian classics on international themes.
And here an old problem arises: international affairs specialists are
homeless children in our literary economy, because they chug along
purely in the department of politics, and not literature. Each of the
living takes care of himself to his own extent, but who will bother the
publishing houses about the departed?
Boris Strelnikov never forgot that American life was unknown and
invisible to his general reader. He wrote it visually, and it was easy for
him. He had an excellent command of Russian speech and—a rare
quality for an international journalist—protected its dignity from the
onslaught of foreign words; It’s very difficult when you write about a
foreign country and live there, when words and concepts of another life
surround you on all sides. His taste was impeccable, something
Chekhovian was visible in his sense of proportion, as well as in his
softness, calmness, and balance. Strelnikov preferred soft humor to
sarcasm, which is indispensable in denunciations and revelations,
proving that humor also kills on the spot if the presence of power is felt
behind it.
He was a writer not only because he mastered words and knew
how to interest the reader. He was a writer because he was tormented
by a thirst to tell about what he saw and felt, and because a kind and
wise heart beats in his books. He wanted understanding between
people, and in his place as an international affairs specialist, this meant
understanding between two peoples - Soviet and American.
Strelnikov cannot be considered a typical international specialist.
In his youth he was brave enough and went through the universities of
war. His education was more national than international. Formulas
never blocked him from living people, and newspapers and magazines
from personal impressions, and the last book fully expresses this
property of his. He flocked to ordinary people, whether in America,

238
India or England, chose them as his heroes and interlocutors and felt
out of place among noble, “big” people, even when he himself began
to be classified as such.
Of course, coverage of political events and phenomena,
diplomatic, military-diplomatic and purely military actions occupies
the main place and time in the work of our foreign correspondents,
especially in the USA. Politics is our daily bread. Journalists, in one
way or another, participate in the making of international politics. But
it is important that the political kitchen does not turn into the only
territory familiar to the correspondent in which he operates. Striving
for a three-dimensional, rather than two-dimensional, vision of things,
an international journalist must correlate politics with the everyday life
of ordinary people, with their worries about their daily bread. This is
one of the important lessons of Boris Strelnikov. In the common sense
of the people, he found hope for better times and a cure for the
tightening of politics and stubbornly refused to participate in the
dehumanization competitions in which our ideological opponents
overseas are trying to drag us into. His humanity was organically
combined with the views of a communist and internationalist.
A person lives where he works, but an international worker’s place
of work is abroad. But the mind is one and the heart is one, belonging
to the native land. For Boris Strelnikov, the circle of life was
approaching a time when he was increasingly drawn to his roots. And
he goes to a Siberian village near Minusinsk, where he spent his
childhood, and recalls episodes of the war years. However, this native
principle of his life was latently, one way or another, reflected when he
wrote about abroad. He wrote about America, about Vietnam, about
India, and in the depths of the text, like in the mysterious water of a
well, his native land shimmered.
Retelling the short story “The Three-Legged Horse” is as difficult
as a painter’s canvas. New York life. American service. In various
stores, the author makes preparations for his next trip to this distant and
familiar country, and in the evening an order from his wife takes him
to the supermarket, where he needs to buy “tenderizer” or “tenderizer”
powder for meat. And there, in the American consumer paradise, he
meets his neighbor Mrs. Grip, a gray-haired and still flirtatious old
lady. Mrs. Green invites him to have a cup of coffee and at the same
time once again demands from him an explanation as to why we, the
Soviets, don’t have supermarkets like those in America—explanations
“without politics.”
However, nothing can be explained without politics, without
history, without war, without memories. And the memories begin. Mrs.
Green recalls her wartime hardships, when gas cards were introduced
for cars and she could not buy chicken livers every day for her beloved
cat who was sick.
And Boris remembers. He remembers his father, a village teacher,
and in peacetime he always wore tunics, tunics from the First World
War, and civil war tunics. In 1942, near Kharkov, my father’s eyes

239
were burned out by a shell, and he died two years after the Victory and
was lying in a tunic in a coffin. Boris remembers... Memories suddenly
take him far from the familiar and familiar and yet alien America.
“Wait, Mrs. Green, I remembered something too. It was in the
winter of 1942 near Mtsensk. I was a signalman in the 21st Special
Mobile Group. Behind me I had a walkie-talkie, the then famous “6
PC”. I was looking for a repair shop, which was located somewhere in
the forest. The frosty sunset was burning down. It was so cold that the
month seemed like a piece of ice to me in the quickly fading turquoise
sky. The snow creaked under my felt boots.
At the edge of the forest something was black: either a hut or a
haystack. I went there along the sled track, trying to put my feet behind
the runner - it was easier to walk that way. I walked with my head
down, crumbs from crackers sizzling in my pockets.
Raising my head, I was stunned. What I thought was a hut or a
stack of sep was a stack of corpses. These were our soldiers killed the
day before. They haven't had time to bury them yet. They were lying
on top of each other wearing only tunics, without earflaps, and
barefoot. Mouths frozen in the last cry, eyes wide open, arms
outstretched.
One of them looked like me. It was as if I saw myself killed. It
could have been me. Just as young and thin. Snow in my curly hair,
like mine, a transparent ice crust on my face.
Then I came to some burnt village. The chimneys silently rose
their grief to the sky. Suddenly the cat darted away from me into the
bushes, and it seemed to me that the beat of my heart reached a month.
A horse stood leaning against the pipe, head down. I was glad to
see her. There were three alive here: me, the cat and the horse. But the
horse didn’t even move as I approached. She stood on three legs.
Instead of the fourth one, there was a bloody stump sticking out. Her
head almost touched the snowdrift. Tears rolled down the frosty face,
leaving grooves from the eyes to the nostrils, glistening in the
moonlight, one after another...”
Memories are cut short. Mrs. Green brings him back from a winter
night near Mtsensk to New York...
Memories are cut short because life is cut short...
Talent in the newspaper means recognition and fame at first, but in
the end it means a cross and a difficult fate. Boris Strelnikov was eager
to write about his country and his life path. To do this, it was probably
necessary to leave the international affairs profession and from the
newspaper to become a freelance writer. The moment of choice,
however, was missed, and in a constant internal competition, the
newspaperman in him again defeated the writer. He had come too far
along the road of international journalism to change routes, and was
too accustomed to working with live material for his essays and reports
to find himself in analytical articles and commentaries, for which an
influx of fresh direct impressions is not necessary. This would be a

240
denial of yourself and your gift. He couldn't stop. For this live material,
he again went on a long trip abroad - to London, and it turned out to be
his last...
In his years abroad, Boris Strelnikov never missed an opportunity
to describe some tiny Moscow from the state of Tennessee, saying that
in America there are less than a dozen namesakes of our capital. At
least somehow connecting a foreign land with one’s native land is a
legitimate and proven way to entice the reader, and he did not neglect
enticement. II, in Scotland, shortly before his death, he also found
Moscow and talked there with a powerful gray-haired old man, a
worker.
The old man told where Scottish Moscow came from, and then
added:
- We have a Volga. It's flowing right behind the bushes. True, you
can jump over our Volga if you take a good run...
...Over the hills the lark forged its silver threads. The Volga
gurgled behind the bushes.
“And Russia is there,” the old man pointed to the east, “that way,
behind the hills....”
It's sad to read these lines. They are no longer attractive, but
unspoken. Behind the abundance of ellipses is nostalgia, this secret
illness that progresses over the years and the correspondent’s constant,
although not allowed into the newspaper, companion. For too long
Russia was there for him, behind the hills of seas and oceans.
August 1983

LEBANESE TRUCE AND AMERICAN GUNS

On the morning of September 26, another truce came into force in
Lebanon. In the ensuing silence, there is an opportunity to reflect on
the present day of Lebanon and what the coming day may have in store
for it.
Lebanese truces are deceptive and fragile: how many have there
been?! And the new truce differs from the old ones in one more
important feature. It reigned under the muzzles of American guns,
which roared for three weeks in September, exploding the Lebanese
soil with their shells and killing Lebanese who were disliked by the
Americans, and at the same time the Lebanese who were simply
subjected to it. Moreover, a truce reigned almost at the moment when
the powerful American battleship New Jersey approached the shores of
Lebanon. Its monstrous 16-inch guns, firing shells weighing one and a
half tons, tripled the power of American naval artillery aimed at
Lebanon.
When the guns fall silent, the number of unfortunate victims of
war stops. Therefore, the news of the truce is encouraging. In this case,
the truce reached through the mediation of Saudi Arabia and Syria
provides a chance for a political, not military, not bloody settlement of
internal Lebanese problems. These problems consist of the need to

241
restore the complex political, religious and other balance on which
Lebanon rests and which is extremely difficult to maintain if, in
addition, foreign forces begin to shake the balance to their advantage.
In Lebanon, one might say, everyone is Arab, but they belong to
different communities: Christian Maronites, Muslims - Shiites, Sunnis,
Druze, etc., in total there are no less than 15 recognized communities.
Religious differences mask political and economic differences, and this
diversity is kept within the framework of a single state by the
distribution of power between communities, which is legitimized by
the Lebanese constitution.
Israel has long played on internal Lebanese contradictions,
encouraging and strengthening the Christian right. His invasion of
Lebanon last year, his protracted occupation of a large part of Lebanese
territory led not only to the withdrawal of Palestinian armed forces
from the Lebanese south and from Beirut, but also to a general
imbalance in favor of the right-wing Christian Phalangists, to the
election of President Amin Gemayel, who to this group. The Druze in
particular suffered. Under the patronage of the Israelis, the Christian
right began to displace the Druze from their ancestral territory in the
mountainous Chouf region, near Beirut. When Israeli units,
redeploying, left the area in early September, the Druze, under the
leadership of their leader Walid Jumblatt, decided to restore what had
been lost. Thus began the latest armed conflict in Lebanon, and in it the
place of the shooting Israelis was taken by the shooting Americans. We
can say that the “strategic allies” have also changed roles: the
Americans are pulling chestnuts out of the fire for the Israelis, who are
protecting their soldiers and are therefore holed up across the Avali
River. True, at the same time in Washington they do not forget about
themselves.
Now, with their weapons aside, rival Lebanese factions are
preparing to resolve their differences - and delicate balances - at the
negotiating table.
While closely following attempts at settlement, we cannot,
however, forget about the policies and actions of opponents of the
unity, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Arab
country. The Lebanese crisis did not erupt in early September. And by
no means all its causes can be eliminated even by a successful dialogue
between the leaders of the National Salvation Front, the Lebanese
Front and the Shiite Amal movement.
Let us remember again about Israel. Having ushered in Begin's
resignation and engaged in the formation of a new cabinet headed by
the old "hawk" Shamir, Israel is temporarily absent from reports from
Lebanon, but remains the primary source of Lebanese troubles. First,
Israel physically holds a third of Lebanese territory. Secondly, he
mentally influences the atmosphere of this country, keeping the whip
of his troops ready both in the south and in the Bekaa Valley. Thirdly,
legally Israel keeps Lebanon in the position of a semi-vassal, since the
Lebanese-Israeli “peace agreement” remains in force, depriving

242
Lebanon of the right to full control over its own territory and
independence in foreign policy.
Israel is pursuing a policy of fait accompli. The current main goal
of Tel Aviv is to consolidate Lebanon in a semi-vassal position and,
with this latest fait accompli, gradually increase pressure on Syria.
Syria perfectly sees the Israeli trap and is therefore so irreconcilable
with regard to the Lebanese-Israeli “peace agreement.”
Finally, back to the Americans. A little over a year ago, there was
only one “mediator” in Beirut representing the US President, the now-
retired Philip Habib. Now there are 1200 “intermediaries”. They are in
the uniform of the American Marine Corps. Unlike Habib, they prefer
not shuttle, but sedentary “diplomacy”, having spent exactly a year in
the Lebanese capital. And besides this, the aircraft carrier Eisenhower
with its aircraft, and now the battleship New Jersey with its 16-inch
guns, have been thrown into the delicate Lebanese balance. According
to the agreement between the White House and the US Congress, they
want to keep the American Marines in Lebanon for up to a year and a
half.
It sometimes happens that a teacher learns from his capable
student. Let’s not argue who has primacy in this case, but the United
States, following the Israeli expansionists - and in alliance with them -
is also pursuing a policy of fait accompli in Lebanon, following the
path of escalating its direct armed intervention.
How long will the truce last under the guns of American guns and
under the threat of Israeli tanks? How will the intra-Lebanese national
dialogue in the name of “national reconciliation” end in this situation?
October 1983

A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA

RONALD REAGAN
Mr. President, being a peak international journalist, I have written
hundreds of articles, notes, correspondence, and essays, but I have
never resorted to the genre of an open letter to the President of the
United States. The genre is somewhat extravagant. I understand this
well. As well as the fact that my letter, in some way a registered letter,
delivered through a newspaper, most likely will not reach the
addressee, and if it does, it will be written off as another exercise of the
Soviet propagandist^ Why, in this case, did I still Am I writing it? A
person who writes, willingly or unwillingly, searches for the best form
for what he would like to express. So, in my search for a genre, I came
to the conclusion that it is the letter with its special intonation of trust
and direct appeal to a specific person that best suits my purpose.
I am considered an Americanist because the United States is my
main professional interest. At one time I worked as a correspondent for
Izvestia in New York and Washington, I have been studying your
country for more than 20 years, and for me you are the sixth American

243
president. Life is first and foremost work. I readily admit that you do
not know me, Mr. President, and due to my journalistic activities I
have to constantly keep you in my field of attention. It’s funny to say,
but I think about you, perhaps, no less than about my loved ones,
especially since their fate to some extent depends on your behavior.
Instead of thousands of my colleagues around the world, I am trying to
explain the political and human phenomenon called Ronald Reagan.
Lately, more often than usual, you have been addressing not only
your fellow Americans, but also “fellow citizens around the world.” In
this case, you and I are “fellow citizens”, and I can address you in
response - from my rostrum. On the stage of world politics, where
there is no main director and roles are not distributed, but rather sorted
out, you are increasingly choosing the role of the supreme judge in
matters of humanity and morality. I probably won’t be wrong if I say
that in September your favorite word was the word civilization. You
mention the norms of civilization and care about civilized order. An
extremely important question. The alternative to peace is war. The
alternative to civilization is savagery and the law of the jungle.
Essentially these are the same alternative. There can be no peace in a
world where the law of the jungle reigns instead of international law.
And in ethical terms, addressed to the human person, civilization
presupposes the superiority of reason over instincts, which sometimes
awaken the beast and savage in man. Reflections on this emphasis of
your speeches also prompted me to take up an open letter.
Well, it provides concrete material both for you and for my notes -
in abundance! - just gone, but not forgotten, not sunk into oblivion
September 1983.
Whether this is the finger of providence or someone else’s, we are
touching on this controversial issue, but the day reminded us with
prophetic power that we live in a furious world. Not even from the day
of your first, but from the very first night. It was in the dead of night
from August 31 to September 1, in the cold stratospheric silence over
the island of Sakhalin, suddenly broken by the whistling of jet engines,
that a meeting took place between two aircraft - a violator of Soviet
airspace and an interceptor designed to stop such violations. It wasn't
just the whistling of jet engines that split the silence. The flight of the
intruder aircraft was stopped in exactly the same, alas, harsh way that,
in extreme cases, the flights of intruder aircraft that behave like
reconnaissance aircraft and do not obey interceptors are stopped. A
harsh axiom of our time, when military people guard the world on the
edge of their own land and not far from someone else’s, never
forgetting for a second about the possibility of sabotage, provocations,
and war. But... But along with the intruder plane, a cluster of human
tragedies crashed into the ocean. Innocent people from different
countries died because the intruder turned out to be a giant passenger
Boeing 747 of a South Korean airline, which for some reason evaded
the well-trodden international air route by as much as 500 kilometers.
The night holds a secret. This time the mystery turned out to be

244
longer than the first September night and the entire stormy month of
September, and the answer to the original question is still shrouded in a
veil of secrecy: how did it get there, this Boeing, with its perfect
electronic equipment, eliminating the electronic possibility of getting
lost?
But one thing is not a secret. The night incident over Sakhalin is a
consequence of modern international weather, which, Mr. President,
you have actively and definitely shaped since January 1981, from the
first days of moving into the White House. And now the whole sky is
covered in thunderclouds of suspicion and hostility, and where there
are thunderclouds, there is a possibility of a thunderstorm, there
dazzling lightning, bursting out of the darkness, shows how thick and
terrible the darkness is.
And one more thing is not a secret, and, summing up the month of
September that has passed from us, I think no one will dispute this. The
level of hostility and suspicion has not decreased, but has jumped and
increased sharply. It grew, although statesmanship dictated that a
completely different lesson be drawn from what happened.
You cannot bring back the dead; it will take not a month, but years
and years for the pain of relatives and friends to subside. But if they
were resurrected by a miracle, what would they tell us? Really - what?
Would you say that you would never have flown on this flight 007 for
anything in the world, that you would never have trusted the pilots who
flew the ill-fated Boeing 747? Yes, they probably would have said that.
And what else? Would they really, referring to their tragic experience,
preach even greater suspicion and enmity, which, already set on fire by
a fuse, are reaching towards the mountains of weapons, the most
terrible in history - only it is not given to us to consider in the
impenetrable future how long the cord is and how fast it runs there is
fire on it and will they trample it before it’s too late?
Would they really preach that, Mr. President? The people there
were different, but a person, as they say, is not his own enemy. And if
we spent September with disastrous results, if tensions mixed with
mistrust, fear and outright hostility increased, then to whom do we owe
this? Which international incident turned into the most acute
international crisis in recent years? Who sensationally brought together
the meaning of two words similar only in spelling - history and
hysteria?
Even the genre of writing, in the end, does not forbid calling a
spade a spade. You turned what happened into an unprecedentedly
acute political and propaganda confrontation between the United States
and the Soviet Union, while at the same time trying to give it a
different, more acceptable color for the confrontation with the Soviet
Union of the whole world. This was not just an accent, but a genuine
leitmotif of your numerous speeches: that the entire world community
condemns the Soviet Union, that the entire angry world is throwing
stones at the Russians it rejected. One definition comes to mind that I

245
would like to highlight: Hate Month. In your country, like in ours,
there are no weeks or months of friendship with this or that people. But
now your administration can add to its record a Herostratus discovery:
from September you organized a genuine month of hatred towards the
Soviet Union, towards the Soviet people. Are civility and inciting
hatred towards another people compatible?
The Month of Hate, unfortunately, was a success and was
widespread. As a person who has lived for a long time in the United
States, I know that public hysteria in your country comes with the
speed and force of a hurricane, and then no one and nothing dares to
resist it, then the timid mind raises its hands in the air, capitulating,
albeit temporarily, to the chauvinistic instinct . And now the Congress,
which has long doubted and resisted, instantly accepts your, Mr.
President, program for creating MX intercontinental missiles, because
the same hysteria has established an incomprehensible cause-and-effect
relationship between the incident over Sakhalin and the acquisition of
dangerous weapons of a first nuclear strike. “We must not allow
ourselves to turn this incident into the foundation of a new mountain of
weapons and militaristic demagoguery.” These are not your words, Mr.
President. They belong to Congressman J. Crocket. In September it
was a voice crying in the wilderness.
Hysteria marches hand in hand with cheap politicking, and now
two venerable governors of two large states - New York and New
Jersey - are rushing to make their feasible contribution to the month of
hatred, closing airports for the plane carrying the head of the Soviet
delegation to the session of the UN General Assembly.
Hatred is more intoxicating than alcohol - and in different states,
different restaurateurs no longer drink, but drink Russian vodka, not
forgetting, of course, about television cameramen and commercial
advertising of their patriotism. Fun, but not the innocent kind.
As for me, Mr. President, in the very center of this September
hurricane, which should, as is customary in your country, be given a
female name - Hysteria, I see one coupling. In the small village of
Glencove on Long Island, where New Yorkers take a break from their
city, a crowd of local residents, filled with the most destructive
intentions, rushed - and broke through - into the territory of the
residence of the permanent Soviet representative to the UN. Something
was trampled, torn and broken, but this was not the furious eye of the
typhoon. No, not in material damage, but in the fact that posters were
flying above the heads of the crowd: “Kill the Russians!”
This is the “capital punishment”—and the highest form of hatred.
The crowd in Glencove was eager for lynching, or, in American,
lynching. The crowd poured out its unbridled rage and hatred on the
Russians, on the Soviets, on all of us; they are attacking their refusal to
consider us full-fledged people, just like everyone else, to whom
American racists traditionally justify reprisals against their black
compatriots.

246
 You have not responded to the Glencove episode, Mr. President,
but I am sure that you cannot support this wild call to kill Russians. As
a person who personifies the highest power, you, of course, are against
mob rule - the power of the crowd, trampling law and order. You
cannot share this call for another reason. For a person in your position,
this means war, a war that, not according to Glenn, but according to
world standards in the nuclear missile age, is tantamount, among other
things, to inevitable suicide. Your Secretary of Defense, Mr.
Weinberger, does not favor the Russians, but he, too, when your
uncontrollable fans demanded that you turn up the heat on sanctions,
even to the point of severing diplomatic relations with Moscow, he
reportedly threw up his hands: “Well, what are you doing?” , do you
want us to declare war on them?!”
And yet, if, in order to clarify the truth, we continue this painful
conversation, another question arises: who incited the crowd that was
ripe for lynching in Glencove - and not only there? Who fed this wild
version
About cold-blooded terror about the premeditated destruction of
peaceful people in the skies? Here we have to return to the question of
your responsibility, Mr. President. The mentioned version was
powerfully imposed on American - and world - public opinion by your
own repeated statements. You stirred up horror and hatred with your
qualification of what had happened, with all your epithets: “barbaric
destruction”, “crime against humanity”, “the creation of a society that
generally ignores individual rights and the value of human life.” Would
you like me to remind you of your words? “The Russians are making it
clear,” you said, “that yes, shooting down a plane - even if there are
hundreds of innocent men, women and children on board, including
infants - is part of their procedure... »
The crowd at Glencove was well-versed as they marched towards
the Soviet compound carrying signs: “Kill the Russians!”
Did the American president know that the Soviet pilot did not
know that there was a passenger plane in front of him? Information
from your own intelligence services testifies: yes, the pilot did not
know. It seems that you did not want this knowledge, even avoided it,
because the truth interfered with your intentions. The worse, the better
- that’s what answered them, because worse works better for your anti-
communism, for the fiction of an “evil empire” and calls for a
“crusade”, for continuous attempts to dehumanize, dehumanize
Russians, Soviet people and the Soviet state in the eyes of the
American and other peoples. The worse, the better - that’s the principle
you acted on, although this principle pushes towards a catastrophe,
which there is nothing Worse for all of us, “fellow citizens all over the
world.”
The world is large, contradictory and complex, and your
responsibilities, Mr. President, are varied and difficult. But even in this
world one should not neglect the high simplicity that wisdom chooses
as a form of expression. The great poet Alexander Pushkin serves for

247
us, Russians and non-Russians living in the Soviet Union, as a tuning
fork by which the best in our multinational culture—and conscience
itself—is tuned. Almost a century and a half ago, in his poetic
testament, he said wisely and simply: “And for a long time I will be
kind to the people because I awakened good feelings with my lyre...”
Everyone here knows these words, from a young age.
Not only the lyre, but also politics, in order to be amiable to the
people and peoples, is called upon to awaken good feelings.
And this is what you were doing in September. You sowed bad
feelings - and immediately reaped the harvest, because hatred is more
contagious than love and more commanding than love, it demands
reciprocity. The relationship between us became even colder, even
more bitter. You were not far from the truth when, in a recent radio
address, you admitted that your portrait in some countries “looks rather
gloomy.”
Only one clarification - not a portrait, but a self-portrait. Statesmen
paint their portraits with their own words and actions - in the whole
gamut of their combinations and contrasts.
Keeping hope for better times,
Stanislav Kondrashov,
political commentator for Izvestia
October 8, 1983

UNCALLED WISDOM
November 1983 marks 50 years since the establishment of
diplomatic relations between the USSR and the USA. I will not
anticipate an anniversary that does not look festive. But the
approaching date provides a very, very legitimate reason for reflection.
And I remembered this 50th anniversary, having recently read a
lengthy article by an American who has been keeping his finger on the
restless pulse of Soviet-American relations for 55 years.
A man with such experience is George Kennan, a prominent
historian and former diplomat. He accompanied the first US
Ambassador William Bullitt when he presented his credentials to M.I.
Kalinin, in the 30s and 40s he worked at the American Embassy in
Moscow, and in the early 50s he himself served as ambassador. If we
add that his great-uncle, also George Kennan, traveled around Russia
in the last century and wrote a well-known book about Siberia, then it
turns out that the Kennan family has a kind of stable tradition: they
know a lot and think a lot about our country and, of course, , about our
two countries in their relations with each other.
George Kennan, especially in recent years, is often quoted in the
Soviet press as a sober American. But I think that this does not
diminish the significance of his article in the monthly New Yorker,
entitled “Reflections.”

248
 From the very beginning, we must make a reservation: Kennan
does not have any sympathy for our system, but his thoughts are
valuable to us for their sobriety and sense of responsibility. One can
object to him when he classifies the problems of “ideological conflict”
that divided us as “problems of the past.” One can agree with Kennan
when he sees the current “common interests” of the two countries in
preserving peace, and counts, for example, environmental protection
among the common “problems of the future” (arising from the
present). The dynamics of Soviet-American relations appear before
him as a motley picture, in which there is much for and much against.
He realistically believes that this picture “leaves no room for
unjustifiably rosy hopes or for hypocritical, feigned assurances of
friendship.” For about 65 years, Americans have lived in peace with
the Soviet Union - this is a plus, as Kennan notes. But what kind of
peace is this if, in his words, “the Soviet Union is treated as if, on the
one hand, we are at peace with it, and on the other, in a state of war”?
What prospects are open to this knowledgeable man at the age of a
patriarch? Is there, as they say, positive pathos in his thoughts? Yes, I
have. Here are his words: “It seems to me that I understand as well as
anyone else the difficulties associated with the development of these
relationships. However, not once in all 55 years have I lost confidence
in their constructive potential. Despite all their historical and
ideological differences, our two peoples - Russians and Americans -
complement each other. They need each other, they can enrich each
other, working together - with the necessary foresight and restraint -
they can do more than any the other two countries, to ensure peace on
the planet.”
What optimistic words! Isn't this positive pathos?! But in our age,
the thoughts of an intelligent person, as you might guess, cannot be
filled with serene, rosy optimism. George Kennan is deeply troubled.
In recent years, he has repeatedly warned about a “cloud that brings
danger,” about the growing threat of nuclear war. Now his anxiety is
even deeper, because, according to his definition, the current state of
Soviet-American relations “cannot be called anything other than
nightmarish and dangerous.”
What are the reasons? We can imagine them well without Kennan.
And yet, it is interesting which of them are highlighted by an
experienced American who knows what is in the soul of the current
leaders of America. First of all, stupid hostility towards the Soviet
Union, which excludes the possibility of learning lessons from the past.
The American ruling class for 16 years, until 1933, did not recognize
the existence of the Soviet state, believing that it would perish from
this record-breaking stubbornness of non-recognition. The Soviet state
did not disappear, they recognized us, but... But even 50 years after
recognition, the hopes of American ultra-conservatives that
communism would still disappear did not disappear. Now they are in
power. Ronald Reagan makes no secret and spares no effort to prove
that time—or, at least, politics—can move backwards, back to the 50s,

249
when John Foster Dulles also dreamed of sending communism to the
“ashes of history.”
According to Kennan, the current approach of Washington
politicians to relations with the Soviet Union is completely militarized,
permeated with “nuclear delusions” and their preservation does not
bode well. “At the end of our current path leading to limitless military
confrontation,” he writes, “there is nothing in sight but collapse and
horror.”
Is there another way out? You need to fight for it, you need to
believe in it, and it is this faith and, I repeat, a sense of responsibility
that makes the old man take up his pen again and again. This solution
is simple (in words) and incredibly complex (in practice). Washington
must seriously and irrevocably agree with the principles of peaceful
coexistence, and for this to see the modern world in its true light and
overcome its anti-communist blindness. Kennan refuses to be swayed
by tales of a “Soviet threat.” Highlighting encouraging elements in the
“motley picture,” he writes: “The most important are the numerous and
continuing indications that the Soviet leadership, no matter how
difficult its relations with the West, is not seeking to unleash a major
war, that it is seriously interested in preventing such a war and what if
it is before? such a possibility is presented, it will go far enough with
us to avoid it.”
In other words, the American, who has been studying the Soviet
Union for 55 years, is convinced that Moscow is ready to go its half
way in the name of lasting peace between our peoples and on planet
Earth in general. We know this very well - even without him. But the
fact is that Kennan’s advice and assessments are addressed to the
American side, official Washington. And there, alas, they don’t want to
know them, because they don’t want to go their half way.
Kennan's reflections are distinguished by political wisdom;
unfortunately, with political wisdom, as with everyday wisdom, one
disappointing thing happens at times: It remains unclaimed by those
for whom it is intended.
October 1983

SEEING OUT CLARK

Until recently, William Clark was considered the number two man
in the Washington hierarchy of power. But then man number one,
Ronald Reagan, moved William Clark from the post of assistant to the
president for national security to the post of secretary of the interior.
How did he become? Not only this question arose after Clark, having
removed the commemorative Colt of his beloved sheriff grandfather
from the wall, left the White House.
In the United States, the Department of the Interior is in charge not
of protecting public order, but of protecting the environment, and so
lovers of nature and its resources are now anxiously asking each other
what kind of trouble the sheriff’s grandson might mess up in American

250
national parks. On the other hand, American allies in Western Europe
are reported to be vaguely relieved to have seen off the most zealous
advocate of hard-line politics and hope that there will now be less
confusion in international affairs. In the same direction, there is
speculation that Secretary of State George Shultz, whom Clark has
recently pushed into the background, will finally take the reins of
American foreign policy into his more experienced hands.
And, naturally, Robert MacFarlane, appointed to replace Clark,
came into the spotlight. Previously, the post of assistant to the
president for national security was occupied by more professors of
international relations - Rostow, Kissinger, Brzezinski. Under Nixon
and Ford, however, generals of the political type began to intervene -
Keig, Scowcroft. The current president has his third assistant in less
than three years: political scientist Richard Allep, who scandalously
suffered a bribe (Japanese watch), was replaced by Californian judge
William Clark, and now it’s the turn of a 46-year-old retired Marine
colonel. Robert MacFarlane is no stranger to the White House, or to
the State Department. He is considered a professional, seeing this as a
plus of competence and discretion. Views are conservative, in keeping
with the political environment. But, unlike Clark, MacFarlane is not
listed as a friend of the president and is not part of the presidential
“political family.” According to many observers, this reduces his
weight in the White House compared to his predecessor.
These are current estimates. Experience teaches that they should be
used with caution when predicting the future. The post of Assistant to
the President for National Security is extremely important and has
“organic” political potential. Let me remind you that in the battles for
power and influence on the president, which go on day and night in the
Washington corridors, Kissinger under Nixon defeated Secretary of
State Rogers and then became Secretary of State himself. Under
Carter, the hawkish Brzezinski defeated the more moderate Secretary
of State Vance. What happened to the speculation in early 1982, when
William Clark was appointed National Security Assistant? It was then
believed that he recognized the primary role of Secretary of State Haig,
for whom he worked as first deputy for a year. But only six months
passed, and with the active participation of Clark, Haig was essentially
expelled from the Reagan administration. And a year later, just last
summer, Clark, with his only two years of international “education,”
seemed to have triumphed over the new Secretary of State, Shultz. By
all accounts, it was Clark who had the decisive voice in the three main
areas of American foreign policy - relations with the Soviet Union, the
Middle East and Central America.
In general, in the light of existing experience, I would not
undertake to predict with confidence MacFarlane's political future. His
new position provides a unique opportunity for access to the President
and close working contact with him.
Environmentalists want to take Clark to task on Capitol Hill when
the Senate considers his confirmation as Interior secretary. But in the

251
end, the US Secretary of the Interior is entirely a US business. While
everything is fresh in memory, let us once again remember Clark
International and, using his example, consider the mechanism of policy
making under Ron al-De Reagan.
At one time, Clark was expelled due to poor performance from two
law schools and failed to pass the bar exam, but this did not prevent the
Californian Governor Leigan from appointing his faithful colleague to
the California Supreme Court. In early 1981, during a hearing before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clark received a "C-minus"
from Senator Biden and a very unflattering assessment from Senator
Glenn, one of the current Democratic contenders for the presidency. J
Lepi said: "In my years here in the Senate, I have never seen such
ignorance of foreign policy." Other senators were also far from happy.
But that didn't stop Clark, a close friend of the president, from
becoming Principal Deputy Secretary of State, Reagan's eyes and ears
at the State Department.
Clark did not need experience and knowledge, because his main
slogan, which gained the support and gratitude of the president’s ultra-
conservative supporters, was this: “Let Reagan be Reagan!” With this
creed, he felt very comfortable and confident in the office of the
President's assistant for national security: it was knowledge and
experience that would prevent Reagan from being Reagan.
Many in the United States were confused by this alliance, which
was fraught with global danger. The Washington Post saw "contempt
for public affairs" in Clark's very acceptance of strategic positions. The
newspaper wrote: “If, say, your neighbor is a plumber, then you will
not invite him to perform a neurosurgical operation on your child.” The
Boston Globe quoted an unnamed expert as saying: “With a president
who also lacks sufficient knowledge, a situation arises that leaves
much to be desired. Clark's instincts reinforce those of the President,
with both unwilling to take into account any sober considerations."
Columnist James Reston put the problem succinctly and powerfully:
"It's a case of the blind leading the blind."
And what? And it is no coincidence that in the American
bourgeois-democratic republic they talk about the “imperial
presidency.” The term originated under Nixon: he fought the Vietnam
War despite the opposition of Congress and the people.
Watergate stopped this process, but now it seems that tendencies
towards autocratic rule are again making themselves felt. They feed on
arrogance and presumption of power. They give birth to American
Mitrofanushek of the late 20th century. That one, Fopvizinsky, two
centuries ago, did not see the need for geography, since there are cab
drivers. But today's Americans don't need knowledge if they have
power. But where will the force take it if it is driven by the blind?
Clark's sudden descent from the pinnacle of Washington power is
most often explained by two kinds of pressure; firstly, from his rivals
in the White House, other people close to Reagan - Deaver and Baker;
secondly, from the work itself, which the former Californian was tired

252
of. judge. The explanation seems too simple, but I am ready to see in it
the same logic of the “imperial presidency”, in which instincts take
precedence over reason, and personal considerations over state ones.
However, personal considerations in this case may include the
upcoming election year. The "Imperial Presidency" must renew its
mandate with the mass voter in the face of a difficult battle with
candidates from the other party. In such a fight, Mitrofanushka,
moreover, with a Colt on the wall, does not necessarily count as an
asset for a person seeking re-election.
October 1983
GRENADA LESSON FOR WESTERN EUROPE
Of the Western European leaders, Margaret Thatcher is politically
closest to American President Ronald Reagan, closer even than another
conservative, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. She was the only one
the US leadership consulted before the invasion of Grenada - and acted
contrary to her advice, which gave the Labor opposition a reason to
criticize the Prime Minister and the nature of Anglo-American
relations in general.
But that’s not what we’re talking about now. How Margaret
Thatcher herself responded to American aggression in Grenada and
how she assessed the “justifications” for it coming from the lips of an
overseas political friend, ally and senior partner. Very critically. “If it
comes down to the proclamation of a new law according to which the
United States is obliged to invade the territory of communist countries,
then we are facing truly terrible wars in the world,” Thatcher said,
speaking on a BBC radio program.
Let’s not argue about the loose terminology adopted among
conservatives, according to which Grenada was included in the number
of “communist countries.” Let us also leave aside the moment of
resentment of a person who was listened to but not listened to. Let's
focus better on the essence of the dark prophecy. Projecting into the
future the logic of unceremonious force that brought President Reagan
to Grenada, Prime Minister Thatcher saw the prospect of “truly terrible
wars.” The British associate of the US President is not at all delighted
with this prospect.
At the official level, other Western European allies of the United
States have expressed varying degrees of disapproval. In Paris they
came out with sharp criticism. The Bonn policy is one of the pillars on
which NATO's plan to deploy American missiles in Western Europe
rests. The greatest praise for American firmness is heard in today's
official Bonn. But in the case of Grenada, they also preferred to
distance themselves from Washington, saying that the German
government was not informed in advance, and if it had been informed,
it would have spoken out against it. (I’m talking only about the
reaction of official circles. As for the general public, it can be said that
it is clearly protesting.)
The modern world is organized according to a system of

253
communicating vessels. The voltage level from one place is instantly
transmitted to another. It is difficult to say how carefully Reagan and
his aides calculated the consequences of their action, but the American
Marines in Grenada raised the issue of American missiles in Western
Europe. Once again and with even greater acuteness, it aroused doubts:
can the United States, its leaders, and its policies be trusted? To trust in
the situation that we are examining means to entrust your life and
destiny to the Americans. After all, Western Europe, represented by
governments that agree to the deployment of American nuclear
missiles on the territory of their countries, is essentially withdrawing
itself from deciding questions of its own destiny. Its leaders decided
and, alas, decided only the question of inviting American missiles, and
the question of whether to use them against the Soviet Union (and
thereby bring a retaliatory nuclear strike on Western Europe) is
decided by the Americans - and only Americans.
While not approving of US actions in Grepad, Thatcher, Kohl or
Mitterrand remain in their previous positions as supporters of the
deployment of American missiles, but the subtext of their criticism is
precisely the question of general trust in Ronald Reagan's America.
Will American missiles “work” to enhance security or, on the contrary,
to increase the danger for Western Europe?
If, according to the “new law” of permissiveness, Reagan would
not be tempted to invade the territory of another country, which he, in
his rampant anti-communism, classified as “communist,” then where is
the guarantee that in emergency circumstances he will not be tempted
to use a preemptive first-strike weapon against the Soviet Union in the
form Pershings stationed in West Germany? Where is the guarantee
that Reagan's America will not use this advantage to get "winning" first
points in a nuclear war - at the expense of its allies? For Western
Europe, this would be “a truly terrible war.”
The story of Grenada undercuts the already shaky justification of
Western European lawyers for Pershings and cruise missiles. With one
variation or another, this argument is repeated again and again, and
most recently Chancellor Kohl formulated it in the following words:
“If our readiness for defense prevents an attack, that is, a war, it is not
only morally justifiable, but it is an urgent necessity.” More
specifically: if there are no American missiles (“readiness for defense,”
according to Kohl), it will be more difficult to prevent a Soviet
“attack” with missiles.
This argument is based not on facts, but on an interpretation of the
intentions of the two great powers, and the picture appears
simplistically black and white. The Soviet Union is credited with a
dark intention to attack Germany, although experience itself proves the
absolute falsity of such an interpretation. As for the United States, they
are higher in this picture and beyond any suspicion, their intentions are
dove-like and pure, and their thoughts do not go beyond the selfless
“nuclear defense” of Western Europe. Actually, the transfer of the fate

254
of Western Europe into the hands of the Americans and the
incomprehensible fact that Western European leaders, like the biblical
Pilate, wash their hands of the life or death of their own countries are
based on such an idyllic idea of Washington’s intentions. American
leaders are trusted more than themselves. According to this logic, it
would never even occur to the Americans, in their own interests and
contrary to the interests of Western Europe, to use the strategic
advantage that a first-strike weapon gives them, reaching important
targets on Soviet territory in 8-10 minutes.
Let's return to Grenada. Reagan's behavior dealt a very serious
blow to the naive theory of purity and dovish purity of American
intentions. Using a practical example and practical experience, it has
been proven how the United States can act in a situation that it
considers an emergency and when it is solving some military-political
problem in its own interests. They forget about their allies. Is it then
possible to rule out an adventure - in its missile version - on the
European continent? Is it possible to divide the political thinking of an
adventurer into two halves, one of which harbors reckless plans, and
the other sober and prudent?
With these questions, Thatcher, Kohl and others do not risk
publicly appearing before their people now, even when they criticize
American aggression against Grenada. They avoid open and explicit
discussion of the Grenada lesson for Western Europe. They do not
want to admit out loud that Reagan's behavior proves the credibility
and validity of Soviet fears in connection with American nuclear
missiles on the European continent.
Finally, there is another important side to the Grenadian story that
has puzzled Washington’s allies. An American president, especially
one of such an imperial and chauvinistic bent as Reagan, when
contemplating adventurous actions, if he is able to look back at anyone,
it is only at the Americans, at his own people. Experience shows that
Americans are easier than Europeans to succumb to the social hysteria
required by the imperialists. And polls conducted after the invasion of
Grenada indicate that while in Western Europe this action caused
general disapproval and criticism, in the United States two-thirds of
Americans supported their president (at least at first). This is a very
significant touch. What public restraint will be placed on him if, by
inciting and using chauvinistic passions, he will not be afraid next time
to bring the prospect of “terrible wars” closer for the sake of the
imperially understood “vital interests” of America?
November 1983

255
 PERMISSIVENESS
, ' -4 і » • * 1 » ; z і * ? •.•

In our everyday life, we know well what word to use to describe a

person who freely turns to facts, turns the truth on its head, or—which
doesn’t make it any easier—turns it inside out. Well, what if this life
is not ordinary, but political, and this person is a private person, but an
official? And if we are not talking about individual acrobatic exercises
with truth, but about the principle and system, about the firm
conviction that the most comfortable and best position for truth is to
stand not on your feet, but on your head. What to do then? And what
would you like to call this official?
Let's call him by his position - President of the United States of
America. And let’s move on to examples, especially since there are a
dime a dozen of them, especially recently, when the administration of
Ronald Reagan, with the man who headed it and gave it its name,
celebrated a thousand days in power and, in connection with this, was
busy promoting its achievements.
Let's start with the president's recent interview with UPI
columnist Donald Lambro. The interview did not last that long - 35
minutes. But how much does it take to turn the truth upside down? In
half an hour, the president succeeded twice, and on the biggest issue
of the arms race and arms control.
First, the president said that if he, Reagan, had not held the
Russians together in the Geneva talks, "the Soviet Union would have
been delighted if it could continue the arms race alone." Secondly, he
said the following: “Only the world community forced the Russians to
enter into these negotiations. They don’t risk standing aside from
this.”
If the same scale of disregard for the truth were allowed by a
private person in our everyday life, then, without passing by, we could
somewhat rudely, but quite reasonably, advise him: lie, but know
when to stop. But the president would not dare say such a thing, even
if he does not know the limits. The tongue will not turn, but what then
to do with the truth? After all, truth, when it concerns the most
fundamental facts of international life, is more valuable than
politeness. And everyone remembers the facts, and it won’t be
difficult to recall them. So, from Ronald Reagan’s statement it follows
that only the international community led the reluctant Russians to
Geneva, where the Americans were tired of waiting for nothing at the
negotiating table. False statement. Quite the opposite was the case.
Ronald Reagan came to power on January 20, 1981, but only ten
months later, on November 30, 1981, Soviet-American negotiations
on medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe resumed in Geneva.
And these ten months of delay are entirely on the conscience of
Washington, because only in November 1981 the American president
expressed consent to negotiations (while putting forward that same
“bullet option” that, with various intermediate variations, is still

256
blocking the agreement). And the role of the world community,
primarily Western European, mentioned by the president, then was
precisely to force the Americans to meet with the Russians in Geneva
through the grandiose anti-nuclear demonstrations in the fall of 1981.
This is what truth looks like standing on its feet.
But perhaps the president, speaking about pressure from the
world community, is referring to other Geneva negotiations between
the USA and the USSR - on the limitation and reduction of strategic
weapons. But even here the truth is in plain sight, and it will not be
possible to turn it around. Yes, these SALT negotiations began in
June 1982, almost a year and a half after Ronald Reagan entered the
White House. But again, it was not the Russians, but the Americans
who resisted all this time. The American president, having derailed
the fruits of the previous seven-year Soviet-American labor by
removing the question of ratification by the American Senate of the
SALT II Treaty, signed by his predecessor, only in May 1982 agreed -
anew - to begin negotiations on strategic weapons. He agreed under
pressure from his allies and the world community, primarily the
American one: in the spring of 1982, a mass movement to freeze the
nuclear arsenals of the two powers spread like wildfire in the United
States.
If the president has forgotten, then we can remind him that he
stubbornly remained silent on the issue of SALT until May 1982,
before his speech in Eureka. And when he was once pressed, he
frankly explained the delay tactics by measuring, as he put it, “to
conduct more realistic negotiations, taking into account what we can
threaten them with.” “To them” means to us. “Threaten” - with new
strategic weapon systems. The administration of Ronald Reagan was
and is engaged in the development of military programs and pushing
them through Congress - before Geneva and during Geneva. This is
now a popular word in Washington - “flexibility”. Previously, they
didn’t know him, they only talked about cruelty, about the “position
of strength.”
The reader will ask: why bring these well-known facts, even if the
person from the White House has once again distorted them? You
can't say hello to anyone who sneezes, but the facts speak for
themselves, no matter what new nonsense the American president
may make about the Soviet Union. Right. But, unfortunately, wisdom
about the facts speaking for themselves does not improve the state of
affairs in the world. And I gave two non-new examples not in order to
restore the truth or to shame the one who turns it on its head. What
world does the American president live in? - that's the question. Why
does he so casually shuffle the realities of international life in his
statements? It’s not a matter of forgetfulness - this sin can be easily
eliminated with the help of helpers if desired. And not even in free use
of well-known truths. The point is a way of thinking that allows all
this easily and naturally. If the facts speak for themselves, against us,
then so much the worse for the facts—this is the way of thinking. All

257
the worse for the facts if they do not fit into the long-standing and
strong pattern of ideas about the Soviet Union, if they do not work on
the principle of an organically hostile attitude towards the Soviet
Union. This is the way of thinking, and from it flows a way of acting
that is increasingly alarming to all of us.
The American president's defiant independence from facts was on
full display at a press conference on October 19, dedicated to the
thousand days of his administration.
Again he talked about the constantly arming Russians and the
myopically disarming (before Reagan) Americans and that it was
these “scissors” that doomed all the US-Soviet arms control
negotiations that took place (before Reagan) to failure. Here's a
typical Reagan: “I know that the history of negotiations in the past has
been a history of very long negotiations. But note that some
negotiations in the past may have taken so long because the longer the
Russians sat at the table, the more we unilaterally disarmed. And they
came to the conclusion that they just need to wait, and they will be
able to achieve what they want. Now we no longer behave like that.
We are arming ourselves."
“We are arming ourselves”... But Reagan’s predecessors were by
no means disarmamentists. One of the knowledgeable Americans, the
director of the influential New York Council on Foreign Relations,
Elton Fry, recently recalled in the Washington Post newspaper that
since 1968, the “disarmamentists” living in the White House have
more than doubled the total arsenal of American strategic warheads -
from 4 thousand up to approximately 10 thousand pieces.
Elton Fry's article is titled "Strategic Myths Mislead Reagan." He
is referring to the myths of American "hawks" about the United
States' nuclear missile gap. The author expresses concern that the
president and his closest associates, who do not have sufficient
experience, are “constantly misinformed on key issues of defense
policy.” He concludes: "Ronald Reagan fell victim to his
administration's penchant for making claims that turn out to be
untrue."
Wanting to keep hope alive, Elton Fry downplays the problem
and spares Ronald Reagan too much. No, in our opinion, the
American president was not a victim of disinformers. He became their
leader because this kind of disinformation, as already said, suits his
way of thinking and justifies his way of acting. As for the history of
Soviet-American negotiations on arms control, which Ronald Reagan
tried to delve into, it testifies: while negotiating, the American side
never forgot about its strategic needs and new military programs, and
never “unilaterally disarmed” . We can take information, for example,
from Henry Kissinger, who, under Presidents Nixon and Ford from
January 1969 to January 1977, stood at the helm of the American
government. In his memoirs, The White House Years, Kissinger
recounts the history of the development and conclusion in 1972 of the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Interim Agreement on Certain

258
Measures for the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms between the
United States and the USSR. Then he writes: “During the year
immediately following the SALT agreement, we began a number of
new strategic programs to overcome our gap: the development of the
B-1 bomber, MX missiles, cruise missiles and the Trident missile-
submarine system.” In a word, events took such a turn that it was time
to listen to the judgment of one senator, who once told me that, from a
financial point of view, we cannot afford to conclude another SALT
agreement if it leads to the same increase in our strategic budget.” .
This is how things stood (before Reagan) with American
“unilateral disarmament.” But everything is relative. And the dark
joke of the unnamed senator no longer holds true under Reagan, since
it is the absence of new and more comprehensive agreements on the
limitation and reduction of strategic arms that creates truly
unprecedented opportunities for increasing the American strategic
budget. This is what the current administration is using, declaring:
“We are arming ourselves.”
Violence against facts and truth is only part of the picture. And
not the most important part.. During the current president’s tenure in
power, with various shuffles in the Washington hierarchy, with
changes in the Secretary of State and presidential aides for national
security, debates have flared up more than once about what is more in
Ronald Reagan - an “ideologist”, a shackled into the armor of anti-
communism, or a pragmatist who takes into account the realities of
the surrounding world. Not without success, he himself proved that
there was no room for illusions in his assessments. To briefly
formulate the essence of the problem, the American president denies
the right to exist for the socialist system (believing that it belongs in
the “ashes of history”), and, therefore, he, in principle, denies the
peaceful coexistence of the two systems.
Reading the report on Reagan’s twentieth anniversary press
conference, one recalls the first, which took place at the end of
January 1981, when the new administration had not only its first
thousand days ahead, but also its traditionally celebrated first hundred
days. It's hard to forget her. It immediately set relations with the
Soviet Union in a defiantly harsh tone of hostility, hostility, and
confrontation. The American president did not extend his hand for the
sake of a common goal - peace on earth, but threw a stone - and what
a stone! - towards another nuclear missile power. He attacked us with
deliberately insulting attacks, without burdening himself with
evidence, asserting that it was impossible to deal with communists
because they could lie and deceive, did not follow the principles of
generally accepted morality and did not honor the agreements
reached. Much was written then about the cold winds coming out of
Washington, and these were essentially the winds of a renewed Cold
War.
And so Ronald Reagan's thousand days in the White House have
passed, during which time he has provided the world with ample

259
evidence that the accusations he has made against the other side
should rightly be corrected at his present address on Pepsivania
Avenue. It is he who unceremoniously treats the truth and preaches
the principle of permissiveness in international life. This was
expressed in the most naked and cynical form at the same press
conference we were discussing. Never before have such praises been
sung for the CIA and the secret activities of the American government
in general. The President said: “I think that covert operations are an
integral part of the government, part of its responsibilities.” And even
more scathingly: “I do believe that a country that believes its interests
are best served by conducting covert activities has the right to engage
in such activities.”
The specific motive was the CIA's secret war against the
Nicaraguan government, but of course Reagan went beyond his
Central American policy. He formulated a whole program. He has, in
principle, placed the non-existent right of covert subversion above
international law. Where international law ties the hands of American
leaders, restricts their freedom of action, where Washington’s
interests, to use the president’s words, “are best ensured by
conducting secret activities,” there Ronald Reagan proclaims his
“right” to release his intelligence services, his knights into the arena
cloak and dagger, international terrorists on the staff of the American
state.
And from secret to obvious is one step. This can be seen in the
example of Nicaragua, where the CIA’s extensive subversive
operations against the Sandinista government have long been an open
secret. And one more step - to aircraft carriers and marine battalions,
to direct armed intervention in Lebanon, to open, unprovoked
aggression against Grenada. The takeover of the Caribbean island
nation is a demonstration and, to date, the culmination of
Washington's power politics. From the imperialist way of thinking it
moves to practical actions that bring suffering and bloodshed to other
peoples (and the American people) and increase the threat of a major
catastrophic war. Appetite comes with eating. The lesson from
Grenada is that it is in the interests of all nations to curb this
Reaganite appetite before it is too late.
October 1983

SHOOTING POLITICS
It is difficult to imagine a more peaceful person than Anton
Pavlovich Chekhov. He didn’t fight, didn’t serve, didn’t write about
the war, and the officers in his plays are just intellectuals in
greatcoats. He had no particular interest in politics, but one of his
famous statements is remembered now, when we see off 1983 in an
atmosphere of dramatically increased tension.

260
 According to Chekhov, the gun that appeared on stage in the first
act must certainly fire in the last. This statement has become
commonplace in relation to the laws of drama. But good dramas
develop according to the laws of life, and life these days is
oversaturated with guns that shoot. In general, the past year has
brought a lot of evidence that Chekhov also grasped some patterns of
international politics.
An American “gun” in the form of the battleship New Jersey
appeared on the Middle Eastern scene at the end of September of this
year. This was his first act. And for more than two months the silent
silhouette of the battleship loomed off the Lebanese coast near Beirut
- for the sake of warning, as a demonstration of the flag. In December,
its main caliber guns, as we saw on our television screens, began to
spew fire. The 16-inch gun of Reagan's Middle East policy has fired.
Without waiting for the last act, which is undoubtedly ahead.
US Marines were sent to Lebanon last fall. The American
president, reassuring his compatriots, who, like the shadow of
Hamlet’s father, is still haunted by the ghost of Vietnam, gave
categorical assurances that the days of her stay there were strictly
numbered and that there could be no question of the participation of
American soldiers in any hostilities. Was the president insincere or
simply frivolous? Either he did not take into account the harsh logic
of life, or he hid the unseemly goals of his policy? One way or
another, Anton Chekhov looks more perspicacious than Ronald
Reagan. The Marine Corps “gun” doesn’t hang idly on the wall either.
And it has been shooting since the beginning of September.
And now American representatives are making other statements -
that she cannot help but shoot. That their soldiers in Beirut and near
Beirut shoot only in self-defense. And these statements are insincere
or frivolous, designed for simpletons or fools. For a person in his right
mind, sitting on an anthill in the forest, cannot hope for peace and a
state of philosophical contemplation of his surroundings. The
Americans got involved in Lebanese internal affairs, set out to change
everything there in their own way, and are now counting their losses.
As far as I remember, they didn't lose a single person in Lebanon last
year. There are about three hundred in this one. As always, in the
spirit of ineradicable supermanship, they scrupulously count only
their losses, not noticing or downplaying the death, disaster and grief
that they, foreigners, brought to yet another people.
But we must talk not only about a shooting battleship or shooting
marines. It seems that, summing up the outgoing year, we should talk
about the shooting foreign policy of Ronald Reagan. This is the
peculiarity of 1983, its difference from the two previous years, when
the current president also sat in the Oval Office of the White House.
In fact, he displayed his “gun” for everyone to see even before
moving to the White House. Then for two years he shook the world
with militant rhetoric about “crusades”, pushed record military
programs through Congress, creating “positions of strength.” In the

261
third year he started shooting. And this, in my opinion, is the main
result of the year, if you look at it from the angle of the development
of American foreign policy under Reagan. From the same angle, a
question arises for the coming year: what next?
When applied to Central America, Grenada illustrates this idea
even more clearly than Lebanon does when applied to the Middle
East. In Nicaragua, Reagan had long been shooting through the
Somostas, through his secret and overt agents operating from the
territory of Honduras. Naval squadrons were also sent there to
intimidate and demonstrate force. But Nicaragua is a piece you could
choke on. There you will encounter resistance. There, a direct armed
invasion is fraught with significant American losses, and therefore
politically unacceptable damage—indignation of the American public
and the US Congress. In any case, Nicaragua needs a boost. And then
in October the “gun” of Reagan’s policies went off in tiny Grenada.
The seizure of this island, the forcible change of the socio-
political structure that existed on it, recognized by its population - this
is Reagan imperialism without Hollywood smiling, in all its, as they
say, bestial grin. For small states in the Western Hemisphere, the
image of an imperialist beast clanking its teeth has left room not for
illusions, but for struggle. Only fearless opposition, only persistent
resistance, excluding bloodless “victories” of the Yankees, will make
the current rulers of the United States think.
Finally, last but first in importance. Another American “gun”
appeared on the European stage this year. By the end of December,
nine Pershings in West Germany and 16 cruise missiles each in
England and Italy will be operational. And here a truly fatal question
arises.' Will this weapon also go off in the hands of the current US
administration? Is it really that the conditionality of dramatic action,
which A.P. Chekhov once reasonably preached, will spread to the
realities of the nuclear missile age unknown to him? Is it really
possible that, according to the principle immutable for some pathetic
theatrical guns in personal dramas of the end of the last century, all
the accumulated thousands of nuclear megatons will go off in the last
act, which, perhaps, will indeed be the last - in all of human history?
Just as it was previously forbidden to take the name of God in
vain, so now there is no point in talking in vain about the inevitable
end of the world. And in today’s Washington, the opponents of
socialism, blinded by hatred, understand that the Soviet Union is not
Grenada and that if something happens, it will not be an easy boat
trip, but the suicide of American imperialism. But the situation left by
1983 is extremely serious. American nuclear weapons are moving
closer to Soviet borders. The distance between a fragile peace and a
terrible war was reduced to six minutes, the so-called flight time
needed for the Pershings to hit targets on Soviet territory. And these
Pershings, of course, go to the disposal of the commander-in-chief of
the shooting policy of the United States of America. And there are

262
their temptations, their temptations. And suddenly, in an emergency,
crisis situation, the temptation to use the wealth of those same six
flight minutes will be irresistible...
For the sake of the interests of the world, the Soviet Union had to
put an end to such a temptation and, in response to the American
nuclear threat approaching Soviet territory, create an equivalent threat
that would approach US territory for the same short minutes. The
Soviet Union could not continue negotiations on medium-range
nuclear weapons in Europe at the gunpoint of new American missiles.
The deployment of American nuclear weapons in Europe could not
but affect other disarmament negotiations, the next round of which
recently ended in Geneva and Vienna. As a result, 1983 brings its
curtain down when, for the first time for 14 years, there have been no
negotiations on arms control between the USSR and the USA,
between East and West. A warning sign. But it is better and wiser to
let friends and foes understand the seriousness of the current situation
than to play the irresponsible game of Washington leaders.
And they wanted to play a win-win game in negotiations,
moreover, a winning one. But, of course, not for both sides. Only for
myself. To the detriment of Moscow, no matter the outcome. If
negotiations fail, the deployment of American missiles in Western
Europe and, consequently, a strategic advantage over the Soviet
Union. With luck, that is, if the American “zero solution” or
“intermediate option” passed, there would again be a weakening of
Soviet security through the elimination of Soviet medium-range
missiles. And this whole game would take place on European
territory, far from American shores. Like the battleship New Jersey
near Beirut: it’s firing, but it’s out of reach. The American Ideal of
War. That is why we had to break this game and respond with
measures that concern their territory.
After the Soviet representatives left Geneva, a new game became
fashionable in Washington - feigned sighs and regrets. But not
everyone participates in it. The weekly Time magazine recently
published an extensive profile by its diplomatic correspondent Strobe
Talbott, entitled "Behind Closed Doors." Not all Washington doors
opened for the journalist, he did not tell everything he saw, but it was
enough to conclude: those who secretly doomed them to failure from
the very beginning are publicly crying about the Geneva negotiations.
Talbott quotes one of the key architects of American tactics in
Geneva, current Assistant Secretary of State Richard Burt: “The goal
of this entire exercise (that is, negotiations) is maximum political
gain. We are not concerned with arms control, but with dealing with
our allies.”
In other words, they went to Geneva under pressure from Western
European governments and in order to make it all the easier to defend
NATO’s “dual solution” from the attacking movement. They dealt
with the allies. The Allies launched American missiles behind the
barbed wire of military bases, which remained impregnable islands

263
amid a sea of public indignation and protest.
Disassembled missiles were flying from America, and on the
other hand, from the Soviet Union, natural gas was about to begin
flowing through the Siberia-Western Europe gas pipeline. Thus, by
the end of the year, two export products from both sides, signs of war
and peace, mixed in contrast in Western Europe, showing who is who
and what they are striving for. Unfortunately, the symbol does not
change the essence of the matter. The governments of Germany, Great
Britain, and Italy confirmed their trust in the American shepherd
precisely in the year when he repeatedly tore the gun off the wall.
Considerations of spiritual kinship, as well as traditional
subordination to a senior ally, took precedence over concerns for
peace, security and cooperation on the European continent.
Well, we must admit that the past year has debunked some of
these hopes, or at least shown them to be premature. Hopes, in
particular, were aroused by the rapid development of anti-war
sentiment in the United States. Two-thirds of Americans supported
the idea of a nuclear freeze. It was approved by the Catholic bishops.
The US House of Representatives voted for it. But this movement of
the majority, being vague and fragmented, did not turn into a striking
political force, was not able to impose its will on official Washington,
and did not set such a task for itself. Opposition on Capitol Hill to the
MX intercontinental ballistic missile project showed promise. But he
was paralyzed by a clever maneuver by the administration - the so-
called bipartisan Scowcroft Presidential Commission. The
commission helped to break through not only the giant MX, but also
the intercontinental “baby” - “Midgetman”, and under the deceptive
motto “increase - reduce”. To break through in the garb of “bipartisan
unity” that is convenient for President Reagan to advertise his foreign
policy in the coming election year.
The revival of the American economy in the spring and summer
also played into his hands. The official drums of optimism, promising
an economic boom, drowned out opposition to a foreign policy that
was beginning to fire. And in the fall, almost all the protesting voices
were silenced by three powerful explosions of chauvinism, to which,
it is always worth remembering, Americans are very susceptible. The
first strong public confusion came in the wake of the story that
happened with the South Korean Boeing over the island of Sakhalin.
Then chauvinistic passions thundered in October as an echo of the
explosion in Beirut of the headquarters of the American Marines,
which led to the death of 241 people. Thus, the public ground was
prepared for the seizure of Grenada to replace “Ours are being
beaten!” came the triumphant “Ours took it!”
When speaking about outbursts of quasi-patriotic feelings, I mean
their strength rather than their spontaneous nature. These were
targeted explosions. If you like, these were injections of chauvinism
with which the Reagan administration nervously excited Americans
and discouraged them from common sense.
What psychosis was like during the capture of Grenada, the

264
famous historian Arthur Schlesinger told in brief but expressive
words. “Judging by the triumphant public reaction to this glorious
victory,” he wrote sarcastically, “by the complacency of the
government and the shameful silence of the democratic opposition,
except for a few brave souls ... the invasion of Grenada was regarded
as one of those proud moments in American history.” "
The historian himself was not silent and was not proud - and
some of his excited readers ended up as... agents of Moscow.
Let's return to A.P. Chekhov. He correctly pointed out the pattern
of modern drama. However, the journalist, especially on the eve of the
New Year, which gives rise to new hopes, is still seduced by the
outdated but noble principle of classical comedy, according to which
evil must be punished and virtue must triumph. Common sense is
already virtuous, but it is still ineradicable among the American
people. They return to it after suffering from attacks of chauvinism,
and this (I know from the experience of the Vietnam War) happens
when more and more soldiers of a country in which half a dozen
generations did not know what it was like to fight on their own
territory are killed in the next adventure overseas.
One more thing. Poll numbers in America are as changeable and
capricious as the weather. But again, almost two-thirds of Americans
fear that Ronald Reagan could lead them to nuclear war. Recently, in
the sensational television movie “The Next Day,” they were shown
what would happen to an ordinary American city in the event of such
a war. Like all reasonable people on planet Earth, they know: in order
to avoid such a next day, it must be prevented at least the day before.
December 1983
SHOOTOUT IN WASHINGTON
It seems that the concrete gouges, hastily erected here and there
on the periphery of the White House in anticipation of a raid by some
Middle Eastern terrorists, do not help President Reagan protect
himself from bombers of a different kind. These demolitionists are not
hiding, they sit on Capitol Hill and, imagine, even in the Pentagon and
use such dynamite that the mentioned gouges cannot save you from it.
We are talking about growing criticism of Washington's Middle East
policy. Opa focused on the question: what to do next with the
American Marines, who were stationed near Beirut International
Airport almost a year and a half ago?
It is not only the Democrats who are actively looking for his
vulnerabilities in the initial stages of the election campaign who are
firing at President Reagan. William Buckley is a conservative
Reagan-era commentator. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater is
something of a spiritual father of “Reaganism.” But both believe that
it is better for the American Marines to get out of Lebanon as quickly
as possible. “Nobody knows why we are in Lebanon,” says Speaker
of the US House of Representatives T. O'Neill. This discovery,
although somewhat late, echoes the position of the leader of the
Republicans in the same chamber, R. Michael, who demanded the

265
withdrawal of the Marines.
Opposition has become so widespread that one English
newspaper concluded that only "three significant politicians" in
Washington oppose the Marines' withdrawal from Lebanon - the
president himself, his Secretary of State Shultz and his national
security aide MacFarlane. This is perhaps said too broadly. But
Reagan, now building political and diplomatic obstacles against his
multiplied critics, took up a perimeter defense. He is taking
precautions to avoid falling victim to his own politics in November.
The situation in Lebanon is difficult to predict, but it is quite clear that
from the point of view of official Washington, there are mines laid
there that could cause strong explosions on the American stage in an
election year.
What's the matter? A Russian proverb says: if you love to ride,
you also love to carry a sled. This is one of those bitter truths that you
don’t always like. Translating it into the language of American
politics, we get that Americans love, especially under the current
president, to demonstrate their military strength - both close (in
Grenada or against Nicaragua) and far away, but at the same time they
do not like to pay, they do not like to bear any costs. or losses.
Over the past year, about 260 American Marines have been killed
in Lebanon. Since a suicide bombing in late October that left 241
Americans dead, emotional shock and political scandal in the United
States, Marines along the Beirut coast have been largely policing
themselves. The situation was described quite realistically by New
York Times columnist Flora Lewis: “The Marines became invisible
behind their barricades. It cannot even ensure regular operation of the
nearby airport, which, as stated, is its first priority. She is in a prisoner
of war camp that she set up for herself.”
That’s why the Americans brought in the battleship New Jersey
with its monstrous guns and their carrier-based aircraft to “work.” But
the aviation also suffered some losses while carrying out raids. One
American pilot, a black man, found himself in Syrian captivity,
which, as we know, led to the odyssey of the black politician Jesse
Jackson to Damascus, the release of this pilot and the corresponding
pantomimes of President Reagan, expressing sympathy for the
prisoner, gratitude to his liberator - and desire in no case don't miss
out on votes.
Losses violate the ideal of unpunished aggressiveness (precisely
aggressiveness and precisely unpunished), the dream of bloodless
victories. All polls show that the vast majority of Americans support
the immediate withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon.
Let me briefly remind you of the history of the appearance of
American soldiers in Lebanon. As part of the so-called “multinational
forces,” they landed there in August 1982 with the modest goal, as it
was presented in Washington at the time, of facilitating the orderly
separation of the warring parties and the withdrawal of Palestinian

266
military units from West Beirut, besieged by Israeli troops. Having
completed this task, they left after two or three weeks. And then, in
September, there was a bloody mass extermination of Palestinians in
the Sabra and Shatila camps. The Americans returned to maintain
“order.” Then this concept was filled with ever broader content, in the
end the goal became a “new order” in Lebanon, pleasing to
Washington and Tel Aviv? Along with this, using the instrument of
their physical military presence, the Americans began to interfere in
Lebanese internal affairs, trying to rebuild the complex balance in the
multi-communal country so that the pro-Western factions would
strengthen and the Arab, national-patriotic and nationalist factions
would weaken. An essential part of the task was to intimidate Syria so
that it would agree to the Israeli-Lebanese “peace agreement”
developed under the auspices of Washington, although this agreement
turns Lebanon into a vassal of Israel and the United States and thereby
causes irreparable damage to Syrian security.
In general, they wanted too much - and at too little price. From
the very beginning, political goals and military means were not
balanced. They thought that they could be achieved with just 2
thousand soldiers on the shore and a naval fist off the coast. And they
encountered resistance that they did not expect. As one unnamed
Marine said after the October bombing in Beirut: “We were put here
too few to fight and too many to be killed.”
If we allow ourselves some play on words, the Americans wanted
to take their opponents to task in Lebanon. It failed - even when it was
the 16-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey. The opponents did not
give in. We must either increase troops or reduce tasks. Theoretically,
we can talk about throwing tens and hundreds of thousands of soldiers
there, but in practice it is impossible to imagine. Even apart from the
catastrophic international consequences, this would mean getting
seriously bogged down in a war that the American people are unlikely
to accept. But the gun, the current gun, won’t take on either the
Lebanese opponents of the American intervention or the Syrians. The
question arises of how Washington can reduce its appetite in Lebanon
and, while saving face, get out of the trap that it has set for itself.
Critics are pushing the Reagan administration in this direction. They
were now led by Mondale, the Democrats' main contender for the
presidency. To avoid further losses, he demands the immediate
withdrawal of the Marines. And with this he hopes to score points in
the developing election campaign.
January 1984

267
 NEW YEAR'S VISIONS
New Year is stopped time. Perhaps not an original thought, but to
the writer of these lines it appeared with a sudden revelation on New
Year’s morning, when, amid the sweet silence of the Moscow region,
he woke up in the editorial dacha. Time also stood still because there
was nothing occupied on the last Saturday of the year, and, judging
by the empty dacha street, no one was in a hurry to occupy it, start it
up and let it go.
So I found myself the only person among the dacha buildings,
prickly frozen bushes and naked black linden trees. For the first and
last time of the year, a city dweller walked through the trampled
snow, and there were no tracks in front of me and only my tracks
remained behind, and in the forest the pre-dawn snow had already
dusted the tracks of the beast. The world was white and silent, the
earth stretched white before the gaze, and, surrounding the familiar
meadow that had sunk under the snow, the familiar birch trees went
towards the sky, which was also white, timidly gaining a pale bluish
color from the shy December sun. When I stopped, complete silence
reigned. It seemed that everything was looking at a lonely man who
had wandered here on the eve of a new year unknown to nature, and
the man, confused and moved, felt that the humble beauty of his
native land was about to extrude from him words of love, admiration
and guilt. Yes, VIPs, because are we worthy of this beauty?
Time stood in the midst of white space and white sensitive
silence. And as happens with stopped time, it was filled with pictures
of the past day when it moved. And the characters in these films were
not the American president or American missiles, which the
internationalist-American specialist had been studying all year. No,
through the white snow and in the white sky I saw images of close
and dear people, those with whom, living side by side, flowing into
each other, you spend a period of time called life.
I remembered how the day before, when I was getting ready for
work, I offended my wife and then, to atone for my guilt, I belatedly
ran around the perfume kiosks and shops. I remembered how my son
grunted with pleasure after receiving an unexpected gift, and the

268
expression of pleasure on the faces of his daughters. Simple visions
of the past day haunted me, and they were joyful among the white
snows of a silent and deserted white light. As in the long editorial
corridors, in the buffet and dining room, everyone congratulated each
other: Happy New Year! How they visited each other and at three
o'clock in the afternoon silently clinked plastic glasses with green
Georgian tarragon liqueur. The newspaper was still absorbing and
absorbing the news of the world; for its employees on duty it was
neither festive nor idle, but the rest, in the whirlwind of New Year's
Moscow, accelerated their movement towards the moment when the
counter invented by man, called a clock, would bring two hands
together, marking another frontier of what, again, he, man, calls time
and what began unknown when and flows unknown where and exists
against human will.
Every year is an annual ring at the cross-section of our lives.
Every time we seem to die in order to be resurrected on a new ring,
on a new circle, and therefore we want to wrap up the old year in
such a way that we can meet a new beginning with a light heart.
And so, on a quiet New Year’s morning, finding myself among
the white, untrodden snow at the editorial dacha, I thought that
everything seemed to have worked out well the day before and,
although it was not in your power to make the people dear to you
happy, at least you did not darken their festive mood.
But two fresh memories, albeit pushed into the background, stung
my heart. Both concerned work, not the small and personal, but the
big world.
One was the memory of a greeting card sent from Omsk. The
postcard was enclosed in an envelope with a picture and under the
picture it was typewritten: “Meet my Omsk!” On the top of the
envelope, also in typewritten text, was: “May there always be
Sunshine!” Give me peace 1984! Give me a five-year period of peace
for disarmament!” On the card, a short text, written in a strong and
quick hand, contained a greeting to the Sun, a call for disarmament,
congratulations to journalists and a wish for success in the peace
watch. An optimistic message from a well-wisher. I would say that it
was implausible, bravuraly optimistic, breathing with indestructible
cheerfulness and, despite all seriousness, that inner healthy irony that
is inherent in cheerful people. And after the signature, a lingering
echo of the past, a passionate appeal to the future, evoking a stormy
range of feelings, followed the explanation: “Inv. Otech. war
(legless)."
The second memory that broke the pre-New Year mood was also
associated with a letter - from Washington. The letter was sent by
Izvestia correspondent Alexander Palladii, and in addition to the
greeting card, I found a magazine clipping in it - a large, 30-page
article from the January issue of the literary and political monthly
Atlantic. The article was written by the American journalist Thomas
Powers, the same one about whose meeting I wrote at the beginning
of this book.
He came to Moscow to understand how we, the Soviets,
individually and together, relate to the nuclear threat hanging over the
world, and I was one of the people who was asked to talk with this
famous journalist.
I took a liking to a stocky, bearded American man in his early
forties. In him I found naturalness and intelligence, sincerity and that
attractive courage when a writer with a name and experience, freed
from so-called respectability, is not afraid to ask seemingly childish
questions, the answers to which seem to have long been known to
respectable adults. He wanted to understand us and our attitude
towards the Americans and thereby test the attitude of the Americans
towards us, and from his various questions, I felt, the result was one
of the most childish and, in essence, the wisest question of questions:
what are we (that is, we and they , and all of humanity) what kind of
people are we, what awaits us in the future in the presence of such
weapons and such an international position, and what should we do?
And somehow it so happened that the conversation with Thomas
Powers went into the mainstream of my own thoughts and created
that emotional critical mass that produces an explosion - an urgent
need to write about the most intimate and a form of expression of this
intimate. And unexpectedly easily I wrote sentimental notes from a
political observer about how the world is a small place, since the
Americans are only half an hour away from intercontinental missiles,
and since we are in this world - is it really that unexpected? — we
find each other with our anxieties.
Maybe it wouldn’t be worth returning to these notes, mentioning
the thoughts that dawned on you early on New Year’s morning, but,
firstly, without this there will be no New Year’s visions of time
stopped and again anxiously moving, and secondly, not only the
world is indivisible , but a person is indivisible, and in him everything
merges and everything is intertwined - home and work, near and far,
a footprint in the snow and scratches on the heart.
I won’t say that these notes were a confession. But there was
sincerity in them, a sincere attempt to get through to this American.
And there was also, if you take a more sober look, some experience:
will he understand this impulse? In sentimental - and subjective -
notes, if we judge this experience in hindsight, there was a question
of an objective order - about the possibility of understanding two
people, two journalists from different worlds. And one more question
- about the connections between these two worlds: will a large article
dedicated to the meeting with him and published - with good
intentions - in a famous Soviet newspaper, reach him in America? Do
they hear us the way we hear them? Do they read as we read? Are
they capable of contact? Not empty questions, because without
contact there is no understanding, and without understanding, don’t
expect anything good ahead.
And so, having received his article in the hectic hours of New

270
Year’s Eve, I frantically leafed through it and made sure: no, I had
not heard. The experiment was not a success! They talk about
contacts with extraterrestrial civilizations. Is there any with the
earthly, between the earthly? This is also not an empty question. I did
not in the least exaggerate the insignificance, smallness, or
particularity of my experience, but at the same time I excluded the
randomness of the result obtained. My notes turned out to be an
empty signal that sank into the abyss of the Universe. Is it a small
world? Do we find each other? And if such an American turns out to
be deaf at such a time, then what really awaits us?
It was impossible to forget this question among the whites,
healing fields of pi that night when on the banks of Pakhra we took
the New Year by storm, frying kebabs on the fire.
It was an unforgettable picture. From afar, in the dancing
reflections of the fire, men in winter jackets and knitted hats,
barbecue masters, created silhouettes of medieval warriors. And up
close, visions of a nuclear auto-da-fé suddenly came to mind. When
another box brought from the farm yard flew into the fire, its wooden
planks flared up and melted fieryly, reminiscent of the eerie footage
from the American television movie about nuclear war, “The Next
Day,” which we all read about. In these frames, also instantly, like
light slats in a fire, human ribs flashed red, only to become part of a
charred skeleton in an elusive split second, and after another elusive
split, evaporate without a trace.
The sky above the merry people was silent and solemn. “The
constellations rose above the world in the cold pit of January...”
Then the stopped time started again. And my first read in the new
year was Thomas Powers’ article “Because of What?” I read it
carefully and must urge that this is a serious journalistic study, honest
and desperate. Perhaps his answer is not whether he heard the signal
sent or not, but that he did a different experiment - and a different job.
He dug like a mole into history - from Pericles and Aristotle to
modern military historians, and also obtained primary information -
into "bad news" - in numerous meetings with those Americans who,
according to him, invent, create, test, buy , guards, explains, targets
and is ready to deliver nuclear weapons to the target.
And so my New Year’s visions were invaded by the dark
phantasmagoric visions of the American Thomas Powers.
While working in America, I once flew through Albuquerque,
New Mexico. This city itself is closed to Soviet citizens. Nearby, at
the Air Force Base in Kirtland, there is, it turns out, the National
Atomic Museum. I see Thomas Powers there looking at a replica of
“Fat Man,” the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, a caricature of the
Bomb. Here is the body of the first American hydrogen bomb - an
eight-meter monster weighing a ton.
But this is the archeology of the nuclear age, the first attempts at
a science of mass destruction that is developing faster than any other
science. Now I see Thomas Powers near the MK-12A type warhead.
Neither caricature nor monstrosity. Contemporary Design: Sleek,
tapered, waist-high, with a jet-black, rounded, polished surface. Three
or four of these things will fit into the trunk of a station wagon. The
MX rocket will carry ten of them. Each one contains 23 Hiroshimas.
Another vision. One of the insiders tells Thomas Powers how he
developed plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in Central Europe.
His goal was to reduce the number of civilian casualties. Just on the
birthday of his daughter, who turned four years old, the analyst came
up with a successful idea: to subject railway junctions to nuclear
attacks and thereby deprive the Soviet troops at the front of
reinforcements. Having laid out special military maps on the floor for
convenience and taken a special computer that calculated the effect of
using nuclear weapons, he got down to business. Things were going
smoothly. The idea quickly acquired digital calculations that
supported it: “only 100 thousand killed,” and not millions, as in
previous developments. It saved America. According to calculations,
these were tolerable losses for the enemy, much less than those that
would have caused an exchange of strategic nuclear strikes that
would have fallen on American territory.
During the lunch break, the analyst, pleased with himself, drove
home and took his daughter to the automated McDonald's cafeteria,
one of those that dotted American cities and roads in hundreds. He
stood in line, looking around the hall and the people dining. And
suddenly he remembered - “only 100 thousand.” There were only a
few dozen in the hall, but they were living, not statistical. Chaotic
visions flashed through his organized brain, and he saw himself
among the military maps on the floor and - suddenly - his murdered
daughter and was horrified by what he did for a living for himself and
his family. Then, of course, he came to terms with his wild
imagination: life went on and with it came ordinary madness...
In the study of Thomas Powers there are more, however, not such
details, but reflections and comparative psychological observations.
He compares us and the Americans. We remain unfamiliar territory
for him: only meetings in Moscow and in Minneapolis, where the
American-Soviet public conference on issues of war and peace was
held in May 1983. He has no doubt about our aversion to war and
commitment to peace. At the same time, he is confused and alarmed
by your political thinking and views on the international situation,
your concessions in disputes with Foreigners and your demonstration
of a sense of being right. He knows his compatriots better and does
not spare, especially the professionals from the Bomb “We have
passed the worst of what happened in the great wars of this century...
It is so difficult for some Americans to see in the war anything other
than a romantic time that 20 million dead in the Soviet Union they
take it as evidence that the Russians have become hardened by the
war, not cautious, and therefore will not flinch at the risk of another
war. The Russians I met were, for the most part, patient, careful,
reasonable, efficient, and not easily angered. But at the thought of all

272
their murdered brothers, fathers and uncles, starving and freezing
children, blood rushes to their faces and passion appears in their
voices. Americans do not have such a national memory...”
Many of his Soviet interlocutors admitted that things could come
to a nuclear war, but the Americans, on the contrary, as one, believed
that it would not work out. The observation seems controversial. It
can be easily refuted by statements of American officials who not
only admit, but also preach the possibility of nuclear war and even
victory in it. On the other hand, when you think about it, you discover
that this observation contains a thought to which the author, without
directly formulating it, leads. Those who are aware of the seriousness
of the situation behave more responsibly and more cautiously, while
those who believe that they will “get by” behave more irresponsibly,
recklessly, and rashly.
As for the author of the study, he is filled with deep pessimism.
Because of which? That's the title of the article. What reasons
could justify nuclear war? There is none of them. In a world divided
by an abyss into two irreconcilable socio-political systems, neither of
them will win and both will lose as a result of a nuclear disaster,
threatening the very existence of humanity. But wars, Powers is
convinced, were never subject to logic and common sense and began
because there was fear and suspicion - both armies and weapons were
ready for war. Wars have never been prevented by the knowledge that
they are insane, “impossible” and “unthinkable.” “The problem is not
in the evil intentions of one side or another, but in our satisfaction
with the state of hostility, in our readiness to follow the wrong path;
is that we rely on the threat of extermination to save ourselves from
extermination,” he writes.
Thomas Powers' journal publications on the growing threat of
nuclear war are of interest. When he is invited to perform in various
American audiences, he usually does not refuse. After the speech,
questions follow, primarily about the types of nuclear weapons: what
do they look like, how do they operate, is it true that they can hit a
football field on the other side of the globe? Yes, that's right. And he
answers the rest of the questions as best he can. And gradually the
listeners disperse.
But one person remains. He waits for everyone to leave, this last
person with the last question. They approach gypsy fortune tellers in
the same way, as if without any superstition, just for fun, to ask, how
long do I have left to live? Fortune tellers recognize such people a
mile away, and Thomas Powers learned to immediately recognize this
latest listener with his last question. Will there be a war? The man
waited for everyone to leave in order to receive a confidential and
most reliable answer. But there is no answer, and he hears: “I don’t
know...”
I don’t know... Thus ends the January visions of Thomas Powers
in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, and therefore my new
correspondence meeting with a traveler who, lost in the wilds of the
 nuclear age, sends distress signals from another continent. I could
advise him to learn optimism from a veteran from Omsk, but I am
afraid that he will not want to take this advice: we take our optimism
or pessimism from the world around us, near and far, from our nature
and destiny.
What remains? In his publication, I recognized myself in that
Russian who says in a “heavy and thoughtful voice”: “We must hope.
Who owns the words that hope is the last thing we say goodbye to?
How else can you live in this world?”
In fact - how? We must hope—and act on hope, rather than give up in
despair. With Americans like Thomas Powers, we can find common
ground of common sense. He understands that we cannot re-educate
or remake each other with the help of nuclear weapons. And we must
strive to ensure that there are more and more such understanding
people and to turn this understanding into an instrument of peace.
May there always be sunshine! It will... Even if at the moment, these
days in 1984, it is hidden behind the clouds.

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ

The world is small... 3 Advice from a former ambassador 30

The day before Haig on Capitol Hill 32
Ronald Reagan 13
1981
Without a rudder and without sails 15 Defiant beginning 35
Results before the result 21 Instead of "pie in the sky" 37
After the elections 26 Cold winds from

274
Washington 39 Politics and compressors 170
To the editor of Los Angeles half 41 They don’t think about leaving...
Defiant beginning 43 173
At a literary evening… 49 Bombs and diplomacy 174
Who is out of step? 57 Reverse side
Both deception and self-deception 60 Khabib medals 179
Time doesn't wait! 65 Sabra's lessons and
Shatily 182
Armament, not negotiations 68 Seventeenth week
Confrontation 70 aggression 187
Master key instead of the key Two letters from
to the world 74 Washington 189
New mountains of weapons 77 Report from
Lesson from Sadat's death 80 San Francisco 196
Landing at the funeral 82 Another letter from
Risky options 85 Washington 201
A little more about American
Counting on the simpletons 88 impressions 206
To the meeting in Geneva 90 The Forgotten Discovery of
Christmas tree lights 94 America 220
Very bad year 96
Between anxiety and hope 98

Two and all 52 weeks

1982 103
January run 105
Truth vs Myth 110
Two weeks overseas 114
Unfunny 136
Alexander Haig vs.
Victor Hugo 140
Three moments in
advertising speech 141
In the mirror
reality 144
Blood and calculations 148
Hypocrisy 154
Season of the Dead 159
Begin and Hitler 161
Hopes for Schultz 163
Under cover
American veto 166
 Stanislav Kondrashov
WE AND THEM IN THIS CRAZY WORLD
Diary of a Political Observer
Editorial Head A. V. Nikolsky
Editors O. V. Vadeev, E. B. Burkovspaya
Artist L. V. Kostina
Art editor E. A. Andrusenko Technical editor GO. A. Mukhin h
IB No. 5005
Delivered to set 07/03/84. Signed for publication on November 12, 1984. A 00205.
Foreman 84x108‘/z2. Printing paper No. 1. Typeface “Ordinary new”” High quality
printing. Conditional oven l. 18.48. Conditional cr.-ott. 18.90. Uch. ed. l. 20.95
Circulation 100 thousand copies. Order No. 418. Price 1 rub.
Politizdat. 125811, GSP, Moscow, A-47, Miusskaya sq., 1,
Printing house of the publishing house "Ural Worker", 020151, Sverdlovsk, Lenin
Ave., 49

276