Kalinin Alexander (Moscow City Council, General Council)

What follows is my personal interpretation of the recent events in Moscow based on what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. As a member of the Mossoviet's staff which was established by Moscow City Council session in order to coordinate actions of district Soviets, to analyse the development of events in Moscow, to reduce loss of life and damage, to provide the besieged House of Sovietswith all possible help and to prevent the eruption of armed violence I could hear radioexchange of the police commanders. I'm sure that the police acted on October 3 as if it had to let the demonstrators to break through the blockade around the White House and to create among them and defenders of the White House the feeling of euphoria.

The demonstrators could be easily stopped at the Krymsky bridge. They were not. Neither they were stopped at Zubovskaya square or Smolenskaya square for the simple reason: the police commander in charge (Major-General of police Kononov) dispersed the forces and sent obviously insufficient detachments to block the demonstrators' advancement. By 16.15 (Moscow time) the encirclement of the "White House" was broken through and some people from the special police detachments (the OMON) were disarmed or flew away.

Since that moment there was nearly incessant rattling of submachine guns fire from the former COMECON building which had been appropriated by the Mayoralty two years ago. I guess that the gunmen in the building shot mainly by the blank cartridges though I know at least one woman who was hit by a rubber bullet around 16.30. The aim of the shooting was obvious - to provoke an assault of the Mayoralty.

I regret that the defenders of the White House who by the moment were half-mad took the suicidal decision to storm the Mayoralty. There was no serious attempt to repel the attack. Only a few last bursts were shot with the bullets.

The first wrong decision and the superficial success begot the fatal decision to capture TV-station. It was absolutely impossible even from the purely military point of view. However, Makashov and Dunaev were imprevious to all appeals to stop. Thus the trap slammed.

My idea that there was the elaborated plan of the coup can be substatiated by the fact that seizure of the Mossoviet building was executed by the civilian person (Mr.Perelygin) whose orders were obediently implemented by the police and the military officers.

ANDREEV SERGEJ, Supreme Council of Russia, ex-Deputy:

After September, 21st, when the President's Decree to dissolve the Parliament was published I was trying to do my best to help to solve the conflict in a peaceful manner. During the first three days of the Extraodinary Congress that was convoked by Khasbulatov I attended the discussions but voted only 2 times. I was one of those three deputies who voted against the impeachement to Yeltsin. When it became clear that Yeltsin, Khasbulatov,Rutskoj and others were not going to find peaceful solutions I left the White House. I think that now the most important is to convoke a Constituent Assembly, to adopt a new Constitution, new election laws and carry out the independent elections. I already got the proposals to participate in elections but I still don't know if I will - it's still very fuzzy, the definition of that new elected body, its functions, terms etc.

SHEBOLDAEV SERGEJ (RUS.Parliament and Mossoviet ex-Deputy).

IVANOV LEV (ex-Deputy, Mossoviet)

1. We can't recognize as legible the President's Decrees issued on 21st September and 7th October that dissolve the Russian Supreme Council and all the local Councils as the local Soviets are accused in rendering revolt its assistance.

2. As it is said in our appeals adopted during the last two weeks, we stay for the non-violent resolving of conflict, for negotiations between the sides. As it didn't occur, now we establish that the cause of violence and bloodshed was the blockade of the White House that actually was unreasonable. It's understandable why people should be searched when they go outside the White House but why people, deputies wouldn't be allowed to enter the building? So the break of the blockade must be explained by the unlegality of the above sanctions.

From that moment the violence started - criminal from the both sides. Though there are witnesses that the first shoots were fired from the Mayoralty side and in TV Center (Ostankino) the defenders were shooting first - what means a provocation.

The bombardment of the White House didn't correspond with the situation, as the crowd was put down already. In that case the blockade of the building would be enough. The storm of the White House was caused by the striving for total break in the conflict but not by the considerations of security.

What had happened shows the unreadiness of the population to act in a democratic way, unwillingness of the both sides powers to perform democratic actions. We hope that the court investigation will define those who are guilty.

The further development of events - imposing of censorship, closing of some newspaper and liquidation of some parties and organisations and not only extremist ones (for instance, People's Party of the Liberated Russia is closed, it is associated with Rutskoj though he was only a nominal member of it) - shows the real threat for the democracy. Probably, the elections wouldn't be really free, independent. We hope that the government will refuse to continue such extreme measures.

SHEBOLDAEV: I already got some proposals to participate in the elections but I didn't decide if I will.

I was in the White House during the first days of blockade, participated in the Congress of the Russian Parliament Deputies. On the 27th of September I went out to participate in the Mossoviet Session as I also was a Deputy of the Mossoviet. After that I wasn't allowed to enter the White House, the entry was blocked. On the 4th of October I was in the Constitutional Court.

I think that the President will suffer great losses due to cruel supression of White House supporters. The same about the democratic reforms and parlamentarism because the destruction of the representative bodies is not harmless.