ABSTRACT: This article was written by Giuletto Chiesa - foreign correspondent of the Italian newspaper "La Stampa" - and published by the Russian weekly magazine "Moskovskie Novosti": "The ex-Soviet Union is steadily disintegrating. So far, no counter measures have been effective in putting an end to their troubles, or in avoiding violent clashes and wars in the Republics. With the resigned optimism of the western world on the one hand and internal chaos on the other, the spector of hunger and war advances unchecked".

(THE PARTY new - n. 6 - march 1992)

A number of people in the West have come together to form the "Optimistic Party": when all's said and done - they think - everything will right itself in the ex-Soviet Union, without too many dramas. The way to capitalism is clear. Communism is dead and will not rise again. Why worry?".

I very much doubt whether this line of thought will be useful for the future of the peoples of the ex-Soviet Union. Besides, the "Optimistic Party" also has its followers in Russia and in other Republics. The all-important phrase is "when all's said and done": the crisis will be resolved, sooner or later, but one also has to consider the way in which this can be done and the amount of time it will take.

The "enthusiasts" continue to believe that the "Commonwealth of Independent States" has a rosy future.

The "realists", on the other hand, consider the CIS to be nothing but a "liquidation committee" set up to dispose of the Soviet inheritance. When the "estate" has been divided up, the Commonwealth will also cease to exist. What will remain - they say - will be a group of sovereign States, ready to collaborate with each other on an economic, political and military level, and to live in peace.

The first part of this reasoning seems to make sense, apart from one thing: some of the Presidents who "liquidated" the former Soviet Union at Minsk-1 and Alma Ata did not think this at all. On the contrary, they seemed to think that the Commonwealth had a future.

The second part of the above logic would appear highly improbable. The people who profess to uphold it are, generally speaking, fierce critics of the state system created by "real" Communism. But they appear to have forgotten their criticisms. How can they think, in fact, that an institutional structure of that kind, full of unresolved contradictions, would now be capable not only of surviving but also of prospering?

Eliminating the central Communist government has not eliminated the contradictions that existed; it was a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. On the contrary, the end of an authoritarian regime causes separatist and autarkic tendencies to explode.

The most devastating of these illusions is expressed in the so-called Russian Federation, which is a "copy" of the old Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, and no less arbitrary than this Republic, and which would be totally deceiving itself if it called itself Russia. Russia is not the Russian Federation: the end of the Soviet Union has already resulted in the division of Russia; continuing to show the Russian Federation as "united and undivided", is impossible. Only a miracle would allow the Federation to remain within its present boundaries, in the same way that only a miracle would resolve the contradictions inherent in the Commonwealth, at least for as long as the leaders are unable to find the strength to admit the truth to themselves and their peoples.

It is understandable that the West is full of "optimists". They prefer to think that the most useful and important thing (for them) is to eliminate any future "Soviet" (now Russian) threat, once and for all. It would appear to matter very little what price the inhabitants of this unhappy ex-country have to pay. These "optimists" are unable to understand what repercussions a cataclysm like the one that seems not only possible but probable, will have on the world: the risk that Europe will be "wounded" by the shrapnel from the explosion; the upsetting of the balance of world power; the change in the relationship between the Christian and Muslim civilizations.

As distressing as all this might be, it is also understandable. When it comes down to it, it is easy to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the situation when you happen to be in Washington or Paris. But it is far more difficult to adopt the same criteria in Moscow or Kiev. A true analysis of the situation can only be made by the people directly involved in the crisis. There is no going back, and cherishing this foolish hope is equally as dangerous as believing in a rosy future. At the moment, however, there appears to be a lack of any responsible initiative to reverse the most damaging trends. The political parties, the Parliaments, and the Governments, which have been thrown into confusion by current events, do not seem nearly able to meet the needs, or to look over and beyond the new borders that are fast being established. What is needed is a courageous, multilateral initiative, undertaken by all those responsible; an "emergency programme" uniting all the "men of goodwill". Not to limit the sove

reign states that are already under construction, not to rebuild the structure that has already been dismantled, but to gather together and unite the "forces of peace", and the civil, social and political forces. It is not a task to be undertaken by Russia alone, but a joint task to be carried out by the national democratic political forces of the ex-Soviet Union. Their aim must not be - because it cannot be - to resurrect any form of central government. It can be, and must be, the proclamation of a "truce", the establishment of an acceptable form of transition - which provides the "minimum" supernational institutions necessary, created along new lines that it would be premature, and even dangerous, to define right now. It is necessary to create a mass movement that will bring democratic pressure to bear on political leaders and refuse to submit to the demagogy of irresponsible troublemakers, and that will be capable of bringing the forces of reason to bear on an agreed programme. At this particular moment,

the blind forces of opposition are locked in battle. It is not difficult to see where this will lead, as it is no coincidence that the first discussions held were those concerning the formation of national armies. These peoples are more or less consciously preparing for war. What we need is a movement that is aware of the terrible dangers, and which will campaign unceasingly to create a truce, to bring about a compromise. Would this be a practical solution? Only the democratic, and truly "national" forces that have brought about the downfall of Communism, within - and outside - Russia can answer this question. If they are not equal to the task, history will never forgive them.