Russia is eating out of the hand of the West. With the devaluation of the ruble, a slide in their stock market, and the questionable uses of credits given by the West, Russia will agree to the Western Way.

"BOMBINGS REIGNITE NUCLEAR WAR FEARS" by Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford (Times-Colonist 13 MAY 99 page A15) Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford is co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize IPPNW]

I am writing with an enormous sense of urgency and dread. I have just been at a seminar in Moscow, followed by one at the Olof Palme Institue in Stockholm. The meetings have convinced me we are on the brink of nuclear war by the unintentional escalation of the war against Yugoslavia.

Only western press and television coverage does not portray the significance of the change in Russian policy regarding nuclear weapons. The media imply that Russian warnings of a looming world war, and their refusal to ratify START II, are the usual political threats to gain concessions from the U.S.A. and loans from the International Monetary Fund.

This analysis does not reflect the profound change in public opinion expressed even by Moscow members of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. One of our long-term IPPNW doctors, Dr. Davidenko, has changed from advocating nuclear disarmament to advocating nuclear deterrence for Russia. Our meeting with Aleksander Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Defence Committee of the Russian State Duma, left us deeply concerned.

Arbatov stated that U.S.-Russian relations, in the wake of NATO's bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, are at the "worst, most acute, most dangerous juncture since the U.S.-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises." He states that START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defence is out of the question, and Moscow's willingness to co-operate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low.

Moreover, anti-U.S. sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more wide-spread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action - "today Serbia, tomorrow Russia," is "deeply planted in Russian's minds." Arbatov was bitter about 10 years of wasted opportunities on both sides, with disarmament talks completely stalled even before this crisis.

Scientists, politicians, doctors and generals all told us the same thing, that NATO bombings of Serbia have set back disarmament 20 years. Some said that India and Pakistan are safe now they have nuclear weapons and that other states like North Korea will step up their nuclear weapons programs. Officials from Minatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, have indicated their great concern about some 22 nuclear reactors in the region of conflict. A bomb hitting a reactor by accident would cause a catastrophe worse than Chernobyl. Government spokesmen told us repeatedly that Russia will not allow the bombings to continue for another month, and that because their conventional forces are in tatters, Russia must rely on its nuclear weapons. I must ask, "if these are idle threats, what distinguishes them from real threats?" The credibility of the people we spoke with has convinced me that the threats are serious.

Opinion is divided in most countries, even in peace organizations, about whether the NATO bombings were a humanitarian effort to stop a genocide or an act of aggression by NATO, but their impact on nuclear weapons policy is an extremely serious development. Most worrisome to us was the consistency of the statements from speakers at the Moscow seminar and those we met later in ministries of foreign affairs and health.

The single exception was Dr. Evgenie Chazov. He said we must renew our efforts for nuclear disarmament in this very dangerous situation. Dr. Chazov said we are back where we were in 1981 when he and American cardiologist Dr. Bernard Lown founded IPPNW, but our work will be more difficult now.

The Russian speakers deplored ethnic cleansing and did not support Milosovic, but Dr. Serguei Kapitsa, a scientist famous for his weekly television show, stated that Russians feel a sense of betrayal by the West and a profound loss of confidence in treaties and in the United Nations because NATO took this action outside the UN. Previously confident that Russia was moving toward integration with Europe, they focused their security concerns only on their southern and eastern boundaries. Now they perceive their primary threat from the West.

Officials in Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defence because its conventional forces are inadequate. When I said that if Russia used even a single nuclear weapon the U.S.A. would respond with hundreds or thousands of missiles, they nodded and said "Yes, it would be suicidal, but how else can we defend ourselves?"

As I left Moscow, I felt the same dread I experienced in the Reagan years, with a similar sense of unreality. While the Russians are comparing this situation to the Cuban missile crisis, journalists in the West tell me that the war is almost over now that negotiations including the Russians are under way. Why are they reassured when Milosevic has not agreed to anything, and the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade has added even greater tensions to this war?

Even if the bombings stop now, they change Russia's attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert, and its loss of confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe.

Those of us who live in NATO countries must convince our governments to stop the bombings until negotiations can bring about a settlement. This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars.

The global situation is the most urgent crisis of our time. We must mobilize all or networks to stop this bombing before we slide into the final world war.