Boris Yeltsin and the Crisis in Russia

* The Times has been less than helpful, indeed overtly disinforming, in its reports on the situation in Russia.

Apparently, when viewing that extraordinarily complicated milieu, it is appropriate to refer to Boris Yeltsin as the triumphant advocate of liberty and to his multifaceted opposition as hard-liners and pro-communist, thus effectively demonizing them in a most facile manner.

Thus, does the Clinton Administration draw its line between the good and the bad guys within the context of that still-to-be-defined struggle?

Would it be too much to ask that at some point you remind your readers that this crisis of potentially worldwide proportions was precipitated by Yeltsin when he unilaterally dissolved a lawfully elected Parliament?

JOSEPH HILSTROM

Hermosa Beach

* In response to “Bill of Wrongs: Constitution a Mess in Russia” (Oct. 3):

I was assistant minister of justice of Russia for the last several years, and there is nothing mysterious for me in Boris Yeltsin’s approach to the legal values. When they start to say that Yeltsin “was forced” to break the constitution, please, don’t hurry to wipe his eyes. As far as I remember his style, this man could sign at the same time two drafts of legislation, which were diametrically opposed to each other, introduced by two concurrent advisers.

But what is really surprising to me is the unconditional (praise for) the elections in Russia for December. I cannot keep myself from asking: What sort of elections did you applaud?

The elections appear to be held by Yeltsin’s order. As long as it is done illegally, there are no laws that govern the elections. There are no laws that describe times, places, manner of holding such elections, quotas and apportions, the number of members of the new Parliament, who could elect and who could be elected. No restrictions. No rights.

However, the most ridiculous thing is that neither Yeltsin nor anybody else knows exactly what legal ramifications the new candidates would face.

Yeltsin has arbitrarily devised two schemes named “Duma” and “Federal Council.” Hopefully he will not change his mind. For the time being, 300 million people are waiting for czar Boris’ invention on the houses’ composition and functions.

Incidentally, there is nothing new in this. For many centuries, my compatriots have been forced to “a happy future” by an “iron hand.” But for the first time such coercion has been publicly greeted by the officials in the United States.

VLADIMIR BOGORAD

Van Nuys

* I watched the CNN coverage of the events in Moscow. I am opposed to the President’s encouragement of the use of violence. The use of the troops against elected officials occupying seats under the current constitution is an affront to civilization; are we to return to rule by force and violence? There would have eventually been elections. Now, who knows what will happen? I feel very strongly that we ought to have stayed out of it and at the very least not encouraged the use of violence. Clinton also has blood on his hands as far as I am concerned.

GERI M. KENYON

Topanga

* I note that President Clinton was quick to take the side of Yeltsin in the latest problem in Russia. He remarked that it would be well for us to support “democracy” and even suggested that we forward a loan of $2 billion to sustain his government.

Dismissing the Parliament is a most undemocratic action, isn’t it?

MILTON L. TAUBKIN

Los Angeles