KUCHMA WARNS OF 'RED REVENGE' IN UKRAINE. President Leonid Kuchma told an economic forum on 11 December that left-wing forces in the parliament, led by its speaker Aleksandr Moroz, "are longing for power, for the purpose of bringing back the socialist system to Ukraine," ItarTass reported. Kuchma said that he hoped the Ukrainian people would take this into consideration when they vote for a new parliament in March 1998. But despite his clashes with the parliament -- also on 11 December, the Verkhovna Rada again voted to fire Kuchma's privatization chief -- the Ukrainian president said that he would not dissolve the parliament in violation of the constitution. He said that he did not operate on the assumption that "no parliament equals no problems." PG

UKRAINE, RUSSIA INCREASE SECURITY, ECONOMIC COOPERATION. The Ukrainian-Russian strategy group will seek to promote a new "hotline regime" between the presidents of the two countries, Interfax-Ukraine reported on 11 December. The group's Russian co-chairman, Yeltsin press spokesman Sergei Yastrzhembskii, said in Kyiv that its members must become "lobbyists in the positive sense of the word," defending Ukrainian interests in Moscow and Russian interests in Kyiv. Meanwhile, Ukrainian and Russian experts agreed to meet in the Ukrainian capital on 13 December to discuss cooperation in manufacturing An-70 airplanes. And Ukrainian officials said that they were almost finished with a draft for expanded economic cooperation with Russia. PG

UKRAINIAN CITY 'NATIONALIZES' SOVIET WAR MONUMENT. The Lviv city council in western Ukraine has voted to change a monument erected in honor of Soviet troops who liberated the city from Nazi troops at the end of World War II into one commemorating "fighters for the freedom of Ukraine," including the OUN, UPA and other groups that fought against Soviet power there in the 1940s and 1950s, Itar-Tass reported on 11 December. PG

Negotiators in Vienna hope that a new treaty limiting the danger of an arms build-up in Europe can be achieved by the end of next year, although they warn considerable political will to reach agreement will be required on the part of some countries.

The negotiators are revising the 1990 CFE treaty between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, which placed limits on the number of tanks, artillery, armored cars, war planes, and battle helicopters located between the Atlantic and the Urals. The new treaty will replace the bloc-to-bloc ceilings imposed on both alliances with national and territorial ceilings.

National ceilings place a limit on the size of each country's armed forces, while the territorial ceilings impose a limit on the overall number of military forces deployed in any single country. In most cases, the territorial ceilings will be higher than the national ones, but the actual limits are still being worked out.

A senior negotiator told RFE/RL that the national and territorial ceilings on the number of tanks, artillery, and other weapons are among the most difficult issues to resolve. "They go to the heart of the security of individual states, many of which remain suspicious of each other" he said. "Each government wants to be certain that the treaty allows it enough forces to meet its legitimate defense requirements."

Thirty countries are participating in the negotiations, including the U.S., Russia, and most of the states of Western, Central and Eastern Europe, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Moldova. The neutral countries and Central Asian states, with the exception of Kazakhstan, are not involved.

Gregory Govan, the chief U.S. negotiator, told RFE/RL that the talks are proceeding "slowly but methodically." He said one of the biggest political problems is Russia's attempts to impose conditions that would limit the effects of NATO enlargement. For example, Russia wants to restrict the degree to which the original 16 members of NATO can deploy forces on the territory of the alliance's new members, either permanently or temporarily.

NATO believes fixed limits should be established only for ground forces, while Russia wants also to include fixed limits for warplanes and battle helicopters. NATO argues that including aircraft and helicopters is unrealistic. It is relatively easy for inspectors to determine whether ground forces are within the limits set by a treaty. But aircraft and helicopters can be flown in and out of a territory within minutes, making effective inspection virtually impossible.

NATO diplomats say the alliance considers Russia's fears of a possible buildup of Western military power in countries near its borders to be exaggerated. However, it understands those fears and is trying to quell them. To this end, the U.S. has proposed the creation of a "zone of stability" in which the size of military forces would be limited. However, it insists that the zone include other countries as well as the new NATO members.

Under the U.S. proposal--which has now been accepted by NATO as a whole--the "zone of stability" would include Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Belarus, northern Ukraine, and Kaliningrad. The U.S. suggests that territorial limits in this zone would be the same as the present national limits, effectively preventing a build-up of foreign forces in any of those countries. The same conditions would apply until the next review of the treaty, scheduled for 2001. The U.S. further proposes that the treaty be reviewed every five years.

Govan says that, in addition to political issues, there are many technical problems to be resolved. Among them is the system for checking that signatories are honoring the treaty. "One of the best features of the 1990 CFE treaty was its system of verification and transparency," he said. "Everyone agrees that it worked well and should be continued. The problem is how to maintain the same degree of assurance and confidence in a much more complicated treaty."

According to Govan, the attitude of some countries is also a problem. "One group of countries at the talks has strong ideas on how a future treaty on conventional forces should look," he said. "There are other countries that don't have this outlook. Some have difficulties adjusting to a new kind of treaty that is not based on a bloc-to-bloc approach. Govan did not identify any countries but acknowledged that some NATO countries are among those nostalgic for the ease of decision-making under the old system.

Originally, the new CFE treaty was expected to be ready by summer 1998, but few diplomats believe this timetable is realistic. Most now hope the negotiations can be completed by November 1998, allowing the new treaty to be signed in December by the heads of government attending a summit meeting of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. However, the signing ceremony is still many months and many problems away.

Negotiators in Vienna hope that a new treaty limiting the danger of an arms build-up in Europe can be achieved by the end of next year, although they warn considerable political will to reach agreement will be required on the part of some countries.

The negotiators are revising the 1990 CFE treaty between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, which placed limits on the number of tanks, artillery, armored cars, war planes, and battle helicopters located between the Atlantic and the Urals. The new treaty will replace the bloc-to-bloc ceilings imposed on both alliances with national and territorial ceilings.

National ceilings place a limit on the size of each country's armed forces, while the territorial ceilings impose a limit on the overall number of military forces deployed in any single country. In most cases, the territorial ceilings will be higher than the national ones, but the actual limits are still being worked out.

A senior negotiator told RFE/RL that the national and territorial ceilings on the number of tanks, artillery, and other weapons are among the most difficult issues to resolve. "They go to the heart of the security of individual states, many of which remain suspicious of each other" he said. "Each government wants to be certain that the treaty allows it enough forces to meet its legitimate defense requirements."

Thirty countries are participating in the negotiations, including the U.S., Russia, and most of the states of Western, Central and Eastern Europe, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Moldova. The neutral countries and Central Asian states, with the exception of Kazakhstan, are not involved.

Gregory Govan, the chief U.S. negotiator, told RFE/RL that the talks are proceeding "slowly but methodically." He said one of the biggest political problems is Russia's attempts to impose conditions that would limit the effects of NATO enlargement. For example, Russia wants to restrict the degree to which the original 16 members of NATO can deploy forces on the territory of the alliance's new members, either permanently or temporarily.

NATO believes fixed limits should be established only for ground forces, while Russia wants also to include fixed limits for warplanes and battle helicopters. NATO argues that including aircraft and helicopters is unrealistic. It is relatively easy for inspectors to determine whether ground forces are within the limits set by a treaty. But aircraft and helicopters can be flown in and out of a territory within minutes, making effective inspection virtually impossible.

NATO diplomats say the alliance considers Russia's fears of a possible buildup of Western military power in countries near its borders to be exaggerated. However, it understands those fears and is trying to quell them. To this end, the U.S. has proposed the creation of a "zone of stability" in which the size of military forces would be limited. However, it insists that the zone include other countries as well as the new NATO members.

Under the U.S. proposal--which has now been accepted by NATO as a whole--the "zone of stability" would include Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Belarus, northern Ukraine, and Kaliningrad. The U.S. suggests that territorial limits in this zone would be the same as the present national limits, effectively preventing a build-up of foreign forces in any of those countries. The same conditions would apply until the next review of the treaty, scheduled for 2001. The U.S. further proposes that the treaty be reviewed every five years.

Govan says that, in addition to political issues, there are many technical problems to be resolved. Among them is the system for checking that signatories are honoring the treaty. "One of the best features of the 1990 CFE treaty was its system of verification and transparency," he said. "Everyone agrees that it worked well and should be continued. The problem is how to maintain the same degree of assurance and confidence in a much more complicated treaty."

According to Govan, the attitude of some countries is also a problem. "One group of countries at the talks has strong ideas on how a future treaty on conventional forces should look," he said. "There are other countries that don't have this outlook. Some have difficulties adjusting to a new kind of treaty that is not based on a bloc-to-bloc approach. Govan did not identify any countries but acknowledged that some NATO countries are among those nostalgic for the ease of decision-making under the old system.

Originally, the new CFE treaty was expected to be ready by summer 1998, but few diplomats believe this timetable is realistic. Most now hope the negotiations can be completed by November 1998, allowing the new treaty to be signed in December by the heads of government attending a summit meeting of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe. However, the signing ceremony is still many months and many problems away.