Art introduces his guest, Luba Brezhnev, niece of former Soviet Union leader Leonid Brezhnev. The conversation begins with a backdrop of recent upheavals in Russia, including the firing of three top officials by President Boris Yeltsin and the arrests of two of Yeltsin’s reelection team members. Alexander Lebed, Yeltsin’s newly appointed security aide, comments on these events, suggesting a struggle for power and potential threats to the upcoming presidential runoff election.
Art then shifts the focus to Luba Brezhnev, who provides a personal account of her life in Russia. Born in Magnitogorsk, she moved to Moscow to study French and witnessed significant historical events, including the 1964 coup that ousted Nikita Khrushchev. Luba faced persecution from the KGB, including raids and beatings, due to her relationship with a German colonel and her reading of Solzhenitsyn’s works. Despite her desire to emigrate to the West, she remained in Russia until 1990, working as a translator and journalist. She eventually moved to the United States, settling in Northern California.
Luba expresses her concerns about the future of democracy in Russia. She predicts that if Yeltsin loses the election, it could mark the end of democracy and the rise of a dictatorship. Conversely, she suggests that a loss for his opponent, Gennady Zyuganov, might not have a significant impact but could lead to conflicts, possibly even a bloody conflict, echoing Zyuganov’s own warnings about Russia sliding into civil war.
Luba Brezhnev expresses that the choice of the president’s advisors is as crucial as the president himself, citing the strong influence these advisors can have, as seen in the cases of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Luba notes that Yeltsin’s rule was significantly shaped by the corrupt and influential people around him, rather than his own direct leadership.
Luba also speaks highly of Alexander Lebed, the third-place finisher in the election, praising his honesty and decency despite his lack of political sophistication. She believes that if Lebed can gain influence within the government, regardless of whether Yeltsin or Zyuganov wins, he could address major issues like nuclear threats and rampant corruption. However, she fears for Lebed’s safety, acknowledging that his life could be in danger due to the vested interests of the corrupt officials currently surrounding Yeltsin.
Regarding the future of Russia, Luba is deeply concerned about the country’s economic situation. She predicts dire consequences if the economic system isn’t restored, including runaway inflation and a potential political advantage for the opposition. She doubts that Russia would revert to its old communist ways but expects some aspects of socialism to persist. Luba perceives little difference between Zyuganov, Yeltsin, and Gorbachev, labeling them opportunists who are products of the same system.
Luba criticizes both Gorbachev and Yeltsin for taking advantage of their positions for personal gain, particularly during the period of perestroika. Luba is skeptical about the candidacy of Zyuganov, questioning his ability to bring Russia out of its current state and his concept of a socialist market economy.
Art Bell asks Luba about her personal stance towards communism, given her family background. She reveals that she never belonged to the Communist Party, describing herself as a dissident and rebellious. Despite her uncle Leonid Brezhnev’s high profile, she faced harsh treatment from the KGB, including interrogations and beatings, indicating a complex family dynamic and her independent stance.
The conversation then shifts to Luba’s upbringing and family background. She explains that her mother’s noble heritage and her stepfather’s influence provided her with a classical education, which helped her form her own views about the Soviet system. Luba recounts her involvement in the political dynamics of Moscow, particularly her knowledge of the palace coup against Nikita Khrushchev in 1964. She also shares a personal story of falling in love with a German military pilot, leading to further complications with the KGB, including surveillance, harassment, and physical harm.
Luba Brezhnev shares more about her personal experiences and perspectives on the political situation in Russia. She talks about the difficulties she faced due to her relationship with a German military pilot and her resistance to the demands of the KGB, which led to her being viewed as uncooperative and dangerous. Luba details the physical abuse she suffered at the hands of the KGB, which caused lasting health issues, and expresses her discomfort at seeing former KGB agents thriving in America.
Luba then shifts to discuss the current state of life in Moscow, emphasizing the stark contrast between the lifestyles of the wealthy and the poor. She paints a grim picture of the living conditions for the majority of the population, with high poverty rates, rampant prostitution among highly educated women, overcrowded hospitals, and a significant number of suicides and missing children. These dire circumstances, she believes, contribute to the people’s desperation and the potential for a return of communist rule.
Reflecting on the political landscape, Luba suggests that the so-called democrats’ failed policies have ironically paved the way for a possible resurgence of communism. She fears that if the communists regain power, it could lead to further expansionism, bloody conflicts, and repression. Despite recognizing Yeltsin as the lesser of two evils, she remains concerned about the future of Russia under the shadow of potential communist resurgence.
Luba expresses concern about the possibility of a civil war due to the deeply divided electorate, with nearly half desiring a return to communist rule and the Soviet Union. She emphasizes the lack of thorough reporting by American media on the complex situation in Russia, suggesting that the American public is not fully aware of the realities there.
Luba argues that the failure of democracy in Russia can be attributed to the inexperience of its leaders and people in democratic governance, having been under a communist system for over 70 years. She points out that many of the current leaders are the same individuals who were in power during the communist era, leading to a lack of innovative and ethical governance.
Further, Luba discusses the corruption among Russian officials and the mismanagement of funds provided by the U.S. for nuclear disarmament. She raises concerns about the potential for nuclear terrorism and the risk of nuclear warheads falling into the wrong hands, emphasizing the global importance of this issue.
The conversation highlights the criticality of the nuclear situation in Russia. Art Bell notes that the primary concern for Americans regarding Russia is the country’s vast nuclear arsenal, suggesting that without the nuclear threat, American interest in Russia’s internal affairs might be significantly less.
Luba highlights the strategic importance of a railroad line between Russia and China, which was initially intended for commercial purposes but could also be used for military deployment. Luba points out that this infrastructure symbolizes the fluctuating dynamics between the two nations.
Art then opens the floor for listeners to ask Luba questions, emphasizing her unique perspective as Leonid Brezhnev’s niece and a victim of KGB brutality. One listener inquires about the distinction between socialists and communists. Luba responds by explaining that socialism and communism are almost the same, with socialism often viewed as a transitional stage to communism. This conversation reflects the interest and confusion in the West regarding the differences between these political ideologies.
Luba also addresses the dire situation of nuclear weapons in Russia. She expresses concern about the lack of strict control over nuclear arsenals in the post-Soviet era, highlighting the risks posed by the black market sale of nuclear materials to countries and terrorist groups. Luba warns of the potential for a disaster akin to Chernobyl, due to the deteriorating conditions of nuclear submarines stationed along Russia’s Pacific coast. This situation, she argues, poses a global threat and requires urgent attention.
Luba expresses her view that both are utopian and impractical, highlighting that the Russian government remained communist in nature regardless of the ideology it claimed to follow. Luba also corrects a misunderstanding about the number of Russian nuclear warheads, clarifying that there are 6 million, which is more than enough to cause global destruction.
The discussion then turns to the Russian presidential elections, where Luba states her unwillingness to vote for any communist candidate, whether former or present. She expresses her preference for Yuri Vlasov and Dmitri as potential leaders, considering them better choices for Russia’s future. Despite being pessimistic about the current state of affairs, Luba hopes for Russia to become one of the world’s leading countries in the next century.
Luba critiques Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, accusing him of unethical behavior in the election campaign and misuse of presidential power to control the media. She believes that the Russian media’s support for Yeltsin was primarily to prevent the election of a communist leader, which would endanger free media in Russia.
Furthermore, Luba addresses the evolving Russian attitude towards the West, noting a growing resentment and mistrust. She attributes this to the belief that Western economic advice aimed to weaken Russia and the adoption of negative aspects of American capitalism, such as gambling, crime, and child prostitution.
Luba Brezhnev discusses the rapid and challenging transition Russia underwent following the collapse of the Soviet Union. She criticizes the aggressive implementation of radical economic reforms and rapid privatization, which she believes contributed significantly to the rise in criminality. Luba shares her perception that most Russians, particularly the poorer and average citizens, no longer trust America due to these changes.
She also offers advice to Americans traveling to Russia, warning of the high crime rate and the dangers posed by criminal elements, especially to foreigners. Luba describes the dire situation of street children in cities like Saint Petersburg, highlighting the extreme levels of poverty and criminality among them.
Art Bell compares his experience in Communist China, noting the safety and lack of crime he observed there, to the current situation in Russia. Luba acknowledges that while the Soviet system had its positive aspects, such as guaranteed employment and basic necessities, the current state of Russia leaves many people without these basic securities.
The conversation then shifts to the potential impact of a civil war in Russia, with Luba expressing concern about the control and use of nuclear weapons in such a scenario. She believes that terrorist groups might already have access to nuclear materials, posing a significant threat not only within Russia but globally.
A listener inquires about the state of religious freedom under different potential leaders. Luba suggests that someone like Zyuganov, if elected, might not significantly impact religious freedom, as economic concerns would likely take precedence over religious issues.
Luba Brezhnev discusses how the sudden freedom experienced by Russians after the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a period of excess and irresponsible behavior, akin to the caller’s personal experience of newfound freedom during college. She agrees that this kind of freedom can be dangerous if people don’t understand the responsibility that comes with it.
Luba then shifts to the topic of the Russian mafia and corruption. She expresses that the Russian mafia, while a concern, is not as significant a threat as the widespread corruption among those in power. This corruption, she argues, is more challenging to address than the mafia, which has been present historically in various countries.
A listener then asks about the potential government that could emerge from the upcoming elections, comparing it to the Kerensky government of 1917. Luba acknowledges the uncertainty surrounding the future government, agreeing that it may face challenges in governing effectively, similar to the Kerensky government.
The conversation also touches on the shopping habits of the wealthy in Russia, with Luba explaining that there are now shopping centers where one can buy anything if they have the money, albeit at high prices. She adds a thought on the wealthy and business people who support the communists, pondering why they would vote for a return to communism given their current status.
Luba Brezhnev discusses the transition of professionals into business during the post-Soviet reforms and the realization that financial stability does not necessarily bring satisfaction. She suggests that many people miss their professional lives and the normalcy it brought.
Luba then answers various questions from listeners. One caller inquires about the possibility of a monarchist movement in Russia and the reburial of the Tsar’s family. Luba believes it is unlikely for the monarchy to be restored, given the significant passage of time and changes in Russian society.
Another caller asks about her uncle Leonid Brezhnev’s ambitions regarding the Middle East and its oil riches. Luba denies any such intentions from her uncle, emphasizing his stance against war and noting Russia’s own natural resources.
The conversation shifts to the potential for Russian businessmen to engage with American businessmen through internet forums to foster partnerships and promote a more democratic economy in Russia. Luba confirms the availability and feasibility of using the internet for such purposes in Russia.
A caller with expertise in Russian nuclear affairs raises questions about the reprocessing of plutonium in Russia and the challenges posed by environmental groups and political pressures. Luba expresses doubt about Yeltsin’s ability to address these issues effectively, considering the complexities and high costs involved in handling nuclear materials.
Luba Brezhnev reflects on the current state of Russia, describing it as sad, upset, unhappy, miserable, and poor. She expresses her deep personal pain about the situation and her lack of optimism for the country’s future. Despite wanting to visit her parents and relatives in Russia, she is advised to stay where she is, particularly because of her public statements about the Yeltsin government and the KGB.
Luba also shares an incident where she refused to shake hands with a KGB colonel, illustrating her strong feelings against the current government and its representatives. Her comfort and sense of belonging in America, in contrast to her discomfort with the Russian government, is evident.
Art Bell, the host, thanks Luba for her insights and expresses his intention to visit Moscow despite the stern warnings he has received about its safety. He compares Moscow to the “old west” in terms of danger and expresses a strong desire to see the situation for himself.
The conversation then shifts to a discussion about the Clinton administration, focusing on several ongoing investigations, particularly the controversy around the FBI files. The segment details the complexities of the investigations and the political turmoil surrounding the White House, including conflicts of interest and the need for a special prosecutor.
The focus shifts to the political landscape in the United States, specifically the controversies and scandals surrounding the Clinton administration. Art expresses disbelief and frustration at how President Bill Clinton’s approval ratings have remained high despite the serious nature of the allegations against him, which include the improper acquisition of FBI files and potential misuse of power.
Art Bell comments on the incredulity that the American public seems largely indifferent or unconcerned about these serious issues. He questions the integrity of the White House’s explanations regarding the FBI file scandal, highlighting the discrepancies between the White House’s statements and the testimony of the Secret Service.
The discussion then moves to broader societal issues in the United States, such as the growing income gap between the wealthy and the poor, and the health impacts of smog and air pollution. These topics underscore concerns about social inequality and environmental health risks.
Additionally, the segment touches on the controversial activities of Dr. Kevorkian, known for assisting in the suicides of terminally ill patients. The host questions what should be done about Dr. Kevorkian’s actions, reflecting the ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding assisted suicide.
Art addresses the disturbing trend of church burnings and other violent acts in the country, expressing frustration and condemnation of these senseless acts of destruction and violence.
Callers to the show share their thoughts on the political situation. One caller criticizes Bob Dole’s campaign strategy, particularly his reluctance to attack President Clinton on character issues. Bell agrees, emphasizing the importance of character in a presidential candidate and expressing dismay over the American public’s apparent indifference to these character issues.
The conversation then turns to the potential impact of the presidential election on the appointment of federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. Bell notes that while there might be differences in the types of appointments made by Clinton or Dole, it’s unclear how significant these differences would be. He also remarks on the lack of substantial policy differences between the two candidates, particularly on major issues like military policy, the national debt, and the deficit.
Another caller brings up the topic of abortion, and Bell reiterates that the abortion debate is ultimately a matter for the Supreme Court, not the president. He also reflects on the broader moral and social issues facing the country, suggesting that the behavior of the American people, rather than the president, will influence the nation’s direction.
Bell reiterates his view of the election as a choice between “a good man who cannot win and a bad man who can,” predicting that unless something changes drastically, Bill Clinton is likely to win re-election. He emphasizes that the fate of the nation rests in the hands of its people.
Bell and a caller debate the reliability of polls. Bell argues that the polls are generally accurate, citing their scientific methodology. He acknowledges that while people’s opinions in one’s personal circle might differ from poll results, these polls represent a broader cross-section of society.
The conversation then shifts to the public’s trust in the candidates. The caller suggests that people might prefer a trustworthy candidate, but Bell points out that the issue might be that people don’t see Dole as a more trustworthy option than Clinton. Bell reflects on the challenges of understanding why the American public is not more responsive to the controversies surrounding Clinton, as reported in the media.
Bell defends his belief in the accuracy of polls, arguing that dismissing polls as biased is a simplistic response. He suggests that a more critical question is why the American public is responding the way it is to current political events, as reflected in these polls.
A caller suggests that an independent candidate, like Ross Perot, with personal financial backing and no ties to special interests, might be a solution to the political issues. Bell acknowledges this idea but points out the challenges in finding such a candidate and the unlikelihood of their success in the current political climate.
Bell shares his frustration with both presidential candidates, describing Bob Dole as a good person but a poor candidate and Bill Clinton as a good candidate but not a good person. He expresses a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate and feels that the election results, regardless of who wins, won’t bring about significant change or improvement.
Another caller draws parallels between the political situation in Russia and the United States, suggesting that if Americans were to experience severe hardships like hunger, they might also support any solution offered, regardless of the consequences for their freedom. This reflects a concern that people might trade their freedoms for comfort or security in times of crisis.
The discussion then turns to the scandals surrounding the Clinton administration, particularly the FBI file controversy. Bell is alarmed by the government’s actions and the apparent indifference of the American public to these serious issues, as reflected in Clinton’s rising poll numbers. He laments this as a trade-off of freedom for comfort and expresses astonishment at the public’s apparent disregard for these matters.
The conversation then shifts to the moral character of political leaders. A caller poses a hypothetical question about whether one would still use the services of a skilled mechanic known to have personal flaws. Bell responds that while he might overlook personal flaws for performance in certain situations, he believes that in the case of a president, personal character and professional performance are inseparable. He expresses dissatisfaction with President Clinton’s performance, likening him to a mechanic who talks a good game but fails to deliver.
Another caller discusses the reliability of polls, suggesting that many conservatives may opt out of participating in polls, leading to skewed results. Bell acknowledges this possibility but maintains his belief in the general accuracy of polls. He emphasizes that polling is a scientific process and that the results are generally close to reality, though not always perfect.
Bell’s frustration with the current political landscape is evident throughout the segment. He expresses discontent with both presidential candidates and the American public’s apparent apathy towards political scandals and issues.
Art Bell discusses the political landscape and the upcoming presidential election, focusing on the challenges faced by Bob Dole in his campaign against Bill Clinton. Bell expresses his belief that Dole, despite being a good person, is not a strong candidate. He criticizes Dole for taking the high road in politics, which Bell sees as ineffective against Clinton’s more aggressive political tactics.
Bell suggests that Dole needs to show more passion and vision to connect with the American people. He proposes that a relaxed, in-depth interview with Dole could help reveal his passion and vision, potentially changing the dynamics of the election. However, Bell remains pessimistic about Dole’s chances of winning the election.
The conversation then shifts to third-party candidates. While Bell is open to the idea of supporting a third-party candidate, he does not see any viable options currently. He specifically mentions Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, but dismisses his chances of winning the election.
A caller suggests that third-party candidates should focus on local grassroots movements and highlight Clinton’s controversies to gain traction. Bell agrees that there are substantial issues to critique in Clinton’s record, such as Travelgate, the FBI files controversy, and Whitewater. However, he remains skeptical that a third-party candidate could leverage these issues effectively enough to win the presidency.
Bell concludes that while he will vote for Dole, he does so without optimism, believing that Clinton will likely win re-election. He expresses a desire for a viable third-party candidate but does not see one emerging in the current political climate.
A caller humorously suggests Jack Kevorkian as a third-party candidate, emphasizing the need for a dark horse in politics. Another caller, a libertarian, agrees that viable third-party candidates are needed but acknowledges that both Harry Browne and Jack Kevorkian are not realistic options.
A different caller shifts the conversation to a more serious topic, discussing a documentary he watched about Russia. The documentary highlighted the dire situation at a Russian nuclear power plant where employees hadn’t been paid for 6 to 9 months, yet continued working due to the necessity of their job. This conversation underscores the grim reality of life in some parts of Russia.
The discussion then returns to potential presidential candidates, with a suggestion that Bill Cosby could be a good choice due to his background and qualities. Bell responds with a sense of resignation, reiterating his view that the current political situation is a choice between “a good man who can’t win and a bad man who can.”
A caller discusses a strange experience involving a rerun of Bell’s show being played in the background of a rock station, illustrating the wide-reaching and sometimes unexpected influence of Bell’s program.
A caller suggests that Ross Perot was a “crazy good man” who could have won the election and brought significant change to Washington, to which Bell agrees. He laments that Dole, despite being an honorable man, is not the campaigner needed to shake up the political system like Perot could have.
Another caller speculates that the Republicans might not want to win the election, suggesting a conspiracy or lack of desire to challenge Clinton seriously. Bell doesn’t fully endorse this theory but acknowledges the feeling of disillusionment with the political process.
He describes his attitude toward the elections as “lethargic,” expressing a lack of excitement and hope for meaningful change. This sentiment is shared by callers, with one hoping for a “miracle” to change the course of the election.
Bell emphasizes his commitment to honesty in his broadcasts, even when the topics are depressing. He expresses frustration with the American public’s apparent apathy towards significant political issues, such as the FBI files scandal. Bell criticizes Bob Dole’s lack of response to these controversies, suggesting that Dole is missing a critical opportunity to challenge Clinton effectively.
A caller named Dr. Democrat offers a counterpoint, arguing that Dole’s stance on abortion and the Supreme Court undermines his credibility. Bell acknowledges the caller’s point about the American public’s acceptance of political mudslinging but maintains that the use of the FBI for political purposes is a serious issue that should concern voters.
Art Bell and a caller discuss the strategy and prospects of Bob Dole in the upcoming presidential election. The caller believes that Dole is currently playing it safe by taking the high road but predicts that he will become more aggressive in the final months of the campaign. The caller suggests that once Bill Clinton begins to attack Dole, Dole will retaliate by highlighting the inconsistencies and issues within the Clinton administration. The idea is that Dole will shift from a clean campaign to a more assertive stance, exposing Clinton’s changing narratives and the controversies surrounding his presidency.
Bell, however, is skeptical of this optimistic outlook. He expresses doubt about Dole’s ability to change the dynamics of the campaign and questions whether Dole has the necessary vigor and strategy to effectively challenge Clinton. Bell acknowledges the caller’s hopes but points out that these are based more on wishes and emotions rather than a realistic assessment of Dole’s campaign.
The conversation also touches on the possibility of an indictment against Clinton, which the caller believes could change the entire political scenario. Bell agrees that this could be a game-changer, potentially leading to Clinton not running for re-election and changing the dynamics of the race.
Bell concludes the show by maintaining his stance of cautious observation, remaining open to the possibility of changes in the political landscape but not overly optimistic. He emphasizes the importance of timing in politics and the potential implications of any significant developments in the Clinton controversies.