What's in a name? Quite a bit, to judge from the high feelings aroused by a decision by Russian television and radio to revert to Soviet-era names when referring to the republics along Russia's periphery and their cities -- and even to some locations within Russia.


Thus Kyrgyzstan has become Kirgizia on the Russian television news for the first time in two years. Moldova has reverted to Moldavia and Belarus is once again Byelorussia under new rules effected this week.





In a letter to Izvestia, the news directors of the television news program "Vesti" and of Radio Rossiya were at pains to portray the shift in terminology as simply a linguistic matter with no political overtones.


"This question bears no relation to the problem of sovereignty and respect of the dignity of nations," the letter declares.


The media executives contend that the names adopted by the fledgling nations following the collapse of the Soviet empire are difficult for Russians to get their tongues around and pose grammatical problems.


Other countries, they argue, shape the names of foreign lands to suit their linguistic needs. Hence "Rossiya," as the word is pronounced in Russian, becomes "Russie" in French and "Russia" in English.


Yes, but: These linguistic arguments appear disingenuous to say the least given the current Kremlin policy shift toward a more nationalistic policy line on the "near abroad." The timing of the reversion to Soviet terminology cannot be seen as coincidental and, in this sense, is highly political.


That certainly was the reaction of an outraged Kazakh politician who denounced the move to The Associated Press as "a return to the colonial policy of past times." Kazakhstan, by the way, is not on the list, but its capital, Almaty, will revert to the Soviet-style Alma-Ata on the Russian airwaves.


And it would be surprising if angry reactions were not registered in republics within Russia like Tatarstan (now Tataria) and Sa-kha (Yakutia). It can hardly be argued that the new names are hard for Russians to pronounce; but they are hard for some to swallow because of the autonomy they imply.


The "Z" factor -- the rise of the neo-imperialist Vladimir Zhirinovsky -- is undoubtedly at the root of this shift. President Boris Yeltsin, in a misguided effort to recapture popularity, has been edging closer to the Zhirinovsky line in his statements on foreign policy: hence the increasing stridency of statements by Kremlin officials about Russia's status as a "great power."


It is difficult, however, to imagine what possible gain the Kremlin may have envisaged in deciding to introduce, through the state-run media, such an explosive terminology shift. What's in a name? More than they bargained for.