Chechnya continued

[welsh]

Came across this on the Economist and thought it might be useful.

Let's avoid another bit of flaming. Enough people were interested in this to give it a chance.

SO what do you think?

After Beslan

Russia's horror

Sep 9th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Nobody should excuse what happened in Beslan—but Chechnya still needs a solution
EPA

“THEY have declared war on us,” said one Russian television anchorman as he began his report on the massacre in Beslan. And indeed, the terrorists who devastated a school and its hostages on September 3rd wrought carnage of proportions usually seen only in wartime: the death toll, in what is only a small town, may exceed 500.

Even wars are rarely this cruel. They have rules, sort of, one of which is to avoid harming civilians where possible, and especially children. The terrorists in Beslan deliberately went for the most innocent and defenceless targets; they timed their attack, on the first day of the school year, to catch the maximum number; they tortured their small captives by refusing them all food and water; and when one of the explosives they had rigged in the school gymnasium went off, apparently by accident, they shot fleeing hostages in the back before blowing the building apart. If this were war, such bestial, inhuman acts would richly deserve the name of war crimes.

Errors and omissions

The world should recognise and affirm that. Yet it is also important to draw other lessons from Beslan. One is that the Russian security forces made mistakes that may have cost many lives. They had not established how many hostages or terrorists there were, they did too little to secure the area and bring in emergency services, they even allowed armed civilians to join the siege. That may have forced their hand when the terrorist bomb exploded (see article).

Just a week earlier, the blowing-up of two Russian airliners by suicide bombers had made little difference to government policies or to Russians' lives, besides a perfunctory increase in identity checks on passengers arriving at Moscow airports from the south of Russia. Beslan, however, has shaken the country's leadership to the core. “This is a total, cruel and full-scale war that again and again is taking the lives of our fellow citizens,” said Vladimir Putin, Russia's president.

The language of war can unify a nation. Like George Bush, who declared “war on terror” after September 11th, Mr Putin is putting his country on a war footing. He has promised “measures aimed at strengthening our country's unity”, better co-ordination of forces in the northern Caucasus, and “entirely new approaches to the way the law-enforcement agencies work.” And, as before, he has striven to link Russia's problems to America's: “What we are facing is direct intervention of international terror directed against Russia.” In effect, he wants “9/3” to be seen as Russia's 9/11.

But that is disingenuous, and may even be dangerous. The verified links between Chechen terrorists and al-Qaeda are few and tenuous. Intelligence sources doubt that the “Islambouli Brigades” that claimed responsibility for the two aircraft bombings last month actually did the deed. The Russians claim that ten of the hostage-takers in Beslan may have been Arabs, but no proof has been offered besides indistinct pictures and some sounds that just might be Arabic. All the signs are that the mastermind was Shamil Basayev, a Chechen who has organised a series of terrorist attacks, including on a hospital in Budyennovsk in 1995 and a theatre in Moscow in 2002.

Governments that go to war have a duty not only to win, but also to stop future ones breaking out. And that means understanding their root causes—which is not at all to imply excusing or condoning them. Stressing the Chechens' links with al-Qaeda lets Mr Putin wriggle out of acknowledging that America's and Russia's terrorist threats are more different than they are alike. Al-Qaeda's jihad is the product of complex circumstances, in many countries, in which America's foreign policy was only one contributory factor.

Russia's conflict in Chechnya is home-grown, nurtured in a republic that has been systematically destroyed in the struggle for power. Russia has tried to wipe out Chechnya's separatists, first through direct military force, and more recently through “Chechenisation”—ie, foisting the problem on to a local strongman (the latest luckless candidate, Alu Alkhanov, was put in place in rigged elections only two weeks ago). But the result has been to breed an anarchy in which soldiers and separatists alike kidnap and murder the innocent with impunity.

Crackdowns on rebels hiding in neighbouring republics have simply spread the lawlessness. The Beslan raiders included not just Chechens but Ingush and other northern Caucasians. Their evil deeds may now revive the old conflict between mainly Christian Ossetians and mainly Muslim Ingush. “Chechenisation” was meant to contain Chechnya; now it threatens to engulf the region. Yet Mr Basayev's Islamic fundamentalism is borrowed from abroad; it would attract few sympathisers were it not for the misery created at home.

Mr Putin said after Beslan that “we showed ourselves to be weak, and the weak get beaten.” The implication is that he will now be even tougher in Chechnya. Not only is that likely to stir up more terrorism; it also ignores one of the conflict's main drivers, which is cash. It suits certain Chechens, particularly the Kadyrov clan that now in effect controls the republic, to keep the war going, in large part because they make money out of it. It suits many in Moscow who connive at and benefit from the corruption, smuggling and worse in Chechnya. And it suits some Russian commanders and law-enforcement bosses who get their cut from Chechen oil wells, arms sales and the bribes that everyone—terrorists included—pays to get through the checkpoints that dot the northern Caucasus.

Part of the solution in Chechnya must be to break today's nexus of perverse incentives that do so much to keep the war going. That means not ever-tougher controls on the whole population, in a vain attempt to root out terrorists, but starting at last to tackle the top-to-bottom corruption that makes a joke of existing controls. Mr Putin seems sometimes to recognise that his armed forces are part of the problem, but his preferred solution still seems to be to impose control, through a Chechen placeman, rather than try a new approach.

What should that approach be? Ultimately, extreme autonomy, possibly leading to properly negotiated independence, should not be ruled out, if that is what most Chechens want. But right now, most just want peace. Simply making the republic independent would not only reward terror; it would not work, as Chechnya is too shattered to function on its own. Pulling the troops out would leave a bandit state, worse than the one that operated in 1996-99. Yet throughout the conflict, Mr Putin has refused to talk to moderate Chechens. Potential interlocutors have either turned extreme or lost support. Moreover, when Mr Putin calls Chechnya an “international” problem, he is right—though not in the way he claims. Ask Muslims around the world what aggrieves them, and they will mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, even headscarves in French schools...and Chechnya. Russia's conflict may not have started with foreign terrorists, but it has given them fodder for their own trouble-making.

That also gives western leaders an interest in helping to end it. One thing they must do is to keep telling the truth. They should offer sympathy and assistance to the Russians as victims of terrorism, not least in better training for their security forces. But even after Beslan, they should not condone Russia's human-rights abuses in Chechnya, and they should urge Mr Putin to seek out moderates with whom to talk. Perhaps after an interval, they might look for a more active involvement in the northern Caucasus. Russia has reached a dead end in Chechnya; if western offers of peacekeepers, human-rights monitors, financial or other assistance can help it to back out again, they would be well worth making.

Mr Putin will resist outside “interference”. But the Russians need help in Chechnya. And the one thing more tragic even than September 3rd would be if Budyennovsk, Moscow and now Beslan keep happening, over and over again.

I actually disagree with quite a bit of this. Chechnyan autonomy would be a bad idea and I don't think Western countries should support it. For that matter, I don't think outside interference is a good idea either. This is fundamentally a problem of Russian unity, and needs to be dealt with by Russians.

 

[Ozrat]

Yesterday I read a small article in the newspaper about how the Chechnyan rebel "headquarters" has put out a $20,000,000.00 bounty on Vladamir Putin. In return Putin has offered $10,000,000.00 for vice versa aka Bush and OBL. I'd link, but I can't find a similar article online.

Fancy trashtalk, or stepping stones to even more drama?

 

[Sander]

Hmmm....nothing new that is being said, really. The main problem with Chechnya is that Putin cannot let them go now: if he did, he would send out a message of a "weak" Russia that cannot hold its own. The point is, though, that a seperate Checnyan republic would probably be best for the Chechens: they would be relieved from the war and the terror that is continuing now, provided that Russia stays out of their politics.

This isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future, though, since Russia has determined from the start to keep Chechny in, and they won't back down now.

 

[welsh]

I am not quite sure about that Sander. This is a country that has been devestated by war, and if it got autonomy, it surely wouldn't get much love from the regional power- Russia.

An autonomous Chechnya could look a hell of a lot like a Afghanistan in '89.

But I agree, Russia would suffer serious costs if it let Chechnya go.

 

[Sander]

If it got autonomy that autonomy would have to be condoned by Russia, and Russia should keep out of it for it to be worth anything, as I said. But again here goes: Russia will never do this.

 

[DarkCorp]

Well it depends on how people look at the situation. As I would have expected from Sander, its is generally best to let countries govern themselves without the big bad superpowers sticking their noses where it don't belong. One could also say that the russian overthrow of a chechyn government would be much akin to the United States and its efforts to maintain its economic interests.

However, Russia cannot afford to let a territory so close to home be taken over by anti-russian forces, especially the over-zelous religious kind.

So if your russian than yeah we need to pacify this state for the better good of the state and the surrounding areas.

Now the chechyns might see russias actions as a tyrannical foot crushing the rights of the common people.

 

[Sovz]

what you guys are failing to understand, is that Russia did let Chechnya go in depended back in 1995, and if you don’t remember the consequences
I will remind you what did happened after Yelstins lil’ fated first Chechen war…….

the Chechens warlords (basayev) established a mafia state with close links to Afghanistan and many other Arab fanatic groups, they kidnapped civilians for ransom (killing then or cut their body parts if the ransom wasn’t paid), dealing with drugs, weaponry and woman trafficking that were later smuggled into Russia, and then Europe.

They have arranged quite a bit of terrorist acts in the Caucasus and inside Russian territories to undermine the regions stability.

they invaded into neighboring Dagestan to establish mega Islamic state that would control the region.

I really don’t see any reason why would Putin should let them go, he controls the region (more or less) the rebel (or the terrorists depends on your point of view) are hiding in the mountains and if you ever were in that region you would know there are plenty of places to hide in.
More then that, Putin now has international sympathy do whatever he wants (he would do the same without it anyway) and IMHO he will send troops to south Osetia as well.

 

[John Uskglass]

If it got autonomy that autonomy would have to be condoned by Russia, and Russia should keep out of it for it to be worth anything, as I said. But again here goes: Russia will never do this.

It was autonomus. Before Beslan, Russia just wanted Chechnea to be a puppet autonomus region. Now he's going to go Afghanistan on their asses. Chechens and Inguish brought this on themselves, people should have realized they where doing better then they had sense Russia annexed they're sorry asses.

 

[Sander]

It was as much autonomous as Vichy France was. Russian puppet leaders installed in a Russian puppet-state. As I said, for autonomy to count, it would need to be free from Russian interference. And that won't happen.

Also, if Russia DOES let it go and DOES keep out of it, the Chechens won't keep attacking Russia: there would be no need to, and there would be more pressing matters at home.

PS: I dislike your tone, DarCorp. "Big bad Superpowers" is not anything I think or would think. Thank you.

 

[Sovz]

Also, if Russia DOES let it go and DOES keep out of it, the Chechens won't keep attacking Russia.

WRONG, DAGISTAN WAS (AND STILL IS) A RUSSIAN REPUBLIC.

Chechens got de facto independence after the first Chechen war, but they still insisted on attacking Russia and invaded Dagestan, which in turn led to the second Chechen war.


EDIT: when in turn they will sort their internal affairs of who controls what they will want to get more territory.
see ex. 1996-1999

The First Chechen War occurred when Russian forces attempted to recapture the breakaway southern republic of Chechnya in a two year war lasting from 1994 to 1996.
Despite overwhelming manpower, weaponry, and air support, the Russian forces were unable to establish effective control over the mountainous area due to many successful Chechen guerrilla raids. Widespread demoralization of the Russian forces in the area prompted Russian President Boris Yeltsin to declare a unilateral cease-fire in 1995 and to begin withdrawing troops a year later.

The Second Chechen War began in 1999 after attacks by Chechen forces on neighboring Dagestan and a series of terrorist attacks on residential buildings in Russian cities that caused more than 1000 casualties

 

[DarkCorp]

Ok Sander I apologise, I guess it was a bit heavy handed.

What I was implying is that you generally take a live and let live policy. As you know however, my view of politics is a lot darker than yours.

If China could have reclaimed Taiwan by force, then the U.S. would have one less country to use as a staging point for any potential offensives.

Russia is making sure that its borders are covered. More of a "if your my neighbor and you don't intend to play nice, then I am going to have to take measures".

Both the Chechyns and the Russian peoples have legitimate worries. Now the question is which worry has the highest priority?

 

[Sander]

I disagree DarkCorp. Mainly because that isn't Russia's concern, it's concern for not going out if loss of face. If they let Chechnya go, they would show that terrorism has an effect, and it would show that Russia is a weak state.
But this has nothing to do with hostile neighbours, because what they are doing now, is just keeping their neighbours hostile, not making them friendly. Furthermore, if they were to follow that standard, they'd continue taking over neighbours until they'd taken over the entire world.

PS: No, Sovz, you're wrong. Chechnya does not have full autonomy, and the first Chechen war was initatied by the Russians, not the Chechen terrorist, and after the first Chechen war, Chechnya never gained full independence.

 

[Sovz]

PS: No, Sovz, you're wrong. Chechnya does not have full autonomy, and the first Chechen war was initatied by the Russians, not the Chechen terrorist, and after the first Chechen war, Chechnya never gained full independence.

Am I wrong? Below are the terms of the “peace treaty” signed by Yeltsin in 1997

oh and btw, i said that the second war was cased by the Chechens, not the second one.

MOSCOW -- In a move to normalize relations without resolving their fundamental dispute, President Boris N. Yeltsin of Russia and the leader of Chechnya signed a peace treaty Monday that both officials described as the end of a centuries-old conflict between Russia and the rebellious region in the Caucasus.

"We have signed a peace deal of historic dimensions, putting a full stop to 400 years of history," Yeltsin said in the Kremlin as his Chechen counterpart, Aslan Maskhadov, listened solemnly at his side.

Yeltsin pledged "never to use force or threaten to use it in relations between the Russian federation and the Republic of Ichkeria." It was the Russian president's first use of the name the rebels defiantly gave their republic to symbolize its independence.

Moscow and the Chechen rebels have reached cease-fires and peace agreements before, but Monday was the first time that Yeltsin signed a peace treaty with a Chechen counterpart. It was Yeltsin's first meeting with Maskhadov since the former rebel commander was elected president of Chechnya this winter.

The treaty, which clears the way for economic and social cooperation, was a momentous step for Russia and Chechnya, which last August halted 21 months of bloody fighting but remained wary enemies. That cease-fire gave Chechnya de facto autonomy within Russia, which was forced to hastily withdraw its troops and any pretense of maintaining control there.

Russia formally maintains that Chechnya is and must remain part of the Russian federation; Chechnya says it is already fully independent. The August agreement, which stipulated that a decision on Chechnya's status should be deferred for five years, did not resolve that critical issue, and Monday's documents also deliberately skirted any definition of its sovereignty.

"Russia can say Chechnya is a part of the federation and Chechnya can say the opposite," said Tim Guldiman, who played a critical role in negotiations between the warring sides. "But the important thing is that both sides are trying not to speak of it." Guldiman recently resigned as leader of a delegation from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in the Chechen capital, Grozny.

Monday, the two sides agreed to press on with normalization: after months of devastating aerial bombings that cost tens of thousands of lives and destroyed the republic's infrastructure, industry and housing, Chechnya's economy and society are in tatters and the region is badly in need of assistance from Moscow. Chechnya may be autonomous, but it cannot survive without Russia.

For his part, Yeltsin seized a chance to repair Russia's reputation as a democracy, which was badly damaged by the brutal conduct of its campaign to defeat the separatists.

Maskhadov and Yeltsin each has to deal with hard-liners at home who paint concessions as capitulation. Russian Communists and nationalists have been fiercely critical of Yeltsin's handling of the war and the cease-fire, but Monday, many of his staunchest opponents praised the treaty.

The Communist speaker of Parliament, Gennadi Seleznyov, called it a "considerable step toward a comprehensive, peaceful settlement."

The meeting took place two days after gunmen kidnapped a Russian television crew in Chechnya, the most recent in a series of kidnappings and bombings that have undermined Maskhadov's authority and soured the fragile atmosphere of the talks.

Mollified by his dignified reception in Moscow -- a marked contrast from the cool, curt greeting that Yeltsin accorded Maskhadov's predecessor, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, last May -- Maskhadov acknowledged the need to restore order at home.

"The authorities of Chechnya and its president will henceforth demonstrate their effectiveness to all the world," he said, "and there will be no room for terrorists and abductors of people on our land."

Nevertheless, it will not be easy for Maskhadov to bring the rival armed camps that are still competing for control in Chechnya under his thumb.

Before flying to Moscow, Maskhadov met with Salman Raduyev, a renegade Chechen commander who has claimed responsibility for several of the bombings, and persuaded him to drop plans for renewed attacks on Russia.

A few hours before, Raduyev held a rally in which he promised to fight on until Russia granted Chechnya full independence. In a sign that he still holds some sway, Raduyev remains a free man, even after the Chechen authorities said last week that they would issue a warrant for his arrest.

As soon as the peace treaty was signed, the Chechen delegation held meetings with Russia's prime minister, Viktor S. Chernomyrdin, to hammer out agreements on restoration payments, loans and reconstruction. The two sides also signed a one-year interbank agreement that will give the Chechen government an account with the Central Bank of Russia but will not integrate the Chechen banking system with the Russian one.

There were fewer specifics on the comprehensive economic agreement that both sides said they were intent on signing, including the thorny issue of how much Russia will pay in war damages, but both sides are eager to restore a destroyed pipeline linking Caspian oil fields to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk.

Even before Maskhadov sat down with Chernomyrdin, Khodzhakhmed Yarikhanov, the president of the Chechen oil company Yunko, said he could finish rebuilding the pipeline within a month if he could get his hands on $2 million. "Confrontation between Russia and Chechnya is over," he declared.

 

[boysangur]

Ok, as much as I don't like talking about politics I have to say something to you guys. First of all, I am not trying to offend you but it looks like you know very little about what you are talking about.
DarkCorp

"However, Russia cannot afford to let a territory so close to home be taken over by anti-russian forces, especially the over-zelous religious kind."

If you read the terms that Chechen rebels claim to be ready to accept if Russians agree to negotiate (found somewhere on www.chechen.org), you will find that Chechens agree to enter SNG with Russia (united independent states), they also agree to have close economic cooperation with Russia. One clause openly states an agreement to never support or participate in any anti Russian campains. Obviosly, it is not an intention of Chechen rebels to remain hostile to Russia after gaining independence. "Over-zealous religion kind" never existed in Chechnya, contrary to what the TV leads you to believe, they appeared after the beginning of 1994 war and they comprise no more than 0.5 percent of population (a couple of hundred people, if that).
Sovz

"what you guys are failing to understand, is that Russia did let Chechnya go in depended back in 1995, and if you don’t remember the consequences"

Sander answered that well - "It was as much autonomous as Vichy France was. Russian puppet leaders installed in a Russian puppet-state."
I was in Chechnya at that time and trust me, that "autonomy" wasn't much different from what is happening in Chechnya right now. The only difference was that anyone, including Chechen rebels, could freely walk the streets with a gun. It was a mess, anyone walking the street with a damn grenade launcher on their back could be either a Chechen rebel or a Russian and in either case, he could not be touched by either side, that was the agreement, the outcome of negotiations that noone touches each other. So everyone just left each other alone. Yeap, just like in Fallout. You expect things to go smooth in that kind of situation? Of course there will be crime. That is not autonomy, thats anarchy
Zovs

"the Chechens warlords (basayev) established a mafia state with close links to Afghanistan and many other Arab fanatic groups, they kidnapped civilians for ransom (killing then or cut their body parts if the ransom wasn’t paid), dealing with drugs, weaponry and woman trafficking that were later smuggled into Russia, and then Europe. "

Where did you get that information from? I lived in Chechnya and never even heard of stuff like that, what kind of ties did Basaev have to afghanistan I wonder? I personally knew people who fought with Basaev and who knew him well. I cannot say anything about him but I can say a lot about them. Most of them fought because their family members or friends got killed and others fought to avoid more deaths, some of course just fought for independence. Now, when the war was over, they became his mafia is what you are saying? You seem so sure about what you wrote. Man, at least add that that's what you heard or something because that sounds like russian yellow press.
I am not saying that there were no criminals in Chechnya at that time. As I explained, that situation had to produce them. There were crimes and there were many. People were kidnapped and killed. The criminals were the outcome of the situation. It was not Basaev or his men and it was not open. Each side was blaming kidnappings on each other all the time if you remember. Chechens were saying that Russians did it to blame it on Chechens and Russians said that chechens did it. How do you know it was Basaev?
Zovs
"

The Second Chechen War began in 1999 after attacks by Chechen forces on neighboring Dagestan and a series of terrorist attacks on residential buildings in Russian cities that caused more than 1000 casualties"

Now lets not BS. You can all research about the blown up residential buildings on the internet. Here is a couple of links
http://eng.terror99.ru/resources/film/ and http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma...13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/13/ixnewstop.html
You will find that russian FSB was caught red handed planting the bombs under the buildings and chechens were blamed without any proof. You will also find that weeks before the explosions, russian news reported that russian forces built up near chechen borders (those that entered chechnya after the explosions). you can all find it and read it. It was open at that time, it was such a big thing that even NTV - russian TV itself had televised investigations, it was of course calmed down by whoever. It was simply corrected too, Russian government-owned TV had only to repeat that chechens did it and most russians went with it. So Sovz, if you say something like that, dont forget to mention exactly what happened. Or are you going to tell me I'm lying right now?
Another thing to consider:
Chechens fought for freedom for hundreds of years. They used to be the biggest nation in Caucasus (12 million), and now it's second smallest (less than 1 million) because they would never give up their independence. Even before Chechens became muslims (which they did in 16th century), they fought against russian and mongol invaders including Chinghiskhan who decided to go around Chechnya after suffering too many losses. Chechens now have been fighting russia for 300 years. The Caucasian War was officially over in 1864 but there have not been 30 years since then without a major uprising of Chechens. Last one was in 1974 when Hasuh (last chechen rebel) was killed and then again in 1994 as you all know. This is history of that region and, as Chechen Addatt (unwritten law of chechens) states, every Chechen must remember it. Every Chechen can name their ancestors at least 7 generations back. Now take into account mentality of such people, do you think it's possible that they will ever agree to submit? They will never settle down unless they are given autonomy. Let's say the war is over in a month and there are no more rebels. I guarantee you that its only a matter of time until it happens again. Russia brings this headache on itself. Why not leave it alone? Chechnya and Russia lived well as neighboors before the war. For several years before the war started in 1994, Chechnya was independent and there were no problems. Even before Chechens officially proclaimed themelved independent, it was independent. I lived there and towards the end of 80s you could not feel Russian presense in chechnya at all, except of course limit of economic freedoms. You can find pictures of Maskhadov (rebel leader) standing with Yeltsin in Kremlin You can also find pictures of President of Ingushetia and Russian Defense Minister celebrating inauguration of Chechen president. (

). Why Russia does not want to get back to that, only Putin knows. As for Chechnya surviving on its own, well it's no afghanistan, its not in the desert. Chechnya has rich resources including the purest grade oil. Vatican purchased oil from Chechnya to make candles that do not produce grey smoke and do not darken the white ceiling of the Vatican churches because they are made of such pure oil. Besides natural resources, location was a sort of a resource for chechnya, as the major regional oil sites were taxed for transporting oil through chechnya (including pipe traffic), now they have to go around which is very expensive. Grozny plant "Molot" is the biggest factory in Northern Caucasus and Grozny was given the award of one of the most beautiful and progressive cities of former USSR by the USSR. Chechens know how to live and how to work but they want to live alone and on their own land. If russia completely left it alone, Chechnya would flourish and develop into a great country. When i was a kid, I remember american ambassador coming to visit my father in chechnya and telling us how amazing he thought it was, the nature and the architecture. Russians came and turned it all to s**t, I wanted to go fight against them just because of that when the war started. Before russia invaded chechnya, the only thing they heard about chechens was achievements of their athletes, it can come back to that. Many russians lived in chechnya and ALL of them were against Russia. Hell, i personally saw russian soldiers shoot a russian old woman for taking too much bread out of her own apartment. It's not the chechens that keep this war going, its the russians. Putin of course will never let it end because thats how he became the president. This war made him. The only reason he can do that is because Russians do not stop him. Do russians need this war? of course not, there is plenty of problems in russia that should be dealt with but they are brain washed by their government. They blindly believe what they are told and do not want to think logically. "Chechens are to blame" sounds good then let it be. However, only they can stop it, Putin won't stop and Chechens wont stop. How can they when Colonel Budanov who killed and tortured a chechen girl Elza Kungaeva was pardoned by russian officials. Samashki crew who did the famous Samashki Massacre was not even prosecuted (if you want to see the pictures and read about what happened there go to http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/). I know that there are both russian criminals and chechen criminals but only chechens are called criminals and terrorists for some reason. If stuff like this was happening to your people and your mother's or your son's body was laying in one of those mass graves what would you say then? Would you stop?

 

[DarkCorp]

If you read the terms that Chechen rebels claim to be ready to accept if Russians agree to negotiate (found somewhere on www.chechen.org), you will find that Chechens agree to enter SNG with Russia (united independent states), they also agree to have close economic cooperation with Russia. One clause openly states an agreement to never support or participate in any anti Russian campains. Obviosly, it is not an intention of Chechen rebels to remain hostile to Russia after gaining independence. "Over-zealous religion kind" never existed in Chechnya, contrary to what the TV leads you to believe, they appeared after the beginning of 1994 war and they comprise no more than 0.5 percent of population (a couple of hundred people, if that).

Yes it all sounds good on paper but what it comes down to is trust.

Look no further than my Taiwan example above. The Taiwanese want peaceful co-existance with China. This is their right and I find no faults with that. However since they are autonomous, they can do whatever the heck they want to with the land. Well guess what, the United States now have military bases there and ships to "protect Taiwan/maintain a forward base of operations in case shit hits the fan with China".

Another example is the cuban missile crisis. Cuba is autonomous and it wouldn't be right for another country to meddle in its affairs. However, Cuba was also quite happy to allow the soviets to deploy missiles and set up a forward base of operations there in case the shit hit the fan with America. This in a sense threatens american security.

 

[boysangur]

Valid examples. No guarantee that this cannot happen anywhere else including Chechnya. However, for those short periods without war and without russian presence in Chechnya, there were never any problems within the region. Yes things can go wrong but because they can go wrong, does that mean that every small country has to be denied autonomy? Besides, chechens agree with independent observers being present in chechnya. Russia could always attack Chechnya when something starts going on.
There are good examples too. Even chechens' neighbours Georgia, the only problem that anyone has had with them was accusing them of aiding Chechens.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

With Russia in its current state their are too many problems at home to bother with Chechnya...however one of the problems is that the people themselves feel hopeless and I think Putin thinks a demonstration of military might with the terrorist attack on the school to provoke it may create some national pride.

Sadly, the past wars were purely over Chechnya's oil access...the lucrative oil pipeline that had to go through Chechnya to link it to the Middle East was just bad luck.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[boysangur]

With Russia in its current state their are too many problems at home to bother with Chechnya...however one of the problems is that the people themselves feel hopeless and I think Putin thinks a demonstration of military might with the terrorist attack on the school to provoke it may create some national pride.

Sadly, the past wars were purely over Chechnya's oil access...the lucrative oil pipeline that had to go through Chechnya to link it to the Middle East was just bad luck.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

That is right and Russia is full of problems. Those problems are so major that the only way to gain popularity there is to create an even bigger problem such as Chechnya and shift focus. Putin appeared out of nowhere, nobody even knew who he was until the second war started and then in less than one year he became a president. This war made him. How much money has been spent on this war that could be used for something that Russians actually need, billions have been spent. I don't know how they dont realize that. As for the past wars, since oil was discovered in the region, there have been two wars, the one in 1994 and this one. I do believe that oil has a lot to do with it.

 

[DarkCorp]

Well if russia controlled the oil rich region, I am sure their economic and political clout would increase. So in this way this conflict is quite important to russian economic and political policies.

I heard about this recently but several oil rich states in Iraq have voiced their desire to break away and form their own autonomous country. Could you imagine the financial loss most Iraqis would face were this to happen?

Another example is ancient China and our own civil war. Were it not for one ruler/president and unification, both China and America would still be a weak, un-organised mess with a high potential for rogue state developement.

I am surprised that I even entertain such an idea but sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.

 

[boysangur]

Well if russia controlled the oil rich region, I am sure their economic and political clout would increase. So in this way this conflict is quite important to russian economic and political policies.

I heard about this recently but several oil rich states in Iraq have voiced their desire to break away and form their own autonomous country. Could you imagine the financial loss most Iraqis would face were this to happen?

Another example is ancient China and our own civil war. Were it not for one ruler/president and unification, both China and America would still be a weak, un-organised mess with a high potential for rogue state developement.

I am surprised that I even entertain such an idea but sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few.

Chechnya is a separate place with their own language and their own culture, its different from parts of Iraq tryin to break away. Since Russia tried to make Chechnya a part of Russia, there have been trouble. It's more like a country trying to break away than a part of a country. It's not a state or a part of Russia. Chechnya has been independent for thousands of years before Russians came, and since it came it has been fighting it. Now, if they discover oil in Switzerland, does that mean that England has a right no invade it? Besides, if Russia continues to occupy chechnya, there will always be problems that russia is having now. Chechnya will never settle down.