StarDestroyer.Net BBS

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/chechnya/
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/russia/chechnya/
http://www.amina.com/
http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/

Basically, short rundown is Russia is conducting an extremely
brutal COIN campaign against armed Muslim Insurgents in
Chechnya, etc etc. Anyone got an opinion on this?

It's wrong- in many ways it's to do with the problems endemic in the Russian military right now:

The Russians

1: Lack of funds. Regular army conscripts are in general agreed to be poorly trained and equipped. This leads to casualties in combat, which leads to:

2: Low morale: a lot of this actually begins before they even go in to Chechnya. One advantage Western armies have over Russian ones is a clear NCO class. The officers are too far from the men and without proper NCOs unit cohesion isn't the best. Bullying is endemic- this is where the conscripts who have been there for longest persecute the new comers and make them do all the dirty work. A lot of Russians soldiers kill themselves, others go on rampages, deserting and killing their tormentors as they go.

In the professional units (a few units are all professional contract soldiers on an experimental basis- President Putin wants the entire Army to go professional) bullying is non-existent, and as such so are the incidents of suicide and killings.

Regardless, the low morale in the units, combined with the constant bombings by Chechens, means a lot of persecution on the civilian population, especially during such 'sweep'- clearly, many soldiers and officers need to be brought up on charges- but, unlike in say, Israel, you DO hear about Russian soldiers and officers being prosecuted for their crimes- just not enough of them.

The military needs reform. Right now. As for discussing peace:

The Chechens

On the Chechen side, any prospects for peace are severely hampered by the fractured nature of the Chechen 'resistance groups'. But let's get real here. These aren't freedom fighters. They're led by local warlords and they all have different aims- in essence the resistance is made up a whole bunch of fractured, disjointed gangs with no clear leadership. They maraud around the place blowing shit up, killing Chechens who support the Russians, etc etc

The supposed leader of Chechnya who's pushing for independence has no power, and no clout. Who are the Russians supposed to negotiate with?

They left Chechnya in 1996 and got nothing for it- unless you count kidnappings, ransoms, the Chechen invasion of neighbouring Dagestan (easily repulsed), and the bombings that killed 300 people in Moscow (conspiracy theorists say the FSB did it- this is like claiming the CIA blew up the WTC- it is beneath contempt) as a reward for leaving.

Vympel, the theory about FSB bombing those houses isn't actually all that far-fetched. All of the evidence presented about the perpetartors being Chechens has so far amounted to the Russians going "they did it because we say so". The real culprits are still unknown and at large, and could be Chechens or could be FSB. We tend to get a lot of news coverage about events like this in Russia, because they're our next door neighbors, and I follow them. It just so happens that the bombings happened at a time that was politically extremely convenient for Putin, and given what we know about Russian willingness to use chemical agents in lethal doses in a hostage rescue situation and then deny the antidote to said hostages, as well as their record of indiscriminate suppression of minorities, blowing up a couple of apartment blocks with a few hundred people in them in order to get quick support for a war against scapegoats (and incidentally consolidating the new leader's power) isn't at all out of the realm of possibility.

In general, it's a fucked up country and I wouldn't be sorry to see it sink into the sea, but that's rather unlikely to happen, so I'll have to settle for hoping they get it into some sort of decent shape as quickly as possible.

The Chechnyan conflict is something the Russians should end now by pulling out. They were the ones to start it in 1994, and again in 1999, and no good has come out of either war. Their biggest mistake in the first one was killing Dudayev, he was the only one powerful enough to keep the various Chechen factions more or less in line, and when he died, there was nobody to replace him.

The conduct of the Russian troops toward civilians is utterly disgraceful and most of the officers and quite a lot of the common soldiers over there should be courtmartialed and jailed for their crimes. Just a couple of days ago it was in the news here that a Russian colonel who raped and then strangled an 18-year old Chechen girl was let off without punishment on grounds of mental health reasons (it was the 3rd evaluation that finally concluded he was insane, they redid it until they got what they wanted).

There was a documentary on TV here a couple of months back that was filmed in 2001 and many of the Russian soldiers (professional variety) interviewed in it said remaining in Chechnya serves no purpose and only prolongs the conflict. The guerillas interviewed in it said they were going to keep killing Russians until they left. Russian oppression of Chechens has its roots already in the 19th century, perhaps even late 18th century, and with what has happened in the past ten years, the Chechens will never accept Russian overlordship, and conflict will continue until the Russians either genocide them all, or leave.

Edi

Edi wrote:Vympel, the theory about FSB bombing those houses isn't actually all that far-fetched. All of the evidence presented about the perpetartors being Chechens has so far amounted to the Russians going "they did it because we say so". The real culprits are still unknown and at large, and could be Chechens or could be FSB.

Sure it could be the FSB. Just like it could've been the CIA that blew up the World Trade Centre. Both are extremely unlikely, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

We tend to get a lot of news coverage about events like this in Russia, because they're our next door neighbors, and I follow them. It just so happens that the bombings happened at a time that was politically extremely convenient for Putin

It could also be argued that the World Trade Centre was extremely politically convenient for Bush. Doesn't mean Bush did it.

and given what we know about Russian willingness to use chemical agents in lethal doses in a hostage rescue situation and then deny the antidote to said hostages

It was a form of anisthetic. It saved lives, despite the high death toll. Or would you prefer that the Chechens set off those bombs? As for 'denying' the antidote, do you suggest that they did it out of malice? Why bother rescuing them in the first place

as well as their record of indiscriminate suppression of minoritiesblowing up a couple of apartment blocks with a few hundred people in them in order to get quick support for a war against scapegoats (and incidentally consolidating the new leader's power) isn't at all out of the realm of possibility.

What is the logical connection between 'indiscriminate oppression of minorities' and murdering 300 of your own citizens on purpose? You also ignore the Chechen incursion into Dagestan.

In general, it's a fucked up country and I wouldn't be sorry to see it sink into the sea, but that's rather unlikely to happen, so I'll have to settle for hoping they get it into some sort of decent shape as quickly as possible.

Remarkably racist comment there, don't you think? But of course, you're from Finland, such things are to be expected.

The Chechnyan conflict is something the Russians should end now by pulling out. They were the ones to start it in 1994, and again in 1999, and no good has come out of either war. Their biggest mistake in the first one was killing Dudayev, he was the only one powerful enough to keep the various Chechen factions more or less in line, and when he died, there was nobody to replace him.

The Russians had cause to go in there for good reason in both cases. For one thing, Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation, it attempted to secede- it declared independence in 1991, and then in 1993 declared full independence. Civil war broke out in the province. 1994 was an attempt to bring Chechnya 'to heel'- the Russians accused Dudayev of suppressing political dissent, corruption, and taking part in international criminal activities. It had indeed become an outpost for drug-running, gun smuggling and organized crime in general. The objective was to put the Russian-backed political opposition into power.

Consider that Chechnya is strategically vital to Russia: access routes to the Black and Caspian Sea go through Chechnya, and Russian oil and gas pipelines to Kazakhstan and Azerbaijain also run through Chechnya. Peace was reached in 1996. Resolution of the question of Chechen independence was to be postponed until 2001.

For the next 3 years Chechnya was a festering sore- the terms of the peace were violated by the Chechens: under the agreement they were supposed to combat crime, terrorism, and national/religious enmity. Kidnappings were big (foreigners, journalists, diplomats, soldiers serving in the Caucasus, and in 1999 the Interior Ministry envoy to Chechnya), as was the usual gun and drug smuggling. Then of course came the invasion of neighbouring Dagestan by Islamic fundamentalists based in Chechnya. There were subsequent bombings in Dagestan, as well as the infamous bombings of the shopping mall and two apartment blocks in Moscow.

Hardly a simplisitic case of 'the Russians started it'.

The conduct of the Russian troops toward civilians is utterly disgraceful and most of the officers and quite a lot of the common soldiers over there should be courtmartialed and jailed for their crimes. Just a couple of days ago it was in the news here that a Russian colonel who raped and then strangled an 18-year old Chechen girl was let off without punishment on grounds of mental health reasons (it was the 3rd evaluation that finally concluded he was insane, they redid it until they got what they wanted).

Agreed, it is disgraceful.

There was a documentary on TV here a couple of months back that was filmed in 2001 and many of the Russian soldiers (professional variety) interviewed in it said remaining in Chechnya serves no purpose and only prolongs the conflict. The guerillas interviewed in it said they were going to keep killing Russians until they left. Russian oppression of Chechens has its roots already in the 19th century, perhaps even late 18th century, and with what has happened in the past ten years, the Chechens will never accept Russian overlordship, and conflict will continue until the Russians either genocide them all, or leave.

Edi

Russia will never give the place up. It's too important. This war will probably go on for a long time- unless the Chechen leadership unifies so the Russians have someone to talk to.

Vympel wrote:Sure it could be the FSB. Just like it could've been the CIA that blew up the World Trade Centre. Both are extremely unlikely, and there is no evidence for it whatsoever.

There's no evidence that it was the Chechens either, no more than there is for the FSB being guilty, because there is some evidence pointing in that direction, just as there is some evidence pointing at the Chechens. The WTC isn't in any way analoguous to the Moscow bombings, so I don't know why you bring that up. In the WTC case we have identified culprits, known affiliation with extremists and links to A-Q, so saying Bush had it done is preposterous. In the Moscow bombing case we have no identified culprits, unknown affiliation of same and conflicting evidence pointing at both the Chechens and the FSB as equally likely suspects.

Vympel wrote:It was a form of anisthetic. It saved lives, despite the high death toll. Or would you prefer that the Chechens set off those bombs? As for 'denying' the antidote, do you suggest that they did it out of malice? Why bother rescuing them in the first place

Yes, it was a form of anesthetic. So what? If they were going to use it, they misght as well have had enough of the antidote ready for immediate administration to the hostages when they were rescued. The fact that they didn't and that it was withheld, along with information about the anesthetic used, and the conduct of the Russian administration in the aftermath of the incident points clearly in the direction that the main objective was just to annihilate the terrorists and fuck the hostages, they were expendable. If they could be rescued, good, but if not, too bad. Mind you, this is not something I just made up on my own, Russians, especially families of the victims are asking these same questions.

Vympel wrote:What is the logical connection between 'indiscriminate oppression of minorities' and murdering 300 of your own citizens on purpose? You also ignore the Chechen incursion into Dagestan.

When you look more widely at what's happening in Russia and what happens to anything and everything and everyone who doesn't suck up to the powers that be and tries to actually do anything independently instead of according to the interests of those powers, they're nothing more than part of the same pattern. The Dagestan invasion was lunacy, and I'm not ignoring it. That was a complete fuckup by the Chechens, and is one of the few legitimate reasons for Russian intervention in Chechnya.

Vympel wrote:Remarkably racist comment there, don't you think? But of course, you're from Finland, such things are to be expected.

I've never made secret of my dislike for Russia, Vympel, nor of my bias. Take a look at what I said in the threads about the hostage situation for more details. There is very little about Russia that I like, though I do have some Russian friends. Thing is, when meeting Russians, I judge them as individuals, but collectively their country is fucked up, that's a fact. I know I'm biased and I fight it, but I'm not about to apologize for my criticism of a country that deserves it. Individual people are another thing entirely. Just lay off insults like that, implying that it should be expected that I'm a racist because of my nationality instead of because of my words. I don't take offense at being called biased and discriminatory toward Russians, because it is largely true outside face-to-face encounters, but I resent your allegation that it is just because of my nationality instead of some other, more logical reasons (as far as a bias like this can ever be logical).

Vympel wrote:The Russians had cause to go in there for good reason in both cases. For one thing, Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation, it attempted to secede- it declared independence in 1991, and then in 1993 declared full independence.

Just like the Baltic states declared independence in 1991, and you haven't seen them bombed and shelled into rubble and their people ruthlessly oppressed by Russian occupation troops. If the Baltic states could go independent, why not Chechnya too? They were also part of the Russian Federation, so by your logic Russia would have been within its rights to do the same to them. Enough with the double standard, your argument has no merit.

Vympel wrote:Civil war broke out in the province. 1994 was an attempt to bring Chechnya 'to heel'- the Russians accused Dudayev of suppressing political dissent, corruption, and taking part in international criminal activities. It had indeed become an outpost for drug-running, gun smuggling and organized crime in general. The objective was to put the Russian-backed political opposition into power.

Civil wars sometimes happen. Does that somehow remove the right of a people to self-determination? It's nice of you to point out that the Russians accused Dudayev of the very things they are just as guilty of, and it was Yeltsin himself who allowed the Chechens such a free hand with the criminal activities, even discouraging attempts to bring the region under real control prior to the 1994 invasion, due to the support he had been getting from Chechens previously. See below:

Kolovrat, HG message board wrote:After return in 1956 Chechens achieved higher as average level of well being in Soviet Union not due to pipelines , but due to oil-refining industry, built in republic. Three Chechens became the ministers of oil-refining industry. Rich Chechens diaspora formed in Moscow and through clan relations sacred for every Chechen controlled the situation in republic. When famous Gorbachev-Eltsin conflict happened Chechens diaspora was the first who offered to Eltsin unconditional support. Eltsin election company in 1990 was financed by Chechens and he had only Chechens bodyguards. First time Eltsin pay for it in 1991 closing eyes on declaration of independence and creating “off shore” zone in Chechnya. You are right like many islands there the money are recycled. The only problem is that local Chechens used this opportunity to concentrate exclusively on primitive criminal activity (with great success). Chechnya transformed in secure shelter for any criminal from Russia. Spontaneously rebuilt Cossacks demanded the right to wear weapons from 1991, not from 1994 or 1996. The reason was the harassment of Russian border regions by Chechen bands. Eltsin didn’t worried about it. But Moscow Chechens were preoccupied. They lost control of own republic. Local Chechens became wealthier and stronger. So Chechens in Moscow asked Eltsin for intervention in order to reestablish their power status in Chechnya. And when Eltsin break down the resistance of Russian parlament and violated Constitution he could finally pay his debt again. The first Chechnya war started. In was rather strange war. When Chechens finished in difficulties many times cessation of fire was proclaimed. The Chechens regrouped their forces and always started the war again. In 1996 Lebed signed with Chechens the peace.

That's part of a debate on the Chechnyan situation I had several months back at Heavengames. See here for he rest of that debate.

Vympel wrote:Consider that Chechnya is strategically vital to Russia: access routes to the Black and Caspian Sea go through Chechnya, and Russian oil and gas pipelines to Kazakhstan and Azerbaijain also run through Chechnya. Peace was reached in 1996. Resolution of the question of Chechen independence was to be postponed until 2001.

Of course it's strategically important, but right now it's of no value whatsoever. Giving them independence from the get-go (in 1991) and then trading with them would have cost a lot less than the futile and endless war.

Vympel wrote:For the next 3 years Chechnya was a festering sore- the terms of the peace were violated by the Chechens: under the agreement they were supposed to combat crime, terrorism, and national/religious enmity. Kidnappings were big (foreigners, journalists, diplomats, soldiers serving in the Caucasus, and in 1999 the Interior Ministry envoy to Chechnya), as was the usual gun and drug smuggling. Then of course came the invasion of neighbouring Dagestan by Islamic fundamentalists based in Chechnya. There were subsequent bombings in Dagestan, as well as the infamous bombings of the shopping mall and two apartment blocks in Moscow.

Hardly a simplisitic case of 'the Russians started it'.

I refer you to the Kolovrat quote above. Besides, you'll have a hard time with the argument that the Russians didn't start the first war, which in turn led to all the unfavorable later developments.

Vympel wrote:Russia will never give the place up. It's too important. This war will probably go on for a long time- unless the Chechen leadership unifies so the Russians have someone to talk to.

So Chechnya will remain their permanent Vietnam, and as long as they keep treating the Chechens the way they do now, good riddance to every Russian soldier killed there. There won't emerge a united Chechen leadership anytime soon, their society is too fragmented and clan-based for anything of the kind to happen under current conditions, which are not going to change in the foreseeable future.

Edi
[/url]

Edi wrote:
There's no evidence that it was the Chechens either, no more than there is for the FSB being guilty, because there is some evidence pointing in that direction, just as there is some evidence pointing at the Chechens. The WTC isn't in any way analoguous to the Moscow bombings, so I don't know why you bring that up. In the WTC case we have identified culprits, known affiliation with extremists and links to A-Q, so saying Bush had it done is preposterous. In the Moscow bombing case we have no identified culprits, unknown affiliation of same and conflicting evidence pointing at both the Chechens and the FSB as equally likely suspects.

What evidence is there that the FSB did it?! Conspiracy theory bullshit.

Yes, it was a form of anesthetic. So what? If they were going to use it, they misght as well have had enough of the antidote ready for immediate administration to the hostages when they were rescued. The fact that they didn't and that it was withheld, along with information about the anesthetic used, and the conduct of the Russian administration in the aftermath of the incident points clearly in the direction that the main objective was just to annihilate the terrorists and fuck the hostages, they were expendable. If they could be rescued, good, but if not, too bad. Mind you, this is not something I just made up on my own, Russians, especially families of the victims are asking these same questions.

Amazing. You know what, taking that logic to it's absurd conclusion, I could just say that the Russians are such terrible people that they should've just put up a big sign saying "blow the place up, we don't care".

When you look more widely at what's happening in Russia and what happens to anything and everything and everyone who doesn't suck up to the powers that be and tries to actually do anything independently instead of according to the interests of those powers, they're nothing more than part of the same pattern. The Dagestan invasion was lunacy, and I'm not ignoring it. That was a complete fuckup by the Chechens, and is one of the few legitimate reasons for Russian intervention in Chechnya.

It still has nothing to do with whether the Russian government would murder hundreds of its own citizens without proof.

I've never made secret of my dislike for Russia, Vympel, nor of my bias. Take a look at what I said in the threads about the hostage situation for more details. There is very little about Russia that I like, though I do have some Russian friends. Thing is, when meeting Russians, I judge them as individuals, but collectively their country is fucked up, that's a fact.

So what? I can say Russia is fucked up too, doesn't mean I want the place to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

I know I'm biased and I fight it, but I'm not about to apologize for my criticism of a country that deserves it. Individual people are another thing entirely. Just lay off insults like that, implying that it should be expected that I'm a racist because of my nationality instead of because of my words.

Your words are exactly what made me aware of your nationality.

I don't take offense at being called biased and discriminatory toward Russians, because it is largely true outside face-to-face encounters, but I resent your allegation that it is just because of my nationality instead of some other, more logical reasons (as far as a bias like this can ever be logical).

It's not logical. It's bile.

Just like the Baltic states declared independence in 1991, and you haven't seen them bombed and shelled into rubble and their people ruthlessly oppressed by Russian occupation troops. If the Baltic states could go independent, why not Chechnya too? They were also part of the Russian Federation, so by your logic Russia would have been within its rights to do the same to them. Enough with the double standard, your argument has no merit.

Except that there were *referendums* in those countries, not in Chechnya, to my knowledge. In addition, the Baltic States weren't as strategically important as Chechnya, and Russian hegemony over them was more recent, and they weren't festering crime holes. Hardly a double standard.

Civil wars sometimes happen. Does that somehow remove the right of a people to self-determination? It's nice of you to point out that the Russians accused Dudayev of the very things they are just as guilty of, and it was Yeltsin himself who allowed the Chechens such a free hand with the criminal activities, even discouraging attempts to bring the region under real control prior to the 1994 invasion, due to the support he had been getting from Chechens previously. See below:

After return in 1956 Chechens achieved higher as average level of well being in Soviet Union not due to pipelines , but due to oil-refining industry, built in republic. Three Chechens became the ministers of oil-refining industry. Rich Chechens diaspora formed in Moscow and through clan relations sacred for every Chechen controlled the situation in republic. When famous Gorbachev-Eltsin conflict happened Chechens diaspora was the first who offered to Eltsin unconditional support. Eltsin election company in 1990 was financed by Chechens and he had only Chechens bodyguards. First time Eltsin pay for it in 1991 closing eyes on declaration of independence and creating “off shore” zone in Chechnya. You are right like many islands there the money are recycled. The only problem is that local Chechens used this opportunity to concentrate exclusively on primitive criminal activity (with great success). Chechnya transformed in secure shelter for any criminal from Russia.

So Chechnya became a crime outpost, like I said.

Spontaneously rebuilt Cossacks demanded the right to wear weapons from 1991, not from 1994 or 1996. The reason was the harassment of Russian border regions by Chechen bands. Eltsin didn’t worried about it. But Moscow Chechens were preoccupied. They lost control of own republic. Local Chechens became wealthier and stronger. So Chechens in Moscow asked Eltsin for intervention in order to reestablish their power status in Chechnya.

Considering what Chechnya had become, is this a bad thing?

And when Eltsin break down the resistance of Russian parlament and violated Constitution he could finally pay his debt again. The first Chechnya war started. In was rather strange war. When Chechens finished in difficulties many times cessation of fire was proclaimed. The Chechens regrouped their forces and always started the war again. In 1996 Lebed signed with Chechens the peace.

Yup the Russians signed a peace treaty. I posted what happened after this.

Of course it's strategically important, but right now it's of no value whatsoever. Giving them independence from the get-go (in 1991) and then trading with them would have cost a lot less than the futile and endless war.

That's if Chechnya was an acceptable independent republic. It wasn't. It was a hole.

I refer you to the Kolovrat quote above. Besides, you'll have a hard time with the argument that the Russians didn't start the first war, which in turn led to all the unfavorable later developments.

If you can derive something relevant from it, post it.

So Chechnya will remain their permanent Vietnam, and as long as they keep treating the Chechens the way they do now, good riddance to every Russian soldier killed there. There won't emerge a united Chechen leadership anytime soon, their society is too fragmented and clan-based for anything of the kind to happen under current conditions, which are not going to change in the foreseeable future.

Edi

I agree. Unfortunately, the facts are that the place has been pacified (brutally) again and again and it's worked every time. It'll be brutally pacified, foreign criticism will be ignored, and it'll stay that way until the next flare up of violence. Like I said, it's wrong.

Question did they execute the Russian Col. that was on trial for raping the Chechen school girls?

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Question did they execute the Russian Col. that was on trial for raping the Chechen school girls?

A shameful week

The Russia Journal
20 Dec 2002


Col. Yury Budanov, accused of killing an 18-year-old Chechen woman, Elza Kungayeva, has been declared insane.

Instead of a prison cell, it is recommended he face "compulsory treatment" for psychiatric disorders.

Apparently, some would have us believe, this trained military officer simply lost control of himself and just happened to throttle a young woman to death in a fit of passion – and the court gave this interpretation of events its stamp of approval.

Such a miscarriage of justice is unconscionable. Moreover, it is a slap in the face, not only to the woman’s memory and family, or even only to the Chechen people, but to anyone in Russia who wants anything to do with justice and impartial application of the law.

Budanov was a hero to many hawks in Russia even before the murder, when he was shown firing artillery rounds on camera as a New Year greeting to Chechen rebels.

One can understand the rage of a large number of people in Russia against Chechen bandits, kidnappers and slave traders who, despite the nice words afforded them in the Western press, are not in any way justifiable or admirable.

However, the reprehensible behavior of its enemy can never in any way excuse the Russian military’s degeneration to similar levels of savagery.

The horrors the Japanese visited upon China, to draw a comparison, do not in any way excuse Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Budanov is in no way, shape or form a hero.

According to Budanov’s defense, he went insane when he was informed that the woman was a sniper, so he got into a military vehicle, took an armed escort, arrested her, personally questioned her and – still suffering from a delirious stroke of madness – killed her.

Russian psychiatry, which has historically had a far-from-sterling reputation, has blemished itself once again, perhaps forever.

If anger is equivalent to insanity, one would have to conclude that a good part of the Russian political establishment must be positively certifiable.

There have been many angry outbursts from people at the top against Chechen terrorists, and one shudders to think what, given the opportunity, they would do to young Chechen women.

The military establishment stood firmly besides Budanov, and it is their day of shame as well.

How can these people look in the eyes of their daughters and wives?

Claims that Kungayeva was raped – possibly post-mortem – were never considered by the court.

However, even if they had been, there is no doubt that the duly appointed "psychiatrists" – "psychiatrists" in the strictly Soviet sense of the term – would have found some excusable explanation for that as well.

Being angry, apparently, is a good enough excuse for anything these days.

The trial– and the expected acquittal – are a dark blot on the face of modern Russia.

Russia has been trying very hard, albeit in a clumsy way, to come to terms with its uncivil past.

But how can the country face up to the historical legacy of murder, pogroms and repression if the "respectable" judicial and psychiatric community, people who are supposed to be the guardians of society and its health, allows a colonel to get away with the murder of an 18-year-old woman?

That President Vladimir Putin ordered that "cleansing operations" in Chechnya must become more civilized and less demoralizing (and, perhaps, less lethal) for the population was very welcome and should be applauded. But if Budanov can kill and rape and then blithely say, "I was just blowing off steam," what value do Putin’s fine words have in the real world?

YB, if it's not the same guy I mentioned earlier, I don't know.

Vympel wrote:Amazing. You know what, taking that logic to it's absurd conclusion, I could just say that the Russians are such terrible people that they should've just put up a big sign saying "blow the place up, we don't care".

You can choose to see whatever you want, but what I saw in that incident is a government that doesn't give a fuck about its people as long as the interests of the ruling elite are satisfied. The government certainly could have put up that sign in light of how they handled it, only not directly because that would have resulted in resentment from the people who were interested in seeing the hostages rescued.

Vympel wrote:It still has nothing to do with whether the Russian government would murder hundreds of its own citizens without proof.

With their legacy of the Soviet system and attitudes, not much of a stretch. Compared to having the machinery of government run smoothly, a small number of people crushed beneath the wheels don't matter much there, not to the government, the general public actually might have a very different opinion.

Vympel wrote:So what? I can say Russia is fucked up too, doesn't mean I want the place to be wiped off the face of the Earth.

Do you think I don't realize that not all Russians are bad, and that they don't deserve better than the shit they currently have? But I could certainly do without their present government and many of their present practices, I'm rather disgusted with them. If I happen to use hyperbole, it's your problem if you can't see it. I'm not morally bankrupt enough to actually really want them to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Vympel wrote:Your words are exactly what made me aware of your nationality.

As in you bothered to finally look at my location identifier? If not for that, you'd have nothing to go on other than my other posts on this board unless you remembered me from the Russian hostage threads.

Vympel wrote:It's not logical. It's bile.

I'll put it more clearly: The bias itself is irrational, but there are clearly logical reasons as to why I have it. It is logical that a child raised in a fundie environment grows up a fundie because s/he is indoctrinated and doesn't know better, and the same thing happened to me with regard to the bias against Russians. I know better now, but habits are hard to break and our eastern neighbors haven't exactly behaved in a very civilized manner toward other people in the past, and their continued manner of behavior in many respects isn't anything to be proud of and is rather detestable.

Vympel wrote:In addition, the Baltic States weren't as strategically important as Chechnya, and Russian hegemony over them was more recent

Check your facts, Russians have had hegemony over the Baltic states in various forms far longer than they have had it in Chechnya, a 150 years longer in fact. If anything, the Chechens have a more legitimate claim to independence on that basis than the Balts. Strategic importance is also rather secondary to the question of the morality of the issue, it has more to do with realpolitik.

Vympel wrote:So Chechnya became a crime outpost, like I said.

Yes, with Russian blessing, so they can hardly point fingers!

Vympel wrote:Considering what Chechnya had become, is this a bad thing?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Hell, yes, it was a bad thing, basically the place was a crime hole and all the 1994 invasion would have accomplished (had it been successful) would have been to change the top kingpins. Hardly a very justifiable reason for an invasion.

Vympel wrote:Yup the Russians signed a peace treaty. I posted what happened after this.

After what they had done prior to signing the peace treaty, namely a bloody invasion, is it much of a surprise? Had they not invaded, things could have been solved in a peaceful manner that would not have really changed much, but the Russians needed to make an example of someone so people elsewhere wouldn't get any bright ideas about independence.

Vympel wrote:That's if Chechnya was an acceptable independent republic. It wasn't. It was a hole.

It was a lot more acceptable than what it has become, and now the worst criminals there are the Russians, and they'll just drive the Chechens more and more into extremism. The problem the Russians have always had with Chechnya is that they conquered it through a series of invasions and oppressed the people from the get-go, and it has continued for some 200 years in one form or another. That tends to breed resentment, and when the generally accepted way of resolving such wrongs is to kill the (perceived) perpetartor (whether or not it is morally right from our pov), uprisings and violence are a not very unsurprising result. It's a mess of their own making, with both parties guilty of atrocities, but the balance sheet looks rather unattractive from the Russian point of view.

Vympel wrote:Unfortunately, the facts are that the place has been pacified (brutally) again and again and it's worked every time. It'll be brutally pacified, foreign criticism will be ignored, and it'll stay that way until the next flare up of violence. Like I said, it's wrong.

Actually it hasn't ever worked, it's just swept the problem under the rug for a while doing nothing to solve anything. Treating the symptoms but ignoring the disease as it were. We don't disagree all that much in the final analysis, I just happen to have a far more negative view of Russia than you do and more sympathy for the cause of Chechnyan independence. Not that those Chechens who make up most of the victims really care about that, they just want the fighting to stop and the Russian soldiers to leave so they won't have to live in fear anymore, but they don't hold the warlords in very high regard either.

Edi



Edit: Fixed quotes

Which probably means that I should be deeply questioning the varacity of articles I am getting off of the News service up here.

Then again I kinda like my remoteness.

Edi wrote: You can choose to see whatever you want, but what I saw in that incident is a government that doesn't give a fuck about its people as long as the interests of the ruling elite are satisfied. The government certainly could have put up that sign in light of how they handled it, only not directly because that would have resulted in resentment from the people who were interested in seeing the hostages rescued.

If that's what you believe ... IMO you haven't broken your habit.

Do you think I don't realize that not all Russians are bad, and that they don't deserve better than the shit they currently have? But I could certainly do without their present government and many of their present practices, I'm rather disgusted with them. If I happen to use hyperbole, it's your problem if you can't see it. I'm not morally bankrupt enough to actually really want them to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Good.

As in you bothered to finally look at my location identifier? If not for that, you'd have nothing to go on other than my other posts on this board unless you remembered me from the Russian hostage threads.

I do remember you actually. When you hear those sorts of comments it's prudent to see where they're coming from, literally.

I'll put it more clearly: The bias itself is irrational, but there are clearly logical reasons as to why I have it. It is logical that a child raised in a fundie environment grows up a fundie because s/he is indoctrinated and doesn't know better, and the same thing happened to me with regard to the bias against Russians. I know better now, but habits are hard to break and our eastern neighbors haven't exactly behaved in a very civilized manner toward other people in the past, and their continued manner of behavior in many respects isn't anything to be proud of and is rather detestable.

No disagreement here.

Check your facts, Russians have had hegemony over the Baltic states in various forms far longer than they have had it in Chechnya, a 150 years longer in fact. If anything, the Chechens have a more legitimate claim to independence on that basis than the Balts. Strategic importance is also rather secondary to the question of the morality of the issue, it has more to do with realpolitik.

AGAIN: Except that there were *referendums* in those countries, not in Chechnya, to my knowledge. You can either post what I say in its entirety or not post it at all- the two situations are not comparable. And again, none of the Baltic states are as fucked up as Chechnya was for the three years Russia allowed them independence. And if you want to add the legal aspect, Chechnya is part of Russia, and was never a seperate Republic like say, Kazakhstan.

Yes, with Russian blessing, so they can hardly point fingers!

Blessing?! For three years Russia allowed Chechnya to be independent- what happened was the Chechens fault, not the Russians; at no point did Yeltsin say "go, and become a crime hellhole, with my blessing".

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Hell, yes, it was a bad thing, basically the place was a crime hole and all the 1994 invasion would have accomplished (had it been successful) would have been to change the top kingpins. Hardly a very justifiable reason for an invasion.

Actually, the place would've been established under Russian authority once again. Unless you have a compelling reason for why the Russians would continue to countenenance such rampant disorder and criminal activity if they had managed to bring the area under control?

After what they had done prior to signing the peace treaty, namely a bloody invasion, is it much of a surprise? Had they not invaded, things could have been solved in a peaceful manner that would not have really changed much, but the Russians needed to make an example of someone so people elsewhere wouldn't get any bright ideas about independence.

Actually the Russians left asking the Chechens to take care of what they went in there to stop in the first place, with a referendum in five years. The Chechens didn't live up to the bargain, and the place got MUCH worse.

It was a lot more acceptable than what it has become, and now the worst criminals there are the Russians

Debatable- as for a lot more acceptable than what it has become, what would you prefer the Russians to have done? Just leave a black hole on their borders from which drugs, guns, money and kidnapping emanated? Those Chechen bandits are the scum of the Earth, IMO. Islamic fundamentalist loons with extreme criminal tendencies don't make a good match.

and they'll just drive the Chechens more and more into extremism. The problem the Russians have always had with Chechnya is that they conquered it through a series of invasions and oppressed the people from the get-go, and it has continued for some 200 years in one form or another. That tends to breed resentment, and when the generally accepted way of resolving such wrongs is to kill the (perceived) perpetartor (whether or not it is morally right from our pov), uprisings and violence are a not very unsurprising result. It's a mess of their own making, with both parties guilty of atrocities, but the balance sheet looks rather unattractive from the Russian point of view.

I agree with all of that, except we only have the power to change what's happening right now. As far as I'm concerned, the Russians certainly can't be expected to negotiate peace, because the place will just devolve into a shithole once more, and in addition, will be even worse this time because of the lack of any clear leadership whatsoever. Quite frankly, the Russians can't afford to leave the place to it's own devices.

Actually it hasn't ever worked, it's just swept the problem under the rug for a while doing nothing to solve anything. Treating the symptoms but ignoring the disease as it were. We don't disagree all that much in the final analysis, I just happen to have a far more negative view of Russia than you do and more sympathy for the cause of Chechnyan independence. Not that those Chechens who make up most of the victims really care about that, they just want the fighting to stop and the Russian soldiers to leave so they won't have to live in fear anymore, but they don't hold the warlords in very high regard either.

Edi

Edit: Fixed quotes[/quote]

The Baltic states were separate republics within the Soviet Union, not part of Russia (then the RSFSR). All of the post-Soviet states were full republics within the U.S.S.R., not part of the Russian republic itself, so the analogy between Chechnya and the Baltic states doesn't work. It's the difference between India declaring independence from the U.K. and Scotland declaring independence from the U.K.