Moderator: Edi
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.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.
It could also be argued that the World Trade Centre was extremely politically convenient for Bush. Doesn't mean Bush did it.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 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 placeand 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
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.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.
Remarkably racist comment there, don't you think? But of course, you're from Finland, such things are to be expected.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 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.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.
Agreed, it is disgraceful.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).
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.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
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: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.
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: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
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: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.
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:Remarkably racist comment there, don't you think? But of course, you're from Finland, such things are to be expected.
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: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 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: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.
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.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.
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: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.
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: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'.
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.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.
What evidence is there that the FSB did it?! Conspiracy theory bullshit.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.
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".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.
It still has nothing to do with whether the Russian government would murder hundreds of its own citizens without proof.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.
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'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.
Your words are exactly what made me aware of your nationality.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.
It's not logical. It's bile.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).
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.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.
So Chechnya became a crime outpost, like I said.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.
Considering what Chechnya had become, is this a bad thing?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.
Yup the Russians signed a peace treaty. I posted what happened after this.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 if Chechnya was an acceptable independent republic. It wasn't. It was a hole.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.
If you can derive something relevant from it, post 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.
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.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
A shameful weekThe Yosemite Bear wrote:Question did they execute the Russian Col. that was on trial for raping the Chechen school girls?
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: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".
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:It still has nothing to do with whether the Russian government would murder hundreds of its own citizens without proof.
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: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.
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:Your words are exactly what made me aware of your nationality.
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:It's not logical. It's bile.
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:In addition, the Baltic States weren't as strategically important as Chechnya, and Russian hegemony over them was more recent
Yes, with Russian blessing, so they can hardly point fingers!Vympel wrote:So Chechnya became a crime outpost, like I said.
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:Considering what Chechnya had become, is this a bad thing?
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:Yup the Russians signed a peace treaty. I posted what happened after this.
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:That's if Chechnya was an acceptable independent republic. It wasn't. It was a hole.
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.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.
If that's what you believe ... IMO you haven't broken your habit.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.
Good.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.
I do remember you actually. When you hear those sorts of comments it's prudent to see where they're coming from, literally.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.
No disagreement here.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.
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.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.
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".Yes, with Russian blessing, so they can hardly point fingers!
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?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 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.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.
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.It was a lot more acceptable than what it has become, and now the worst criminals there are the Russians
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.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.
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
