Putin: Ally or Terrorist? (Russian FSB/KGB Real Culprits Behind "Chechen Terrorism")

Counting Vladimir Putin as an ally against terrorism ignores his career in the murderous KGB/FSB and his ongoing support for terrorist regimes and organizations.

‘‘Lena Goncharuk, aged 38, said that she was the only one to survive out of a group of six who were ordered out of the cellar where they had been hiding and shot at point blank range. Resting in her hospital bed, her voice barely rising above a whisper, she said she had survived only by pretending to be dead." So reported Paul Wood from the Chechen border for The Independent of London on February 6, 2000, as "triumphant" Russian troops occupied Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. Wood’s article, entitled "Chechnya’s civilians put to the sword," continued with Mrs. Goncharuk’s story:

"They [the Russian soldiers] were asking for cigarettes, then they asked, ‘Do you have a radio,’ and they said, ‘Give it to us,’" she said, explaining that the four women and two men were sent back down into the cellar after handing over their valuables.

"We hadn’t even sat down," she went on, "then they began throwing grenades into the cellar and shooting. We all were crying and suffocating, the smell was unbearable. We were crying out, we could not see anything but they continued to shoot.

"We said, ‘Guys what are you doing? We are civilians.’ They stopped shooting and they said to come out of the cellar. Our legs and heads were wounded and we could hardly move but we got up, supporting each other.

"The first out were two Russian women, Luda and Natasha. We were standing inside the garage over the cellar and they started shooting at point blank range. The others were twisting in pain.... Natasha was lying dead already....

"There was one old man with us. His head was covered in blood.... Then they started firing again.

"If I had looked up I would have been shot. I opened my eye just a little bit, all I saw was the muzzles of their guns and their boots."

Two hospital beds down from Lena Goncharuk was another victim of the Russian "liberation." Unlike Goncharuk, Hedi Makhauri, a 40-year-old Chechen mother, had not been trapped inside besieged Grozny; along with tens of thousands of other refugees, she had fled to neighboring Ingushetia.

With Russian troops establishing themselves in the capital, and the Russian bombing and shelling apparently over, she had thought it safe to go back and check on her house. Paul Wood’s report briefly recounts her ordeal:

"They said it was a liberated area," she said, frail and thin, clutching her hospital sheet to her chin, telling us that when she got to her street, she and two other Chechen women saw Russian soldiers loading stolen goods from the houses into one of their armoured vehicles.

"They took us to the armoured vehicle and they said to go inside. We were afraid as they put blindfolds on us. We said, ‘Why, we are not criminals, we have just come to see our houses.’ They said it was orders.

"They said they would take us to the police headquarters, but they just took us around the corner. It was just ruins all around. Me and my neighbour were clutching each other’s hand. We said: ‘Why are you taking us here, there are no police here.’ They said: ‘Just wait, they will come.’

"The other woman said, ‘Take whatever you want, we have children, just don’t kill us.’ They made us go into one little room. They just shot her in the head. She didn’t even have time to say, ‘Let me go.’ They just shot her. Hedi said that the Russian soldiers were tugging at the gold ring on her finger.

"It slipped off just as they decided to get a knife to sever her finger and the ring along with it. They also took her ear-rings and her money, 400 roubles, about £8.

"Then they put an old mattress over her body, poured petrol on, and lit it. The mattress was wet and did not catch light, only smouldered as they walked away. If I cried they would have killed me," she said.

"They said it was a liberated area"? Where did Hedi Makhauri and many others less fortunate than her get such calamitous disinformation? Why, from no less an authority than Vladimir Putin, then the acting president of Russia. Mr. Putin appeared on Russian national television on Sunday, February 6, 2000, to announce that the last stronghold of the Chechen "terrorists" in Grozny had been taken and the Russian flag had been hoisted over the smoldering ruins of the capital. "Thus, we can say that the operation to liberate Grozny is over," declared Putin.

The seven-year campaign of genocide against Chechnya has been largely invisible to the outside world. The Russian armed forces and security services have successfully kept most of the Western media and humanitarian-aid organizations out, while, at the same time, preventing refugees from escaping with eye-witness details of the brutal subjugation. "Let us call it by its real name," wrote Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby on October 28, 1999. "What Russia is committing in Chechnya is the mass murder of civilians.... And not only is the West failing to rise up against his [Putin’s] bloodbath, it is actively helping to finance it," directly through U.S. foreign aid to the Russian government, as well as indirectly via the U.S. taxpayer-funded International Monetary Fund.

Tragically, far too few of Mr. Jacoby’s colleagues in the Western media have shared his outrage over the ongoing slaughter in Chechnya; the coverage of Putin’s campaign of terror against Chechen civilians has been sporadic and the condemnations tepid. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, criticism of the Chechen pogrom has all but evaporated, as the Bush administration has rushed to embrace Russia as our valued "ally" in the war on terrorism.

New York Times correspondent Bill Keller typified this response in an October 6th article, in which he stated: "We need the Russians now, as we needed Stalin once, and if that means our president pulls a punch on the subject of the indiscriminate civil carnage in Chechnya, I can live with that; the punch had no muscle behind it anyway." Mr. Keller and other pragmatists of his ilk can apparently "live with" patently immoral policies like genocide, turning a blind eye to the unpleasant bloodletting as long as the perpetrator advances the globalist agenda of East-West convergence.

On November 23rd, the Times offered an even more startling re-evaluation of Russia as NATO’s new partner in the war on terrorism. Aleksandr Rahr, a scholar at the German Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Berlin, told the Times: "What changed radically on September 11th was the complete disappearance of Russia as a threat to Europe. It’s completely gone." The German CFR is a sister to the American CFR, this country’s "ruling establishment," and Mr. Rahr was trilling the same convergence theme as his U.S. counterparts. Mr. Rahr, along with other European and American CFR one-worlders, advocates a full, lusty embrace of Russia against our new common enemy.

One of the most enthusiastic advocates of this policy of NATO-Russia embrace is none other than Lord Robertson, the current NATO chief. "We sense very strong indications from President Putin in recent weeks that he wants to change the way that Russia does business," the November 23rd New York Times quoted Robertson as saying. "We take that at face value and we will work on that basis," he continued. "The Russian response to the terrible attacks on the United States," he said, "has … been the reaction of a real and genuine friend." "In the past," said Robertson, "we were divided by walls and fences and by ideology and by armies. Today the threats to the Russian people are very similar, if not exactly the same as, the threats to the people in the NATO countries and the West."

Does Lord Robertson, the head of the West’s military alliance, truly buy the Kremlin line that the pounding of Chechen cities and villages into rubble, the rampant slaughter of civilians, and the driving of hundreds of thousands of refugees into camps, neighboring provinces, and foreign exile are the same as fighting terrorists who carry out acts like the 9-11 Black Tuesday attack? Whether or not he truly believes it, Robertson is definitely retailing that line with a passion. "To utter such nonsense, a top Western official has to be either a closet Communist or one of Lenin’s ‘useful idiots,’" says Christopher Story, editor and publisher of the authoritative London-based Soviet Analyst.

One of the most reliable analysts of Russian affairs and a keen observer of British power politics, Mr. Story clearly believes Robertson to be of the former category. "Look, Robertson was well known in Britain as a former Communist trade union agitator when Tony Blair picked him to be secretary of state for defense," Story told The New American. "Blair is to the left of Clinton and has been clear over in the Kremlin camp all along. The September 11th attacks have given him the opportunity to advance his pro-Moscow agenda while appearing to be pro-military, pro-American, and anti-terrorist." Story points out that when a member of parliament queried the British Fabian Socialist Society concerning charges that certain members of the Blair cabinet were members of the socialist group, the secretary of the Fabian Society publicly confirmed that 20 of Blair’s 23 cabinet officials were indeed members in good standing with the organization. For over a century, notes Story, the Fabians have played a crucial role in implementing Marxist-Leninist policies in the British Commonwealth.

"Lord Robertson the former Communist is quite obviously a continuing covert Communist who is enthusiastically implementing the continuing Soviet strategy against the West — from the highest office in NATO, no less," warns Story. "What makes this even more troubling is that Robertson was appointed NATO secretary-general following Javier Solana, a ‘former’ Spanish Communist, who shared the same love affair with Moscow. Solana has now been transferred to a key position within the European Commission of the EU [European Union], where he and his fellow radicals are working in concert with Robertson, Blair, Germany’s Joschka Fischer, Italy’s Romano Prodi, and other subversives to convert NATO and the EU completely into an oppressive Soviet collective."

The Russians have always been master chess players, reminds Story, and they have been playing the terrorist gambit very successfully. "If the people of the West do not wake up soon to this fact, we will soon be in checkmate," he warns.

The Russian war against Chechnya is, of course, central to the current U.S.-Russian embrace as allies in the war against terrorism. For the Russians and their CFR apologists in the U.S., it provides an important test of the American public’s gullibility: Can the slaughter in Chechnya credibly be equated to our current war against Osama bin Laden? After all, as the CFR’s Mr. Rahr claims, the Russian threat is "completely gone," and we’re both fighting against Islamic extremists, right? Or as Lord Robertson put it, we both face "very similar, if not exactly the same" threats.

The chess pieces were being positioned to produce American acceptance of this preposterous notion long before the suicide attacks of September 11, 2001. In December 1994, Boris Yeltsin ordered Russian troops, tanks, and air power into Chechnya to fight what he claimed were "terrorists" and "bandits." Soon the term "Islamic extremist" was also being applied to the Chechen opponents. For months the Russian army appeared pathetically inept, demoralized, barbaric, and incapable of subduing the Chechens. However, after grinding much of Chechnya under its tank tracks and killing 100,000 civilians, the Yeltsin regime negotiated an accord to withdraw Russian forces, while negotiations would continue toward a settlement of Chechnya’s status by the end of 2001.

The most penetrating (and what has also proven the most prophetic) analysis of the 1994-96 Russian-Chechnyan War was written in February 1995 as a memo from Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn to CIA Acting Director William O. Studeman. Published in the 1995 edition of Golitsyn’s book The Perestroika Deception, the memo marshaled important evidence and observations supporting the contention that the Chechnyan War was being "deliberately staged largely for Western consumption by the Kremlin strategists in the pursuit of their objectives."

What hidden objectives could the Kremlin strategists advance by a controlled operation that showed the Russian military performing so poorly and the Russian military leaders quarreling amongst themselves? Mr. Golitsyn, himself a former elite KGB operative amongst the Kremlin strategists, listed many important objectives, including:

• The Russian military bungling was intended to "demonstrate that it can be discounted as a serious military adversary for the foreseeable future."

• This message was "intended to influence US Congressional debate on the subject of Russia’s military potential and the size of US forces required to maintain a balance with it."

• The message could "also be used as a pretext for deepening the partnership between the US and Russian armed forces by seeking American advice and help in ‘reforming,’ reorganizing and retraining the Russian army in order to enable it to serve a ‘democratic’ system."

• The Chechnyan events also "enabled the Russians to play especially on European fears of destabilization in Russia" and "injected a further boost to the European desire for partnership with the ‘democratic forces’ in Russia."

• This partnership would lead to "entry into European institutions" and then "East European and eventually Russian involvement in NATO."

As usual, Mr. Golitsyn’s cogent analysis has proven prescient as well; all of the above objectives, and others he mentioned, have been advanced on the Russian chessboard — to a frightful degree. And, as usual, Golitsyn’s warnings and analyses have been ignored and supressed by the CFR insiders dominating U.S. policy-making positions, Establishment think tanks, and the press. (See the sidebar.)

Mr. Golitsyn suggested that the Chechnyan "crisis" might be "a possible planned prelude to a change of government," replacing the spent Yeltsin team with a new set of rotating faces. "Since an outright military or nationalist government [in Russia] might prejudice the flow of Western aid and the continued ‘cooperation’ with the West which furthers the strategists’ interests," he said, it is likely that the Kremlin strategists wielding the real power behind the scenes would replace Yeltsin with a team comprised of a tough new president and a "reformist" prime minister. "The President would be presented as a guarantee of Russian stability while the Prime Minister’s task would be to ensure the continued flow of Western aid and the continuation of cooperative operations."

Enter Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the Russian "hero" of the Chechnyan pogrom. President Putin, the current player sitting in the Kremlin’s big chair, may seem in charge of moving the Russian pieces around the board, says Christopher Story, but he is merely the current front man for the covert Communist leadership collective that has continued to rule Russia since the Soviet Union’s supposed collapse. Mr. Story is perhaps the world’s leading proponent of Golitsyn’s thesis that the "Soviet collapse" was a controlled deception, planned many years in advance, for long-range strategic purposes.

Mr. Story, whose publications have closely tracked developments in Chechnya as well as the rise of Putin’s star, derides the government and media experts for falling all over themselves to come up with explanations for Putin’s meteoric rise. "Vladimir Putin has been a lifelong Communist and asset of Soviet intelligence," first of the KGB, and then of the GRU, Soviet military intelligence, he told The New American. "And the Chechnyan ‘crisis’ that raised him to the national and world stages has been completely an operation of the successor Russian intelligence services. If you follow the Russian-Chechnyan events and Putin’s career it’s very clear that he was hand-picked by the Kremlin strategists for his current role."

Shooting Putin to prominence was a spectacular string of 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities that left hundreds dead. Yeltsin had appointed Putin prime minister, after serving a stint as head of the FSB, the current acronym for the KGB. Putin then strode on the scene vowing to bring the terrorists to justice. He quickly identified the perpetrators as Islamic extremists from Chechnya and soon launched a new massive invasion reducing Grozny to ashes and corpses. Heralded by the KGB/FSB-directed government organs and media as the strong man who had redeemed Russia’s honor from the ignominy of the 1994-1996 Chechnyan War and ended the terror bombings, Putin was elected "president" in March 2000.

USA Today reported on March 27, 2000 that Putin’s win "capped an incredible rise to power by a man who had never before stood for election." The Los Angeles Times reported that prior to his victory over the Chechens, "few thought the mousy, soft-spoken former spy could convince a majority of voters to elect him president."

Christopher Story has pointed out that Putin was able to solve the terrorist bombings "because they were very simply provocations perpetrated by covert Soviet intelligence operatives to provide Moscow with a pretext for an official re-entry into Chechnya. I say ‘official’ because Russia never really relinquished control when it supposedly left in 1996." Other analysts, investigators, and reporters around the world have reached some of the same conclusions. Many major mainstream media organs have acknowledged that the Putin regime has produced no evidence substantiating that Chechens were behind the Moscow bombings. Moreover, it has been fairly widely reported that strong evidence indicates that the FSB actually perpetrated the bombings. Many news groups have reported that after the fourth major bombing in September 1999, local police foiled a fifth bombing when they arrested terrorists planting explosives in another apartment complex. The terrorists turned out to be FSB agents.

According to Soviet Analyst, the Russians did not merely seize an opportunity (the 9-11 attacks) that happened to coincide with their long-range objectives; Putin and associates actually planned and carried out the terrorist deed using assets connected to bin Laden in Chechnya. The publication, which, like Anatoliy Golitsyn, can boast an uncanny accuracy on major Russian developments unmatched by the media-anointed Russian experts, has pointed out a number of important facts that support this theory. Among them:

• Land-locked Chechnya has long been one of the most completely controlled areas of the former Soviet Union, surrounded by Russia and Georgia, run by the faithful Communist Edward Shevardnadze. It is thus one of the safest venues to carry out a false Islamic revolt.

• The huge Soviet strategic military base and air base at Mozdok near Ingushetia has been using Chechnya as a "live warfare" laboratory and training ground, preparing for further strategic warfare in the region.

• The Chechen opposition has been completely controlled and compromised with false leadership, notably, with the likes of Djokhar Dudayev, a former Soviet air force general, accepted by Moscow as the representative voice of Chechen independence.

• The Russian armed forces and security services repeatedly released their controlled Chechen opposition, or allowed them to escape, to carry out repeated provocations.

• During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, an estimated 50,000 young Afghan males were removed from Afghanistan and transferred to terrorist training camps in Chechnya, Tajikistan, and elsewhere — to be filtered back in subsequent years as fighters in the ranks of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Northern Alliance.

• Utilizing its client regimes in Iran, Sudan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East, Russia has supported the "Islamic" terror network while making it appear that it is itself under assault from "Muslim extremists."

As usual, says Christopher Story, the Communist strategists in Moscow have used the "principle of reversal," lying audaciously about the true situation in Chechnya. "Putin’s claims that Russia is under attack from bin Laden’s forces, just like the U.S., is a complete reversal of the truth," he says. In reality, he notes, "the evidence is far more persuasive that his al-Qaeda contacts in Chechnya and neighboring areas have been used to coordinate provocations that will provide the image of a common enemy." If this analysis is correct, and it appears to be, then the United States and the West have embraced as allies in the war on terrorism the engineers and perpetrators of the global terror offensive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted the rise of a false Soviet reformer like Gorbachev, the removal of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, and the restructuring of NATO.

In 1961, in a dramatic escape under cover of a blinding snow storm, a major in the Soviet KGB defected to the United States. He was no ordinary KGB agent; he was an elite officer working within the "inner KGB" — a super-secret strategic planning department that plotted long-term Soviet strategy against the West. He is probably the most important Soviet defector ever to have reached the West. His name is Anatoliy Golitsyn.

Golitsyn warned that KGB moles had penetrated the CIA and virtually all other Western intelligence services and that many defectors were actually double agents feeding strategic disinformation to the West. For more than four decades, Golitsyn has been providing methodical analysis of developments in the Soviet Union and of Russian initiatives and operations throughout the world that has proven uniquely accurate. He has been explaining patiently that the Communist strategists who ran the Soviet Union continue to run Russia today. Following Leninist strategic principles, they are engaged in a deadly long-term war against the West. Foremost among their objectives is to convince Western leaders that Soviet Communism has collapsed and represents no further threat to the world.

Golitsyn’s amazingly prophetic book, New Lies for Old, was published in 1984. His main predictions included details of the forthcoming false liberalization of the whole of Eastern Europe, followed by similar developments in the Soviet Union. He predicted the rise of a false Soviet reformer like Gorbachev, the removal of the Berlin Wall, the unification of Germany, and the restructuring (if not abolition) of NATO. He even went so far as to specify that a "Break with the Past" process would start in East Germany, with the opening of its borders — as it turned out, to neighboring Communist countries. That was very remarkable: Golitsyn knew that the process would start in East Germany, and it did.

Author Mark Riebling, in his important 1994 book entitled Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA, conducted a careful analysis of Golitsyn’s predictions in New Lies for Old. He found that out of a total of 148 predictions, 139 had been verified by 1993 — "an accuracy rating of 94%." No other Soviet expert even comes close. Golitsyn’s 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception, continuing in the same tradition, offers unparalleled information and insight. Our leaders continue ignoring his proven wisdom to our own great peril.

Some of us aren't birchies, but don't trust ol' Pooty-poot. If you can't see Putin's power grab in response to Beslan, your blinders are huge. Some, if not most, conspiracy theories are paranoid bunk, but the avarice of Putin and his contemporaries is not one of them, IMHO. The books that GIJoel mentioned have been around for twenty years, and the plan outlined therein keeps getting validated.

Here's a thought to ponder: Who did Putin point to when responding to the tragedy of Beslan? The West. Given that Islam and its terror were borne of the Middle East, what is the logic of blaming the West? There is indeed a logic, albeit not a comfortable one.

We got some serious problems in Chechnya - not only do the folks backing the Chechen terrorists have good press agents, they (and the Saudis) have a ton of influence at Foggy Bottom.

The State Department seems all too willing to take the side fo folks who wish us no good. Look what they did to Carlos Castano - and look how they give Israel and Taiwan the shaft whenever possible.

We ought to say that the next terrorist action involving Chechens against anyone will result in those who we've granted asylum to be turned over to Russia.

"Sheesh!!! We actually have a terrorist supporter on Free Republic!"

Wait a sec, there, bud. The Chechens have their own issues with terror and dastardliness, but it's a matter of tools being wielded. The terrorists are convenient weapons, much as the "useful idiots" elsewhere. The Chechens terrorists have been bastards all on their own.

(Yeah, your reply was to GIJoel, not me, but I just didn't think it was a fair statement you made. And by association, I felt insulted.)

We ought to say that the next terrorist action involving Chechens against anyone will result in those who we've granted asylum to be turned over to Russia.

A few days ago I read that the Brits had changed their minds due to "increased activity" among the chechens they gave aslyum to.

The west needs to wake up. These chechens are infiltrating and collecting for their terrorist scum back home. The left loves them, like Vanessa Redgrave, who probably sends tons of cash to Basayev personally.

If you can't see Putin's power grab in response to Beslan,

What you see as a power grab, Italy saw as a way to fight corruption. They did the same thing when their local peasants were being intimidated and regional leaders were stuffing the ballot boxes.

The other important thing to understand is that only 2/3 of Russia's regions have governors to be appointed by Putin. So for instance Moscow is not under Putin's control. Coincidentally, those running Moscow are not crime moguls either.

In some of those outlying areas, such as Beslan, where Putin will try to appoint leaders, only 20% of the population was even voting. These are poor parts of the world. People are struggling to eat, and when someone with cash offers them dinner for the next six months or tells them they will kill their husband if they vote, no problem.

Putin's suggestion will enable people he finds to be free of corruption to fill these slots and is a wonderful idea.

About the Russian Army....I was in Kosovo a couple of years ago and witnessed the following one night while with a US Army unit....

I accompanied an escort of some civilian personnel from Bondsteel to a Russian facility at night. The Russian soldiers on guard were openly smoking reefer. While we were waiting a new Mercedes (the local gangsters' ride of choice) pulled up to deliver two whores for the Russian officers. When the guard changed they left their weapons for use by the arriving relief. The Joes I was with have no respect for the capabilities, the discipline, the training or the morale of the Russian Army.

Of course the boob who started this thread wants us to believe that this, along with the Russian Army's failure to control Chechnya is nothing more than a Machiavellian scheme to lull us into a false sense of security so that they may spring the trap when the time is right. But then he also wants us to believe that it is the left in America who has duped us into believing that the terrorists are muslims.

"Sheesh!!! We actually have a terrorist supporter on Free Republic!"

This might be the only comment by sinkspur with which I agree. The poster you are defending has launched a campaign here to convince us that the left is behind the terror, not islam and that islam is just a misunderstood, peace loving group of lugs. He also sings praises for the religious freedoms in turkey, a country that is 99% muslim and where you can get arrested for giving a Bible to a friend.

I don't know what your inclinations are but dig a bit before you jump to defend a propagandist for islam.

I'm happy that the SOB's were shut down. However, I don't believe that was Putin's context when pointing to the West. He specifically aligned us with those who wished the "carve out a chunk" of Russia, or some similar hyperbole. I certainly don't expect that you think it's resonable of him to say we're aiding and abetting terror front groups in this country.

Look, I've come in late to this discussion, and I've only been able to skim the comments. Here's my take:

There are published plans for the USSR playing possum that have been existence for a long, long time. Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet system, I might add. These plans continue to gain validation, the steps back to reconstitution continue to fall on the path. Not everything has gone the Bolsheviks' way, but by and large the march seems to be relentlessly forward.

Of course, those who see this and dare mention it are labeled "terrorist supporters" for pointing out ulterior motives and subsequent actions of those who would take advantage of the terrorists. Hogwash.

I don't think any right-thinking, moral person would condone terrorism like Beslan. What is being pointed out is that there are two options some of us consider: A man like Putin may either be taking advantage of the situation, or is involved in a an actual bit of puppetry. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in-between.

No one wants to see the USSR reconstitute, rather the whole point of highlighting the antidemocratic nature of Putin's moves is to try to confront it and stop it.

I am not wearing a tinfoil beanie, I assure you. I'm a big-R Republican with an eye on those things that say "truth is stranger than fiction." Politics and International relations have always been shadowy things, and there is a lot of denial about the current shadows.

"In some of those outlying areas, such as Beslan, where Putin will try to appoint leaders, only 20% of the population was even voting."

If you substituted the name "Bush" for "Putin", would you still be okay with it? There are areas of THIS country with very low voter participation, I personally don't think the right to vote needs to be deleted just because "they weren't using it anyway". I've had cars I didn't use for a long time in my driveway, that wouldn't give someone the right to steal them.

I'd be d*mned if someone took away my right to vote, just because I hadn't exercised it for a while.

I don't quite get your intended meaning. Let me rephrase what I said, for clarity:

Just because the Chechens can be heinous, evil terrorists does by no means exclude the Russian government from taking advantage of the situation, or indeed guiding events, to achieve a desired domestic result.

To be honest, I think this was possibly an FSB/KGB op that went beyond its mission definition, and I think Putin has some true anger over the brutality that resulted. Threatening to kill as many children as were in school would have been enough to anger the population, and I think the whole thing unexpectedly went to hell in a handcart. I'm disinclined to blindly swallow that Putin ordered the outright death of those poor babies, but I am prepared to accept that he was negligent.

One correction..."...the people voted freely...", past tense.

Boy that sounds just like what DNC is already saying about the upcoming elections in the US and how Bush is going to steal them. You slant that by the fact that this is not an election year, last year was the last Duma election year. As I said, you were well taught on propaganda and using half truths.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.