Chechen Rebel Leader Killed

Frankly speaking, you are talking about situation in Chechnya having one-sided, biased knowledge. ("Slyshal zvon, da ne znaet, gde on", sorry forgot how it sounds in Polish. I know it sounds even better). We, Russkies, are baaaad. Our president is hooorrible, we are barbarians. (Compared to whom? I think you know the answer.) I do not blame you for that, it pretty typical for the modern political context of Eastern Europe, to say the least - normal. Trying to be holier than the Pope, so to speak.

I read about ethnic Russians accused for being terrorist supporters, for example your winter biathlon legend Alexandr Tikhnov who is living in Czech Republic.

I didn’t said that Russians are bad people but I agree Putin and his gang are horrible bandits. Putin is giving Eastern Europeans manyyyy reasons to thinks so, I fully understand them. You cannot deny that thousands of your boys perished in Chechnya fighting for nothing. That is good thing in your opinion?

btw: “Slyszal ze dzwoni ale nie wie gdzie”

The Chechen's have been treated like dirt by the Russians for the last 400 years.

Very true. But still they never gave up their will for independent state in that God forgotten, war torrmented land.

Russia should remove the terrorists from Chechnya and then -- get the hell out of Chechnya and leave the rest of them alone.

How can so called "terrorists" be removed if even a peace desiring, moderate patriotic politician will be murdered as Putin's personal enemy? Who will be left? Puppets? Slaves? How can patriotic Republicans trust such double-faced tyrrant?

The Chechen's have been treated like dirt by the Russians for the last 400 years.
Very true. But still they never gave up their will for independent state in that God forgotten, war torrmented land.
Hm... 400 hundred years? So, you mean that back in 1605 Russian empire stretched that far? You might be exaggerating a bit, both geographically and timewise. Chechnya was conquered only in early 19th century, that makes less than 200 years.
Have you ever asked yourself why exactly Russia fought Chechens so bitterly? Why they did not fight Georgians or Armenians, or any other nation living in Caucasus? There is nothing about pure hatred. It is very rational reason. Chechens (like Scotts some 200-300 years before) raided their neigbours for living.
If (and there is a big IF) Chechens dream about independent state, why in the name of God, after settling a peace treaty with Russia in 1996 (Khasavyurt), in 1999 they invaded neigbouring Dagestan to setlle an Islamic republic down there? By the terms of Khasavyurt treaty they were supposed to have referendum in 2001 (not even 2 years from then) to vote for complete independence. Why they did not wait? That casts a bit of a shadow on the peacful nature of a newborn independent state.
And finally, there are lots of Chechens permanently living in Moscow running businesses, like gambling (=treated like dirt?). I am not too sure they want to get back to Grozny should it declare independence.
IMHO, if only Russian government can rest assured that independent Chechya will not turn into a safe haven for radical Islamism, they would have let them go. Unfortunately nobody, not even the most moderate Chechen warlords can give such a guarantee.
PS: How about letting Afghanistan or Iraq go? What they will turn into in 2-3 years?

Mr.Smirnov

1) I never said it was invaded and conquered 400 years ago.
Russia conquered Caucasia in XVIII and XIX century, Chcechens too, among other, more ancient nations like Georgians or Armenians. Nevertheless it tried to enslave Caucasian nations even back in the XVI century starting with conquer of Kazan in 1552 by Ivan the Terrible.

2) As you probably could expect most of the Chechens will turn to radical islamists after the only moderate leader has been killed. Knowing all that whom do you want to discuss the future of this country with? Basayev? Peace? What peace? There will be no peace - because you're riding this land as if it was your own. And it is not yours, I am sorry to say. I don't know whether we have the same proverb but here in Poland we say "kto sieje wiatr ten zbiera burze" ("you reap what you sow"). Do you truly believe that Putin would harness his imperialist tendencies to grant any country on Earth independence of their own? The way they really want? Look at Ukraine's most recent example. Poisonings, killings and spies like in Borgia's dynasty time. True democracy and freedom lover your leader is.

Conquered Georgia? You must be kidding. Have you ever heard about Kars treaty, signed in 1819? Have you ever known that it was Georgia who came first to Russia, not the otherwise? Can you imagine independent Armenia in 19th century? It was mighty Ottoman Empire which was about to wipe out Armenians altoghether and it was a protection of Russian Empire that saved them from Turks. (As well as Bulgarians, by the way).
Have you ever looked at the map and checked where Kazan is and where Caucasus is? Ther are nearly 900 km away from each other. A huge distance by 16th century standards. How come that conquering Kazan helped conquering Caucasus? By the way, conquering Kazan saved Moscow from never ending raids by Tatar khans. So, it was a matter of survival.
Do I need to mention, that not even 60 years after conquering Kazan, your enlightened ancestors marched over to conquer us? How does the fit into your liberal picture?
Frankly speaking, you historical insights lack the sense of historical and geographical context. It looks like what social planners teach in schools. Very black and white, fudged to serve a political purpose.
If you do not mind, that "moderate rebel islamist" theme is a bit groundless. Back in 1999, when Chechens raided Dagestan, Maskhadov was alive and kicking, as well was in charge of Chechnya. He did not prevent Chechnya from sliding into radical Islamism and trying to forcefully impose it on its neighbours. Simply cannot understand how it could prevented it again if he were alive today.
IMHO, your historical insights lack the sense of historical relativity and geographical context. As to the "poisonings" and "imperialistic ambitions", unless it proved by concrete facts, not emotions, I see little reason to discuss it. (As well, as such vague and fuzzy definitions like "true democracy").
However, I absolutely agree that the current Russian government has a very amateurish and awkward foreign policy. But I humbly remind you that Ukrainan elections are not the subject of this discussion.

Kazan and conquer of khanates was only the beginning and the moment when Russian military presence in Northern Caucasia started. And have you heard about Chechen 30 year struggle for independence in XIX century (1828-59)? And I am glad you mentioned my enlighted ancestors and the rule they imposed on Russia for two years in XVII century. Your government has been doing exactly the same thing to Chechens for over 200 years without you even noticing the striking similarity of these hated puppet governments. Plus genocidal policy towards the common Chechnyan people, I forgot to add. Funny, isn't it? Imperialistic ambitions...hmm I thought I would not have to tell you that your country was once a Soviet empire called by late RR an "evil empire". And that every country trying to shake off Stalin's imposed "Moscow's sphere of influence bargain" had to go through long and painful process of divorce and some of them may not be your friends anymore (like Balts). Not in the very near future, at least. Really I don't like to quarrel about facts here. I don't believe you don't know all that by heart. The problem is your lack of denial imperialistic tendencies in your elites. The problem is apologetic attitude to the communist crimes that took millions of lives of innocent Russians. And if you think that your relationships with neighbours under Putin's rule are rosy, then I would like to congratulate you your good humour. You're FM is behaving really in a bear-like manner as far as history is concerned. Constantly trying to show Poland where is its place. Pissing on small ones you "don't consider players". It's useless man, we know our history so lies won't do. ;)

Personally, I don't think there is another solution for Chechnya but independence - sooner or later. And it depends on you whether you'll have it hostile or peaceful and friendly.

Dear twinself. You take it:
1) way too personal
2) twist it in the favour of your new friends
I believe that there is nothing wrong with that.
However, when Pole speaks about Russia, there is undeniably, a bias. Some sort of jealosy mixed with what not. Get over with that. Look into the future.
I ain't Putin, nor I am personally responsible for USSR past transgressions. If you prefer to live by what happened in the past - that is your choice. I do not.
Your advices on independence for Chechnya are leftist, idealistic and out of historical context. I wrote you already, that if they lived on robbing others and kidnapping their children for ransome, no one, I repeat, no one will give them independence. No matter whether it is Alexander II, baaadd Stalin, or enlightened RR. That just doesn happen.
How about giving Iraq independence? Just right now. Unconditionally. Just because - for the sake of it.
If Chechens were to live independently, they should learn how to live responsibly and face the consequences of what they do. So far they did not (like Dagestan, 1999). So far they do not deserve sovereignity. I wonder, if Chechnya bordered Poland, how would your country (sic! not you) deal with that?
PS: I have to correct you on the geography again. You said: "Kazan and conquer of khanates was only the beginning and the moment when Russian military presence in Northern Caucasia started."
Have you ever looked at the map? Do you have a slightest idea where Kazan and where Northern Caucasses is? Just to educate you a bit. Kazan-Moscow=720 km. Kazan-Grozny (capital of Chechnya, FYI)=1440 km. How come, that by conquering Tatars (who in their own turn consequently burned Russian cities between 13th and 16th century) Russia started her military presence on Northern Caucasses? This really shows your level of argumentation. Very emotional, no long-sought rationale.

It's quite fortunate that your bias accusation do not shed some light on your own bias towards the Chechen's struggle.

Before you start to educate me about geography and we look into bright future together I am going to educate you about your own history a little bit, if you don't mind, of course. After conquering Kazan, Ivan the Terrible turned to the South and tried to conquer Khanates of Astrakhan and Krimean Khanate in the following years.

(...)The next objective of Ivan the Terrible was the Astrakhan Khanate which at that time was ruled by Khan Yamgurtsy, vassal of Crimea. At that time Astrakhan remained in conflict with Nogai Horde, which asked the Russians for assistance. In 1554 a Russian army seized Astrakhan practically without a fight and it placed the Tsar's ally Derwish Ali on the throne (ultimately, in 1566 Astrakhan was annexed to the state of Tsars).

From www.allempires.com.

I am not judging his deeds, perhaps it was vital for Russia's further existance but the fact is that is when Russian military influence in Northern Caucasus region started practically at that time.

Iraqi argument is out of place in my humble opinion. USA respects the results of democratic elections by the Iraqi people while Russia has just murdered Chechnya's democratically elected president scapegoating him for Beslan and calling him "a terrorist". That makes just a small difference, doesn't it?

You claim that noone will give them independence. Well, I think Stalin would say exactly the same thing about Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania or Ukraine in 1945. That they do not deserve sovereignity. But people like Stalin or Putin come and go and unbreakable spirit of independence lives on, you know. So maybe not during our lives, but later - who knows...

P.S.

Please tell me, why do you think I am emotional ;)?

Ok. This is the last reply to this thread.
1)Neither Latvia, nor Lithuania, nor Estonia, nor Ukriane ever (in last forseebly past) lived by robbery and kidnapping. So the historical parallel is completely out of a place.
2) When I say, give Iraq independence right now, I mean pull out all troops, not about elections: do not change the subject. That will not happen either, since as soon as the trops will be pulled out, Iraq will turn into bloodbath. Iraq is not ready for independence.
3) Chechnya (according to Kahasav Yurt treaty, 1996) was given independence, all Russian trops were pulled out. Central government kept paying them pensions, supplying gas and electricity. According to this treaty, Chechnya should have hold a referendum in 2001, whether they wanted to be completely independent from Russia or not. Maskhadov was in charge then. Him being in charge did not prevent 1999 incursion into Dagestan, which prooved Chechens being irresponsible under his leadesrhip and/or Maskhadov being unable to control them. Chechnya in its present state is not ready for independence too, unless there is the firm guarantee that it will not turn into the bandits haven. No one can guarantee it righ now.
4) In your historical overview, I still see no connection between Kazan and Northern Caucasses. Since Astrakhan geographically is NOT a part of it. By conquering Astrakhan Ivan the Terrible did NOT conquer Northern Caucasses.
5) I appreciate your acknowlegement that Russia not always acted on irrational aggresive instincts, but sometimes due to the vital questions of her survival.

Russian interest in the region can be traced to 1559 when Ivan the Terrible annexed the Caucasian city of Astrakhan, former site of the Tatar khanate. Forts were built in or near Chechnya's neighbor Daghestan and an alliance was made with the Christian kingdom of Kakhetia in Georgia in an attempt to offset Muslim influence in the area, but further inroads were repulsed by Daghestani and other mountain warriors.

From www.pbs.org

In a series of strategic moves after the fall of Astrakhan in 1556, Russia attempted to annex first the western, then the central, and finally the eastern Caucusus. A variety of strategies were used: outright military conquest, co-option, colonial settlement, and forced Christianization.

From Christians associated for relations in Eastern Europe

Prior to the mid-sixteenth century, Russia had no significant contacts with the peoples of the North Caucasus. The situation changed as a result of Ivan the Terrible's conquest of the khanate of Astrakhan, at the mouth of the Volga River, in 1556. Russia was now a Caspian power and became involved in the conflicts of the North Caucasus. In 1562 the tsar Ivan sent a five hundred men force accompanied by an equal number of Cossack settlers. More parties of Cossacks continued to settle along the lower course of the Terek River and on the foothills of Chechnia. These Cossack communities were composed of runaway serfs, soldiers of fortune, religious dissenters, and those Cossacks whose territories in the Ukraine and along the lower Volga had been absorbed into the expanding Russian state. These Cossack settlers subsequently became known as the Terek Cossacks.

From www.aternativesjournal.com

Taurida, or the Crimea, was Russia’s indeed. However, the poet was premature in hailing the end of the conquest of the Caucasus. His poem and music composed by Joseph Kozlovsky became Russian national anthem in 1791. The Caucasus, however, was still not conquered. In 1817, when General Alexey Yermolov returned victorious from Persia, the war of conquest began. In 1818, the general founded the Groznaya fortress on Sunja River. Ivan the Terrible issued the first order to build a fortress in this particular place immediately after he subjugated Kazan and Astrakhan in the 16th century. Yermolov executed the czar’s order and named the fortress after him (“grozny” means “terrible” in Russian). After the fortress was founded, the main line of defense was moved from the Terek River to the Sunja River. It was believed that within a few years the people who lived in the mountains where Noah’s Arc landed would happily join Russia.

From www.military-en.rian.ru

...just in case you were interested in the history of your nation.

Breaking my promise...
What you want to prove is that Russia long time ago had an eye on Chechens and all that time was pursuing the goal to harm them. Questionable assumption.
Astrakhan hardly can be called a Cuacasian city. With all due respect to your sources, it still 400 kilometers away from Grozny (which is in the northern part of Chechnya, i.e. Northern Caucasses).
I know how it feels. From London it looks like Chicago and San Francisco are quite close to each other. Or Moscow is nearly at the foothills of Ural mountains.
:)
In the middle of 16th century Russian Empire was fighting with Turks and Persians on the South, Swedes on the North-West, Tatars on the South-West and East. It was "do or die" situation. Daghestani warroiors (sure, they were warriors, Russians were just barbarious intruders :) were in fact armed and sponsored by Persians, being a mere tool in the war.
So, according to the rules of fuzzy logic, Kazan was the key to Caucasses, in the very same way as Narva (building Ivan-gorod fortress) layed a way for conquering Cacasses.
Still not accepting your point (Kazan-Caucasses connection).

Let us just put our hands on our hearts... The same can be said about Poland - how it tried to invade Russia in 1612, 1812, 1918-1924. (Which would put "rightful" suspicion - why exactly there were trying to do so?). However I am sane enough NOT to put it that way, since I believe that these artificial historical parallels are taken out of context. I.e. I DO NOT believe that Poland and Poles are enemies and want to harm my country. What I do believe, that there is a huge amount of old prejudices and cliches which are cleared off of mothballs and put up into use to serve current political agendas.

Mr. Smirnov - glad to see you broke your promise. Never say never, as they say.

1) Russian military presence in Northern Caucausus as the result of conquer of khanates (Kazan was only the first to fall) is a historical fact. No fuzziness intended or not. If you dont't agree with facts described by historians (I am not one of them so I assume they would know better than me), well it's not my problem anyway.

2) You are right to say that Dagestani/Ingush/Chechen tribes were in fact Persian tools in Russian-Persian matters then. Just like Russians were Terek Cossacks, or Polish were Ukrainian ones.

3) If you want to go into deeper analysis on Polish military presence in Russia's history let's move this discussion into private forum. These are very interesting subjects and I'd be happy to discuss them with you but not really related to the thread in any way. I hope we can exchange our ideas about it freely and without any prejudices.

4) Definitely history can be treated as a tool serving for present purposes. But somehow I can understand Russian grief over 2WW common citizens sacrifice in years 1941-1945. I can understand their joy when they put an end to Polish rule in Kremlin. I wonder why Russians can't understand Polish view that for them end of 2WW meant independence lost for another 45 years and torrment of Polish patriots who fought the Nazis and leaders of patriotic underground, emigration of elites, lies about our common history (Katyn) and so on. For us 2WW ended in 1989, for Russians unfortunately lies go on. Can you please explain that?

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.