Chechnya, what to do about it.

Remove all ads!

Well, we all know they are being blamed for being terrorists, but what do you really think about them, do you like the chechnians or do you think they are bastards.
I think the whole war there is wrong, why can't they form their own nation?
It now goes on for years, and the situation never gets better.
Everytime when there is a terroristic attack, the russian forces "take" young, chenchnian men, because they have tried or did a terroristic attack, or they just raid houses and villages, taking men there, because they think they did something years ago, and they never return.
And for the attack in Beslan, i think the chechnians don't know what to do anymore, so they just took the school out of rage.
So, what do you think about it?

 

Indeed. Why can't the Palestinians form their own nation? Why can't the kurds in Iraq just form their own nation? Why can't the Basks(sp?) form their own nation and finally why can't Taiwan just form their own nation? The answer is that all these have been a part of their mother country so long that there is no way that they will ever gain independence by peaceful means. It just doesen't work that way.

I allready said this in the thread about the terrorist attacks but I guess I'll just have to repeat myself. It is the Chechenyans who are revolting against the Russian rule not the Russians who are occupying Chechenya. The revolt did not begin peacefully and it sure won't end peacefully either.

The methods used by Russians may be immoral and wrong but there is really nothing anyone can do about it. Just like in Israel a circle of violence has begun and for it to be closed one side has to admit loosing the conflict, and quite frankly I do not see Russia giving up to terrorism.

 

I like Morgoroth's answer.

Another situation that I thought was Quebec trying to become independent from Canada. Now I don't pretend to know the entire situation, but basically the French Canadiens wanted to form their own nation by leaving Canada. Canada basically said "No". They had a couple of elections that I'm not quite sure what they were voting on, but in the end the answer was still "No". Now to the best of my knowledge the FC didn't start blowing up airliners, kidnapping school children, or start armed conflict.

The sooner the Chechenians realize that they are a part of Russia the better off they will be.

I will admit to a large amount of hypocrisy in my answer as the US was a part of the UK until the revolution. My only excuse (and a feeble one at that) is that distance and oceans matter.

 

How does anyone even decide they are a Chechenian? Or a Kurd? Or a Basque? etc. How would you ever work out the boundaries and who would live in each country?

Most importantly, what do people actually GAIN by becoming independent and forming their own country? What's the point?

What would Arizona gain by becoming its own country separate from the USA, for example?

 

@ Snook - actually, in Quebec, there was an extreme separatist group (the FLQ) that ended up killing someone. But even Quebecers recognised that the FLQ was too radical. The elections you refer to (they were called referendums) were held in Quebec to find out if Quebecers wanted to give the provincial government the authority to negociate a separation from the rest of Canada; the "no" side won by narrow margins.

The point is, the democratic and non-violent process was the one that Quebec used. It of course doesn't satisfy everyone, but it is infinitely better than the terrorism approach.

 

I heared a possible reason why Russia doesn't want to loose Chechenya: Pipelines/Oil-transport. But I actually am not sure if this truely is the reason. But seeing oil has quite an influence on todays world, I would not be surprised.

I'm nearly neutral in my opinion to this matter. I won't say the Chechenians are bastards, but there are some things that could be done a bit more civilised.
On the other hand, the Russians were not always that friendly to them either. Once the cowdy hits the fan, you can't trace where it's from and both parties are blaming each other, resulting in military conflict, terrorism, and more fun we actually are not amused with.

 

Nationality is defined by language, culture and sometimes by religion. Chechenians are not russians, as the Basques are not Spaniards and Kurds are not Turks, iraqis or Syrians.

The chechenia problem isn't something new, it exists for more than two centuries. Russians were very hard on chechenians always, Stalin had deported them to Siberia because he was afraid that they would collaborate with the approaching german forces during WW2, and they were allowed to return to their territory by Hrutsov. The big mistake of the Chechenians was that they didn't accept the limited indepedence that Moscow had offered them after the fall of soviet union. The reason of they refusal was that the extremists among them were not only aiming towards a free chechen state but to the creation of a muslim state from Caspian sea to Black sea and that was something that russians could never accept due to the reasons that MoN mentioned in his post but also because it would be a bad example for other non-russian populations, who live in modern Russia.

 

Maybe, but not precisely enough to be able to draw a border on a piece of land and say that everyone who is of a certain 'nationality' should live there. I say, just stick with the country borders we have now and be done with it. Plenty of countries have many different 'cultures' living within their borders and get on fine.

 

Non-violent segregation does happen, it's just very very rare. You need to have as little antagonism as possible between the two parties to have any chance of it at all. With a history of antipathy, violence and ill-feeling like the one between Russia and Chechnya, it's not surprising that Chechnya isn't taking being occupied very well. That said, butchering hundreds of children is not likely to make anyone sympathetic to those involved. The easiest way to encourage radical nationalism is through outside tyranny and oppression (real or imagined). It's not anything new; look at Ireland, or even Germany in the post-Versailles/Weimar Republic era. One continues to experience troubles from nationalist factions such as the "Real IRA", and the other ended up under the rule of Adolf Hitler, who used the myth of the betrayal to reinvigorate a defeated nation and almost conquer Europe out from under the bootheel of the Versailles treaty conditions.

Australia and the UK had a formal declaration of federation and separation of the colony from the mother country, but that is certainly the exception to the rule. Our national identities weren't so different, our language virtually identical, our culture only varying by virtue of landscape and level of land development. That said, if the Queen decided to invoke her (legal) power as Australian head of state, most of us would offer a two-fingered salute and tell her exactly where to go. If it went to the point of occupation (and I don't think it ever would), I don't think there'd be too many people who would look at it and think, "You know, those English aren't so different from us". I would hope we wouldn't blow up an English school in that unlikely event, but doing everything in your power to have "your" way of life back is something I can understand - it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

The fact that the Altlantic Ocean is between the Us and the UK is possibly the main reason why the US exists. Were it not for European rivalries and the logistics of invading so far from home, against a similarly-equipped enemy, the War of Independence could have had a very different outcome...

...although as a white Australian, I wouldn't have a country if it did.

 

@Morgoroth: Israel <-> Palestina is a whole different matter that has nothing in common with the Chechenyan conflict.

@Harbourboy: Following your reasoning: if Chechenya doesn't gain anything through independence, then it stands to reason that Russia doesn't lose anything. Why then should the Russians bother? Obviously, something's wrong with your argument. Your second one doesn't withstand close scrutiny as well. A multi-cultural society refers to a heterogeneous mixture of cultures with the emphasis on the original nation. It is not to be confused with a lose framework that holds together several blocks of nations with different cultural backgrounds and aims.

What I miss in this thread is the determination of how very convenient the Chechenyan conflict is for the political aims of Putin. Democracy in Russia is an abandoned dream now that Putin fortfied his autocratic claims under the cover of the need for higher security. Nothing much has changed in Russia over the last decades it seems.

 

I won't bother answering this in detail since it would probably turn this thread into a discussion about Isreal and Palestina, but let's just say that while the conflict between Palestinians and Israelians might be a lot more complicated than the Chechenyan war, I consider there to be enough similarities to fit them into the same cathegory.

 

I can't speak for Chechnya, but in the case of the Middle East the national borders were drawn by the occupying colonial powers for their own convenience in divvying up the region's resources. Perhaps we'd have many fewer conflicts if national borders had never been imposed on people whose tribal nature made such things artificial and unnatural?

And the overall question of Chechnyan independence is a very good one. I too have wondered what the Russian government and people gain by insisting on maintaining domination over this region that is willing to go to such lengths to be separate, like the Basques in Spain. What is to be lost by letting them separate, found their country on the oil profits of the region, and establishing trade? If they fail, be there to welcome them home with open arms. If they succeed, seems that the world economy will have gotten a boost.

I'd like to see the Basques try self-governance with an economy based on sheep.

 

Bringing in the Basques really isnt a good example as a rather large majority of Basques are happy with things as they are with a regional Basqia with some autonomy but still a part of Spain. ETA and such groups have not had any widespread support for a long time.

 

Your consideration is wrong. What category would that be? "People using bombs against civilians"? This would embrace so many conflicts that apart from that single fact you wouldn't find another similarity whatsoever.

The aim of Palestinian terror is the destruction of the state Israel. This makes this conflict singular.

Furhtermore:

'Nuff said.

 

I don't have anything against the people of Chechnya. It's the terrorists of Chechnya that are the bastards.

@Darkthrone

I'm not going to speak for Morgoth here, but I can think of one very obvious way Israel and Palestine are similar to Russia and Chechnya. In both bases you have one group trying to form a separate nation from within the borders of an existing nation. I agree that Chechnians don't follow a creed of destroying the nation of Russia, or killing all the Russians, but to say they are totally dissimilar is putting blinders on.

 

Yes, this would be what Morgoroth had in mind, I agree. The only problem is that he said that the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Chechenyans and the Taiwanese had in common that they "have been part of their mother country so long that there is no way that they will ever gain independence by peaceful means." While I completely agree to the sad realization that a peaceful solution is not in sight, I don't think that Palestinians have ever been part of a mother nation called Israel. The genesis of the middle eastern crisis is completely different from the chechenyan one - therefore one cannot claim that they are similar.

I don't want to offend someone, but the reason why there seems to be no way for the Palestinians to form their own nation lies in the fact that the Palestinians refuse to share - whereas I'm quite certain that the Chechenyans would gladly leave Russia alone after independence had been established.

There had been Chechenya before the USSR. There was no Palestina before Israel.

 

The reasons for the war in Chechnya:

1. The maxim of territorital integrity
2. Transportation routes
3. Oil

The maxim of territorital integrity is the a and the o for the what is the remainder of the Russian Empire today. A lot of their territority is still composed out of what can be called colonies. They lost a lot of territority at the breakdown of the soviet-union. At one point, they decided, they can't let any further country get its independence. They spent the last 300 years with expanding into Asia, they just can't sit and let it all tumble down. There are still countries that would like the idea to become independent. The Russian Empire spend more then 50 years in the last century to conquer the Caucasus region. And after that, only the Crimean War stopped the absorption of the Ottoman Empire. The Russians won't sit and watch all the Caucasian republics go independent. And as soon they'll get a half a chance, they'll take Georgia back too. And one can safely say, this war wasn't started by Putin or Yelzin. It goes back a long, long time. Since the Russians met the Turks and started to quarrel about territory.

Important trade routes lead through the caucasus region. Of what use is the wealth of Siberia, if you can't bring it to a port. Since the days of the silk road, this region is in the spotlight. And there is a very important oil-pipeline going straight through Chechnya.

And oil city of Grosny, that's where the German armies where heading, as they were stopped in Stalingrad. The economy of Chechnya is destroyed now, but the oil is there since million of years. It can wait 15 years more, until it will be taken safely out of the ground.

Edit: Oops. Not in the last century. In the century before the last century.

[ September 15, 2004, 22:16: Message edited by: Iago ]