Moscow airport bombing

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70N2TQ20110124

Quote:

---

(Reuters) - A suicide bomber killed at least 35 people at Russia's biggest airport on Monday in an attack that bore the hallmarks of militants fighting for an Islamist state in the north Caucasus region.

---

My condolences to those who got hurt, either directly or by losing someone they loved or knew.

The despicable acts people commit to achieve political goals (mixed with religious goals it seems) boggle the mind. :no:

Since I don't know much about the region, was this Caucasus region that is apparently involved ever it's own state or did these people just decide that they want one?
Not that anything would excuse such acts of terrorism.

Are these the same *********** behind the Beslan school massacre?

I would say yes to that Lemur.

Doubt it, would have to outdo that

edit, there have been many skinhead attacks on foreign students in Moscow, bet it's that

"Militants fighting for an Islamist state in North Caucasus"

Gotta love bias/ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Doubt it, would have to outdo that

edit, there have been many skinhead attacks on foreign students in Moscow, bet it's that

---

I doubt it Frag as thick as the average Skinhead might be I never heard any engaging in suicide bombings in airports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

I doubt it Frag as thick as the average Skinhead might be I never heard any engaging in suicide bombings in airports.

---

I mean it was probably a foreign student, skinheads are a real problem there, nothing has been claimed so far no? In Beslan they killed children, this is kinda tame when compared

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I mean it was probably a foreign student, skinheads are a real problem there, nothing has been claimed so far no? In Beslan they killed children, this is kinda tame when compared

---

tame???? 35 people dead and 130 injured in an airport suicide bombing.

I would hate to see your definition of horrendous if thats tame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

tame???? 35 people dead and 130 injured in an airport suicide bombing.

I would hate to see your definition of horrendous if thats tame.

---

Does it shock you as much as Beslan? We will just have to get used to these kind of things, :daisy: happens. On the bright side this is the islam being hauled into the 21th century, going to sting a bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

On the bright side this is the islam being hauled into the 21th century, going to sting a bit

---

It's not, it's the Wahhabi's trying to return to the 7th century. They take it so seriously they even banned ice because it wasn't available during Mohammed's lifetime. This isn't a backlash against the modernisation/liberalisation of Islam, the dominant force is all in the backwards direction. These people are simply crazy, that article I linked notes how they also banned women from buying cucumbers, think tomatoes are female (?), and demand goats cover their genitals.

I think teh Islam is undergoing a bit of a Protestant reformation... suddenly everyone can read and are more aware of Islam as a global force outside their own little region where it was always mixed with superstitious local beliefs. They were silly, but at least they were harmless. But now it's all about returning to the purity of worhsip seen in Mohammad's time. Kind of like Protestants with their return to New Testament practices and Sola Scriptura etc. Remember, the Reformation gave you the firebrand Puritans and the crazy Anabaptists before more liberal views emerged, the same seems to be happening with teh Islam.

Its still going to sting though. Assuming it goes well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Does it shock you as much as Beslan? We will just have to get used to these kind of things, :daisy: happens. On the bright side this is the islam being hauled into the 21th century, going to sting a bit

---

The point is that this attack too was horriffic. The fact that we have, collectively, become more inured to the horror of this class of events is NOT a happy thing, Frags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70N2TQ20110124



My condolences to those who got hurt, either directly or by losing someone they loved or knew.

The despicable acts people commit to achieve political goals (mixed with religious goals it seems) boggle the mind. :no:

Since I don't know much about the region, was this Caucasus region that is apparently involved ever it's own state or did these people just decide that they want one?
Not that anything would excuse such acts of terrorism.

---

While any terrorism is terrible, I could at least see where they're coming from considering what the Russians are doing to Chechnyans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzan_Kadyrov

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

While any terrorism is terrible, I could at least see where they're coming from considering what the Russians are doing to Chechnyans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzan_Kadyrov

---

Indeed.

Like Anna Politkovskaja said, we wouldn't see this if it wasn't for Putins utter incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The point is that this attack too was horriffic. The fact that we have, collectively, become more inured to the horror of this class of events is NOT a happy thing, Frags.

---

Kinda undermines it's very purpose no

'There was an explosion at ********'
gas leak?
'No, terrorist attack'
Ah, k

Akhbar that beards

edit looks like GC was right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

While any terrorism is terrible, I could at least see where they're coming from considering what the Russians are doing to Chechnyans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzan_Kadyrov

---

Funny how Americans were offended when people said the same thing about WTC bombing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

While any terrorism is terrible, I could at least see where they're coming from considering what the Russians are doing to Chechnyans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzan_Kadyrov

---

You mean it makes sense to bomb an international airport because a Chechnyan is treating Chechnyans badly?
If I throw your baby off a bridge because my father beat me, can you see where I'm coming from, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You mean it makes sense to bomb an international airport because a Chechnyan is treating Chechnyans badly?
If I throw your baby off a bridge because my father beat me, can you see where I'm coming from, too?

---

Would you say that a Norwegian was treating Norwegians badly from 1940-45?

The only difference between Kadyrov and Quisling is that Kadyrov is way more brutal in his methods. Come to think of it, he's more like Rinnan, the Gestapo chief. Also a Norwegian, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Funny how Americans were offended when people said the same thing about WTC bombing...

---

While the US certainly have their black marks, they're not even close to the atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

While the US certainly have their black marks, they're not even close to the atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya.

---

Tell it to the kids in Iraq who had half of their face blown away because of an illegitimate war for control of oil based on an outright lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Tell it to the kids in Iraq who had half of their face blown away because of an illegitimate war for control of oil based on an outright lie.

---

Well, Iraq did happen post-9/11...

But still, that kid in Iraq was a consequence of an action, not the specific target for the action. The kid in Chechnya, however, is the specific target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Tell it to the kids in Iraq who had half of their face blown away because of an illegitimate war for control of oil based on an outright lie.

---

Oh, oh the irony!

If you're going to compare anything to the U.S. compare how you think the Russian reaction will differ from the U.S. reaction or why such incidents don't happen at U.S. airports. Maybe something about the security situation in Russia. I'm just sayin. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Would you say that a Norwegian was treating Norwegians badly from 1940-45?

The only difference between Kadyrov and Quisling is that Kadyrov is way more brutal in his methods. Come to think of it, he's more like Rinnan, the Gestapo chief. Also a Norwegian, btw.

---

No, I would say they can bomb Kadyrov or Putin and their cronies instead of an international airport. You know, one could then at least find some reasons to argue for their cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No, I would say they can bomb Kadyrov or Putin and their cronies instead of an international airport. You know, one could then at least find some reasons to argue for their cause.

---

Airports are easy. The cowards prefer soft targets because of that. Besides, do you want to directly incite the wrath of Puttie-poot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, Iraq did happen post-9/11...

---

What do you mean by this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But still, that kid in Iraq was a consequence of an action, not the specific target for the action. The kid in Chechnya, however, is the specific target.

---

So, when you invade a country, killing kids is collateral damage, and when you're fighting insurgents in your own country, kids are not collateral damage but specific targets. Is this the principle or do you think that Russians are homicidal maniacs who thrive on killing children.

I don't really see a difference between a Chechnyan kid and an Iraqi kid, but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Oh, oh the irony!

If you're going to compare anything to the U.S. compare how you think the Russian reaction will differ from the U.S. reaction

---

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Russia now invades Tajikistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

or why such incidents don't happen at U.S. airports. Maybe something about the security situation in Russia. I'm just sayin. :shrug:

---

I don't know what's the security situation at Russian airports, I assume it's than in America but I don't see how that excuses terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

So, when you invade a country, killing kids is collateral damage, and when you're fighting insurgents in your own country, kids are not collateral damage but specific targets. Is this the principle or do you think that Russians are homicidal maniacs who thrive on killing children.

---

I believe that Horetore is suggesting that the Russians have specifically targeted civilians in a "frightfulness" campaign. I do not know if there is evidence to support this claim. Horetore is hardly an apologist for the U.S. military.

Morally, I think most would agree that specifically targeting civilians for violence is less morally correct then is the harming of civilians by happenstance while targeting an opponent. This is not to say that such "collateral damage" is in any way a good thing -- I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone quite that cavalier.

Please note, however, that this moral distinction probably matters very little to the innocent civilian who has just been harmed. They have been wronged, regardless of the agent of that wrong.

Seamus is right on the money.

The civillian population in Chechnya is the specific target of the drunk soldiers of the Russian Army/interior forces/FSB. While I certainly do not agree with the way the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been/is carried out, to compare those two with Chechnya is wrong. The US' targets are people defined as enemies. The Russian targets are both actual rebels and people they know are just civillians. As well as practicing the mobster way of killing/torturing family members of rebels they've killed, even though those peple had done nothing wrong.

Another point is of course that a lot of arussia's victims don't die from gunshots, but from torture. The FSB kidnaps and toures people at will. I loathe Gitmo. But at least they are still alive, and even released. A Chechen torture victim has little chance of that of ever seeing sunlight again.

A Chechen woman refused the sexual advances of a drunk arussian general? No worries, just call the army rent-a-mob, kidnap her, rape her and then kill her. And then start terrorizing her remaining family to keep their mouths shut.

Need evidence? 10 minutes of reading one of Russia last independent newspapers, Novaja Gazeta, should give you plenty. If their journalists are still alive by the time I've finished writing this, of course....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

No, I would say they can bomb Kadyrov or Putin and their cronies instead of an international airport. You know, one could then at least find some reasons to argue for their cause.

---

Softer targets.

They don't have the force necessary to carry out assasinations of high-profile people. Your statement is like saying that England should've whacked Hitler in 42 instead of getting millions of people killed! Yes, they would've done that.... If they had been able to.

Do I support the killing of innocent people? Of course not. The blame is first and foremost with the killers.



But that does not in any way absolve Putins incompetent rule of blame.

Quote:

---

Your statement is like saying that England should've whacked Hitler in 42 instead of getting millions of people killed! Yes, they would've done that.... If they had been able to.

---

Uh technically we wouldn't, truthfully hitler was an idiot when it came to millitary decisions the only reason we didn't keep trying untill it succeeded was becuase he was causing more problems for his side than his death would cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Uh technically we wouldn't, truthfully hitler was an idiot when it came to millitary decisions the only reason we didn't keep trying untill it succeeded was becuase he was causing more problems for his side than his death would cause.

---

I think you got my point nonetheless.

Of course, I just kinda like being on the giving out end when it comes to correcting misconceptions for once.:embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Softer targets.

They don't have the force necessary to carry out assasinations of high-profile people. Your statement is like saying that England should've whacked Hitler in 42 instead of getting millions of people killed! Yes, they would've done that.... If they had been able to.

Do I support the killing of innocent people? Of course not. The blame is first and foremost with the killers.



But that does not in any way absolve Putins incompetent rule of blame.

---

Absolutely, I just can't see where they're coming from.
If someone wrongs me then I don't go and kill his neighbors because I'm too weak to take the guy on who wronged me.
I know they think that through terror they can achieve this or that but even I know that Russians aren't usually the kind to give way when they're under pressure.
Most likely they just killed some innocents and made the lives of the remaining Chechens even worse, perhaps ruined the lives of Chechens who got away from the terror until now.

Who could seriously expect Russia to pack their bags and leave Chechnya because of such an attack? Most likely they will just inflict even more terror and injustice upon the Chechens now.
And they lose the sympathy of the international community as well. Reminds me of the Israel-Palestine thing...

Actually Husar if they are able to launch a sustained campaign they may well get their way, ask any IRA man like Gerry Adams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Actually Husar if they are able to launch a sustained campaign they may well get their way, ask any IRA man like Gerry Adams.

---

The IRA fought the British, these guys are fighting the Russians, who have repeatedly voted for a tyrant like Putin and have a culture that promotes physical strength, where many men drink themselves to death etc.
It's not exactly the same situation IMO. I'm not sure the Russians are as diplomatic as their leaders are apparently elected because they appear tough.

Do you happen to know how the russian communist revolutionaries operated in the late 19th century?

Assassinations, bank robberies and terror bombings.

I assume you are aware of who won in the end?

Same story in Cuba, and probably a lot of other places too. Terrorism actually works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I assume you are aware of who won in the end?

---

Yes, capitalism.

And wasn't the Tzar overthrown when his palace was stormed directly by the revolutionaries? IIRC that was also during WW1 while the army was fighting on the front etc.
Plus it came from the Russian people themselves, not some outsider group living hundreds of kilometers away somewhere at the border, I think that makes a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, capitalism.

And wasn't the Tzar overthrown when his palace was stormed directly by the revolutionaries? IIRC that was also during WW1 while the army was fighting on the front etc.
Plus it came from the Russian people themselves, not some outsider group living hundreds of kilometers away somewhere at the border, I think that makes a difference.

---

I think you need to brush up on your history, lad ~;)

See nothing wrong with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Seamus is right on the money.

The civillian population in Chechnya is the specific target of the drunk soldiers of the Russian Army/interior forces/FSB. While I certainly do not agree with the way the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been/is carried out, to compare those two with Chechnya is wrong. The US' targets are people defined as enemies. The Russian targets are both actual rebels and people they know are just civillians. As well as practicing the mobster way of killing/torturing family members of rebels they've killed, even though those peple had done nothing wrong.

Another point is of course that a lot of arussia's victims don't die from gunshots, but from torture. The FSB kidnaps and toures people at will. I loathe Gitmo. But at least they are still alive, and even released. A Chechen torture victim has little chance of that of ever seeing sunlight again.

A Chechen woman refused the sexual advances of a drunk arussian general? No worries, just call the army rent-a-mob, kidnap her, rape her and then kill her. And then start terrorizing her remaining family to keep their mouths shut.

Need evidence? 10 minutes of reading one of Russia last independent newspapers, Novaja Gazeta, should give you plenty. If their journalists are still alive by the time I've finished writing this, of course....

---

Articles in Novaya Gazeta are considered hard evidence now? Also, being anti-regime or anti-Putin doesn't make you independent or honest. Anti-Milosevic media also called themselves independent but they were often financed from abroad or by opposition to serve their interests.

Comparing civilian victims from two wars in Chechnya and one war in Iraq, I'm not noticing huge disrepancies and there were many reports in both cases that soldiers were brutal and negligent of civilian lives, there were reports of rape and torture and similar stuff so I can't really conclude that one is worse than the other because one is done by Russians and the other by Americans...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

See nothing wrong with it

---

For starters, the revolution took place in 1917, not "late 19th century" which was the time period I was referring to...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For starters, the revolution took place in 1917, not "late 19th century" which was the time period I was referring to...

---

These things cook very slowly, it just happened to be that serfdom lasted a bit longer, was gone everywhere but Russia, doesn't happen in a day you know

????

I referred to the terrorism committed by russian revolutionaries during the late 19th century.

Anyway, an update on the subject:

Putin denies Chechen involment, while the state media blames Call of Duty: Modern Warfare...

HoreTore laughs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For starters, the revolution took place in 1917, not "late 19th century" which was the time period I was referring to...

---

So nobody won as nothing changed in the late 19th century and they didn't achieve anything with their terror since the actual change only came about years later in 1917.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So nobody won as nothing changed in the late 19th century and they didn't achieve anything with their terror since the actual change only came about years later in 1917.

---

Oh come on.... Do I really have to explain this....?

Spontaneous change isn't what people are after. Change takes time, groups need to gain strength, and the enemy needs to be sabotaged. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. The terrorism committed by early revolutionary groups helped the movement grow stronger, so strong that it eventually gained power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oh come on.... Do I really have to explain this....?

Spontaneous change isn't what people are after. Change takes time, groups need to gain strength, and the enemy needs to be sabotaged. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. The terrorism committed by early revolutionary groups helped the movement grow stronger, so strong that it eventually gained power.

---

Russia's revolution wasnlt built in day, it was basicly a feudal society until very late in the 19th century

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The IRA fought the British, these guys are fighting the Russians, who have repeatedly voted for a tyrant like Putin

---

Heh, you think the Brits played nice? It was their heavy-handedness that caused the upsurge in support for the IRA, I guess the situation might be similar with the Chechens. Also, we had Maggie Thatcher back then, don't mess. :tongue2:

And it wasn't just a cash of the government being tough, they played dirty. It's thought British security forces involved in the singlebiggest atrocity of the whole Troubles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Putin and have a culture that promotes physical strength, where many men drink themselves to death etc.

---

Sounds like west Belfast to me (or Glasgow for that matter). These are officially the most violent places in the developed world remember.

I think it is just bloody minded revenge, I don't think they are using it directly as a route to victory (not a short term one at least) Whilst I am not trying defend killing innocent civilians almost all people (animals too for that matter) will lash out when pushed to far, but lashing out at those responsible (I am pretty sure the soldiers deployed there do get attacked to little effect) that is those giving the orders is not exactly easy, but what is easy and is possible is lashing out at the easy targets of the opponents civilians. Lets face it if your being attacked (as they see it) your going to take your means to fight back even if it is indirect and questionable.

How they justify it personally I am not sure, one of theirs for one of ours perhaps ? maybe the fact the people support these policies indirectly through elections ? maybe its supposed to replicate conditions they suffer to other places ? maybe they vainly hope that people suffering will change their minds ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

How they justify it personally I am not sure, one of theirs for one of ours perhaps ? maybe the fact the people support these policies indirectly through elections ? maybe its supposed to replicate conditions they suffer to other places ? maybe they vainly hope that people suffering will change their minds ?

---

They're apparently suffering themselves, so they should know how people react to this, no? Are we going to see Russian suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Chechnya now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

They're apparently suffering themselves, so they should know how people react to this, no? Are we going to see Russian suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Chechnya now?

---

Yes, we most probably are going to see just that.

Just in a different form. We will probably see an increase in military oppression in the region, and increased support from the russian population for wtrcities committed by the military against innocent civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

They're apparently suffering themselves, so they should know how people react to this, no? Are we going to see Russian suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Chechnya now?

---

Nah they just take them out from afar. They do have a reason to be upset with Russia. Other way around as well, they tape it when they torture Russian soldiers and send the tapes to their mothers. Nasty

Yes, so we go back to look at who started violence first and if I'm not mistaken from reading wikipedia, the Chechens started by trying to secede, were denied and took up arms to achieve their goals violently.
I'd suppose HoreTore(and others) would be against an attempt to achieve political goals violently but he seems to side more with the Chechens, I wonder why that is?

Is it because of the way they reacted with more extreme violence? Or because they reacted at all? Should countries just let everyone who wants to create his own mini-state?

I don't see Horetore nor others taking any sides, could just be me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, so we go back to look at who started violence first and if I'm not mistaken from reading wikipedia, the Chechens started by trying to secede, were denied and took up arms to achieve their goals violently.
I'd suppose HoreTore(and others) would be against an attempt to achieve political goals violently but he seems to side more with the Chechens, I wonder why that is?

Is it because of the way they reacted with more extreme violence? Or because they reacted at all? Should countries just let everyone who wants to create his own mini-state?

---

All that goes back to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I am no fully up on all the details of why they were not allowed and others were. It may have had to do with who could be prevented and who couldn’t.

The terrorists want to become such a problem that Russia will let them go. I suppose it is achievable by that means.

Russia’s solution has been military and to cow the population. There are other ethnic minorities that may not want a separate state.

I have not read enough about the situation to have a strong opinion of the rights and wrongs of the whole thing.

From my reading of wiki (most reliable source known to man!) the Russsians expanded into the region in the 1780's it seems it was not until 1834 that any aggressive action was started against the Russians...

As to what that means I am not sure, seen as they successfully invaded (over) 200 years ago and held the place since despite a constant rebellious mood does that mean they deserve to hold the place regardless of local feeling ?

From the Russian POV you can understand that other regions could just follow their lead and their is an argument that remaining strong to a threat will discourage others from trying to threaten you...

Do the Russians make much in the way of effort to accomodate or negotiate with the Chechens ?

Of course from the Chechens point of view they have been fighting and getting beaten for years, they play the role of the wounded animal lashing out. If your an individual person whatever you do will make very little difference, even if you ended your own personal dream of independence your likely to be negatively effected by the conflict regardless, so why not fight, chances are you may get a little revenge which to most is better than nothing...

I think if both sides were intrested some kind of compromise could be made, give the state a little independence (have a crony in charge of the area doesn't count) let them have some powers (maybe something like a more independent American state) and give them a portion of the wealth they create to build up their state..

Of course the Russians would refuse to lose face and look weak by doing so and elements of the Chechen rebels would rather continue a hopeless struggle than settle for some kind of second prize...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

All that goes back to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I am no fully up on all the details of why they were not allowed and others were. It may have had to do with who could be prevented and who couldn’t.

---

Because Soviet Union was made by Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other socialist republics. Chechnya was a part of Russia.

Killing innocent people in the name of Allah/Jesus/the purple speghetti monster makes me horny. yes I'm drunk...

“Should countries just let everyone who wants to create his own mini-state?”: You mean, like Kosovo?

“I'd suppose HoreTore(and others) would be against an attempt to achieve political goals violently but he seems to side more with the Chechens, I wonder why that is?”
I don’t know because for me it is opposite.
The Chechen rebels kidnapped, ransomed, tortured and used terror to control “their” population… They attack schools, theatres and showed absolute disrespect for human life and broke the “rule” in targeting deliberately children and vulnerable people…
Whatever their cause, I have difficulties to have sympathy for them, especially when they were calling for Jihad.
And not too much of their victims saw the daylight either and the ones who did had few body parts missing. And some commit suicide few months after their liberation against ransom…
The Hezbollah conditions for hostage were a Hilton Hotel 7 stars compared to the ones held by the Chechens.

“Assassinations, bank robberies and terror bombings” Didn’t work. And it was more the Anarchist movement than the communist one…
1917 happened because defeat, Tsar stupidity and oppression… If the Tsar wouldn’t have order to shoot against it own population, the soldiers wouldn't have to refuse to do so, and wouldn’t have to kill their officers to prevent themselves to be killed etc… I know, a little bit summary but…
The XIX century bombing campaign has nothing to do with the success of 1917 Revolution…

@Littlegrizzly

A quick scan of a topographical map will show the reason the Russians are fighting in the Caucasus region today, the regions mountains act as a barrier for the Russian Federation plus there is a bonus of oil gas etc.