Chechnya

[Rodion Romanovich]

Just curious about what people think of the conflict in Chechnya, and what other conflicts they think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to. A few suggestions:
- Indochina wars - trying to prevent an ideology and political movement from spreading, by attacking the latest faction to adopt the political ideology
- North Ireland - fighting an independence movement that is considered terrorists by some, freedom fighters by others. There are motives for independence, but also a few motives for preventing separation
- the Basque - as North Ireland, adding that many of the Basque separatist movements also have communist ideologies which the local population doesn't support
- Iraq - a war to secure oil industry, covered in political motives

Some figures on death tolls in these conflicts:
- Chechnya - 7,500 Russian military, 4,000 Chechen combatants, and no less than 35,000 civilians—a minimum total of 46,500 dead. Others have cited figures in the range 80,000 to 100,000
- French Indochina war - French 94,581 dead, 78,127 wounded, 40,000 captured. Vietnamese: 300,000+ dead, 500,000+ wounded, 100,000 captured
- Vietnam War - south Vietnamese 230,000 dead, 300,000 wounded, U.S. 58,246 dead, 153,490 wounded. VC 1,100,000 dead, 600,000 wounded. Other: 6,612 dead, 17,600 wounded. Civilian dead (total Vietnamese): 900,000–4,000,000.
- North Ireland - 1318 combattants, 80 civilians, 40,000 people injured.
- the Basque - by ETA: around 900 dead by terrorist attacks, and dozens of kidnappings. More than 500 ETA militants held in prison in Spain and France.
- Gulf war - US 378 dead, 1,000 wounded. Iraq 250,000 dead, 75,000 wounded.
- Iraq war - Total deaths/wounded (all Iraqis) Johns Hopkins: 392,979 - 942,636 dead, 1,296,830 wounded. War-related & criminal violence deaths (all Iraqis) Iraq Health Minister: 100,000-150,000. War-related & criminal violence deaths (civilians) Iraq Body Count-english language media only: 56102-61816. None of these figures count the casualties of the at least 100,000 US hired mercenaries.

My questions are:
1. which conflicts do you think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to in terms of motives?
2. which conflicts do you think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to in death tolls and suffering for civilians?
3. can the Chechnyan combattants be classified as terrorists, or should they be called freedom fighters?
4. are the Russian actions in Chechnya war crimes?
5. should countries with democratic constitutions be proud over seeing democratic countries being guilty of worse civilian massdeath and atrocies than a country that is in western media depicted as a dictatorship? What errors are present in our constitutions to repeatedly allow PMs and Presidents who wish to carry out such actions to win, while more peaceful candidates are ridiculed? Do we have a culture that makes people who have peaceful solutions look weak and violent loose cannons look cool? Or is it the fact that we have two-party systems and the constitutional crises that follow upon that? How can we solve the two-party system problem before it causes more massdeath?
6. what do you think should be done in Chechnya instead of what is done today?
7. could we (western world) also learn something from the answers we give to question no. 6 above?

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix]

1. which conflicts do you think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to in terms of motives?

Kosovo or the Irish independence war in 1919-22.

2. which conflicts do you think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to in death tolls and suffering for civilians?

Bosnia, I think, but rather more brutal.

3. can the Chechnyan combattants be classified as terrorists, or should they be called freedom fighters?

Combatants, but there are the Basayev's followers who used terrorism. The desperate measures employed by desperate men.

4. are the Russian actions in Chechnya war crimes?

Overall yes.

5. should countries with democratic constitutions be proud over seeing democratic countries being guilty of worse civilian massdeath and atrocies than a country that is in western media depicted as a dictatorship? What errors are present in our constitutions to repeatedly allow PMs and Presidents who wish to carry out such actions to win, while more peaceful candidates are ridiculed? Do we have a culture that makes people who have peaceful solutions look weak and violent loose cannons look cool? Or is it the fact that we have two-party systems and the constitutional crises that follow upon that? How can we solve the two-party system problem before it causes more massdeath?

That is strictly political question addressing other issues so I treat it as off-topic and will not answer it.

6. what do you think should be done in Chechnya instead of what is done today?

Talking with the nationalist/independence faction of the rebells would be the best solution. Some sort of autonomy with a government which can be credited with some respect and support of the local population would lead to better future, but here it probably it is too late already - Maskhadov is dead and the men who raplaced him cannot controll the fighters so well, besides he was the democratically elected president of Chechenya and they are not anymore.
The terrorist factions will grow in strenghts, though disorganised for now.
Chechens will swell the ranks of mercenary community further, but it is a question of time before a new generation disgusted with the current situation will start fighting.
Right now we have a band of collaborators led by a real thug Kadyrov ( he is a criminal - a real one) who use Russian federal support and a local police force consisting of often forrmer guerillas blackmailed to join them - 'the Kadyrovcy' are currently the most hated men in that country.

Since the Russian governemtn never really meant any form of compromise they were left only one option - pacification, but it is short time solution.

7. could we (western world) also learn something from the answers we give to question no. 6 above?

Never treat everyone opposing you as a scum to be eradicated - but we already know that.
Never target civilins without hesitation - but we already know that.

In other words - unlikely -to a democratic society with strong respect to human life the war in Chehcenya is everything we do not accept

[Grey_Fox]

- North Ireland - 1318 combattants, 80 civilians, 40,000 people injured.
- Gulf war - US 378 dead, 1,000 wounded. Iraq 250,000 dead, 75,000 wounded.

Those two sets of figures are way off.

In Northern Ireland there are 1855 dead civilians to date.

Wikipedia has an accurate account of casualties, for all it's other faults.

As for the Iraqi Army casualties in the First Gulf War, no way in hell were 1/4 of a million soldiers killed, since there were only 250,000 Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait in the first place. Sure they initially started with 500,000, but over half of those deserted even before the air campaign began.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I actually came from wikipedia, the very source you were recommending Yes, on second thought the two examples you pointed out do seem inaccurata. However the remaining should be pretty ok.

[Grey_Fox]

I meant for the Northern Ireland casualties, to which I specifically linked.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ok, I made the mistake of checking this wiki page instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_I...ubles.E2.80.9D

[IrishArmenian]

Chechnya is a very odd case as the people do not have any real claim to their land. They, like the Azerbajainis (no offense to any of you), are Tatar descendants who were relocated to prevent their baiting of Russia into a full-blown war that the Ottomans could not handle.
The thing that bothers me so much though is that the Chechens are willing to hold a school full of children hostage and shoot them. That really hurts their image as "Freedom Fighters". They have really shifted to terrorists in my mind.
Remember, one man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

[LeftEyeNine]

Chechnya is a very odd case as the people do not have any real claim to their land. They, like the Azerbajainis (no offense to any of you), are Tatar descendants who were relocated to prevent their baiting of Russia into a full-blown war that the Ottomans could not handle.
The thing that bothers me so much though is that the Chechens are willing to hold a school full of children hostage and shoot them. That really hurts their image as "Freedom Fighters". They have really shifted to terrorists in my mind.
Remember, one man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

Um so ? We have come from Middle Asia, Anatolia is not our homeland. So we don't have claim for the land we have fought for centuries? What's the point actually? What do they being relocated against Russia mean? Not rightful to defend where they live for the time being ?

Not that I'm a fan of terrorists -I really don't care about Chechnya, I'm only concerned with the claim above of yours.

[Brenus]

which conflicts do you think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to in terms of motives?
Kosovo (I Metohija) in some aspects, except that Chechnya is not the holly Land of Russia. And the fact that the Serbs campaign was a garden Party comparing what the Russian did and still doing…

which conflicts do you think the Chechnya conflict is comparable to in death tolls and suffering for civilians?
The actual conflict in Iraq. In Bosnia, the main problem was the so-called ethnic-cleansing. No UNPROFOR in Chechnya, no Protected Areas, no Deny Fly, no witnesses, no NGO, no interests from media and others, the Russians can do what they want.

can the Chechnyan combattants be classified as terrorists, or should they be called freedom fighters?
Both. And kidnappers, drug dealers and all kind of illegal (but lucrative) activities… They are actually the very example of victims difficult to love and protect…

are the Russian actions in Chechnya war crimes?
Yes.

[IrishArmenian]

LEN, I'm saying that ithey have only truly occupied the land for 100-200 years, so I find it difficult to find their claims to the land credible when land that other people have occupied for thousands of years can be taken, leaving a small nation which is only a fraction of its former lands.
The Russians do have a terrible way of dealing with the Chechens, but historically, Russia has had few good ways of dealing with anything.

[master of the puppets]

IrishArmenian does your grandfather have to have lived in a place to make it your home and worth fighting for?

but seriously this war in my opinion seems to be most like the Boer wars in south africa, people fighting against a much larger foe who has treated them horribly and denies them a good life. excluding the concentration camps (to a point) the russians have accomplished this. they attempt to smother the chechnyan lifestyle and the chechnyans had every right to fight back against the atrocious russians. they also had every opertunity to become freedom fighters but unfortunatly they chose rather to use obviously dispicable tactics. or at least many do, its not fair to call them all the same.

[IrishArmenian]

It was someone else's land before that.

[LeftEyeNine]

Land is one's whoever has it for the time being. If another one feels it as a homeland, then he fires up his guts and tries to take it back. This is the natural cycle that ran for the whole history.

Someone having a history with a territory does not render invalid another one from claiming it the place to live and settle there, hence worth defending for himself. I don't see the use of numbers here, no historians used either.

[BDC]

People's homeland is wherever they feel like it is. Saying someone who was born somewhere that it isn't their land because their ancestors moved there 300 years ago is just stupid. Originally everyone was from some small part of Africa, so if you go by where ancestors lived no one has a right to anywhere.

[IrishArmenian]

Land is one's whoever has it for the time being. If another one feels it as a homeland, then he fires up his guts and tries to take it back. This is the natural cycle that ran for the whole history.

Someone having a history with a territory does not render invalid another one from claiming it the place to live and settle there, hence worth defending for himself. I don't see the use of numbers here, no historians used either.

So, as long as one wants the land, it is said person's homeland? With the U.S. invading the Middle East, is the Middle East a homeland of Americans? Does that mean that any foreign invader has the 'right' to whatever land he invades?
I am also interested to see your thoughts on Zionism, if it isn't an inconvenience and doesn't steer this thread off topic.

[LeftEyeNine]

So, as long as one wants the land, it is said person's homeland? With the U.S. invading the Middle East, is the Middle East a homeland of Americans? Does that mean that any foreign invader has the 'right' to whatever land he invades?

You're not a fool not to understand what I meant. Apple and pear are both fruits but you can't sum them up together, you remember that ?

I am also interested to see your thoughts on Zionism, if it isn't an inconvenience and doesn't steer this thread off topic.

I'd like to know what you think of a black Michael Jackson but I definitely think that it would push the discussion off the hill.

[ShadeHonestus]

I'd like to know what you think of a black Michael Jackson but I definitely think that it would push the discussion off the hill.

I think you accidently solved the Ulster issue. Michael can sell Neverland Ranch and buy Ulster! Brilliant!

So, as long as one wants the land, it is said person's homeland? With the U.S. invading the Middle East, is the Middle East a homeland of Americans? Does that mean that any foreign invader has the 'right' to whatever land he invades?

Nobody really wants the Middle East as a possession. What's going to happen to when the oil runs out? You'll have a region of religious extremists without an income stream and a nuclear weapon. Sounds like a place I'd want to be.

[IrishArmenian]

You're not a fool not to understand what I meant. Apple and pear are both fruits but you can't sum them up together, you remember that ?



I'd like to know what you think of a black Michael Jackson but I definitely think that it would push the discussion off the hill.

First off, most of the modern day United States citizens were foreign invaders. Were are the people native to the land? Very small percentage. Very small. They have more right to the land than anyone else, correct?

Second, Zionism is the same thing (related to the discussion of the Chechen's rights to the land as opposed to the Russian treatment of them). They were both foreign invaders, except one used to hold claim to the land. I guess there is an exception...I don't know why. Is it that most of the Palestinians are Muslim, I don't know, but that is really your only connection to them.

Mocking people based on misunderstandings is great fun, so I encourage you to continue doing so wholeheartedly.

Truly (insert objective here, something akin to despicable),
Ir. Ar.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You're not a fool not to understand what I meant. Apple and pear are both fruits but you can't sum them up together, you remember that ?

Mocking people based on misunderstandings is great fun, so I encourage you to continue doing so wholeheartedly.

Truly (insert objective here, something akin to despicable)

And I would encourage the both of you to turn down the heat and try not to be beastly to one another.

[master of the puppets]

theocracy=strife,civil war, killings, halt of scientific advancment

the entire middle-east is in chaos because of there religion (please, you know this is true, ever since the split of islam and the rise of multiple caliphs they've been at each others throats and ripping there economies to bits)
and the U.S. is in the middle-east because we are extremeists, just like the terrorists we are democratic extremists. we believe everyone who is not in a democracy is not truly living and should be turned into a democracy no matter how many of there buildings we are forced to bomb.

[Sjakihata]

I say make them a Soviet under the union. They know their place.

[Redleg]

..... the U.S. is in the middle-east because we are extremeists, just like the terrorists we are democratic extremists. we believe everyone who is not in a democracy is not truly living and should be turned into a democracy no matter how many of there buildings we are forced to bomb.

This statement while I don't agree completely with how it is written, has the bitter ring of truth in it. Probably an accurate summation/generalization of United States Foreign Policy.

[LeftEyeNine]

And I would encourage the both of you to turn down the heat and try not to be beastly to one another.

Sorry, I call this the Backroom Impact I'll not bother you, sir

First off, most of the modern day United States citizens were foreign invaders. Were are the people native to the land? Very small percentage. Very small. They have more right to the land than anyone else, correct?

You're stubbornly missing the point here. Where I live currently, this region, and Istanbul itself has more history with the Greeks. But after the historical process, this land has been ours for long. What I'm trying to say is, land may natively belong to another, but this does not allow you to derive a percentage of ownage on it among the sides.

Not trying to fire up anything here, it's because I just came up with it since it is simple: If Greeks want these lands back, then they try to get it..What they had done actually around 80 years ago. And we rightfully had defended it. That's all.

Same goes for your sayings about how Azeris were located there. Are they living there? Yes. Then it's their land as much as once the natives of the land feel the way towards it. There's nothing like "more mine, less theirs". America belongs to USA as much as it used to to native Indians. Whoever gets it, has the equal share about the rights of the land.

Clear, I hope ?

[IrishArmenian]

I say make them a Soviet under the union. They know their place.

That is exactly what Russia is trying to do.
I apologise for earlier, uncivilised remarks.

[SwordsMaster]

Well, you see they were granted their independence, but that didn't last. Terrorist attacks and kidnappings in Russia were traced back to them. The fact that they held up a school only makes the russians right...

What I would do if I were in charge in Russia is to completely blockade the country. They want independence? Fine. But there will not be one chechen on russian territory. I would establish trade blockades, close all the borders and embargo all of their products (what do they produce, anyway?). It wouldn't be long before they beg to rejoin Russia even if just to have a trading partner.

No offence meant to people with sensitivities in the area. Hypothetical scenario only.