War in Chechnya has been one of the most brutal wars fought in recent history.... Which still till this day has lots of controversy. Hundreds of thousand dead and many more wounded. An entire region which once flourished is now a desolate place. The capital leveled and almost entirely abandoned. Some called them freedom fighters others called them terrorists one thing is for sure not very many are left ( estimated 450 instead of 20,000 ) The so called jihad in the Caucus has now come to an end. Russian troops have all but left and the once Rebel now turned president Kadyrov is in charge. Opinions??
It's surprising how little coverage that, or the other conflicts in Eastern Europe ever got. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the subject to comment.
Didn´t all this start with Stalin sending all these people to Siberia in 1944 for co-operation with Germans and Berija did this in some two weeks or so?!
Chechen have a long history of resisting to central power in the area, and never really felt like Russian, then Soviet, then Russian again, and Stalin treating them like cattle did not helped much. The war there was started by Chechen willing to have more independence or autonomy from the Russian Federation, like other parts of Russia or the Russian Federation (CEI at this time IIRC) did (Ukraine, Batlic states etc etc). IIRC Proclamation of Independance was in 1990. For some reasons, strongly linked to a key location in geopolitics and energy supply lines, it was out of the question for Russia tolet this happen, and it was also thought the army could make short work of Chechina (sorry for spelling, I got trouble to name the land and people in English), somehting that could hardly been done, from a political point of view, with Ukraine for example. The Chechen feeling of being a People of its own is also fueled by religion, they are mostly Muslims, when Russia is Orthodox. Like always, populations are intricated, there are small Chechen minorities in zones mostly populated by Russians, which in turn are a minority overall in Chechina. So this conflict pretty much compares in its causes with the Palestinan / Israelian conflict, and the Ulster conflict, with the difference of the size of the land involved, nothing to compare with the multinational "spiritual" or "abstract" war of Al Quaida. It started with a kind of war of independance, guerilla and terrorism. Some phases of the war, especialy during the 1st war, had aspects of a small scale conventional war. I consider a terrorist fighting for freedom is a criminal terrorist, end of the story. Whatever your enemy does, whatever your cause, you don't aim at innocent civilians, there's no excuse for this. The 1st d war ended in a status quo, the Russian army got bogged down and could hardly go forward, then it was peace again, and Maskhadov was elected president, he was favored by the Kremlin, over other rebel leaders. But other Chechin leaders, including Bassaiev, wanted more, for example extending the process to other Caucasian territories in order to create a network including extermist factions like the Talibans for example, and extending more than before terrorist crime outside of the Caucasus (Moscow for example etc...) . They triggered the 2nd Chechin war and this time got easily beaten. Now, Russia put in place Kadyrov, an ex-rebel, Russia has mainly lost the "State power" there, including functions like justice and police, and less important (taxes, transportation etc etc). Kadyrov is a violent leader, and his warlords and militias can pretty much steal, rape, kidnap, kill whoever or whatever they want. Putin managed to turn a Russian / Chechin conflict into a intra Chechin conflict, but his goal was not to bring Russia back to power there, or to save locals from dictatorship, extremism, or misery, Putin's goal was just to end terrorism outside of Caucasus, and also an indepndanceepidemy in Caucasus. He achieved this by allowing the harshest methods, including large scale torture, kidnapings and assassinations. The hysteria following the world trade center terror, mostly due to the unability for some Leaders to deal with something completely new to them, along with the strangling of Russian independant medias, allowed Putin to keep free hands in this affair. The causes of the wars are still there, and I think it's a question of time before the next violence burst.
Kadyrov changed sides after his father President Akhmad Kadyrov was assassinated by the other rebels and now fought with the Russians. Not so sure about Russia loosing state power there though. All of the financial and military support comes from Russia. Kadyrov's relationship with Putin also is very good... He himself at one point even asked Putin to strongly consider staying another term. After Sept. 11, 2001 President Putin called the war in Chechnya just a continuation of President Bush's war on terror. Instead of criticim which was given to Putin before Sept. 11th, he now got praise, as ties of Al qaeda have been found in that region. Also considering the fact that Osama Bin Ladens personal body guards are Chechen rebels help justify the bitter conflict. Did you know that if you are Chechen, you are not allowed to enter the U.S. ?
I dont think Kadyrov waited the assassination of his father to side with Moscow. The fact is he had to wait to reach the legal age of 30 before sitting on the Presidential chair. I think he changed side in 1999, when the whole Kadyrov "clan" sided with Moscow, resulting in Kadyrov's father being put to power by Putin. Of course he has a deal with Putin, but I think the strong Kadyrov militias, often acting like death squads, are pretty much ruling everyday life (and death) in Chechina nowadays. These militias are really powerfull, they helped a lot Moscow in winning the 2nd war.
The Kodyrovsti also grew in side do to a lot of rebels changing sides. As the allied militias played a big role in helping moscow win the second war, the overall brutal tactics used by the Russians had a very big impact as well...... Speaking to Russian soldiers who had fought in Chechnya, I was informed that many wanted revenge for what had been done to their comrades in the past..... These videos are not for the squeamish!!! http://www.thenausea.com/chechenya.html
True, but not brutality only. It is also said that the enforcement of tactics on the field had greatly improved in regular army, lessons learnt from 1st war. Of course I don't mean this as an excuse for this raw brutality, especialy toward civilians, but I heard that the Russian soldiers were way more efficiently lead in fighting situations during 2nd war. The intelligence provided by Kodyrovstis networks were as much valuable than their help in operations, I guess.
Yes very good.... In fact in the first war, only a handful of Russian soldiers went in and most were right out of bootcamp with no good commanders or training. Not to mention the fact that orders were given not to destroy structures unless necessary as after the war was won ( as it was expected to be in a short time ), Russia would be stuck with the bill. Putin gathered his generals after he was elected and ordered to end this war. He was then informed by the same officers the kind of brutality which the Chechens used and how the locals had supported them. Putin made a decision of playing by the same rules that the Chechens were. No mercy was shown to the rebels or the population which supported them. As a result 1/3 of the population perished the rest switched sides. ( this is where the controversy kicks in ) As most Russians agree with the tactics used some westerners dont, which is absolutely understandable. The question is how else could have this Chechen problem been solved?
Not only them, often they would just be ordered to go after all adult males in a given village. Just like German did sometimes during WWII to retaliate after a partisan action, pushing many citizens into guerilla and many guerilleros into terrorism (which, again, is no excuse for terrorism). This is my grief against Russia. The way many rebels conduced the war, including many attacks against non-native civilians (people from other parts of Russia) mainly before 1st war makes them hold at the very least half ofthe responsability for this war turning in a no prisoner carnage. And I don't think the problems are solved there, it's more a precarious control enforced by clan leaders getting to power from father to son and living by the gun. To be honest, I believe better moves could have been made by Russia, but before the 1st war. Like allying with a powerfull faction like they did during the 2nd, securing the heavy weapons before rebels could get them, giving more independance to the Chechenia by negociating and dealing some restrictions. Russia let the situation rot, the most extremist rebel factions and teips got heavy weapons and felt secure to deal with foreign terrorist groups or rogue states etc... This was before Putin reached power, but there was another chance between the 2 wars I think, Russia let President Maskhadov down instead of helping him against extremists like Bassaiev and other warlords. Moscow prefered to put them in the same basket...and soon the most radical and fundementalist rebel factions escaped Maskhadov power, their terrorist actons and operation across Caucasus countries borders triggering the 2nd war. You can compare with the afghan Massoud : some people thought this old enemy was the devil, and soon realised he was holding back the most extremist faction, including foreigners who did not care at all about Afghanistan or Chechenia because they were fighting a religious crusade. With better support, the 2nd war could have been avoided, and the situation would not be that much different than today, with Russia backing up President Kadyrov against other rebel factions. But Putin is Putin and if you consider not only Chechenia, but the overall disintegration of former USSR, then CEI, then Federation, one can consider he managed to avoid the worse, unless you are a Chechin, that is.
I agree, however its a little more complicated then that. At the time of the 1st conflict, Russia itself was in chaos.... Its economy on the brink of total collapse, its military funding almost none existent, soldiers untrained comanders unpaid, corruption and crime rampad, poverty everywhere, not many friends and a president who was a drunk! A country in such a state can barely stay afloat let alone fight a war. The Chechens knew this and negotiating with them for this reason was simply impossible as nothing worked and attacks against the population continued. Chechens however were in a different state. Half of the population behind them, money from illegal oil sells, new weapons from other Muslim friends such as U.S. stinger missiles which were later found, trained men and commited leaders, support and financing from groups like Al Qaeda and other individuals which include foreign fighters and most importantly a severly weekend opponent. The second war was simply of revenge and to finalise authority. I am not sure I would agree with you on the defection of Kadyrov, I say this only because I have read many article on the matter and even heard Chechen interviews which state that Kadyrov initially disagreed with his father and switched sides only after his assassination.
Then you must me right about Kadyrov Jr. I thought he followed his father from the start, but without any evidence on the subject. However I think we pretty much got the same opinion about the overall course of events.
Agreed and understood..... However I must agree with Miller on the point that it really is a shame that not many people outside of the region really know much on the subject. But then again I suppose this is really due to the the lack of coverage on the matter.
